The shonky world of Guardian reporting – they Fakegate themselves

UPDATE: 7:30PM PST I’ve been offline much of today in travel and then immediately attending the Heartland dinner, so I’m hours late with this update. Apparently, the story has now been restored, and there’s a a second critical story. – Anthony

Yesterday while traveling I got some urgent emails on my phone alerting me to a story by Suzanne Goldenberg (at left) of the Guardian, I read it from a  Starbucks in Susanville, CA while on my way to photograph the eclipse. I sighed and went on, because there was nothing I could do about it at the time except shake my head at the lack of journalism on display.

Readers may recall Goldenberg is the same reporter who broke the Fakegate story there originally, without bothering to check the authenticity of the Heartland documents first, or even to await confirmation from me on questions before publishing a smear. It seems she wrote a story “clearing” Peter Gleick of the document forgery, but the story had no references, no quotes, no sources, nothing.

That story has now “disappeared” from the Guardian website. Here’s the original screencap from Google cache: 

and now if you visit this URL:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland

You get a 404:

A search for the key words on the Guardian website also reveals nothing. There’s nothing at Gleicks Pacific Institute either:

http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/

It seems editors at the Guardian have taken the story down, perhaps because it was baseless and/or premature?

James Sexton finds some interesting things connected to Goldenberg’s “journalism”:

Thanks to reader Kim, I did a little research on the corespondent who reported this ………  story?   It seems our friend, Suzanne Goldenberg,  has a past with departing from the truth already.

Apparently she was the lead reporter in the bombed ambulance hoax.

In 2006 she reported:

On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But there’s one problem: It never happened.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22533_Al-Guardian_Shills_for_Ambulance_Story

http://cifwatch.com/2012/04/16/suzanne-goldenberg-avoids-mentioning-her-jenin-lies-at-the-guardian-open-weekend/

Or just Google Suzanne Goldenberg ambulance hoax.

Maybe this will be enough for the Guardian to boot her? Fool me once…fool me twice…

When your reporter becomes the news, maybe you should rethink having that reporter. Just my opinion.

I’m off to catch a plane…stories and moderation light today.

About these ads

255 thoughts on “The shonky world of Guardian reporting – they Fakegate themselves

  1. Would love to comment, but can’t. This is just so embarrassing being British, the kind of times you just want to say, “Stop the World, I want to et off!” Trust me chaps & chappesses of the interweb thingy, we’re not all this useless or biased!

  2. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Antonius Wattsus.

    Goldenberg and the Guardian are moving into vacuum left by the News of the World disappearance, it seems.

  3. What is the point of consuming “News” media that lies to the reader? The Guardian is heading towards Onion status, without the cachet of being funny.

  4. It’s the Guardian for heaven’s sake. If the subject is trendy and/or green, then getting the facts right on a story is a rare bonus.

    The only people who read it are: left wing teachers, BBC employees and strange people who always insist on wearing sandals and sensible sweaters.

  5. Four months after the fact, the Heartland Instutute remains silent on the subject of the authenticity of other 90 pages worth of documents that Glieck released.

  6. This is what passes for MSM journalism these days. If you want real journalism, you have to go to the web and various blogs like WUWT and Jo Nova. You are not going to get it anywhere else.

  7. Perhaps the story was sent to her by an anonymous gmail account? All she has is an unsigned, undated PDF, strangely worded, apparently scanned on an Epson scanner? /sarc

  8. With this history, it would be logical to surmise that she is doing EXACTLY what the Guardian wants her to do, and that her practice of printing outright lies and slander is completely supported from the top, and that it is indeed the official policy of the Guardian to print politically amenable lies and slander, and to grudgingly walk it back and/or lie about what they’ve done (disappearing stories) if it turns out to be a little bit too outrageous to get away with.

    Put another way, the National Enquirer has *Far* more integrity and much higher standards than the Guardian does, and I am completely serious about that comparison. The Guardian is more on the level of the Weekly World News of Batboy fame – except even the WWN is much more funny than the grim, commissar run Guardian ever thought about being.

    There is no reason for any thinking person to ever again consider the Guardian a serious source of information, or to give anything they publish the name of “journalism”.

  9. It probably was an accidental press release, she is probably working with a group of alarmists to to undo Gleick’s damage. The story probably had to be pulled as the fake report that clears him wasn’t ready yet. The Guardian newspaper is not fit for fish and chips.

  10. Go easy on her. She may be working for the government, passing information on her saudi/syrian/ iranian/russian handler to them.

  11. This is the same Guardian that cannot spell its own name. I call it The Grauniad. This typo was very common a few years ago. It now seems that their typo’s are the reporters themselves.

  12. How can Gleick ever be cleared of being a liar, a thief and a con artist?
    He admitted to it all!

  13. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:40 am
    Four months after the fact, the Heartland Instutute remains silent on the subject of the authenticity of other 90 pages worth of documents that Glieck released.

    Those 90 pages were banal, to say the least. The subject of this thread is the Guardian ‘disappearing’ a story about Glieck – which is far from banal. Do you have any comment on that?

  14. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:40 am
    Four months after the fact, the Heartland Instutute remains silent on the subject of the authenticity of other 90 pages worth of documents that Glieck released.

    They have no reason to do that until their civil and/or criminal case against Gleick comes to trial.

  15. Phil C, still up to his old tricks of demanding others do all of his thinking for him.

    Just for grins, here’s the rundown, genius: almost all of the pile that Gleick released was extremely dull everyday corporate stuff, the kind that clogs up our desks everyday. There was nothing “damning” in any of it – or perhaps you can quote something to counter that assertion? (I doubt it, you’re incapable of doing any work or thinking on your own – you just parrot lines that you think are clever, even though they’re not, that other people have told you to say…. but I digress) No one has ever disputed that Gleick lied about his identity, managed to steal a pile of docs intended for the directors, and then sent them to all of his “friends”.

    BUT THERE WAS NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL IN ANY OF THOSE!!!

    that’s your 90 pages. Why should they dispute the authenticity of the lunch menu for the (at that time) upcoming conference? Do you even know what is in there?

    For people who DO think (excluding you, Phil) this makes clear the reason that Gleick HAD to create the forged document, Here he had gone to all of this trouble to steal a pile of docs, and there was NOTHING THERE! So he sat down and wrote a fevered fake to try and come up with some kind of “narrative” that could be sold to the gullible.

    except that all he did was to create a mirror of his own tortured fantasies about those who he believed were his “enemies” and because of that, it stood out immediately. It read like a bad joke penned by an ignoramus, which is why it’s authenticity collapsed in less than a day… About like your posts, Phil.

  16. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:40 am
    the other pages were and are NON-CONTROVERSIAL the ONLY thing that made any controversy was the paper that Glieck forged.

  17. Phil C says:
    “Four months after the fact, the Heartland Instutute remains silent on the subject of the authenticity of other 90 pages worth of documents that Glieck released.”
    ———————————————————————–

    Silent apart from a substantial part of their website?
    e.g.:

    http://fakegate.org/background-on-fakegate/

    They have clearly said on numerous occasions that there was only one faked document. What else do you want?

  18. Fired missiles at … caused huge explosions. Everyone inside was injured.

    Nobody killed? And people took that story seriously in the first place?

  19. The other pages are non-controversial, but they have allowed Greenpeace and others to harass Heartland’s donors, consultants, and staff, and do a lot of damage using this information.

    Which only further underlines the stupidity of forging the controversial document. Gleick could have hurt Heartland without forging that one – and he would never have been found out (remember he was found out because the controversial document named him as a Heartland enemy – the only document that did so – and certain stylistic oddities).

    Of course, without the forgery, Gleick would have got no credit and kudos from the “leak” (either in a positive way as a respected climate scientist as mentioned in the forged memo, or as a document stealer).

  20. Alan the Brit says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:32 am

    Would love to comment, but can’t. This is just so embarrassing being British, the kind of times you just want to say, “Stop the World, I want to et off!” Trust me chaps & chappesses of the interweb thingy, we’re not all this useless or biased!
    =================================================
    Lol, we know that Alan…..we’ve our share of useless and biased loons on this side of the pond as well. Hopefully we aren’t judged by them, either.

  21. I could have sworn that Heartland has confirmed that everything except the so called policy document was real. The problem for you Phil, was there was nothing in those 90 pages worth talking about. Which is why the faked policy document was needed in the first place.

    Why do you think Heartland is going after Gleick for phone fraud and other things?

  22. OT again but looks like Global temps May UHA anomaly close to 0C currently comparing with 2010 about 0.5C lower… . would guess about +0.15C for May. So no warming AGAIN poor ol warmistas, and this is with neutral Nina, Nino, etc… LOL

  23. Alan the Brit : ‘“Stop the World, I want to et off!”’

    Is that get off, jet off, or E.T. off?

  24. The Guardian regularly appears to receive special treatment that other media outlets don’t get.

    I don’t know if anyone else outside Old Blighty here is following the “phone hacking” investigations, however you might like to know that one of the Guardian’s star journalists, David Leigh, admitted to using phone hacking himself. Is he being charged? No. Why not is anyone’s guess….

    I should also note that: i) Leigh used the “Public interest” defence (so that’s OK then?) and ii) that Leigh is the brother in Law of Rusbridger, the Guardian’s chief editor.

  25. Alan the Brit says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:32 am [………

    The Guardian may have posted the story – but sadly, Ms Suzanne Goldenberg is the US Environmental reporter…stationed in DC.

  26. With the way temperatures are going when will the modelers give up? ie Lucia still tries to fit that line in but it just ain’t fitting anymore, its totally insignificant especially now. Same with ice as both ice and temps return to the norm I find it fascinating how NSIDC and RSS manage to fit those lines through the data to always keep on showing warming

  27. Peter Miller:

    At May 21, 2012 at 5:38 am you say;

    “It’s the Guardian for heaven’s sake. If the subject is trendy and/or green, then getting the facts right on a story is a rare bonus.
    The only people who read it are: left wing teachers, BBC employees and strange people who always insist on wearing sandals and sensible sweaters.”

    Well, I know of one other. My son reads the Guardian on-line so he can and does – when censorship permits – refute its most egregious assertions. And he often posts a ‘heads up’ of the worst excesses here on WUWT.

    I wonder how many others also read the Guardian to know the latest assertions of eco-loons. The Guardian really is a good insight into the next phoney, green assertion that is to fly around the internet.

    Richard

  28. Suzanne Goldenberg, and other churnos like her who think they’re saving the world from evil, are the reason why activists (of so many kinds) work hard to stage ‘news events’ to be fed to them:

    Because it works! Because the gullible wil lgive it wider coverage. Because faking it and getting the media to side with them is their best strategy when reality and hard facts are not supportive ..

    Here i Goldenberg with another skilfully faked story, echoed and condemned all over the world

  29. Ok. The real story here isn’t that an unsourced and unbelievable news story was pulled from the Grauniad website.
    The real story here is that an unsourced and unbelievable news story was put on the Grauniad website.

    Remember 15 people were in on the “sting” and got the scoop of the documents. Some are belived to be journalists. Those journalists are in a very weak position. Especially if the Heartland Conference are suspected of being about to announce that they are going to sue Glieck. And the only time slightly independent press listens to HI is at their conference.

    If Ms Suzanne Goldenberg was trying to cover her tracks she has failed. But if the shadowy 15 were all conspiring to cover their tracks she would be working on this story. (I use “story” ironically in a journalistic sense.)

    So why was it leaked early?
    Perhaps she is hamfisted on the keyboard.
    Or perhaps the Grauniad isn’t a one person band nor as monolithic in its thinking as some suspect.

