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.
Phil C;
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.
>>>>>>>>>
OH GIVE ME A BREAK!
C’mon Phil. There are five prominant links on their homepage, one of which is called “Learn about FakeGate”. You missed that? The rotating topics, one of which is Fakegate, and which take up 2/3’s of the screen also missed your attention?
I typed “Gleick” into the search engine, and got all sorts of links to articles that include links to fakegate.org
And very few people are aware that all except the forged document are their’s? Since the very first thing they did was stipulate to that, it seems to me anyone who was following the story in any level of detail at all (which you imply you have) would have been aware of that. A simple search on WUWT for Gleick or fakegate would also have turned up this information.
But I understand the ploy you are trying to use. By implying that not many people were aware of this, you also imply that Heartland has not been forthcoming on the issue, as if they had something to hide. At the same time, you distract people from the main point, which is that Gleick obtained the documents illegaly and admitted to doing so, that there is nothing embarrasing or unusual in the documents, and that the forgery was more than likely written by Gleick.
Who do you think you are fooling? 8 year olds?
I’m sure Peter Gleik will be happy to proffer the review and under-oath-
testimony of the reviewers and possibly the reporter in an actual court of
law for the Heartland damages case.
There is a simpler answer. The reporter posted the story. Shortly thereafter it was pulled by a senior editor or a Guardian lawyer. Why? Because (hypothetically) they know about the Heartland Lawyers’ Letter to the Guardian Lawyers. They know to stay away from this Gliek business, the reporter’s article could be interpreted inferentially to communicate Heartland is the lying party. That they pulled the story fast will look very good to a future jury and help the Guardian’s side that the reporter was an outlier, her actions not product of Guardian policy.
My comments are a guess.
Have these people all gone to the same Looniversty, their fight song must be “Shave and a Hair Cut, 2 Bits”.
Of interest. The Reports in the Guardians sister paper the Observer of the ambulance attack claimed that the Guardian’s war photographer, Sean Smith, has witness the aftermath of the attack, in situ.
However, Sean Smith has never written about the attack nor have any images of his ever been published. I have asked the Editor to confirm that Sean Smith was a witness, but the Editor refused to state that Sean Smith was or was not there, but stated the story as written was true.
I was told if I wanted more information I would have to take up the matter with the Press Complaints Committee.
She is not a bug in the Guardian, she is a feature because The Guardian is the typical leftist newspaper .
So Ted, you think that Penn State, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Deutsche, the U.K. Government, the U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General, and the National Science Foundation are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?
The Guardian is just practicing for the day when the British Stalin wants the peasants informed about the bounteous wheat crops of which, unfortunately, due to external threats to the state; they will get none.
Phil C says:
May 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hmmm you couldn’t find it?
A Scott,
TerryS over at Bishop Hill spotted the update is already on Gleick’s wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick
phil c
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.
filthy, we are ALL aware of this. What you refuse to be aware of, is the actual nature of those documents, which is this- THERE IS NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THEM.
Try using your wits, instead of acting witless.
Peter says, “…are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?”
Make money, you silly!
If Heartland has not denied the authenticity of that page, then it is authentic,
And your point is?
Anthony, the links you say are dead-ends come up fine here.
Maybe the collective “www” has you embedded in the wrong bubble. ☺
(or, horror… maybe me instead !!)
Well, all Guardian stories are virtual anyway so who cares.
I expect Ms Suzanne Goldenberg is going to try to spring something at the conference……?
You guys just aren’t reading the article correctly:
It says: “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose”. This obviously means Gleick was cleared of forging the ‘real’ Heartland documents, not the policy memo that he admitted forging. The next sentence that says: “A review has cleared… Peter Gleick of forging ‘any’ documents”, is purely poetic license on Suzanne Goldenberg’s part.
The following was originally intended to be a joke. Kinda rings true though. I’ll leave y’all to figure out where the Grauniad goes on this list.
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The Washington Post is read by people who think they should run the country.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their smog statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn’t have to leave L.A. to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country, and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who’s running the country either, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feministic atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are democrats.
10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
This Guardian/Gleickgate whitewash has all the makings of a great Monte Python skit; something along the lines of “fox investigates missing chickens”.
Peter says:
May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm
How ’bout protect the status quo?
You know, like all large and powerful organizations like to do.
Now that I’ve straightened that out for you, here’s another deep insight…
Don’t take candy from strangers.
The Guardian wrote and article on the gold exploration project I am working on in Indonesia about a year ago. It wasn’t even remotely accurate.
We advised the journalist of errors of fact, but they simply ignored them. The journalists never came out to the island, or the project, and relied on 2nd and 3rd hand information from various NGOs and locals.
This wasnt about reporting what was going on, or for mining or against mining, it was simply drumming a story without checking basic information. And in the 3rd world, getting reliable information is much harder than in developed countries. Far be it from the Guardian to actually check their information and sources.
And btw Peter, I wouldn’t put a Penn State “investigation” on the list of things to brag about…
DocMartyn says:
May 21, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Of interest. The Reports in the Guardians sister paper the Observer of the ambulance attack claimed that the Guardian’s war photographer, Sean Smith, has witness the aftermath of the attack, in situ.
However, Sean Smith has never written about the attack nor have any images of his ever been published. I have asked the Editor to confirm that Sean Smith was a witness, but the Editor refused to state that Sean Smith was or was not there, but stated the story as written was true.
I was told if I wanted more information I would have to take up the matter with the Press Complaints Committee.
==========================================
They won’t retract but offer no proof. A simple invention to further a cause. History repeats itself, again, and again.
“Peter says:
May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm
So Ted, you think that Penn State, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Deutsche, the U.K. Government, the U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General, and the National Science Foundation are all part of an international plot to… what, exactly?”
Problem being certain individuals of clout within those organisations. Stonewalling any real investigations. All belong to the same nudge, nudge, wink wink brigade!
Here’s an example. A true story:
A woman goes to a doctor complaining of constant headaches, and pressure behind the eyes. She’s referred to a specialist. The specialist doesn’t do any real examination or investigation of here complaint. He writes on her records. Urban neurosis.
She goes to another specialist and another specialist. They don’t doing anything either. Since they all know the first specialist and just read his notes.
In the end she dies. Autopsy finds out. Oh, no she had a brain tumor!
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!
Just another lethargic illusion,,,,,,, hockey schtick style…….
Posting from an ICS tablet,,, I hope it works 🙂
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US
Nothing really changes…..
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson
If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed
Samuel Clements (Mark Twain)
A newspaper, as I’m sure you know, is a collection of supposedly true stories written down by writers who either saw them happen or talked to people who did. These writers are called journalists, and like telephone operators, butchers, ballerinas, and people who clean up after horses, journalists can sometimes make mistakes.
Lemony Snicket
Journalists do not live by words alone, although sometimes they have to eat them.
Adlai E. Stevenson
Freedom of the press in Britain is freedom to print such of the proprietor’s prejudices as the advertiser’s won’t object to.
Helen Swaffer