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.
I sometimes wonder how many professional journalists are unaware of Google cache.
This has just taken another weird turn – the Guardian has now put the story back online:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
My dear Phil,
Why are you changing your argument in midstream? I never wrote that Heartland denied the authenticity of documentS (PLURAL). I always referred to one document that Heartland denied was real. And there was no discussion of documentS (PLURAL), until you apparently realized , OMG, Heartland did deny that the “confidential memo” is real. So why do you bring up this red herring of multiple documentS (PLURAL) when you write: “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 first stated, very concisely “the Heartland Institite has neither confirmed nor denied the autbeticity (sic) of this document.” referring to one document, that is, the PLAN that was referenced in the Guardian article and the one document to which I was referring. I appreciate your candor in noting that the Heartland has denied the authenticity of the “confidential memo”, but seeking to shift the argument to something not previously discussed is rather tawdry, wouldn’t you agree? Please try not to shift arguments so, it ill behooves you.
RE:
“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?”
A budget is budget. A budget may contain an item for a plan. The budget item is a brief descriptioon of things that are intended to be funded and is not the same as a plan. Why would you think they are the same? Has this PLAN ever been completed? If not, how would you have any inkling that it was to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change”? Please supply all evidence that is not an assumption.
I have no idea what kind of K-12 climate change curriculum would be developed and I doubt you do either, as no one has seen any type of PLAN other than the fake memo. When you have a copy that wasn’t forged please let me know. The only indication that there was a PLAN to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change” was in the document that you now agree that Heartland has denied as being real.
Finally, please refrain from attempting to shift arguments. There’s is always a need to use words when they fit. You’re wrong, and you have admitted that Heartland has denied the previosly discussed PLAN is not real.
Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about what is in the other documents; other than the fact that Gleick lied to get them speaks volumes regarding the honesty of climate scientists.
Phil C,
I assume that you would like answers to your questions and you are not just sounding off. Read the following webpage and, in particular, the section headed “Third Paragraph”.
http://fakegate.org/bast-on-forged-memo/
You will see that on 27th February (only 2 weeks not 4 months after Fakegate), Heartland did confirm that they had a budget item of $75,000 in 2012 for a project to produce teaching materials for schools.
Quoting the Grauniad, you state that the purpose of this project is to “spread doubt among kindergarteners on the EXISTENCE of climate change” (my emphasis). Phil, no one on the skeptic side of the debate believes or claims that climate change does not exist. There has never been a period in the earth’s history when the climate hasn’t been changing. It is your side of the debate which tries to give the impression to the lay public that climate change is a recent phenomenon. You say that if the project is not for this purpose then, “what do you think it intends to do with a $75,000 K-12 climate change curriculum?” The answer lies in this extract from an open letter from Heartland to Rep Markey sent 15th March.
http://fakegate.org/heartland-institute-responds-to-rep-markey-letter-on-fakegate/
“Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).
Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather”), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.”
The fact that the above issues ARE controversial is evidenced by the fact that so many people dispute the IPCC line on climate change and back up their stance with arguments based on empirical evidence. Children should be taught to evaluate the evidence produced by both sides of the debate. The one-sided teaching which currently takes place is so skewed as to be propaganda.
Eli Rabett says:
May 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm
It’s back. Anyone want a mulligan?
I’m curious, what’s the PRF (pulse repetition frequency) of this new style of appearing / disappearing blog posts?
Phil C says:
May 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm
davidmhoffer — No I’m not paid to post here.>>>
What? You mean you provide a perfect example of the conniving and manipulation and half truths and other disingenuous and misleading methods which are the mainstay of climate “science” for free?
The story is now back online.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
I can’t seem to find out who cleared him. Even if he has been cleared I still don’t believe him as he has already confessed to being a liar and wire fraudster. Would you believe a man like that? If he were in court he wouldn’t have an ounce of credibility left.
“A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents ”
What review? Who conducted it? What evidence was examined, and how were conclusions reached? What were the conclusions, for that matter?
“…although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.”
Look – whitewash is all well and good, but you’ve got to give people a smidge more than ‘oh, we investigated and found nothing.’
Pathetic.