  30. The extraordinary ignorance of many journalists amazes. It is sometimes so profound you suspect it is deliberate. My 11 year old son could tell you that if an ambulance was hit by a first world military missile occupants of said ambulance are unlikely to have been injured. Unless your definition of injured includes complete dissembly, of ambulance and occupants.

  31. UK journalism has had a few problems lately (note the British understatement :-) .

    One of the lesser-known ones was a guy called Johann Hari who worked for the Independent (another fanatical pro-AGW paper). He was found to have lied in his stories, plagiarised his copy, and malevolently altered the Wikipedia entries of anyone who crossed him.

    Was he fired? No. His editor sent him back to journalism school!

    At the recent Leveson enquiry into journalistic ethics, his editor was asked about Mr. Hari. He said “Johann genuinely believed he was doing nothing wrong. The fact that nobody complained, Johann did not believe he was doing anything wrong.”

    Keep complaining, Anthony and everyone!

  32. She’s a Greenpeace plant and a purveyor of their propaganda at the Guardian. Reality-free reporting. A new trend in left-wing journalism.

  33. She says ‘Directors quit’. I’d like for her to name which ones quit.

    (I believe only one has)

  34. In the interest of improving the record, let it be noted that it was the illustrious reader Kim2000 who suggested checking out Sweet Suzie a little bit. Good job.
    ====================

  35. It hurts a bit seeing a link to LGF (Losers Gone Flaky?), but that was before CJ did a header off El Capitan. He did darned fine work at that time, and he, Zombie, and at the front of the pack on the ‘fauxtography’ on the scams being pulled then, were the boys at EUReferendum. Zombie and EUReferendum still do great work, I check out their sites regularly. Not as often as WUWT of course! Not surprised in the slightest that Ms Goldenberg is in on both scams, I wonder if we dug a bit, what else we’d find?

  36. beesaman says:

    May 21, 2012 at 6:09 am

    How can Gleick ever be cleared of being a liar, a thief and a con artist?
    He admitted to it all!

    Perhaps she is convinced that the reporting of Gleick’s admission of guilt is faulty reporting?

    She probably assumes that since Gleick is an admitted liar, how can we accept anything he says as being correct? Ergo, his admission to being a liar is not true.

    Remember, circular logic is one of the mainstays of CAGW by CO2 supporters.

  37. So the Guardian’s reporters are highly questionable and highly unethical–no surprise here; workers define the company they work for.

  38. I squinted to read the original story and essentially it says that the Pacific Institute conducted “an internal investigation” and found that Gleick had not forged the memo.
    In other words, Gleick investigated himself and found himself innocent of the charges. (They probably appointed his wife as lead investigator.)

    If that’s the case, it was (past tense) the journalistic equivalent of a scoop that reports the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

    And yet there will be much fun when the report finally is released, if they have the courage to do that. It will make Muir Russell’s and the Penn State inquiries look thoroughly above board and comprehensive by comparison.

  39. From the new Guardian article:

    “Heartland’s claims to “stay above the fray” of the climate wars was exploded by a billboard campaign earlier this month comparing climate change believers to the Unabomer Ted Kaczynski, and a document sting last February that revealed a plan to spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change.”

    You’ve got to admire that sleazy, deceptive writing. It is written to allow the inference that the “plan to spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change” came from Heartland (rather than being the forgery that it is recognized as) with out actually saying that the plan came from Heartland. One has to wonder how Goldenberg can sleep at night. Oh, I forgot, it’s for the good of the cause.

  40. Interestingly even the International Red Cross tossed the picture of the ambulance down the memory hole. I won’t go into the gory detail on things, but suffice it to say that the ambulance involved had hit something under the front and flipped, ripping off the air vent of the VW microbus that they use.

    As for LGF, Charles Johnson has gone off to the looney left since that story was run. Global warming, tea party ranting, all the rest. Aside from that he likes to kick out folks he does not agree with and so has a selected audience that posts. I got booted for the temerity of defending traditional healers as being a source of medical drug leads for the pharmacology industry. Weird guy and all.

  41. Article transcription (typos may be mine)
    – Mickey Reno
    —————————————————–
    Headline: Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose
    Subhead: Scientist who admitted deception to obtain Heartland documents
    was found in investigation not to have falsified material
    by Suzanne Goldenberg, environmental correspondent
    Photo of Peter Gleick with caption: “Peter Gleick said ‘My judgement was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing effort to attack climate science.'”

    A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.

    Gleick’s sting on Heartland brought unwelcome scrutiny to the organization’s efforts to block action on climate change, and prompted a walkout of corporate donors that has created uncertainty about its financial future.

    Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute, and a well-regarded water expert, admitted and apologized for using deception to obtain internal Heartland documents last February.

    He has been on leave from the Institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorized release of the documents. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public, the Guardian has learned.

    It is not immediately clear if the findings would lead the way for Gleick to return to his job at the Pacific Institute. However, despite the official [b??? - word unintelligible], Gleick has remained professionally active, appearing at public events and accepting speaking engagements. He delivered an Oxford Amnesty lecture on water last April.

    The leaked Heartland documents included a list of donors and plans to [imbue?] doubts in schoolchildren on the evidence of climate change. They brought new scrutiny to the efforts by Heartland to block action on global warming, and to the existence of a shadowy [network?] of rightwing organizations working to discredit climate science.

    In the [an??? - word unintelligable], Heartland lost a number of corporate sponsors, beinning with the General Motors Foundation. The disclosure of GM funded Heartland work unrelated to climate was embarrassing for a foundation publicly committed to action on climate change.

    [subsequent sentence unintelligible, and remainder of article not visible due to screen capture]

  42. The decline of the Guardian newspaper is closing on terminal. Those willing to shell out money for its suspect copy will not be enough for it to survive much longer. I am tempted to say good riddance to bad rubbish, unfortunately it is sad that a paper with a deservedly rich history has to go this way. Most recognise that a media targeting the truth is an important element in any free society, alas Guardian journalists in general seem to have lost enthusiasm for such an ideal. A depressing conclusion I am afraid.

  43. Yeah, but Suzanne Goldenberg simply saith vnto you, What is trueth? And that’s the point.

  44. You’ve got to admire that sleazy, deceptive writing. It is written to allow the inference that the “plan to spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change” came from Heartland (rather than being the forgery that it is recognized as) with out actually saying that the plan came from Heartland.

    Page 18 of the Heartland Budget document identifies $75,000 for “K-12 Climate Education Project Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same.” As I said before, in the four months since the documents were posted on the Internet, the Heartland Institite has neither confirmed nor denied the autbeticity of this document.

  45. @Bill “Still there…”

    Well spotted Bill but it like a repost with an updated URL (21 instead of 20 May), with a few minor changes and an added caveat “…although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed.”

    Anything other important changes I’m missing?

  46. Just read the link provided by Mickey Reno. The best analogy I can think of is that it’s like a journalist concentrating all her focus on the trivial misdeeds and trials of a murder victim while celebrating the murderer for his clean hands.

  47. ChE says:
    May 21, 2012 at 7:44 am
    Beware, that Little Green Footballs site has been known to pass out malware.
    ========================================
    I almost consider that site “malware” !!

  48. Peter Gleick can’t even avoid lying in his confession:

    “My judgement was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing effort to attack climate science.”

    Nobody is attacking “climate science”. They are disputing the accuracy of a hypothesis put forward within the field of climate science. Climate science and the CAGW hypothesis are not the same thing. Climate science is an entire field with many aspects. The CAGW hypothesis is one proposal within that field. Just because A includes B does not mean A equals B. Conflating those two is the trick they’ve been trying to get away with for years.

  49. What a terribly written article. She never says this explicitly, but it sounds like Suzanne Goldenberg is using advance knowlege of the Pacific Institute’s own internal investigation report to claim it will Peter Gleick will exonorate him of having written the forgery. But if so, she should also know whether Gleick will be fired or removed from his post, should she not? That would be the far more interesting question. And if it’s all good news for Gleick, we’re all SHOCKED, SHOCKED to learn this.

    Gleick works in a field that demands evidence, as do the news reporting, legal and criminal fields. So tell us, Suzanne, if you really are a reporter, where is the paper copy of the original strategy memo Gleick claimed (mysteriously) was “sent” to him? Was it sent throught the U.S. Mail? Where is the envelope it came in? Which Heartland insider sent it? Are you a real journalist, or simply a shameless hack? Do you need to see how to do a real analysis of the Gleick strategy memo forgery? Please read The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle’s work, and please take notes.

    Of course, neither you, Gleick or the Pacific Institute will ever be able to answer any of these questions, because Gleick obviously forged the document, printed it and scanned it, in a stupid attempt to embarrass Heartland. Even though a few of you climate greenies thought he’d succeeded, the whole effort has been nothing but a major foot-bullet, career self-immolation by Gleick, and has even further exposed his supporters as tendentious activists rather than as properly indifferent scientists.

    Joe Bast, if you’re following here, I know it’s a busy time for you, but when you can, could you give an update on any criminal or civil actions involving Gleick’s theft of the documents, the forged document, and the identity theft of your board member?

  50. The Guardian is not a news organization, it is a propaganda organization for the political left. They are going to publish anything that validates their meme, truth notwithstanding.

  51. Thanks Eric for the new link — which does work. The article deceptively leaves out the fact that Gleick has confirmed that the disputed document did not come from Heartland. By only saying that Gleick claims he didn’t forge it, the article leads the reader to think the document might be Heartland’s.

    This bit of writing should be grounds for termination. This is clearly meant to mislead. At minimum, the guardian should print a correction.

  52. “The Guardian regularly appears to receive special treatment that other media outlets don’t get.

    I don’t know if anyone else outside Old Blighty here is following the “phone hacking” investigations, however you might like to know that one of the Guardian’s star journalists, David Leigh, admitted to using phone hacking himself. Is he being charged? No. Why not is anyone’s guess….”

    Yeah like having no evidence at all that Milly Dowler’s phone messages were cleared by NI personnel which is what sparked off the major investigation. Useful lies…

  53. Now the Guardian can claim that Gleick been cleared twice. Once in a article on 5/20 and then again, and also independently (but more so), on 5/21.

    And soon, this will be listed as multiple independent inquiries (cf. Mann).

    I presume that,evidence that this self-confessed blagging fraudster has been obtaining government grants has been suppressed by the funding agencies? Good! Business can now resume.

  54. No “Comments” section under the article? (or am I just missing it) Poor form. Would have been interesting reading.

  55. they are organised like the Vatican in The Guardian althought they are networked in one industrial brainwashing complex with the beeb and the Independent and with affiliations with all the red ticks institutes worldwide.
    Probably more ressembling the papal episcopat in France in the middle ages.

    they will never retract anything, that is for mortals only to do. They write God sorry Marx’ word and that is incontestable, it can never change.

  56. Harry Won A Bagel says:
    May 21, 2012 at 7:06 am

    The extraordinary ignorance of many journalists amazes. It is sometimes so profound you suspect it is deliberate…..
    ______________________________________
    Not exactly deliberate but a spin off of trying to sell the paper and having a deadline to meet. My Father-in-law owned a newspaper and managed to completely mess up the story on the winner of the school science fair. This despite the fact that the winner was his son who was sitting at the same table doing his homework at the time he wrote the story. If a journalist can muck up something that simple (and I know of plenty of other cases) there is a darn good reason not to believe what is in a newspaper. Only the sports scores are carefully checked. (You do not want to get on the wrong side of the Mafia’s bookies).

    This is the all time classic http://www.deweydefeatstruman.com/dewey-truman-framed-photo.htm

  57. The original page was taken down between 22:48BST and 23:01BST on 20 May. The amended page was posted at 16:01BST on 21 May.

