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.
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.
====================
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?
Beware, that Little Green Footballs site has been known to pass out malware.
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.
So the Guardian’s reporters are highly questionable and highly unethical–no surprise here; workers define the company they work for.
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.
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.
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.
Still there….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
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]
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.
Bill says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:15 am
Still there….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
=========================================================
Lol, not “still there”, it’s back there again.
Yeah, but Suzanne Goldenberg simply saith vnto you, What is trueth? And that’s the point.
I searched for the article at the Guardian’s web site before I type the transcript, and could not find it. But now I see the article IS online. Thanks Bill (wish I’d have seen your update before transcribing the JPG) Moderators may remove my transcript post if you feel that to be warranted.
Please use the link to full article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
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.
@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?
Anthony’s original link has May 20 in it…this new one has May 21… Guess they decided to put it back up or hold it for one day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
http://i.imgur.com/1gRIo.png
The link by WUWT has the date as 20-May while the article is actually 21-May as Bill pointed out.
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.
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” !!
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.
So when do they promote her to her level of competence, the classifieds?
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?
[snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]