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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The story is back up again from
Monday 21 May 2012 16.01 BST – that is 2hrs 15mins ago
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…
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.”
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
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.
It’s back. Anyone want a mulligan?
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.
Phil C;
Are you, or are you not, paid to post comments on this site?
Grauniad
http://www.grauniad.co.uk
She’s at it again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash
Doesn’t the UK have a rather robust slander policy? Couldn’t Heartland, in theory, sue her in court for this?
I am able to access the guardian article without any issue. Is it possible that the earlier loss of access was a technical issue?
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 .
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.
==============================================
Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not quite:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/
The main question is how long is the struggling Guardian going to last, with it’s diminishing too cheap to by it, socialist base.
“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
davidmhoffer — No I’m not paid to post here. How about you?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.