I nominate Dr. Peter Gleick for the first annual Walter Duranty award

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Mee...

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009 (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

Roger L. Simon writes on PJ Media:

Starting this year, PJ Media, in conjunction with our good friends at The New Criterion, will be awarding the first annual Walter Duranty Prize for Journalistic Mendacity.

Walter Duranty – it will be recalled — was the New York Times’ Moscow correspondent in the 1920s and 1930s who whitewashed Joseph Stalin’s forced mass starvation of the Ukrainians (the Holodomor) and many other aspects of Soviet oppression.

The Duranty Award

Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his efforts.

Despite numerous attempts by Ukrainian organizations and others, the prize has never been revoked. Duranty’s photograph remains in its honored place on the New York Times’ wall along with the newspaper’s other Pulitzer winners.

The first annual Duranty Prize will be given for what our readers consider the most egregious example of dishonest reporting for the fiscal year 2011-2012 (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012).

We will be officially accepting nominations from PJM and TNC readers starting May 1, 2012, at Duranty@pjmedia.com (but if you want to go ahead now, no one’s going to stop you – the email address is functioning).

A Duranty Prize Committee of seven journalists and writers will then sift the nominations and decide the winner (or winners) to be announced at a ceremony in New York in the Fall.

===============================================================

While I considered Dr. Michael Mann for his recent book contributions, it seemed inappropriate since this was about dishonest journalism, not delusional self-promotion.

That of course leaves Dr. Peter Gleick, of the Pacific Institute and his “Fakegate” crimes, duping reporters at Newspapers and other media (Guardian and BBC, plus Revkin at NYT for example) that should have known better, into reporting a trumped up story based on Gleick’s self admitted deception to steal documents from the Heartland Institute, plus a “fake” document, to give an otherwise mundane set of documents “legs” for a compliant press.

Leo Hickman, Suzanne Goldenberg, and company at the Guardian, plus Richard Black at the BBC thought they had a bona fide leak of incriminating information on the funding of climate skeptics by the Heartland Institute. Turns out they were played for fools by Gleick and when he was cornered by skeptics following the evidence, admitted to his phishing and dishonest impersonation to create a false news story, in a Huffington Post confession here.

I doing so, Gleick has broken both state and Federal Laws. I’m told that actions are pending.

Here’s a review of some salient points:

Some notes on the Heartland Leak

Notes on the faked Heartland document

If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?

BREAKING: Gleick Confesses

NCSE accepts Gleick’s resignation

Dr. Peter Gleick may have run afoul of a new cyber-impersonation law in California

Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

Heartland Institute Releases Peter Gleick Emails Detailing Fraud, Identity Theft

Peter Gleick requests leave of absence from Pacific Institute

Koch takes the NYT and Revkin to task

Gleick declares in Mann’s book review (after phishing Heartland) – “there IS a war on”

Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals

Gleick and Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 1343

Gleick and the HP “Pretexting” Scandal

Forensic analysis of the fake Heartland ‘Climate Strategy Memo’ concludes Peter Gleick is the likely forger

Gleick and the Watergate Burglars

=========

Given the uproar and that journalistic train wrecks Dr. Gleick has spawned with his dishonesty, and since he has played the role of science journalist in the past, writing for Forbes, Huffington Post, as well as other opinion pieces in science magazines and journals, I think he more than qualifies for the first annual Walter Duranty award.

For those that may think Gleick doesn’t qualifies as a journalist, I add this update from his Wikipedia Page, which shows him acting in that capacity:

Gleick is the editor of the biennial series on the state of the world’s water, called The World’s Water,[4] published by Island Press, Washington, D.C., regularly provides testimony to the United States Congress and state legislatures, and has published many scientific articles. He serves as a major source of information on water and climate issues for the media, and has been featured on CNBC, CNN, Fox Business, Fresh Air with Terry Gross [18], NPR, in articles in The New Yorker,[19] and many other outlets. He has also been featured in a wide range of water-related documentary films, including Jim Thebaut’s documentary “Running Dry”[20], Irena Salina‘s feature documentary Flow: For Love of Water,[21], accepted for the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, and and Jessica Yu and Elise Pearlstein’s 2011 feature documentary Last Call at the Oasis from Participant Media.[22] In 2010 his book Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water was published by Island Press.[23] He served on the scientific advisory boards of Thirst, Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk, and other water-related films.