    Neither article seems to contain any news. It just says Gleick has been cleared without producing any corroborating information. No actual findings, no information on who did the clearing … crickets.

    How can this be called reporting – it looks like rumor mongering.

  58. good move….now that she’s been thoroughly trashed all over the internet….she puts it back up, drawing even more attention to herself….and showing people she still doesn’t have references, no quotes, no sources, nothing.

  59. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:41 am

    ….Page 18 of the Heartland Budget document identifies $75,000 for “K-12 Climate Education Project Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same.” As I said before, in the four months since the documents were posted on the Internet, the Heartland Institite has neither confirmed nor denied the autbeticity of this document…..
    ___________________________
    So???

    PETA gets to go into schools and teach children that their parents who hunt are murderers and it is <unethical to own pets.

    National Science Teachers Association: …People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has launched TeachKind…

    I can not find the exact link to the comment by the outraged parent who was accused of being a “Murderer” after a PETA talk at the local school. It was a few years ago.

  60. Fire her? No way. This is the same Guardian newspaper (once upon a time, a truly fine paper called The Manchester Guardian, but suborned by Lefties when they moved to London. If you think Goldenberg is bad, check out Polly Toynbee. And of course, the egregious idiot Moonbat lives there as well. CP Scott must be spinning in his grave to see what has happened to his wonderful journal.

    ANYWAY…. this is the same Guardian, that had to print 35 (THIRTY FIVE) apologies to the (odious, sure, but that’s not the point) News Of The World. They stated the NOTW had done things which no could prove. Their high horse is so high that if they all fell off they would break their necks…

    And it’s circulation is collapsing month by month.

  61. I don’t know if anyone else outside Old Blighty here is following the “phone hacking” investigations, however you might like to know that one of the Guardian’s star journalists, David Leigh, admitted to using phone hacking himself. Is he being charged?

    It was also The Guardian that worked on Julian Assange literally for HOURS to persuade him to put out the “Wikileaks” documents. That organization should, in my opinion, be shut down and individuals charged with being an accessory to murder as that Iranian who was outed by the Wikileaks documents was hanged last week.

  62. And concerning “phone hacking”, I have been seeing phone hacking software for sale for about 2 years now. Anyone can purchase that software and use it and many assuredly are.

  63. So that’s ok then, academics can lie, defraud and steal all in the name of the ’cause’ or for the ‘team’ and they thought the Heartlands poster was bad. Double standards in action, if Gleick were at my university I would have expected him to have been fired, immediately after he confessed to email impersonation and email fraud. The man is not to be trusted, likewise his supporters. Why the Guardian is supporting this liar is beyond comprehension!

  64. Phil C says:
    Page 18 of the Heartland Budget document identifies $75,000 for “K-12 Climate Education Project Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same.” As I said before, in the four months since the documents were posted on the Internet, the Heartland Institite has neither confirmed nor denied the autbeticity of this document.

    1. Here’s the quote from the Guardian article that you failed to include (apparently because it would show how asinine your response is): “that revealed a plan to spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change.”
    The Guardian article discusses a PLAN to spread doubt among kindergarteners. It does not discuss a BUDGET ITEM that mentions a PLAN that says nothing about spreading doubt among kindergarteners. Do you really fail to see the difference?

    2 “the Heartland Institite has neither confirmed nor denied the autbeticity (sic) of this document.”

    Really??? How do you know this? Have you looked? Do you just make these statements in vacuum?

    What about: http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/ceasedesist1.pdf

    Or http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/ceasedesist2.pdf

    Those two letters seem to deny the authenticity of the forged document quite well.

  65. Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. (emphasis mine)

    I would argue there are only two people on the entire planet who would have ever written something so utterly preposterous; Gleick and his mom.

  66. I’ll go along with all the other Brits who are expressing embarrassment at this nonsense, except that it’s even worse for me.

    I used to take the Guardian every day. [blush]

    Let me hurry to explain that this was years ago, roughly around the time when being ‘anti-Establishment’ was a Good Thing, and when the Guardian actually did decent investigative journalism as well as its political thing.

    In the unlikely event that anyone from the Guardian reads this, it was around the time you stopped doing proper journalism and filled your high-priced pages with this sort of unthinking green BS from the likes of Goldenberg, Monbiot, etc. that I left. And you know what? I don’t miss you at all.

    Update: Now, if you visit the old URL you get the new page. How very unsuspicious. /not

    Steve C (no relation to Phil C)

  67. It looks to be back up again now. I am in the UK, so that may have access.

    Posting is guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 May 2012 16.01 BST – 2hrs 40mins ago

  68. “”Barry Sheridan says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:29 am””

    Well said that man. Hear, hear.

  69. Steve (Paris) says:
    Those 90 pages were banal, to say the least. The subject of this thread is the Guardian ‘disappearing’ a story about Glieck – which is far from banal. Do you have any comment on that?

    They’re not banal to me. But then, “banal” is a subjective term. Rather, I found large portions interesting. Given that I can still read the Guardian article on it’s website, I think it’s time to move on from the Guardian ‘disappearing’ a story about Glieck.

  70. Taphonomic nicely demolished Phil C, but I have an additional follow up quoestion for Phil C:

    If you’re going to paint planning to make science curriculum available for K-12 into an evil plot to frighten kindergarten students (who knew that K-12 reffered to kindergarten students!?), I am curious as to your position on Dr David Suzuki imploring young children to donate money (or more accurately I suppose, to lobby their parents to donate money) to his foundation for the express purpose of saving Santa Clause?

  71. Taphonomic:
    First, I don’t know what you are referring to as evidence that Heartland has denied the authenticity of the documents (other than the “confidential memo”, which I agree it has stated is a fake.)
    You write:
    Really??? How do you know this? Have you looked? Do you just make these statements in vacuum?
    You then link to two Heartland documents. I read those documents. Here are direct quotations:
    In ceasedesist1.pdf, the document reads:

    On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents
    purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not
    authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”).

    In ceasedesist2.pdf, the document reads:

    As to other documents purported to be authored by Heartland, we are
    investigating how they came to be published and whether they are authentic or
    have been altered or fabricated.

    Where in these documents do you read that Heartland has confirmed or denied the authenticity of these documents? (Again, for clarity’s sake, I am not referring to the “confidential memo.”) Please quote the relevent excerpts here that support your assertion.

    BTW, I did read this in the Guardian article:
    Following the expose, Heartland acknowledged most of the documents were genuine. But the thinktank claimed the most explosive document, a two-page strategy memo summarising plans spelled out in detail elsewhere, was a fake.

    But this is the first I’ve read this, and the author provides no source. I’d like to see Heartland’s word on that.
    Second, regarding the contents of the Heartland budget document (fake or authentic, it’s up to Heartland to say), you imply that there’s some significant distinction between the “budget” and “plan” for the “K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan.” If Heartland’s “budget” (fake or authentic) includes $75,000 for a K-12 curriculum on global warming and it does not “plan” to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change” (and other grades, of course) then what do you think it intends to do with a $75,000 K-12 climate change curriculum?

    (and for the other comments who responded to me: wws: this also is in reply to your statement that the documents were “extremely dull everyday corporate stuff.” And also PaulID: “NON-CONTROVERSIAL,” and MarkW: “nothing in those 90 pages worth talking about” Frankly, at this juncture, I just want to know if Heartland states the documents are authentic or fake. It’s been four months.)

    Finally, please refrain from insults. There’s no need to use words like “asinine.” If I’m wrong, please just provide a quotation disproving my assertion.

  72. Followed the link to the Grauniad (Those who know, know what I mean).
    It’s the first time i’d really read the comments section on climate change, but boy, those guys are insane. No references, no links to factual research, but lots of pseudo psychological BS.
    To read their comments is like spending 20 minutes in a lunatic asylum.

  73. The story is back up again from
    Monday 21 May 2012 16.01 BST – that is 2hrs 15mins ago

  74. JohnWho says:
    May 21, 2012 at 7:56 am
    She probably assumes that since Gleick is an admitted liar, how can we accept anything he says as being correct? Ergo, his admission to being a liar is not true.
    Remember, circular logic is one of the mainstays of CAGW by CO2 supporters.

    Give the gentleman a cigar. I engaged a warmie on the Heartland site who stated that, because Gleick admitted that he’d lied, he was no longer a liar, and therefore his full credibility had been restored. I replied that his logic was flawed, and that’s when the trip around Robin Hood’s barn started. Several hours later, he pounced on me and announced triumphantly that, because Glieck had admitted that he’d lied, he was no longer a liar, and therefore his full credibility had been restored.– so there, you skeptic!

    Said warmie is either a professor of analytical mathematics in Chicago, a professor of logic in the midwest, or a philosophy prof in Hong Kong — he changed both his Facebook profile and pic twice during the set-to…

  75. I wouldn’t be surprised if the investigation team that cleared him were all members of the DeSmog blog. I’m sure it must have been a thorough investigation as well.

    “We asked Gleick if he had forged the document. He said no and we believed him.”

  76. I can confirm that the original May 20 link was not a typo, ’cause I read it there. It inspired me to post (on the open thread) something like (“adjusted” slightly – try to avoid the spam filter):

    That “Goldenberg clears Gleick” article is (was… is again) quite a piece of work.

    Q: What’s the difference between “sting” and “wire f****d”?

    A: 20 years.

    I think I said something like: “Safe travels, Anthony!”, which I shall also repeat.

    Best,
    Frank

  77. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 11:00 am
    They’re not banal to me. But then, “banal” is a subjective term. Rather, I found large portions interesting.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Just shows ta goes yas…there’s no accounting for what can keep the interests of some folks. Ya know like contemplating on your navel.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    “Given that I can still read the Guardian article on it’s website, I think it’s time to move on from the Guardian ‘disappearing’ a story about Glieck.”

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    The original dated the 20th is gone…..But then, “banal” is a subjective term.

  78. Phil C;
    Finally, please refrain from insults. There’s no need to use words like “asinine.” If I’m wrong, please just provide a quotation disproving my assertion>>>

    Your assertions are twisted up versions of reality. You create your own reality by subtle misleading statements, and then complain about it. Like your attempt to paint “K-12″ as a plot to target kindergartners.

    Your approach to the debate isn’t asinine. It is something far worse than that.

  79. I am able to access the guardian article without any issue. Is it possible that the earlier loss of access was a technical issue?

  80. Yes its back , but there is NO facts involved just speculation, which my be the standard way to do ‘climate science’ but is actual worth very likely for if the words ‘trust me I am scientists’ is worth virtual nothing , the words ‘trust me I am journalists’ is worth even less.
    Not one of Goldenberg attack smears have been opened up for comments , which is the hallmark of reporter that cannot support their article .
    Remember Goldenberg is a ‘political’ hack working in Washington and the person that wrote the biography of Hilary Clinton, they you will understand what the object here is for the attacks on Heartland .

  81. The main question is how long is the struggling Guardian going to last, with it’s diminishing too cheap to by it, socialist base.

  82. “But this is the first I’ve read this, and the author provides no source. I’d like to see Heartland’s word on that.” – Phil C

    Just a bit outside the loop on this stuff then, are you? There is this thing called Google, you probably haven’t heard of it, either, but it can help you to prevent making a fool of yourself in the future. It’s at http:\\www.google.com

  83. Eli Rabett says:
    May 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    It’s back. Anyone want a mulligan?
    ==========================================
    Looks like Goldenberg already took it. She still refuses to explain any sourcing for the article. So, maybe she’ll be asking for another in a bit.