The fact that the above issues ARE controversial is evidenced by the fact that so many people dispute the IPCC line on climate change and back up their stance with arguments based on empirical evidence. Children should be taught to evaluate the evidence produced by both sides of the debate.
Except the scientific debate does not really have two sides, children should indeed be informed of the truth, which is that the overwhelming number of published studies support the IPCC position (to use that shorthand), and that there is not a single professional scientific association that has not issued a statement confirming said position.
I predict that the stuff produced by Wojick (who has 11 peer-reviewed papers in the area of, erm, epistimology) will ever be accepted into any self-respecting science teacher’s classroom, the target market is probably the conservative home-schooling movement protecting their offspring from liveral contamination. Sadly the last Heartland foray into this area does in fact qualify as one-sided, and unfactual, presenting such gems as satellite and ballon readings show an ‘almost unperceivable’ increase in global temperatures, much more accurate than surafce records which are mostly taken in cities, and the Hockey Stick study was never peer reviewed….
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/index.htm
The link to the article is working. Sleazy writing at its best (worst?). Absolutely no references, and lots of biased indeterminate statements. This kind of reporting is for one purpose only, entertainment (at least to somebody) provided to sell advertising.
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.
There’s a pic of both ambulances in the report. If they’d been targeted by an Israeli UAV, they would each have been hit with an AGM-114 (Hellfire II), which is not a small projectile. The Hellfire II is a hyperbaric missile, designed for urban warfare — if either of those ambulances had been hit with one, the only thing left would have been the engine block and the transmission. If they’d been hit with one and the missile failed to detonate, the entry hole would be a hole with foot-long cruciform cuts at the circumference, the entire roof would have been caved in, and the windshield, door, and panel windowframes would have been crushed.
Since the pics showed damage more likely caused by rocks and small arms fire, neither of which any nation’s UAVs use, the HRW report is dicey at best.
How in the world can you consider this journalism? “A review” has cleared him? Without saying who did the review, this is less than a story.
Marion;
“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. ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, if they cannot halt that decline in circulation, they’ll just have to…. hide it.
dcfl51:
You wrote:
I assume that you would like answers to your questions and you are not just sounding off. Read the following webpage and, in particular, the section headed “Third Paragraph” …
Thanks for the info; this is helpful. I was not aware of the “fakegate.org” website, nor that it was run by the Heartland Institute. I’d been looking for a press release on Heartland’s website and found nothing. So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.
The Guardian might soon fire her along with all the other staff. 😉 LOL.
And they wonder why even their own left wing readership is abandoning them in droves. People just want the facts and not fairy tales and made up crap.
Guardian Circulation (Audit Bureau of Circulations)
January 2000 – 401,560
January 2011 – 279,308
January 2012 – 215,988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2012/apr/13/abcs-national-newspapers
Bullshit is a fixed predetermined board of inquiry.
http://www.whitewashthefacts.bull/cagw
11 no 12 separate, WHITEWASH investigations fail to reveal any deletion or falsification of any data = MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE?
1.Feb2010,RA-10 Inquiry Report:
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
2.March2010,House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
3.April2010,Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
4.May2010,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500216002.pdf
5.June2010 RA-10 Final Investigation Report
http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
6.July2010,Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
7.July2010,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html
8.Sept2010,Deutsche Bank Report:
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp
9.Sept2010,U.K. Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
10.Feb2011,U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General’s Review:
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/OIGSearchResults.aspx?k=Michael%20Mann&cs=This%20Site&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.doc.gov
11.Aug2011,National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
Permalink | Share it
12: “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents ”
What review? Who conducted it? What evidence was examined, and how were conclusions reached? What were the conclusions, for that matter?
brought to you by http://www.inyourfacecronyism.bull
A story built out of nothing but thin air. Yet when you search Peter Gleick you’ll find many links to “Gleick cleared”
Here is a cut and paste of the article just in case…
Climate change scepticism
Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose
Scientist who admitted to deception to obtain internal Heartland documents was found in investigation not to have faked material
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Follow @suzyjiguardian.co.uk, Monday 21 May 2012 11.01 EDT
Peter Gleick has been cleared of forging documents.
Photograph: Paul Chinn/The Chronicle
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 organisation’s efforts to block action on climate change, and prompted a walk-out 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 apologised for using deception to obtain internal Heartland documents last February.
He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents, although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.
