Call in the FeeB’s

There’s got to be FeeB’s

Don’t bother, they’re here.

Our own David Robinson called our attention the other day to the curious case of the noted scientific ethicist who seems to have stolen information from the Heartland Institute and perhaps forged some more evidence against them in the process.

The stakes just went up.

 

FBI called in over climate change mole

By Paul Bedard | The Washington Examiner

The Chicago-based free market Heartland Institute has called in the FBI and threatened other legal action against a global warming proponent who has admitted stealing emails from the institute in a bid to embarrass and discredit the group’s questioning of climate change.

Heartland officials tell Washington Secrets that they have been in talks with the FBI over the case against prominent global warming proponent Peter Gleick, co-founder of the respected Pacific Institute. Heartland is getting ready to reveal their probe of the affair, which they hope the FBI will act on.

Gleick posed online as a board member of the libertarian group to pry embarrassing emails and internal funding reports which ended up online this month. He also is suspected of writing a sensationally mistake-filled “strategy memo” based on the emails and posted online. The Pacific Institute’s board has expressed concern about the case.

 

Hmm. Wirefraud and Identity Theft, both Federal offenses, right off the bat.  Forgery seems a likely follow on.  I’d say those are causes for “concern.”  As for the Pacific Institute, if Gleick used any of their equipment or staff in his illegal activities (especially since he is the President of their Board of Directors), they too will likely find themselves subject to criminal investigation and civil lawsuits.

 

Heartland is also seeking legal action, both criminal and civil. Still, they are stumped at why he tried espionage to attack Heartland when he had been invited to publicly challenge climate change doubters at an upcoming benefit dinner. He didn’t RSVP.

 

That would have required him to actually support his case in the presence of informed disputants. Debate doesn’t seem to be one of the tools in the AGW protagonist’s tool kit.

 

The case could turn nasty. Heartland wants Gleick penalized, even jailed. Gleick, his career in tatters, wants to take Heartland down by outing its wealthy anonymous donor and probing ties to supportive lawmakers.

 

Interesting that Gleik wants to follow the money.  One should take it as a given that the Pacific Institute, which Gleik founded, will be looked at very closely as well in terms of who provides their funding.

And speaking of following the money…

 

Baptists and Bootleggers

By Todd Zywicki | The Volokh Conspiracy

Now comes the emerging story of an alliance between leading environmental groups and the natural gas industry to advocate for the elimination of one of natural gas’s leading competitors:

Just four years ago, shale gas king Aubrey K. McClendon told shareholders of Chesapeake Energy that “finally, we made some new friends this year.”

The chief executive sketched a vision of working hand in hand with “leading environmental organizations” on issues “where our interests might be aligned.” He said, “We believe this collaboration is unique in the industry and will benefit both Chesapeake and these environmental organizations for years to come.”

New friendships grew old, then cold. Environmental groups that once took money from McClendon — or considered doing so — to make a common cause against coal power, have stepped back as they weigh the environmental perils of extracting natural gas from shale, a business in which McClendon’s Chesapeake Energy is a leader.

The Sierra Club took $26.1 million in contributions from McClendon and Chesapeake-affiliated companies between 2007 and 2010, a fact that its executive director, Michael Brune, first disclosed to Time magazine earlier this month. Last year, Brune walked away from Chesapeake and an offer of an additional $30 million in donations.

To put the $26.1 million in context, compare the funding for the Heartland Institute, about which one critic stated, “That the Heartland Institute is effectively acting as a front group for big oil and energy, raising money from companies which are threatened by climate policies, so that it can essentially do their dirty work in undermining legislation that threatens their corporate bottom line.”  Heartland received a grand total of $676,500 from Exxon between 1998-2006 and $200,000 from the Koch Foundation in 2011.  If that amount makes Heartland a “front group for big oil and energy,” what does $26 million make the Sierra Club for natural gas?

 

I’d say that makes the Sierra Club a paid subsidiary of the Natural Gas industry and hypocrites of the first water.

 

Hat Tip: Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds via Google +

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 24, 2012.
Filed under Environmentalism, Global Warming, Hypocrisy.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    Amazing when you follow the money.  You never quite know who you’re going to wake up in bed with.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

       Now would be a very good time for the donors to the Pacific Foundation to sever ties, and for organizations funded by them to return any grants.  This isn’t just ugly, it’s criminal.