  84. If Phil C. is being paid to post comments on this site. . . . who ever is paying him is sure not getting their money’s worth. . . . . . .unless it’s somebody dedicated to making warmists look rather absurd.

  85. It’s like watching the Cheshire cat disappear and reappear.
    I predict the article won’t totally go away and that we’ll just be left with the grin.

  86. It’s rubbish reports such as Goldenberg’s which highlight the reason why the Guardian and other newspapers of a similar ilk are in such a freefall in their distribution figures.

    Richard North highlighted an interesting analysis recently –

    “In August 2010, for instance, The Guardian, already in the decline, was selling 272,112 copies a day. November 2011 saw it selling 226,473.
    This April, by contrast, sees 214,128 copies a day, representing a year-on-year-decline of 18.86 percent. ”

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=82666

  87. Gleick cleared of “forging documents”? That’s interesting because I was under the impression there was only one document, entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” which was the only document whose origin was unknown, and which, a study by forensic experts showed was likely authored by the self-admitted liar Gleick himself.
    I suppose it would be next to impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did in fact forge that document, so in that sense he might be “cleared”. The preponderance of evidence though, and logic says otherwise.

  88. I sometimes wonder how many professional journalists are unaware of Google cache.

  89. My dear Phil,

    Why are you changing your argument in midstream? I never wrote that Heartland denied the authenticity of documentS (PLURAL). I always referred to one document that Heartland denied was real. And there was no discussion of documentS (PLURAL), until you apparently realized , OMG, Heartland did deny that the “confidential memo” is real. So why do you bring up this red herring of multiple documentS (PLURAL) when you write: “First, I don’t know what you are referring to as evidence that Heartland has denied the authenticity of the documents (other than the “confidential memo”, which I agree it has stated is a fake.)”

    You first stated, very concisely “the Heartland Institite has neither confirmed nor denied the autbeticity (sic) of this document.” referring to one document, that is, the PLAN that was referenced in the Guardian article and the one document to which I was referring. I appreciate your candor in noting that the Heartland has denied the authenticity of the “confidential memo”, but seeking to shift the argument to something not previously discussed is rather tawdry, wouldn’t you agree? Please try not to shift arguments so, it ill behooves you.

    RE:
    “you imply that there’s some significant distinction between the “budget” and “plan” for the “K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan.” If Heartland’s “budget” (fake or authentic) includes $75,000 for a K-12 curriculum on global warming and it does not “plan” to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change” (and other grades, of course) then what do you think it intends to do with a $75,000 K-12 climate change curriculum?”

    A budget is budget. A budget may contain an item for a plan. The budget item is a brief descriptioon of things that are intended to be funded and is not the same as a plan. Why would you think they are the same? Has this PLAN ever been completed? If not, how would you have any inkling that it was to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change”? Please supply all evidence that is not an assumption.

    I have no idea what kind of K-12 climate change curriculum would be developed and I doubt you do either, as no one has seen any type of PLAN other than the fake memo. When you have a copy that wasn’t forged please let me know. The only indication that there was a PLAN to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change” was in the document that you now agree that Heartland has denied as being real.

    Finally, please refrain from attempting to shift arguments. There’s is always a need to use words when they fit. You’re wrong, and you have admitted that Heartland has denied the previosly discussed PLAN is not real.

    Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about what is in the other documents; other than the fact that Gleick lied to get them speaks volumes regarding the honesty of climate scientists.

  90. Phil C,

    I assume that you would like answers to your questions and you are not just sounding off. Read the following webpage and, in particular, the section headed “Third Paragraph”.

    http://fakegate.org/bast-on-forged-memo/

    You will see that on 27th February (only 2 weeks not 4 months after Fakegate), Heartland did confirm that they had a budget item of $75,000 in 2012 for a project to produce teaching materials for schools.

    Quoting the Grauniad, you state that the purpose of this project is to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the EXISTENCE of climate change” (my emphasis). Phil, no one on the skeptic side of the debate believes or claims that climate change does not exist. There has never been a period in the earth’s history when the climate hasn’t been changing. It is your side of the debate which tries to give the impression to the lay public that climate change is a recent phenomenon. You say that if the project is not for this purpose then, “what do you think it intends to do with a $75,000 K-12 climate change curriculum?” The answer lies in this extract from an open letter from Heartland to Rep Markey sent 15th March.

    http://fakegate.org/heartland-institute-responds-to-rep-markey-letter-on-fakegate/

    “Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

    Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather”), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.”

    The fact that the above issues ARE controversial is evidenced by the fact that so many people dispute the IPCC line on climate change and back up their stance with arguments based on empirical evidence. Children should be taught to evaluate the evidence produced by both sides of the debate. The one-sided teaching which currently takes place is so skewed as to be propaganda.

  91. Eli Rabett says:
    May 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    It’s back. Anyone want a mulligan?

    I’m curious, what’s the PRF (pulse repetition frequency) of this new style of appearing / disappearing blog posts?

  92. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    davidmhoffer — No I’m not paid to post here.>>>

    What? You mean you provide a perfect example of the conniving and manipulation and half truths and other disingenuous and misleading methods which are the mainstay of climate “science” for free?

  93. “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents ”
    What review? Who conducted it? What evidence was examined, and how were conclusions reached? What were the conclusions, for that matter?
    “…although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.”
    Look – whitewash is all well and good, but you’ve got to give people a smidge more than ‘oh, we investigated and found nothing.’
    Pathetic.

  94. The fact that the above issues ARE controversial is evidenced by the fact that so many people dispute the IPCC line on climate change and back up their stance with arguments based on empirical evidence. Children should be taught to evaluate the evidence produced by both sides of the debate.

    Except the scientific debate does not really have two sides, children should indeed be informed of the truth, which is that the overwhelming number of published studies support the IPCC position (to use that shorthand), and that there is not a single professional scientific association that has not issued a statement confirming said position.

    I predict that the stuff produced by Wojick (who has 11 peer-reviewed papers in the area of, erm, epistimology) will ever be accepted into any self-respecting science teacher’s classroom, the target market is probably the conservative home-schooling movement protecting their offspring from liveral contamination. Sadly the last Heartland foray into this area does in fact qualify as one-sided, and unfactual, presenting such gems as satellite and ballon readings show an ‘almost unperceivable’ increase in global temperatures, much more accurate than surafce records which are mostly taken in cities, and the Hockey Stick study was never peer reviewed….

    http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/index.htm

  95. The link to the article is working. Sleazy writing at its best (worst?). Absolutely no references, and lots of biased indeterminate statements. This kind of reporting is for one purpose only, entertainment (at least to somebody) provided to sell advertising.

  96. ThePowerofX says:
    May 21, 2012 at 10:17 am
    Be careful, Anthony. A Human Rights Watch investigation found evidence that both vehicles were (mistakenly) hit by a small projectile.

    There’s a pic of both ambulances in the report. If they’d been targeted by an Israeli UAV, they would each have been hit with an AGM-114 (Hellfire II), which is not a small projectile. The Hellfire II is a hyperbaric missile, designed for urban warfare — if either of those ambulances had been hit with one, the only thing left would have been the engine block and the transmission. If they’d been hit with one and the missile failed to detonate, the entry hole would be a hole with foot-long cruciform cuts at the circumference, the entire roof would have been caved in, and the windshield, door, and panel windowframes would have been crushed.

    Since the pics showed damage more likely caused by rocks and small arms fire, neither of which any nation’s UAVs use, the HRW report is dicey at best.

  97. How in the world can you consider this journalism? “A review” has cleared him? Without saying who did the review, this is less than a story.

  98. Marion;
    “In August 2010, for instance, The Guardian, already in the decline, was selling 272,112 copies a day. November 2011 saw it selling 226,473.
    This April, by contrast, sees 214,128 copies a day, representing a year-on-year-decline of 18.86 percent. ”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well, if they cannot halt that decline in circulation, they’ll just have to…. hide it.

  99. dcfl51:
    You wrote:
    I assume that you would like answers to your questions and you are not just sounding off. Read the following webpage and, in particular, the section headed “Third Paragraph” …
    Thanks for the info; this is helpful. I was not aware of the “fakegate.org” website, nor that it was run by the Heartland Institute. I’d been looking for a press release on Heartland’s website and found nothing. So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.

  100. The Guardian might soon fire her along with all the other staff. ;-) LOL.

    And they wonder why even their own left wing readership is abandoning them in droves. People just want the facts and not fairy tales and made up crap.

    Guardian Circulation (Audit Bureau of Circulations)
    January 2000 – 401,560
    January 2011 – 279,308
    January 2012 – 215,988

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2012/apr/13/abcs-national-newspapers

  101. Bullshit is a fixed predetermined board of inquiry.
    http://www.whitewashthefacts.bull/cagw

    11 no 12 separate, WHITEWASH investigations fail to reveal any deletion or falsification of any data = MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE?

    1.Feb2010,RA-10 Inquiry Report:

    http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

    2.March2010,House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

    3.April2010,Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel

    http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf

    4.May2010,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:

    http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500216002.pdf

    5.June2010 RA-10 Final Investigation Report

    http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

    6.July2010,Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review

    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

    7.July2010,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report:

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

    8.Sept2010,Deutsche Bank Report:

    http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp

    9.Sept2010,U.K. Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf

    10.Feb2011,U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General’s Review:

    http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/OIGSearchResults.aspx?k=Michael%20Mann&cs=This%20Site&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.doc.gov

    11.Aug2011,National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations

    http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

    Permalink | Share it

    12: “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents ”
    What review? Who conducted it? What evidence was examined, and how were conclusions reached? What were the conclusions, for that matter?
    brought to you by http://www.inyourfacecronyism.bull

  102. A story built out of nothing but thin air. Yet when you search Peter Gleick you’ll find many links to “Gleick cleared”

  103. Here is a cut and paste of the article just in case…

    Climate change scepticism
    Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose
    Scientist who admitted to deception to obtain internal Heartland documents was found in investigation not to have faked material

    Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
    Follow @suzyjiguardian.co.uk, Monday 21 May 2012 11.01 EDT

    Peter Gleick has been cleared of forging documents.
    Photograph: Paul Chinn/The Chronicle

    A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.
    Gleick’s sting on Heartland brought unwelcome scrutiny to the organisation’s efforts to block action on climate change, and prompted a walk-out of corporate donors that has created uncertainty about its financial future.
    Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute and a well-regarded water expert, admitted and apologised for using deception to obtain internal Heartland documents last February.
    He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents, although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.
    It was not immediately clear the findings would allow Gleick to make an early return to his job at the Pacific Institute. However, despite the official leave, Gleick has remained professionally active, appearing at public events and accepting speaking engagements. He delivered an Oxford Amnesty lecture on water in April.
    The leaked Heartland documents included a list of donors and plans to instill doubts in school children on the existence of climate change.
    They brought new scrutiny to the efforts by Heartland to block action on global warming, and to the existence of a shadowy network of rightwing organisations working to discredit climate science.
    In the aftermath, Heartland lost a number of corporate donors,beginning with the General Motors Foundation. The disclosure GM had funded Heartland work unrelated to climate was embarrassing for a foundation publicly committed to action on climate change.
    The thinktank also tried to capitalise on Gleick’s actions, devoting a section of its website to Fakegate, as it termed the sting, and appealing for donations to combat what it called leftwing bullying.
    Following the expose, Heartland acknowledged most of the documents were genuine. But the thinktank claimed the most explosive document, a two-page strategy memo summarising plans spelled out in detail elsewhere, was a fake.
    Heartland also accused Gleick of forging the document and published findings of computer forensics experts that the memo did not appear to be a genuine strategy document.
    Gleick, for his part, has consistently denied forging the document.

  104. > So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.