And let’s not forget his numerous articles on Forbes and Huffington Post.

As PJ Media says in their posting:

We will be officially accepting nominations from PJM and TNC readers starting May 1, 2012, at Duranty@pjmedia.com (but if you want to go ahead now, no one’s going to stop you – the email address is functioning).

I’ve sent in mine, WUWT readers are of course welcome to second that nomination.

h/t to WUWT reader Kelly Haughton

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pull My Finger

This may be the most contested award… ever. To stand out among your peers in the MSM as most unabashed liar is no small feat.

There are so many worthy candidates, deciding who to nominate is very difficulty. But given Gleick’s lying and (more than likely) fabrication of the smoking gun document, this might put him at the top of the list. Only problem is, he’s not a journalist (or a scientist, or ethical, or….).

Robbie

Yes it’s time to give some prices to alarmists who over-exaggerate the climate alarm or conduct fraud or misconduct to promote their case.

Any email, written letter, tweet, or Instant message from Mr. Michael Mann should secure a nomination.

John W.

The problem is that while Gleick has been pretty much proved to be an egregious liar, he’s not a journalist. I don’t think he’s eligible.
Krugman has been nominated for a lifetime achievement Duranty Award.
Maybe we could nominate Romm for the Duranty Award for Environmental Journalism. Or Philip Campbell, “editor” of Nature.

Don B

My nomination is Justin Gillis of the New York Times, who wrote what Roger Pielke, Jr. called The Worst NYT Story on Climate Ever.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/worst-nyt-story-on-climate-ever.html

Stonyground

If this award is for bad journalism generally then the competition is intense. This blog:
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/
Is mainly about the pathetic UK dead tree press. Their track record for printing stuff that they just made up is very impressive.

Todd

If Gleik is the “Stalin” in this then it would be anybody that covered this fiasco as being the “Walter Duranty.”
Now…who did their best to white wash what Gleik did, for a gullible readership? Might we keep the award in house and give it to Revkin? Seth Borenstein would certainly be a finalist for his continued quoting of the faked document, even after finding out the document was a fake! Talk about the spirit of Duranty. Wazhisname, that BBC guy, also.

EternalOptimist

Nominating Gleik is not a good idea if there are actions pending, imho
let the law take its course

Mumbles McGuirk

I think this is the wrong tack. There are many true journalists who fit the category better and deserve a Duranty. What we OUGHT to do is start our own Gleich Award, given to the scientist who shows the greatest disregard for honesty, morality, or ethics in their pursuit of pushing a non-scientific agenda through their work.

Peter Whale

I always wondered who schnozzle Duranty was when I was a kid.So this Pinocchio award fittingly goes to Peter Gleick. I bet his brother can do another chapter on chaos theory. Excellent book by the brother.

I think Leo Hickman should get the Walter Duranty award and Peter Gleick should get the Walter Mitty award.

Sent and seconded 🙂
“WHCY’s” Wikipedia …was my first choice though.

Coalsoffire

And while we are thinking about awards. What about the tireless efforts of a certain frequent poster here to cleanse Wikipedia of all truth on the climate question? That should earn him some sort of recognition.

Roger Longstaff

I nominate Nicholas Stern for:
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-page report released for the British government on 30 October 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and also chair of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) at Leeds University and LSE. The report discusses the effect of global warming on the world economy. Although not the first economic report on climate change, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.[1]

Anthony: For some reason, this reminded me of the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award.

Krazykiwi

I’m going to nominate William Connolley. We can’t have the legions of MSM liars being unchallenged their online counterparts.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

Steve from Rockwood

I think Gleick is an excellent candidate and voted for him.

Anthony:
I am not nominating ANYBODY until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit weighs in. If anyone can top your recommendations it will be him, Then I will see if it’s still worth the thought to catalog all those miscreants…
In the meantime surely you have nailed possibly the most deserving recent candidate.
Then there is Warwick Hughes’ little blue book of climatologists I could never love.
Then there is the crop of “reporters” and “commentators” on MSNBC…
Get out the popcorn!

