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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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;
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;
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;
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;
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
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.
.
>>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…..
.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Jake Diamond:
I see you are still trolling.
At May 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm you say to Bill Tuttle,
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
“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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
@ur momisugly Jake, The troll bin, it calls to you.
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
Jake Diamond says:
May 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm
@ur momisugly 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.
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
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
🙁
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.
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.
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