    All but one of the documents that Gleick released appear to be *derived* from Heartland’s. The content appears to be Heartland’s or very close to the real Heartland’s documents.

    Even these have been altered very slightly, possible more than once, before appearing on desmogblog and elsewhere. Even the versions that were initially on desmogblog differed from later versions. A simple binary compare to the files Heartland sent to Gleick when phishing would show a mismatch. And a comparison would really need a detailed review of every aspect of their content, and then that leaves aside whether the meta-data is identical. So Heartland can’t
    really verify them easily.

    This was spotted on Lucia’s and there was some discussion about how to get from early Desmogblog versions to later versions, and how even the earlier versions may even have possibly been already altered before being posted. At the very least, the versions on Desmogblog were open and resaved, with alterations being stored back in the files, but more may have been done, and nobody could tell conclusively what had been done.

    But one of them – the key one – isn’t Heartland’s at all.

  105. Just to clarify my previous comment – the alterations between early desmogblog versions and later desmogblog versions don’t appear to be in the content of the documents, but appear to be just side-effects of opening and re-saving – as far as anybody could tell. I’d happily stake a $100 on that proposition being true, but I wouldn’t stake my house on it.

  106. Wikipedia has updated its entry on Gleick:

    “Gleick denied forging the document, and was later cleared by an investigation for the Pacific Institute.[27]” The reference of course is to the Guardian’s second article of 21 May.

    The Wiki article goes a little further than the Guardian article in explicitly claiming that Gleick has been cleared of being the forger of the single document that he is accused of forging, although the Guardian does make the unsupported claim that “a review” cleared him of forging “any documents” was complete but that the results had not yet been made public.

    A contributor yesterday added the above claim. Earlier today it was removed, then added again with the 21 May reference. “Jonathan A Jones” is the WIki user that reestablished the claim. He’s a professor of physics at Oxford, where Gleick gave the Amnesty lectures and has a book in print. I wonder if Jones has knowledge of an investigation by Pacific that discovered evidence to exhonerate Gleick from being the forger, or that he trusts the Guardian reporter’s word, or if he and Gleick are just friends.

  107. Phil C you write document’s not document or documents. Are you referring to the one document that we know was forged or are you informing us that more than one document was forged?

  108. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    “dcfl51:
    You wrote:
    I assume that you would like answers to your questions and you are not just sounding off. Read the following webpage and, in particular, the section headed “Third Paragraph” …
    Thanks for the info; this is helpful. I was not aware of the “fakegate.org” website, nor that it was run by the Heartland Institute. I’d been looking for a press release on Heartland’s website and found nothing. So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.”

    Everyone is aware of this. It is old news. No one involved, including Heartland, ever claimed any of the documents were forged, except the memo. And a two second google search of Heartland will get you a press release. Who do you think you are fooling besides yourself? Or do you even know you are fooling yourself?

  109. Phil C;
    Thanks for the info; this is helpful. I was not aware of the “fakegate.org” website, nor that it was run by the Heartland Institute. I’d been looking for a press release on Heartland’s website and found nothing. So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.
    >>>>>>>>>

    OH GIVE ME A BREAK!
    C’mon Phil. There are five prominant links on their homepage, one of which is called “Learn about FakeGate”. You missed that? The rotating topics, one of which is Fakegate, and which take up 2/3’s of the screen also missed your attention?

    I typed “Gleick” into the search engine, and got all sorts of links to articles that include links to fakegate.org

    And very few people are aware that all except the forged document are their’s? Since the very first thing they did was stipulate to that, it seems to me anyone who was following the story in any level of detail at all (which you imply you have) would have been aware of that. A simple search on WUWT for Gleick or fakegate would also have turned up this information.

    But I understand the ploy you are trying to use. By implying that not many people were aware of this, you also imply that Heartland has not been forthcoming on the issue, as if they had something to hide. At the same time, you distract people from the main point, which is that Gleick obtained the documents illegaly and admitted to doing so, that there is nothing embarrasing or unusual in the documents, and that the forgery was more than likely written by Gleick.

    Who do you think you are fooling? 8 year olds?

  110. I’m sure Peter Gleik will be happy to proffer the review and under-oath-
    testimony of the reviewers and possibly the reporter in an actual court of
    law for the Heartland damages case.

  111. There is a simpler answer. The reporter posted the story. Shortly thereafter it was pulled by a senior editor or a Guardian lawyer. Why? Because (hypothetically) they know about the Heartland Lawyers’ Letter to the Guardian Lawyers. They know to stay away from this Gliek business, the reporter’s article could be interpreted inferentially to communicate Heartland is the lying party. That they pulled the story fast will look very good to a future jury and help the Guardian’s side that the reporter was an outlier, her actions not product of Guardian policy.

    My comments are a guess.

  112. Of interest. The Reports in the Guardians sister paper the Observer of the ambulance attack claimed that the Guardian’s war photographer, Sean Smith, has witness the aftermath of the attack, in situ.
    However, Sean Smith has never written about the attack nor have any images of his ever been published. I have asked the Editor to confirm that Sean Smith was a witness, but the Editor refused to state that Sean Smith was or was not there, but stated the story as written was true.
    I was told if I wanted more information I would have to take up the matter with the Press Complaints Committee.

  113. She is not a bug in the Guardian, she is a feature because The Guardian is the typical leftist newspaper .

  114. So Ted, you think that Penn State, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Deutsche, the U.K. Government, the U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General, and the National Science Foundation are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?

  115. The Guardian is just practicing for the day when the British Stalin wants the peasants informed about the bounteous wheat crops of which, unfortunately, due to external threats to the state; they will get none.

  116. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm
    Thanks for the info; this is helpful. I was not aware of the “fakegate.org” website, nor that it was run by the Heartland Institute. I’d been looking for a press release on Heartland’s website and found nothing. So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Hmmm you couldn’t find it?

  117. phil c
    So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.

    filthy, we are ALL aware of this. What you refuse to be aware of, is the actual nature of those documents, which is this- THERE IS NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THEM.

    Try using your wits, instead of acting witless.

  118. Peter says, “…are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?”

    Make money, you silly!


  119. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:41 am
    “…
    Page 18 of the Heartland Budget document identifies $75,000 for “K-12 Climate Education Project Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same.” ,,,”

    If Heartland has not denied the authenticity of that page, then it is authentic,

    And your point is?

  120. Anthony, the links you say are dead-ends come up fine here.
    Maybe the collective “www” has you embedded in the wrong bubble. ☺
    (or, horror… maybe me instead !!)

    Well, all Guardian stories are virtual anyway so who cares.

  121. I expect Ms Suzanne Goldenberg is going to try to spring something at the conference……?

  122. You guys just aren’t reading the article correctly:

    It says: “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose”. This obviously means Gleick was cleared of forging the ‘real’ Heartland documents, not the policy memo that he admitted forging. The next sentence that says: “A review has cleared… Peter Gleick of forging ‘any’ documents”, is purely poetic license on Suzanne Goldenberg’s part.

  123. The following was originally intended to be a joke. Kinda rings true though. I’ll leave y’all to figure out where the Grauniad goes on this list.

    1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
    2. The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.
    3. The Washington Post is read by people who think they should run the country.
    4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their smog statistics shown in pie charts.
    5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn’t have to leave L.A. to do it.
    6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
    7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country, and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
    8. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who’s running the country either, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
    9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feministic atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are democrats.
    10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
    11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

  124. This Guardian/Gleickgate whitewash has all the makings of a great Monte Python skit; something along the lines of “fox investigates missing chickens”.

  125. Peter says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?

    How ’bout protect the status quo?

    You know, like all large and powerful organizations like to do.

    Now that I’ve straightened that out for you, here’s another deep insight…

    Don’t take candy from strangers.

  126. The Guardian wrote and article on the gold exploration project I am working on in Indonesia about a year ago. It wasn’t even remotely accurate.

    We advised the journalist of errors of fact, but they simply ignored them. The journalists never came out to the island, or the project, and relied on 2nd and 3rd hand information from various NGOs and locals.

    This wasnt about reporting what was going on, or for mining or against mining, it was simply drumming a story without checking basic information. And in the 3rd world, getting reliable information is much harder than in developed countries. Far be it from the Guardian to actually check their information and sources.

  127. And btw Peter, I wouldn’t put a Penn State “investigation” on the list of things to brag about…

  128. DocMartyn says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Of interest. The Reports in the Guardians sister paper the Observer of the ambulance attack claimed that the Guardian’s war photographer, Sean Smith, has witness the aftermath of the attack, in situ.
    However, Sean Smith has never written about the attack nor have any images of his ever been published. I have asked the Editor to confirm that Sean Smith was a witness, but the Editor refused to state that Sean Smith was or was not there, but stated the story as written was true.
    I was told if I wanted more information I would have to take up the matter with the Press Complaints Committee.
    ==========================================
    They won’t retract but offer no proof. A simple invention to further a cause. History repeats itself, again, and again.

  129. “Peter says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    So Ted, you think that Penn State, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Deutsche, the U.K. Government, the U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General, and the National Science Foundation are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?”

    Problem being certain individuals of clout within those organisations. Stonewalling any real investigations. All belong to the same nudge, nudge, wink wink brigade!

    Here’s an example. A true story:

    A woman goes to a doctor complaining of constant headaches, and pressure behind the eyes. She’s referred to a specialist. The specialist doesn’t do any real examination or investigation of here complaint. He writes on her records. Urban neurosis.

    She goes to another specialist and another specialist. They don’t doing anything either. Since they all know the first specialist and just read his notes.

    In the end she dies. Autopsy finds out. Oh, no she had a brain tumor!

    The question being why didn’t the other specialist follow procedure? Answer They all belonged to the same elite old boy club outside of their medical practice!

  130. Nothing really changes…..

    Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
    Thomas Jefferson

    The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
    Thomas Jefferson

    If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed
    Samuel Clements (Mark Twain)

    A newspaper, as I’m sure you know, is a collection of supposedly true stories written down by writers who either saw them happen or talked to people who did. These writers are called journalists, and like telephone operators, butchers, ballerinas, and people who clean up after horses, journalists can sometimes make mistakes.
    Lemony Snicket

    Journalists do not live by words alone, although sometimes they have to eat them.
    Adlai E. Stevenson

    Freedom of the press in Britain is freedom to print such of the proprietor’s prejudices as the advertiser’s won’t object to.
    Helen Swaffer

  131. Nope, didn’t work. So here is the missing part.
    I should have watched the tutorial LOL !

  132. Peter
    May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    ###

    To take over the world, and that you can’t see it is because you have been so completely brain washed by the very same Marxist that have taken over most of these institutions, that you are blind.

  133. Your latest post is asking for a password to access it ? That just does not smell right, what’s up with that?

  134. “Your latest post is asking for a password to access it ? That just does not smell right, what’s up with that?”

    Type your credit card number and expiration date in the provided place. You will receive the secret proof of the veracity of positive feedback theory. Think of it like buying a copy of “The Di
    Vinci Code,”

  135. Ditto on the password. Is it legit? I assume it would be my email address, but I would not want to divulge it if this is something questionable.

    Re: Goldenberg – she is an absolute piece of work. Her article says Gleick is cleared, but by whom? His mother? His attorney? Hansen and Mann? From past articles that she has written, it is clear she is devoid of any and all scruples. She is deception incarnate – so I guess it is appropriate that she pen a piece about how Gleick is cleared of deception.

  136. Glenn says:
    May 21, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Wikipedia has updated its entry on Gleick:
    “Gleick denied forging the document, and was later cleared…

    Climate Audit:

    …The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathan Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof J. Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The decision that can only be characterized as a total thrashing of the University of East Anglia.

    Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University (like me, an alumnus of Corpus Christi, Oxford), is a Bishop Hill and CA reader and was one of several CA readers who requested the CRUTEM version sent to Georgia Tech earlier that year…

    Please keep digging Glenn.

    Maybe someone is impersonating Prof J Jones at WP. Maybe it is Prof J Jones showing a different side of his work and perceptions though that seems less likely at first glance.

    What concerns me is the parallel to the “Caspar and the Jesus paper” strategy here – and the timing of the Guardian article that seems designed to hit Heartland below the belt. Plus she’s there at the conference, for God’s sake. What is she up to?

    Perhaps Anthony will enligten us.

  137. Dan in California says:
    May 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    The following was originally intended to be a joke. Kinda rings true though. I’ll leave y’all to figure out where the Grauniad goes on this list.

    1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
    ..

    From “Yes Minister” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

    “Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

    Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
    Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.”

  138. Marian says:
    May 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm
    The question being why didn’t the other specialist follow procedure? Answer They all belonged to the same elite old boy club outside of their medical practice!
    =======
    There is definitely a pecking order in medicine which works strongly against the “second opinion”. Doctors are extremely reluctant to offer a contrary opinion to a more senior doctor.

    This can however work to your advantage. I ran into this exact same problem, but after researching the problem found a study by the Mayo clinic that overruled when the senior doctor had said, as which point the junior doctor would act. But not before.

  139. Jimbo says:
    May 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    The Guardian might soon fire her along with all the other staff. ;-) LOL.

    And they wonder why even their own left wing readership is abandoning them in droves. People just want the facts and not fairy tales and made up crap.

    Ya know… these guys are all about the models.

    Using Eureqa’s Formulize, and the circulation data from your Wikipedia Link… the future doesn’t look bright for The Guardians circulation.

    Warning to all, it’s just a model…

  140. …Er… I don’t get it with the password needed for the next post. I never had one. Can anyone tell me what I need to do?

    Or is it as OssQss suggests and something is not right?

  141. moamoke says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    A Scott,

    TerryS over at Bishop Hill spotted the update is already on Gleick’s wiki page.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick

    —————————————————————–
    Not surprising. Apparently William Connolly, having done his time on the naughty step, has been reinstated at Wikipedia:

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/comment-by-alex-harvey-climate-change.html?spref=tw

    Worth a read for those interested in dirty deeds at Wiki. IMO, Wiki is really useful for episode guides for your favourite TV programs, but for science, not so much.

  142. OssQss says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Your latest post is asking for a password to access it ? That just does not smell right, what’s up with that?
    __________________________
    I don’t think the post is meant for us peons…

  143. What OssQss said. (Refers to the WUWT post after this one.) If the material isn’t public, why is it here?

  144. Peter says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    So Ted, you think that … are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?
    =========
    Every dolt know the answer to that one. To gain riches, power and prestige and thereby rise above the common rabble. While at the same time saving the planet from the ravages of the great unwashed masses – so they can enjoy their riches, power and prestige without having to make room for the rest of us.

    In other words, to do unto others what they keenly hope and pray will never be done unto them. The want to be the ones that call for others to make the sacrifices, while they themselves reap the rewards.

    They are the ones that expect a seat on the lifeboat, which they expect everyone else to pay to build. The lifeboat that is much too small for the rest of us to ever have a seat. They are the folks that tell us this is for our own good they are doing this.

  145. To Dan in California:

    And Playboy readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits. (I dont think you have page 3 girls in the USA?)

  146. Peter says: May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    “So .. you think that …etc etc…. are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?”

    Peter, you know very well it does not require a plot or any sort of conspiracy.

    It just requires self interests with a common end point:

    Such self interests include: Taxes, financial instruments to trade, creation of huge trading funds, sources of research funds, political power, enlargement of international IGO’s, more power to certain bureaucracies, scientific and political fame…. etc, etc.

  147. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:40 am
    “Four months after the fact, the Heartland Instutute remains silent on the subject of the authenticity of other 90 pages worth of documents that Glieck released.”

    And Gleick has still not confessed that he faked the “Strategy Memo”. And he is still not in jail. And Holder’s DOJ has still not seized the assets of the Pacific Institute.

  148. Peter says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    “So Ted, you think that Penn State, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the [...]
    National Science Foundation are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?”

    Rip off the taxpayers in the West to the tune of trillions of Dollars and destroy democracy, you moron. Haven’t you been paying attention the last 50 years (starting with 1972, Maurice Strong’s Earth conference). IT’S DOCUMENTED IN ALL THEIR CONFERENCE PAPERS.
    Latest example: Warmist tool calls for “Efficient World Government” in SciAm:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/?print=true

  149. This seems to be a recurrent tactic by the left. They get some fellow travellers to issue some report that purports to find some other lefty mostly guilt free as relates to some scandal. It’s fed to the leftist echo chamber in the media who parrot the line faithfully. Then all of the little progs on the internet and elsewhere can use the vindication as a talking point from now on until eternity without knowing any details about what the report actually states.

    This scam first came to my attention when Dan Rather was investigated by his employer, CBS, for his part in the GWB Texas air national guard memo scandal. CBS ‘found ” Ol’ Dan to be free of political bias in the matter (LOL). How did they determine that Dan was pure? They asked him, and Dan said that he had no bias. The report was a fig leaf for Dan, CBS, and the leftist machine.

  150. Robert Olsen says:
    May 21, 2012 at 6:37 pm
    Like OssQss, I’m curious about the password protected post. WUWT?

    I tried typing ‘your password’ into the box like the instructions said, but it didn’t work. :)

    (I see that Anthony has explained the strange post)

  151. SIMPLE TEST, TO SEE; IF YOU ARE STILL IN CONTROL OF YOUR OWN BRAINS

    By answering if the following comment is correct, or wrong; will tell you: do you still own your own brains:
    On Antarctica are 3 thermometers, monitoring on 2 places ‘’for the highest temp in 24h. next place is monitored in Chile, Tasmania and Hawaii. About 30% of the planet’s surface area, 3 thermometers… Comparing with 4000 thermometers in USA Europe combined – on 1% of the planet’s surface area. Thermometer is perfect for monitoring the room temp; but in your backyard are 3-7 variations in the temp – compare your backyard with Antarctic to Tasmania. Temperature in the atmosphere is NOT same as in human body; when under the armpit is 1C warmer than normal = the WHOLE body is warmer by that much. In nature is completely the opposite.

    The hottest minute of the day has same value as any other minute in the 24h, no more, no less = if the hottest minute is hotter by 1C than yesterday – but few hours were COLDER than yesterday – therefore, the ‘’inaccuracy’’ by using one minute of 1440 minutes is by plus / minus 1439%. We are talking about the last year…

    1] do you still believe that anybody knows the correct temp for the last year / to save his / her life? 2] Do you believe that: distribution of thermometers 1000y ago was more appropriate, than last year? 3] do you believe that: because Warmist & fake Skeptics had a wrong starting point that: overall GLOBAL temp goes up and down as a yo-yo; every time gets warmer / colder in Europe = the WHOLE planet’s temp reacts the same?! 4] or, do you believe that the whole conspiracy is a 24 carat crap?! If they can do so much ‘’brains degradation’’ to the grown ups… think about the damages in progress to the kid’s brains in school and university…

  152. 100% with you on making up news stories, indefensible.

    But just to be perfectly clear: Israel is already in so far breach of the Geneva conventions and international law on a plethora of other matters that the ambulance issue is neither here nor there. Besides the fact that the video of civilians being indiscriminately shot at while picking up dead and wounded from a battlefield (nay city) in Iraq shows quite clearly that the Geneva conventions and much of international law don’t really apply to America and her allies.

    You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you think that there would be any consequences for Israel if the ambulance incident were real, because you would then be certifiably delusional.

  153. Guys and gals worried about the password…. stop it. It’s either a glitch which will be corrected, or (most likely) some information Anthony wishes to put out to his team, and his team alone, and maybe, discuss some things with them before posting something.

    PhilC and Peter are people to point and laugh at.

    James :-)

  154. Kozlowski says:
    May 21, 2012 at 6:32 pm
    Curious how they talk about an investigation clearing him but give zero info about WHO the investigator(s) were. It will be great fun reading the “investigation.” I wonder what evidence they used to prove he did not write the memo.

    Evidence? *Evidence*?!? We don’ need no steenkeeng evidence!”

  155. I suspect the investigation will just say there is a lack of evidence to place blame. (which the Guardian spins to mean “cleared”)

    How does one prove something like this? The only way would be if someone directly involved actually stepped forward.

  156. This video clip highlights the problem. No matter what science, facts or truths you throw at them they continue. As per the video, this would be a joke, but for the fact that they have infiltrated everywhere.

    It is clear that new effective fronts need to be opened possibly starting with Gleick being charged/idicted and some others as well for fraud.

  157. Something else occurs to me. Even assuming Gleick is telling the truth about this memo being “sent to him anonymously” (which we know is false), wouldn’t it still be extremely irresponsbily and libelous for him to “release” it as if it were a real document?

    Either way, he would have known the document did not come from Heartland, so there’s a crime whether Gleick is the forger or not.

  158. So the article is back up. The major change seems to be that this paragraph has been edited a bit from the original.

    “He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents, although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.”

    It did say “He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public, the Guardian has learned”

    The Wiki page has also been edited because of the takedown of the Guardian article.

  159. Nenndul says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    100% with you on making up news stories, indefensible.

    Then why did you just make up this one?

    Besides the fact that the video of civilians being indiscriminately shot at while picking up dead and wounded from a battlefield (nay city) in Iraq shows quite clearly that the Geneva conventions and much of international law don’t really apply to America and her allies.

    Got a link to that vid? And the results of the investigation that stated definitively that it was Coalition troops shooting at civilians, as opposed to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or the Mahdi Army (MA) shooting at civilians, or as opposed to Coalition troops engaging AQI or MA (who wear civilian clothing — in violation of the Geneva Convention)? I realize that your stated beliefs won’t let you accept it, but US troops operate under the microscopic eye of the electronic media, and even false claims of war crimes (such as the Haditha incident) result in good people being castigated for doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing — engaging the enemy.

    You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you think that there would be any consequences for Israel if the ambulance incident were real, because you would then be certifiably delusional.

    You seem to live in a world in which there is no such thing as objective truth, only the perception of what the truth *needs* to be in order to justify your views.

  160. Well, rather than just moaning about standards I went to the Guardian website and emailed Suzanne Goldenburg with this request.
    “Hello,

    I was reading the Guardian Environment section and found this article.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland

    This seems incomplete. There is no reference to who cleared Peter Gleick, what investigation took place or who defined the admitted fraud as a “sting”? The latter part surely raises questions about the impartiality of the review.

    Please will you update the story with references?

    At the moment this article is indistinguishable from mere rumour.

    Thank you
    Matt Courtney”

    I also copied in the editor.

  161. Look, it seems to be a disease keeping dodgy journalists.

    News International, whose reporters, editors and quite possibly publishers were engaged in rampant phone hacking, seeking out of private bank account details and the like, are still employing two journalists caught hacking one of their nemeses, the labour MP Tom Watson.

    The Independent reports this morning that ‘they are still employed by NI’.

    Make sure you trash a more right wing media vehicle equally to one who is clearly less to your taste.

    You wouldn’t want your reputation brought down by uncritical admiration of Murdoch, after all.

    Your reputation will only remain high so long as you focus on climate issues, not becoming politicians who trash opponents and cover up the same misdemeanours of your own ‘family’.

  162. Back on topic: A Google-query for “Gleick cleared” gives 15,800 hits, with at least the first 300 (because I didn’t scroll any farther) citing the Guardian article as the sole source of that information.