Eric Simpson

That effusive self-important geek, Gleick, shouldn’t be nominated for any award, however dubious. What he should be nominated for is going to jail, please. Or for record rank incompetence for this unkempt bearded Berkeley leftist. What a clown.

Ian H

I think you meant to write “compliant press”, not “complaint press”. Although they do complain a lot.

TRM

This might be limited to journalists so the sad case of Dr Trick might not qualify. Mind you he did blog and that is a form of journalism. He’s got my vote although I think he will be in tough with the Phony Kony bunch.

LearDog

I don’t know – Gleick as ‘journalist’. Hmmm…..gives him cover for scientific escapaes …?

Peter Miller

Krazykiwi
I agree – William Connolley should be the nominee. As the gatekeeper from Wikipedia, he has probably done more than any other individual to keep the truth about ‘climate change’ from the general public.
In comparison, Peter Gleick is a harmless, albeit cranky, lightweight.

Burch

“… when he was corned by skeptics…”
Corned???? What, they marinated him in brine containing garlic, peppercorns, and cloves?
How bizarre…

LexingtonGreen

I love this idea! I am not in the loop on things, but could it be awarded at the Hearland event and make this an annual event?

Barbara Skolaut

“While I considered Dr. Michael Mann for his recent book contributions, it seemed inappropriate since this was about dishonest journalism, not delusional self-promotion.”
Yee-ouch! 😀

Rhoda R

I think that Mumbles McGuirke has the right idea: We need a dedicated award for climate research mendancy or at least scientific mendancy — journalistic fraud is so **** wide-spread that we almost have to specialize to get across the idea that our information gate-keepers are telling porkies.

Lloyd Graves

Are you kidding me? Seth Borenstein of the AP has to be right near the top of biased and alarmist reporting. Everything penned by Borenstein is the most god awful tripe posing as science I’ve ever seen. He is just a pompous very ill informed schlub spewing lies and misinformation, not a Science Journalist.

Affizzyfist

OT but did anyone record the Australian ABC TV climate show and the debate afterwards?

Myrrh

There is someone who does epitomise the corrupt global warming scientists who subvert science with callous disregard for those it affects, and using like methods to silence any scientists daring to speak up..: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Merovign

I think it’s unfair to have to pick one. There should be at least 150 spots on that prize every year.

There should be a well-publicized short list of runners-up. This is such a target rich environment that it would be a shame to use up the annual award on just one scoundrel.
They should whittle the list down to a dozen or twenty names, with a short blurb explaining why each one made the semifinals. Gleick may be the odds-on favorite, but for the amount of real damage done to science and honest scientists, I would have to vote for Michael Mann. And then there’s the single-handed destroyer of Wikipedia credibility, Billy Connolley…

I abhor contests where there can be ONLY ONE winner.
In this field, there are a “rising sea level boat-load” of deserving winners.
Just thinking off the top of my head…
the units of measurement could be “Pinocchios”.
The event is a documented statement, with link.
The author of that statement earns from 0 to 10 Pinocchios depending upon the damage to our understanding of the world.
True statements in situations where they don’t apply might earn 1.
Statements that ignore and are counter to well known historical facts might earn 3-6.
Statements or acts that rewrite historical facts might earn the full 10.
This system by design allows for accumulating scores by author over the year, multiple years, and for lifetime achievement.
Prizes are awarded to anyone above 3 sigma in the distribution.
Honorable mention to anyone above 2 sigma.
The process is it’s own documentation.
Would it work as a crowd source project?

sherlock

Mr. Watts, a couple of typos found in your otherwise excellent piece:
I suspect you meant “compliant press” instead of “complaint press”, since they could stand to do a lot more complaining about the lies they are fed by some people.
And I hope what you meant by “…he was corned by skeptics…” was actually “…he was cornered by skeptics”, although he may have indeed deserved rougher treatment.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

Don Keiller

I nominate Heartland.
Why haven’t they filed charges against Gleick ?

