A warmist who has admitted to crimes of fraud is being honored with a 'lifetime achievement award." The Heartland Institute, which was defrauded and victimized by criminal Peter Gleick reports:
the Silicon Valley Water Conservation Awards gave him and the Pacific Institute a "Lifetime Achievement" Water Conservation Award. By bestowing this "honor" on Gleick, the organization has sullied any good reputation it might have enjoyed. Peter Gleick's actions are an affront to science, and a disgrace the Pacific Institute shares.
The Heartland Institute sent not just one letter to the board of directors of the Pacific Institute, but two. The letters asked the board to at least look into and respond the crimes to which Gleick admitted. To date, a little more than a year later, Heartland has received no response.
In brief, Gleick: (full explanation here)
...sent to liberal activists and reporters documents he stole from The Heartland Institute and claimed to have obtained from a 'Heartland insider' and later from an 'anonymous source.' The documents included Heartland's annual budget, fundraising plan, and other confidential documents. Media outlets in the U.S. and around the world reported on the 'leak' of 'secret plans' by an anonymous 'insider' at the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming.
"Gleick eventually confessed to being the 'insider' and explained that he had stolen the identity of another person - a member of Heartland's board of directors, it soon became known - in order to steal the confidential documents. There was no 'leak.' Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a 'strategy memo' that purported to describe Heartland's plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute. Gleick denied he was the author of the fake memo.
The global warming scam depends on information control and the artful use of prestigious labels to convince people that their theories must be true -- because otherwise why would so many high-prestige people believe them? Thus, in place of open scientific debate, they rely on the bogus concept of a "scientific consensus," and email each other about ways to "hide the decline" on temparetaures that would contradict their theories.
Honoring a criminal dishonors the award.