    A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits.

    A Google-query for “Guardian fails to print corrections” — 41,300,000 hits.

  163. stefanthedenier says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    yes, I agree – the whole global temp thingy is a more bulldust than science – but, as Mosher would say, it’s all we have to work with! :)
    on a more serious note – the limitations of temp measurement and anomalies, etc, etc are well discussed (certainly in respect of the warmist claims of temp rises etc) but as yet I have not seen a universally ‘accepted’ totally validated dataset. By that I mean I am unaware of the existence of a major dataset (available to the public) where both the raw data and every adjustment ever made is documented and explained to the satisfaction of the warmist/skeptics alike – a proper ‘consensus’ version, if you will!
    But then again – with statistics and data ‘analysis’, and of course, the modeling (LOL) – the climate boys can show anything they want – so in reality, the quality of the raw data could well be considered irrelevent?

  164. M Courtney:

    re. your post at May 22, 2012 at 12:26 am, that is excellent!

    Please copy any response(s) you get to here.

    Dad

  165. Rhys Jaggar:

    Your post at May 22, 2012 at 12:41 am is a disingenuous ‘red herring’.

    Everybody knows the Murdoch press is reprehensible, but that has no relevance to this thread which is about an article by Suzanne Goldenberg which was published in the Grauniad (i.e. not published in a Murdoch newspaper).

    In the event that a Murdoch newspaper publishes a similar article then we will consider it. Until then your accusation of “trashing opponents” is a reprehensible falsehood with the clear intent of smearing this blog.

    Richard

  166. Bill Tuttle writes:
    Back on topic: A Google-query for “Gleick cleared” gives 15,800 hits, with at least the first 300 (because I didn’t scroll any farther) citing the Guardian article as the sole source of that information.
    A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits.
    A Google-query for “Guardian fails to print corrections” — 41,300,000 hits.

    Hey, I absolutely love the “google query count” game! Here we go…

    A google query for “Bill Tuttle is a moron” – 11,300,000 hits
    A google query for “Anthony Watts scores an own goal” – 1,440,000 hits
    A google query for “The Heartland Institute is full of liars” – 1,230,000 hits

    Good stuff!

  167. ****
    Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    No I’m not paid to post here.
    *****

    Dirty deeds done dirt-cheap?

  168. richardscourtney says:
    May 22, 2012 at 4:40 am
    The only response from the Guardian so far was an automated acknowledgement of receipt.
    In fairness to Ms Goldenberg, she is in New York. I was not expecting a result within 24 hours. The time difference gets in the way.

  169. Phil C says:
    May 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Funny thing. Heartland admitted within days that the majority of the documents were actual Heartland documents. The rest of the world managed to see it. Why didn’t you?

  170. The reporter’s cohorts in the AGW industry have assured her that a report “clearing” Gleik (is there any other kind) is in the works, It appears that the reporter has her own schedule, however, since she needs to have an article out there to disparge Heartland while the big conference is underway.

  171. Jake Diamond:

    Bill Tuttle provided a post which reported the coverage on the web of the alleged acquittal of Gleick as indicated by Google counts. He showed that all the coverage is based on the Guardian article which is the subject of this thread. Additionally, and clearly for interest, he cited Google counts concerning veracity of the Guardian as a source of information (i.e. related information).

    Your post at May 22, 2012 at 5:21 am purports to be a response to the report from Tuttle. It quotes Tuttle then reports accounts of abuse of Tuttle, the Heartland Institute, and Anthony Watts which you say (I have not bothered to check) is indicated by Google counts.

    Please explain the relevance – if any – to this thread of your abusive post.

    Richard

  172. Nenndul says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Israel is not in violation of any of the Geneva conventions, not that the Palestinians bother to follow any of them.
    Nor did the video of allies shooting civilians in Iraq ever happen either.

    Why don’t you go and peddle your myths and hatred of the west somewhere where there are people who care?

  173. Jake Diamond says:
    May 22, 2012 at 5:21 am
    Hey, I absolutely love the “google query count” game! Here we go…
    A google query for “Bill Tuttle is a moron” – 11,300,000 hits

    Hiya, Jack, wanna play? Toss something relevant into the pot on the next deal…

  174. Nenndull says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    … Besides the fact that the video of civilians being indiscriminately shot at while picking up dead and wounded from a battlefield (nay city) in Iraq shows quite clearly that the Geneva conventions and much of international law don’t really apply to America and her allies.
    ————————————

    You’d have us believe that the terrorists are scrupulous adherents to the Geneva conventions? What does the Geneva Convention say regarding sawing off the heads of captured non-combatants? As someone committed to the universal enforcement of the Geneva Conventions that seems like something that you should look into.

  175. richardscourtney says:

    Bill Tuttle provided a post which reported the coverage on the web of the alleged acquittal of Gleick as indicated by Google counts.

    Ah, so you think “Google counts” have value. I am genuinely amused.

    A google query for “guardian best newspaper ever” – 66,000,000 hits
    A google query for “Richard Courtney wears diapers” – 2,110,000 hits
    A google query for “Jake Diamond is a genius” – 18,200,000 hits

    Yeah, those “Google counts” really do have incredible value. I’m a believer!

    He showed that all the coverage is based on the Guardian article which is the subject of this thread.

    Actually, he didn’t. Of course, I’m using the standard definition of “all.” If you’re using a different definition (e.g., a definition where “all” and “some” mean the same thing), your conclusion will be different.

    Additionally, and clearly for interest, he cited Google counts concerning veracity of the Guardian as a source of information (i.e. related information).

    A google query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” – 227,000 hits
    A google query for “Guardian a reliable source of news” – 1,980,000 hits

    Oops!

    Your post at May 22, 2012 at 5:21 am purports to be a response to the report from Tuttle..

    It is a response. Are you starting to understand it now?

    Please explain the relevance – if any – to this thread of your abusive post.

    You’re welcome!

  176. All those supporting and opposing Israel and its behaviour:

    Please take your argument to an appropriate blog. WUWT is not it.

    Richard

  177. Nenndull says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    … Besides the fact that the video of civilians being indiscriminately shot at while picking up dead and wounded from a battlefield (nay city) in Iraq
    ===============================================
    Lol, clearly another example of a person simply believing BS because he(she?) wishes it to be true. First and foremost, it was not indiscriminate. But, don’t let that interfere with your delusional and irrational views on events.

  178. By the way, Richard, if you believe my post citing “Google counts” is abusive, then by the same reasoning, so is Bill Tuttle’s post. Moreover, if you are aiming to encourage WUWT readers to avoid abuse, you’ll need to scold all those people who left comments that are abusive of Suzanne Goldenberg and The Guardian. However, since you’ve made no apparent effort to challenge the “abusive” content of those comments, it seems you are selective in your identification of “abuse.”

  179. Jake Diamond says:
    May 22, 2012 at 10:56 am
    By the way, Richard, if you believe my post citing “Google counts” is abusive, then by the same reasoning, so is Bill Tuttle’s post.

    In whose opinion? Reasoning doesn’t appear to be your strong point.

    Insults, yeah. Reasoning, not so much.

  180. Jake Diamond says:

    “… you’ll need to scold all those people who left comments that are abusive of Suzanne Goldenberg and The Guardian. ”

    I, being one of those people, only posted an analysis of the circulation data. It’s a model, but it speaks for itself.

    People can see B/S, and it shows up in the subscription data.

    What would be interesting, is to look at several papers to see if the Guardian stands out as having a greater decline due to its apparently horrendous credibility issue.

  181. Jake Diamond:

    Your trolling is not amusing.

    Your post at May 22, 2012 at 10:09 am puts words in my mouth.
    I did not say “Google counts have value”. I said the Google counts reported by Bill Tuttle are pertinent to this thread: they are.

    Then you quote me out of context. I said;

    Bill Tuttle provided a post which reported the coverage on the web of the alleged acquittal of Gleick as indicated by Google counts. He showed that all the coverage is based on the Guardian article which is the subject of this thread. Additionally, and clearly for interest, he cited Google counts concerning veracity of the Guardian as a source of information (i.e. related information).

    Clearly, in its context, my phrase “all the coverage” pertains to “the coverage on the web of the alleged acquittal of Gleick as indicated by Google counts”. But you quoted my sentence saying;

    He showed that all the coverage is based on the Guardian article which is the subject of this thread.

    Then you disputed my use of the word “all”.

    Your dispute is gross misrepresentation, but you knew that, didn’t you? You naughty little troll.

    Then you waffle about Google counts for and against the Gaurdian, before asking me if I am starting to “understand” that your post to Tuttle was a response to what Tuttle had written.

    I do understand that your post addressed to Tuttle was not a response but was a troll comment intended to distract discussion of this thread’s subject.

    Then you conclude with a quotation of my question to you that asked;

    Please explain the relevance – if any – to this thread of your abusive post.

    followed by a blatantly untrue assertion that you had explained the relevance.

    Not content with that nonsense, at May 22, 2012 at 10:56 am you again write saying to me;

    By the way, Richard, if you believe my post citing “Google counts” is abusive, then by the same reasoning, so is Bill Tuttle’s post. Moreover, if you are aiming to encourage WUWT readers to avoid abuse, you’ll need to scold all those people who left comments that are abusive of Suzanne Goldenberg and The Guardian. However, since you’ve made no apparent effort to challenge the “abusive” content of those comments, it seems you are selective in your identification of “abuse.”

    Again, you put words in my mouth. I did not say “citing “Google counts” is abusive”.

    I said that your quoting of abuse from others (which is listed as Google counts) is abusive. Quoting an insult is to present the insult. But you know that, don’t you? You naughty little troll.

    As for your saying “all those people who left comments that are abusive of Suzanne Goldenberg and The Guardian”, I only see accounts of what Goldenberg and The Guardian have said and done. That is not abuse. But you know that, too, don’t you? You naughty little troll.

    And NO! I am not “selective in [my] identification of “abuse.” “
    I am offended by trolls like you.

    Richard

  182. Goldenberg is from the same school of reporting as Orla Guerin from the PBC (the Palestininian Broadcasting Corporation, known to most UK viewers as the BBC) – i.e., never let the truth get in the way of denigrating Israel and promoting Palestinians as purer than the driven snow.

    Dear Orla used to black up her eyes before reporting a Palestinian death and give it all the gravitas of Kennedy’s state funeral. But if an Israeli was hit by one of the 2000 rockets a year than land on Israel, she would shrug her shoulders, beam broadly and give it the ‘what do they expect’ voice.

    After the matter was debated in Westminster, Orla was finally shipped off to Afghanistan. Let’s hope they do the same to Goldenberg.

    .

  183. >>What would be interesting, is to look at several papers to see
    >>if the Guardian stands out as having a greater decline due to i
    >>ts apparently horrendous credibility issue.

    Its not known as the Grauniad for nothing…..

    .

  184. Jake Diamond says:
    May 22, 2012 at 10:56 am
    Moreover, if you are aiming to encourage WUWT readers to avoid abuse, you’ll need to scold all those people who left comments that are abusive of Suzanne Goldenberg and The Guardian.

    *sigh*

    Fine. I apologize for offending your hypersensitivities by pointing out that the Guardian has a track record of running with bogus stories and then failing to issue corrections.

    Now, are you going to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, or are you just going to continue throwing rocks from under your bridge?

  185. Dear Mr. Tuttle,

    It’s not a matter of opinion but of fact. Perhaps that alone will resolve your confusion, however I’m skeptical based on what I’ve seen so far. Therefore, let’s review the evidence carefully…

    I wrote: A google query for “The Heartland Institute is full of liars” – 1,230,000 hits
    Apparently Richard considers this “abuse” of the Heartland Institute.