RayG

I second Mumbles McGuirk’s proposal (April 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm) to establish a Gleick Prize to be awarded to “…the scientist who shows the greatest disregard for honesty, morality, or ethics in their pursuit of pushing a non-scientific agenda through their work.” If this motion passes, I then nominate MMann to be the first recipient.

Jer0me

Somewhat off-topic, but I have particular interest in the Ukraine famine in question. My grandfather published one of the very few records of the event. We still have the camera he used, and my niece would very much like to get hold of the original book, which our family has lost. I know there are several copies about, but cannot locate any.
If anyone has ever heard of a copy, please do let me know.
The author is “Alexander Wienerberger”, the name of the book is either one of the two mentioned here:
http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL465033A/Alexander_Wienerberger
Hart auf hart
or
The 1932-33 original photographs from Kharkiv, Ukraine
but may well be in Russian (my mother cannot remember)
Any details would be gratefully received by email at Alexander.Wienerberger at processmapping.com.au
Thanks in advance for any information!

Andrew Russell

What is needed is a set of “Climate Oscars”. The Gleick Award, the Dan Rather “Fake But Accurate” Award, the Michael Mann “Censored FTP” Award, The Phil Jones “Pal Review” Award, the James Hansen “Boiling Oceans” Award, etc., etc. This would require an evening’s ceremony (maybe in conjuction with the Heartland Conference) where an appropriate statuete could be handed out.
Hmm, this could be fun!

PaddikJ

Gleick has managed to convince a lot of people that he’s a Scientist (I am obviously not one of them), but I doubt the same holds true for Journalist, no matter what his puff sheet says.
This award should be reserved for full-time “professional” “journalists” such as Borenstein, Revkin, and at the top of my list, the Beeb’s Richard Black.
Maybe legend-in-his-own-mind Gleick could get an honorable mention in the amateur catagory.

BarryW

Should be Al Gore for his An Inconvienient Truth. He was a reporter in Vietnam so he qualifies on multiple counts.

Lew Skannen

On the evidence presented I think Gleick will be hard to beat. In most competitions there is usually only a whisker between the top contenders but in this case I think that Glieck is head and shoulders above his nearest rivals.
He makes the others look like mere amateurs. It is a bit like watching Suleymanoglu at the Seoul Olympics or Tyson versus George Formby…

Myrrh

Jer0me says:
April 25, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Somewhat off-topic, but I have particular interest in the Ukraine famine in question. My grandfather published one of the very few records of the event. We still have the camera he used, and my niece would very much like to get hold of the original book, which our family has lost. I know there are several copies about, but cannot locate any.
If anyone has ever heard of a copy, please do let me know.
The author is “Alexander Wienerberger”, the name of the book is either one of the two mentioned here:
http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL465033A/Alexander_Wienerberger
Hart auf hart
or
The 1932-33 original photographs from Kharkiv, Ukraine
========
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=Alexander+Wienerberger&bt.x=61&bt.y=10&sts=t
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Alexander+Wienerberger&mtype=B&hs.x=20&hs.y=7
for interest:
http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/thomas_walker/muss_russland_hungern.htm
The 1932-33 original photographs from Kharkiv, Ukraine – a couple of places did have it listed, but not available.

clipe

Duranty Lifetime Achievement Award for Suzuki?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/25/david-suzuki-foundation/

Myrrh

Jer0me – p.s. you could try Hay for a search (there’s a terrific book festival every year there) – http://www.booksearch-at-hay.com/

Bloke down the pub

I hope these guys have got good lawyers as I suspect whoever wins the prize may not be too pleased about it.

catweazle666

Geoffrey Lean and Louise Grey of the Daily Telegraph should be worth a (dis)honourable mention!

Fred

There should a a Lysenko Award for corruptly, lying, cheating scientists.
The Duranty award should be kept inept, lying skanky journalists.

johanna

Affizzyfist says:
April 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm
OT but did anyone record the Australian ABC TV climate show and the debate afterwards?
——————————————————————-
Fizzy,
You can watch them tomorrow on the ABC website:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/
by clicking on iView and selecting or searching for the program you want. But, they haven’t been shown yet – it’s Thursday morning 9.30am here and they are on tonight, so wait 24 hours.