Quark Soup writes: Gleick Review Not Finalized, Pacific Institute Says
Last week Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reported:
“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.”
But the Pacific Institute is telling me that no such clearing has occurred:
“The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation or announced any decisions at this point.”
=============================================================
I pointed out the “shonky” journalism employed by Gleick apologist Suzanne Goldenberg.
It seems she jumped the gun again, just like she did in the original Fakegate release without bothering to verify facts and documents first. When I first started in TV journalism in 1978, that sort of stuff would get me fired. Apparently the Guardian has no such standards for journalistic integrity.
The UK Press Complaints Commission is the place to start to make a complaint.
Absolutely. Keep up the pressure.
Kurt in Switzerland
Just you watch. Gleick will be exonerated by the Spin Klatsch. Bleccch.
If he’s the one that brings in the donation money at the Pacific Institute you can expect him to be washed so white, people will think he’s his own ghost.
Agree with you mike bromley. Of course they’ll “exonerate” him. Just one more whitewash.
I tweeted to her (no response) just asking why she skips over the forgery aspect. In her lame article she says “Glieck didn’t do it” (jury is still out I’d say) but then does not deny the document was in fact forged and she willfully skips over the obvious issue – if Glieck *did not* do it, then who did? Glaring oversight for anyone calling themselves a “journalist”.
He will not be exonerated – that means to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame;
It is like the way people use the word “refute” when all they are saying is “deny” – there is a big difference and it shows the ignorance of the types who will “exonerate” people like Gleick !!
“The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation or announced any decisions at this point.”
The Board of Directors could not finalize a review, since none exists. Pacific Institute said in February that they hired an independent firm to do the review. Either they accept an acceptable result or change the result to suit their agenda. Be careful, Goldenberg and Pacific are likely allies. Complaints to the Guardian could easily be turned against sceptics when Pacific “review” exhonerates Gleick and Goldenburg. Don’t think this could be planned out? It isn’t over till the PI sings. And they’ve had more than two months to write the song. How would Goldenburg know who the “independent firm” is, if it even exists? Does anyone? Why not?
So even if he did not forge the document, there is still the question of: Why did he go public with it? If someone truely sent it to him anonymously, the right thing would be to throw it in the trash, not release it as if it were a genuine document.
There is way more to this then we are being told.
Anthony, what has changed?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/
just some guy says:
May 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm
“So even if he did not forge the document, there is still the question of: Why did he go public with it? If someone truely sent it to him anonymously, the right thing would be to throw it in the trash, not release it as if it were a genuine document.
There is way more to this then we are being told.”
Unless it was just Gleick who forged the memo after stealing the HI docs. Is there someone else who had enough information about HI to spin such a memo, besides Gleick, but who did not provide Gleick with those real documents? And Gleick would be covering for that insider? Ockhams razor and all.
Suzanne Goldenberg reported “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents …”
Peter Gleick has admitted he used a false identity to illicitly obtain the documents released. Now, how does S. Goldenberg explain Gleick’s releasing of the forged document, given Gleick’s admission? Are we supposed to believe somebody slipped a forged document in with the documents Gleick illicitly obtained, and Gleick didn’t notice? Are we supposed to believe that Heartland created a fake document just to trip-up Gleick, despite the risks?
Left out of S. Goldenberg’s story is who’s or whom’s review cleared Gleick. Why does that lack of important information remind one of AGWers claims of Global Warming? Where is the data and work or in this case who’s review, the reviewer(s) involved, expert(s) and legal authority(s) involved, who testified, what fact finding was done, did Gleick pass a Lie Detector Test or was he merely taken at his word, …?
Suzanne Goldenberg, your new position in charge of the classifieds is calling! Youhoo! Suzanne!! Classifieds!!!
I thought it was just us guys.
But now it’s clear that this woman, Susan Goldenberg, is also susceptible to … … … …
PREMATURE EMACULATION
[Hope she cleans up the mess]
on the topic of Occam’s razor, and the thought that “There is way more to this then we are being told.”
Not necessarily. If Gleick is nothing but a pathetically overpromoted idiot who never understood actual science and instead played politics for his career while mooching off the work of those around him, then he would easily be stupid enough to never had a clue that all of this would blow up in his face.
the man is a moron. he has always been a moron, and in this affair he made the kind of mistakes you would expect an incompetent moron to make. That quite neatly explains everything.
Why is Gleick still free and why has not Goldenberg been served with defamation and rico papers ( Look up RICO).
People, it’s very obvious who cleared Gleick. It’s Suzanne Goldenberg herself. The left uses words to shape their ‘reality’ – not report it.
What part of “wire fraud” am I missing here ?
From Wiki:
Wire
18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
===============
Seems the “or property” part might apply.
Heartland should press charges. Might be the only way to yank out the facts. Unfortunately, if there’s not enough evidence, a lawsuit could also backfire and just give charletons like Goldenberg more ammunition.
“When I first started in TV journalism in 1978, that sort of stuff would get me fired. Apparently the Guardian has no such standards for journalistic integrity.” Unfortunately the Guardian is not alone or even in a minority position. TV is one of the worst of a pitiful lot. They have turned into press release repeaters and advocates.
Isn’t there a pursuit of an identity theft crime committed by Gleick? What am I missing when I think that Heartland, and the person who Gleick impersonated, both have criminal complaints they could pursue. It seems that since Gleick confessed, a prosecution would be a slam dunk, and it would matter in no way what the Pacific Institute “found.” Or what the Guardian opined.
I thought there was no one in the world of journalism as bad as Seth Boreinstine [sp?]. Apparently I was wrong; there is Suzanne Golderburg?
Grey Lensman says:
May 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Why is Gleick still free and why has not Goldenberg been served with defamation and rico papers ( Look up RICO).
******
Because the DOJ is a political joke. Both Holder and Obama spoke out against SB1070 before they even read it.
It is a sad time we live in.
Rosco writes in response to my comment about Gleick:” He will not be exonerated – that means to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame;
It is like the way people use the word “refute” when all they are saying is “deny” – there is a big difference and it shows the ignorance of the types who will “exonerate” people like Gleick !!”
I put the word “exonerate” in quotes. Why do you suppose I might have done that?
Folks, pay no mind to the whole farce of ‘a review’. Is not Mr Gleick ‘President and cofounder’ of the Much heralded ‘Pacific Institute’? It is asinine to think for a second that Gleick will suffer any damages from his own ‘institute’ for his transgressions. It’s his house, kingdom, fiefdom. I wish that Heartland would actually sue him, though I’m starting to doubt that will happen either.
I’m with all of you about what should happen to him, but don’t hold your breath. Goldman just printed the article a month too quickly by mistake.
Gleick! Set! Match!