  • herddog505

    Gleick, his career in tatters, wants to take Heartland down by outing its wealthy anonymous donor and probing ties to supportive lawmakers.

    Is it just me, or is there an implication here that merely associating with Heartland is somehow nefarious?  Would I be wrong to suggest that Gleick and his supporters are trusting MiniTru to spin it this way, that he’s AGW’s version of Daniel Ellsberg* who “uncovered shocking evidence about a plot to discredit climate science”?  Don’t make it about the actual crime: make it about the “REAL criminals”.

    ===

    (*) I have often wondered at the injustice of the fact that Ellsberg didn’t wind up at the end of a rope for espionage.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

       His prosecution was thrown out on procedural grounds.

  • Commander_Chico

    Waah!  Government protect us from people we disagree with!!!

    • herddog505

      Waah!  It shouldn’t be against the law to lie, cheat, steal, forge, and otherwise break the law if you’re trying to do a Good Thing(TM)!

      • Walter_Cronanty

         Yep, typical leftist – ends justify the means.  Let’s steal some innocuous documents, forge a memo that’s provocative and tenuously relates to the stolen documents, put them together and weave one of those Dan Rather/CBS stories.  Yeah, that’s the ticket!

        • ackwired

          Remember that the ends justifies the means moral code is typical of all extremists, not just the left.

          Speaking of Dan Rather, did anyone ever find out who forged the documents that he used?

          • Jwb10001

            The evidence would point to Burkett (sp) But it’s never been chased to the end as far as I know

    • iwogisdead

      Instead of spouting nonsense, why don’t you try to make a cogent argument for why the alleged misconduct does not fit the crimes listed?

      • Commander_Chico

        No monetary motive or benefit, no classified information involved. 

        “Hidden camera” and other journalists deceive all of the time.   Just like O’Keefe.

        If the FBI couldn’t go after mortgage securities fraudsters, they should go after some academic for this?   Don’t they have some retarded Muslim to recruit for a bombing conspiracy?  Or, get this, maybe they should go after bank robbers.

        If he forged documents, he should lose his job and professional standing, but without a monetary motive, I don’t see a real crime.

        I thought conservatives were supposed to be for limited government and a narrow scope for criminal law – you know – robbing, raping, murdering, etc.

        • UOG

          Just a question Chico. If someone picks the lock on the backdoor of my house when the Upset Old Gal and I aren’t there then goes inside and stays a few hours, is that breaking and entering or did nothing happen?

          • Commander_Chico

            Most “breaking and entering” laws require the intent to commit a crime within the building, otherwise it’s trespassing.  These things differ from state to state, of course.

            Thanks for helping me make my case!

          • Sky__Captain

             I don’t know that Comrade_Chico should have much credibility in legal matters.
            Did not he once state that “pedestrians always have the right-of-way”?

            (And they don’t. State traffic laws are set up to dictate interactions between vehicular traffic and pedestrians.)

          • Commander_Chico

            Try running over a pedestrian because you “had the right of way,” see how that works out for you.

          • 914

            It would work out fine for Me.. For the pedestrian.., not so much!!

          • Sky__Captain

             Nice try at deflection. However, in the post you did use the word “always”.

            Thanks for playing.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Tell it to the shade of Michael O’Day…

        • iwogisdead

          “Motive” is not an element of Wire Fraud, nor is “benefit.” The difference between “hidden camera” situations is that the journalists do not intend to obtain any property. Here, Gleick specifically intended to, and did obtain property–the emails and financial reports. Therefore, he committed Wire Fraud.

          Anyway, as I recall, there were rumblings from the left to prosecute O’Keefe anyway. So liberals are all for prosecuting wire fraud, as long as the charges are brought against people they disagree with. Sorta like the point you seem to have been trying to make originally, except different.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud

        • EricSteel

          Monetary gain does not have to be a motive.  In this case it appears that someone forged documents with the intent to defame Heartland Institute.  Heartland may be able to show monetary damages resulted in these actions.

    • Evil Otto

       Even for you that was weak, Chico. I think you just disagree for the sake of disagreement.

  • 914

    BTW…..Mambo anyone?!?