    You wrote: A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits.
    Applying Richard’s standard, this should be considered “abuse” of the Guardian.

    I hope that clears up your confusion, Mr. Tuttle. I wouldn’t want you to be left behind, scratching yourself, and wondering what you’d missed. Have a great day.

  186. What would be interesting, is to look at several papers to see if the Guardian stands out as having a greater decline due to its apparently horrendous credibility issue.

    You’ve asserted, but not established as fact, that the Guardian has a “credibility issue.” You’re spinning your wheels but not going anywhere.

  187. Fine. I apologize for offending your hypersensitivities…

    I’m not offended by anything you’ve written. I was merely making fun of the fact that you presented “Google hits” as if they were relevant or significant.

    …by pointing out that the Guardian has a track record of running with bogus stories and then failing to issue corrections.

    You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But if you want to convince others, you should present facts. So far you’ve failed to make a case.

    Now, are you going to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, or are you just going to continue throwing rocks from under your bridge?

    Well, to be fair, you should probably ask yourself that question. You aren’t encouraging meaningful discussion with your repeated failed attempts to insult me, so it’s hard for me to believe you are seeking meaningful discussion.

  188. Jake Diamond:

    I see you are still trolling.

    At May 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm you say to Bill Tuttle,

    It’s not a matter of opinion but of fact. Perhaps that alone will resolve your confusion, however I’m skeptical based on what I’ve seen so far. Therefore, let’s review the evidence carefully…

    I wrote: A google query for “The Heartland Institute is full of liars” – 1,230,000 hits
    Apparently Richard considers this “abuse” of the Heartland Institute.

    You wrote: A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits.
    Applying Richard’s standard, this should be considered “abuse” of the Guardian.

    NO!
    The Heartland Institute is NOT under discussion here, so your first point is gratuitous abuse (i.e. it is an irrelevant insult) of the Heartland Institute with no relevance to this discussion. And your introduction of this abuse is clearly a ‘red herring’ intended to deflect this thread from its subject.

    Whereas, the statement that
    “ A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits”
    is clearly an indication that hundreds of thousands of people query the reliability of the Guardian as a news source. It is not “abuse” because it is empirical data relating to the subject under discussion.

    But you knew that, didn’t you? You naughty little troll.

    Richard

  189. “Accidentally leaked to” = a novel way of saying “stolen by”:

    “Third, Bast claimed in the letter that, since the publication of internal Heartland documents accidentally leaked to Peter Gleick, “environmental extremists started to use tactics that had never been used before in the public policy arena.”

    http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/05/21/heartland-attacks-critics-no-apology/

    Suzanne claimed “Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents

    Something is definitely leaking. ROTFLMAO!

  190. guys…just let the “google hits” argument go. Jake Diamond, troll or not, was correct to point out that the number of hits is absolutely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make and that he could just as easily cite many hits for just about anything. The longer you argue the point, the more you prolong exactly what he wants: a distraction from the issue at hand.

  191. richardscourtney wrote:

    Whereas, the statement that
    “ A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits”
    is clearly an indication that hundreds of thousands of people query the reliability of the Guardian as a news source. It is not “abuse” because it is empirical data relating to the subject under discussion.

    Oh, this is absolutely hilarious! Using Richard’s “logic,” he must also conclude the following:
    “ A google query for “Richard Courtney wears diapers” – 2,110,000 hits”
    is clearly an indication that hundreds of thousands of people query Richard Courtney’s adult incontinence. It is not “abuse” because it is empirical data…”

    There you have it, folks! Empirical data show that millions of people are discussing Richard Courtney’s diapers! Case closed–Richard has really put me in my place!

  192. ferd berple says:
    May 21, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Marian says:
    May 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm
    The question being why didn’t the other specialist follow procedure? Answer They all belonged to the same elite old boy club outside of their medical practice!
    =======
    There is definitely a pecking order in medicine which works strongly against the “second opinion”. Doctors are extremely reluctant to offer a contrary opinion to a more senior doctor….
    =========
    Yes tell me about it.

    The second Doctor (Mayo Clinic) in my Mom’s case reneged their diagnosis when they found out she was under another Doctor’s care. So the first Doc proceeded to kill her because he wanted to use her as an “experimental subject” but managed to get the dosage wrong. We found out afterwards that this was what happen from a neighbor who was a doctor working at the same hospital.

  193. Speaking of abuse…

    richardscourtney wrote:
    You naughty little troll.

    Now Richard, I’m not a master logician like you, but let me see if I can follow your application of “logic”…

    I, Jake Diamond, am NOT the topic of discussion here, so your point is gratuitous abuse (i.e. it is an irrelevant insult) of me, Jake Diamond, with no relevance to this discussion. And your introduction of this abuse is clearly a ‘red herring’ intended to deflect this thread from its subject. Badly done, Richard. Badly done.

    Also, Richard, if you refer to the post preceding the comments, you will see that the topic of discussion is the Guardian’s story about Peter Gleick, the Heartland Institute, and the Heartland Institute documents that Peter Gleick released to the public. Therefore, contrary to your claim, the Heartland Institute’s actions and credibility are, in fact, relevant to the discussion. Apparently you realized the relevance of Gleick and his actions when others commented on those aspects of the story, but you suddenly suffered memory loss when I mentioned the Heartland Institute.

    Richard, let me help you out here. I don’t mind at all if you are a Heartland Institute cheerleader, but please don’t try to stifle discussion of Heartland on fraudulent grounds. Heartland is mentioned over 150 times in the post and the comments. If “the Heartland Institute is NOT under discussion here” as you assert, you have quite a few people to scold. Or, as an alternative, you can connect with reality and accept that the Heartland Institute is part of the story AND is under discussion here.

  194. Jake Diamond:

    I do not know if those who employ you to troll here think your having become a joke is a success. But I thank you for the laughs you have given me.

    I have done sufficient to show to onlookers that your comments are daftm, so I will not bother to answer any more of your trolling.

    Please feel free to continue to demonstrate your real or feigned idiocy elsewhere.

    Richard

  195. Jake Diamond says:
    May 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm
    @ me: You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But if you want to convince others, you should present facts. So far you’ve failed to make a case.

    I don’t have to make the case that the Guardian has run with bogus stories and then failed to either issue corrections or print retractions — it’s reputation for doing that is well-established.

    “Now, are you going to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, or are you just going to continue throwing rocks from under your bridge?”

    Well, to be fair, you should probably ask yourself that question. You aren’t encouraging meaningful discussion with your repeated failed attempts to insult me, so it’s hard for me to believe you are seeking meaningful discussion.

    Ah. In your first comment here —
    A google query for “Bill Tuttle is a moron” – 11,300,000 hits
    And then —
    I hope that clears up your confusion, Mr. Tuttle. I wouldn’t want you to be left behind, scratching yourself, and wondering what you’d missed.

    The troll shows up flinging insults and then immediately feigns wounded bewilderment at being identified as a troll. And still fails to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

  196. Let’s try another Google search:

    Jake Diamond is really Tom Deutsch–11,000,000 hits

    Has our favorite troll returned? It sure sounds like him.

    Jim

  197. And the highly “principled” Richard concludes with a declaration of victory (and more ad hominem)! Now there’s a surprise…

    In my opinion, Richard has distinguished himself with his posts in this thread, but not in the way he imagines. But we can leave it to the internet to decide the winner, since Richard places such value in “Google count” “empirical data:”

    A google query for “Richard Courtney victory” – 15,400,000 hits
    A google query for “Jake Diamond victory” – 18,800,000 hits

    Sorry, Richard, but internet users have voted and you’re the loser. Victory is mine! Please try to be a gracious loser.

    A google query for “Richard Courtney cries himself to sleep” – 40,500,000 hits
    :(

  198. richardscourtney,
    Have you notice that the trolls come mostly in two flavours these days. Either:

    o Oh yeah? Well if you’r so smart, why don’t you publish in a journal which is the only place that real science can exist.

    or

    o I said some idiotic things and then you called me an idiot, that’s an ad hominem attack!

    I guess the exception to the rule would be Phil C, who, if you said the sky was blue, would produce a paper showing that the refractive index of the sky during night time conditions was not at all blue which discredits everything else you said and proves that the globe is warming at an unprecedented rate and that the polar bears are going extinct because of it whether or not their population increases in size.

  199. Bill Tuttle May 22, 2012 at 12:56 am

    You say:
    ————————————————-
    A Google-query for “Gleick cleared” gives 15,800 hits
    A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits.
    ————————————————-
    Google says for me:
    No results found for “Guardian an unreliable source of news”

    You will get entirely different (and probably useless) results if you don’t put the quotes around a phrase submitted to Google.

    In your first search you have included the quotes; in the second search, you didn’t.

  200. davidmhoffer:

    Thanks for your great post addressed to me at May 23, 2012 at 12:22 am.

    Yes, you are right in all you say, and you present it with humour. I enjoyed it.

    Additionally, I am pleased that our latest troll keeps posting his nonsense because it is providing me with lots of laughs, and laughter is a pleasure. However, his nature is clear to all so I advise that we all avoid further disruption of this thread by accepting the laughs while not replying to the nonsense which provides them.

    Richard

  201. jaymam says:
    May 23, 2012 at 1:27 am
    Bill Tuttle May 22, 2012 at 12:56 am
    You will get entirely different (and probably useless) results if you don’t put the quotes around a phrase submitted to Google.

    Absolutely. And I was looking for the specific phrase, “Gleick cleared,” rather than, say, “Peter Gleick cleared by a review board consisting of acknowledged forensic computer experts,” which would have returned zilch.

  202. Kev-in-Uk says:
    May 22, 2012 at 3:51 am

    stefanthedenier says:
    May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    yes, I agree – the whole global temp thingy is a more bulldust than science – but, as Mosher would say, it’s all we have to work with! :)
    on a more serious note – the limitations of temp measurement and anomalies, etc, etc are well discussed (certainly in respect of the warmist claims of temp rises etc) but as yet I have not seen a universally ‘accepted’ totally validated dataset.

    Always keep in mind that temperatures are not average-able data. The temperature of my shower water and the temperature of the air before I run the shower can’t be added and divided by 2 to predict the air temp afterwards, for example. And a cubic mile of tropical air and a cubic mile of polar air do not have a meaningful “average” (in terms of heat-sharing, whether immediate or delayed, whether theoretical or practical). The water vapour content, with its huge specific heat, dominates everything, and is ignored.

    Climate science is so egregious that it has all the earmarks of the Big Lie technique: “Surely the Authorities wouldn’t tell us that much of a whopper; it must be true!”

  203. Let’s try another Google search:
    Jake Diamond is really Tom Deutsch–11,000,000 hits

    Hey! Someone else wants to play Google Counts!

    A google query for “Jim Masterson is really Tom Deutsch” –12,800,000 hits
    A google query for “Richard Courtney is a Heartland cheerleader” – 1,970,000 hits
    A google query for “Bill Tuttle was hit in the head by a baseball2 – 8,380,000 hits

    More empirical data for WUWT readers to process! Get busy, folks! If it’s on teh internets, it must be true!

  204. Jake Diamond says:
    May 23, 2012 at 6:55 am
    A google query for “Bill Tuttle was hit in the head by a baseball2 – 8,380,000 hits

    A baseball2? Is this some new type of IED the spooks haven’t briefed me on?

    If so, it’s one I haven’t been hit with yet.

  205. Suzanne Goldenburg is a standard lefty. She was the Middle East correspondent for the Guardian in the 1990s and spun a lot of lies.

Comments are closed.