It was not immediately clear the findings would allow Gleick to make an early return to his job at the Pacific Institute. However, despite the official leave, Gleick has remained professionally active, appearing at public events and accepting speaking engagements. He delivered an Oxford Amnesty lecture on water in April.
The leaked Heartland documents included a list of donors and plans to instill doubts in school children on the existence 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 organisations working to discredit climate science.
In the aftermath, Heartland lost a number of corporate donors,beginning with the General Motors Foundation. The disclosure GM had funded Heartland work unrelated to climate was embarrassing for a foundation publicly committed to action on climate change.
The thinktank also tried to capitalise on Gleick’s actions, devoting a section of its website to Fakegate, as it termed the sting, and appealing for donations to combat what it called leftwing bullying.
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.
Heartland also accused Gleick of forging the document and published findings of computer forensics experts that the memo did not appear to be a genuine strategy document.
Gleick, for his part, has consistently denied forging the document.
looks like the Guardian report is back again
> So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.
All but one of the documents that Gleick released appear to be *derived* from Heartland’s. The content appears to be Heartland’s or very close to the real Heartland’s documents.
Even these have been altered very slightly, possible more than once, before appearing on desmogblog and elsewhere. Even the versions that were initially on desmogblog differed from later versions. A simple binary compare to the files Heartland sent to Gleick when phishing would show a mismatch. And a comparison would really need a detailed review of every aspect of their content, and then that leaves aside whether the meta-data is identical. So Heartland can’t
really verify them easily.
This was spotted on Lucia’s and there was some discussion about how to get from early Desmogblog versions to later versions, and how even the earlier versions may even have possibly been already altered before being posted. At the very least, the versions on Desmogblog were open and resaved, with alterations being stored back in the files, but more may have been done, and nobody could tell conclusively what had been done.
But one of them – the key one – isn’t Heartland’s at all.
Just to clarify my previous comment – the alterations between early desmogblog versions and later desmogblog versions don’t appear to be in the content of the documents, but appear to be just side-effects of opening and re-saving – as far as anybody could tell. I’d happily stake a $100 on that proposition being true, but I wouldn’t stake my house on it.
Tom Nelson reports:
Monday, May 21, 2012
Fun at the Heartland conference
Astronaut Harrison Schmitt sitting nearby, along with Joe Bast, Marc Morano, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, and Goldenberg.
Suzanne appears to be drinking non-locally-grown coffee.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.se/2012/05/fun-at-heartland-conference.html
Wikipedia has updated its entry on Gleick:
“Gleick denied forging the document, and was later cleared by an investigation for the Pacific Institute.[27]” The reference of course is to the Guardian’s second article of 21 May.
The Wiki article goes a little further than the Guardian article in explicitly claiming that Gleick has been cleared of being the forger of the single document that he is accused of forging, although the Guardian does make the unsupported claim that “a review” cleared him of forging “any documents” was complete but that the results had not yet been made public.
A contributor yesterday added the above claim. Earlier today it was removed, then added again with the 21 May reference. “Jonathan A Jones” is the WIki user that reestablished the claim. He’s a professor of physics at Oxford, where Gleick gave the Amnesty lectures and has a book in print. I wonder if Jones has knowledge of an investigation by Pacific that discovered evidence to exhonerate Gleick from being the forger, or that he trusts the Guardian reporter’s word, or if he and Gleick are just friends.
Phil C you write document’s not document or documents. Are you referring to the one document that we know was forged or are you informing us that more than one document was forged?
Phil C says:
May 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm
“dcfl51:
You wrote:
I assume that you would like answers to your questions and you are not just sounding off. Read the following webpage and, in particular, the section headed “Third Paragraph” …
Thanks for the info; this is helpful. I was not aware of the “fakegate.org” website, nor that it was run by the Heartland Institute. I’d been looking for a press release on Heartland’s website and found nothing. So the document’s Glieck released are Heartland’s. I wish the other folks I communicated with here would have just said that. Seems to me very few people are aware of this.”
Everyone is aware of this. It is old news. No one involved, including Heartland, ever claimed any of the documents were forged, except the memo. And a two second google search of Heartland will get you a press release. Who do you think you are fooling besides yourself? Or do you even know you are fooling yourself?