It’s been a couple of years since we’ve had a good climate saga to moon over, but thanks to questionable ethics of one scientist and devious plots by the Heartland Institute, our drama coffers again runneth over.

The latest episode of climate skullduggery comes once again in the form of purloined e-mails—this time from the Heartland Institute. The institute, well-known for its denial of human-caused global warming, found itself in hot water last week after sending several documents to someone staff members believed to be a board member.

The documents, which were sent anonymously to media sources, included details about personnel, operations, fundraising, and donors, according to the New York Times. Details about anti-climate-science schemes—including one to infiltrate schools with a curriculum that disputes current climate science—were also included. As the Times notes, the document paints a picture of the extent to which the global warming debate is being manipulated for interests other than science.

The Heartland Institute acknowledged in a statement that documents had been “stolen from Heartland” and that “at least one is a fake,” but didn’t confirm the authenticity of the rest (although the Associated Press has independently verified much of the information). The group is now referring to the incident, a bit theatrically, as Fakegate—a nod to the 2009 Climategate, in which climate scientists had their e-mails hacked and published online.

Meanwhile, in a fit of conscience, the anonymous contributor of the documents revealed himself to be Peter Gleick, a well-known scientist who studies water and climate change, as well as president of the Pacific Institute and former chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s ethics committee.

What could turn a good scientist so bad? According to Gleick’s confession, the devils (at Heartland) made him do it.

Gleick writes that after receiving an anonymous document—the one Heartland later said was fake—allegedly outlining Heartland’s strategy for creating climate confusion, he was moved to try to verify the evidence.

“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,” he wrote. “Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case.”

Apologies might not be enough. While it's unclear what legal repercussions might result from Gleick’s actions, it’s certain that he tarnished his reputation and his job could be on the line. Perhaps even more troubling is that this episode could create an even greater climate of confusion.

“For those people who don't believe climate change is real or think that it's part of some U.N. conspiracy to control their lives, this will reinforce that view,” Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace USA, told the Los Angeles Times. “Those…who think there is a massive conspiracy by corporate and conservative interests to muddy the science, on that side Peter Gleick is a hero for his temerity to do this. Somewhere in the middle, it could confuse people and confuse the climate debate for some time to come.”