Okay, I have a bit more time now and I really did want to do a bit more justice to unpacking exactly what Gleick, er counters (hard to tell them apart some days) said there.

Unlike you, I apply skepticism to problems like this

See, that's your first problem. This has being going for a week now and until your quote below (I'm getting to it) you have never applied the slightest skepticism to any of this. You've run with it like a bull at a red flag. Hell, when it first broke last week I urged caution and you mocked me for being a denier trying to spin it.

...ignoring the fact that all the details of the memo have been independently verified...

Are you serious with that? absolutely anyone with a minimum of knowledge on this subject and in possession of the stolen documents could have easily written a fake cover memo that appeared to tie it all together.

So why is it reasonable to suspect that this has actually happened?

1. The memo of itself was almost comical in the way it attempted to portray HI's activities. Like it was written by Dr. Evil's intern, as it was. Anyone with any experience in this sort of thing knows full well that a memo like that would never be written like that. It just. Doesn't. Happen.

2. The memo contains uncommon turns of phrase that I have never seen used by so called deniers (because they don't fit the "denier" narrative) but are sometimes used by CAGW activists, notably and perhaps most famously Gleick himself.

3. the memo contains odd phrasing and style that is very similar to Gleick's.

4. The memo specifically relates to a few people (Curry, Revkin) that makes no sense in the context of HI's relationship with both but does make sense if it were written from Gleick's perspective.

5. The memo was conveniently not included in the stolen HI documents, but instead now has this elaborate backstory made up for it. Anyone who has ever dealt with bad liars is familiar with the "too many implausible details" tell.

Now, of course none of this points conclusively to Gleick having written it, but it certainly is a far more plausible explanation than the one Geick has provided, particularly when placed in the context of Gleick himself. Anyone capable of impersonating another in an effort to steal confidential documents with the intent of attacking HI is more than capable of having written the fake doc and then later lying when the jig is up.

you reject the details of Gleick's confession out of hand - on what basis?

First, on the basis that as elsewhere noted, on this subject he has already demonstrated a willingness to behave extremely unethically so there is no reason now to start taking him at his word. Second, it is not uncommon at all for criminals, once caught, to attempt to rationalize or minimize their crime in order to defect attention / punishment. In other words, the first confession is by no means the most accurate one.

sticking you fingers in your ear screaming "Dan Rather"

Well, I think by any objective measure the only one who has demonstrated willful denial here is you. I note that at least a couple of organizations he is affiliated with have moved to sever their relationship with him, and more are sure to follow. While the Pacific Institute seems to be sticking by him now I 100% guarantee behind closed doors they are talking about the best way to move him out. He'll be gone from them within a month, whatever the cover story they decide on to help him salvage a little dignity. They have to cut him loose.

I also look forward to this going to court, as it almost certainly will. You go ahead and hold on to the pipe dream that this is somehow going to make HI look bad. Maybe. But in the process Gleick, and who knows who else, will be destroyed. Good luck with all that.

EDIT: and now I see that the Atlantic has laid it out far better than I, here.

Here's the money quote:

When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I'd say it is crucial that the other members of the community say "Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!" and not, "Well, he's apologized and I really think it's pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that's so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else.