Gleick Review Won't Be Made Public, Pacific Institute Says

Peter Gleick has been cleared(*) by the Pacific Institute's Board of Directors and reinstated to his position.

I asked them for a copy of the independent report; they told me it won't be made public as it's a personnel matter:

"The independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Pacific Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick stated publicly and has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way. It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter."

Guardian headline (as of 6/6/12)

(*) It my opinion, a person under investigation is not "cleared" of something until their organization says they're cleared. That word, "cleared," and my interpretation of it, seems to be the crux of the beef some people had with me (especially on Eli's post). The Guardian article's headline explicitedly used that word in their headline. Headlines matter (I suspect all writers can tell a story about how a headline -- which they probably didn't even write -- has gotten their article in hot water; indeed, it's usually the very thing that makes a reader want to read the article in the first place, and may well be the only thing they remember), and the Guardian's headline gives the distinct impression Gleick was cleared of forgery by the Pacific Institute. But he wasn't -- an outside investigation found that he hadn't forged documents -- but (naturally) the PI's Board would want to review that investigation's methodology and findings (and perhaps more) before really "clearing" him of forgery. (And even then they still could have legitimately decided, perhaps on ethical grounds, to let him go.)

And let's be real: without the report, or not even knowing who did it, or without being able to talk to Gleick (I've asked), we really don't know anything at all.

That's all I have to say about this, except that I still think anonymous commenters (distinctly differentiated from anonymous sources) are meaningless -- as likely to be spreading disinformation, misinformation, or uninformation -- as information.

More interesting questions are:

• why do the PI and Heartland Institute differ on their conclusions about the forgery? 
• why hasn't the HI filed their threatened suit yet? It seems to me that the sooner they file it the better, given what's recently happened to their reputation. Wouldn't such a suit -- now or four weeks ago -- be a strong counterpunch? 
• How will Peter Gleick's story be remembered by history -- as an unethical scientist, as a scientist who let his activist side get the best of him, or as someone who caused the HI to overreach and implode? History is already being (re)written -- someone I read recently (I forget who) wrote that Gleick had "risked his career" to bring down the Heartland Institute. I wonder if Gleick would agree.