Is Peter Gleick the "Heartland Insider"?

Posted in full, emphasis mine, comments in square brackets mine:

The Origin of the Heartland Documents
by Peter H. Gleick
Posted: 02/20/2012 7:45 pm

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail [I assume that "anonymous document" was the two page forgery] describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document [the two page forgery?] but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. [So after he got the forgery, he stole swindled the other Heartland document?]  The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication [the forgery?].

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials [funny, the opening sentence ("… a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science …") seems to be exactly that]; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

Some of these claims made by Peter Gleick don't seem to be based in reality, to put it mildly.

WattsUpWithThat is obviously having a ball.

The dog that didn't bark?

Being an expert at apologizing, Gleick indeed may have received a phony letter by some paranoid internet fan. Or he concocted it. These are the only two possibilities. Given that he was named parenthetically in the fake document and placed in an exalted status in that letter, I would guess he had a hand in the authoring.

It would have to be a crazy internet fan who had access to Heartland’s private documents, since some content seems copied and pasted.