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.
100% with you on making up news stories, indefensible.
But just to be perfectly clear: Israel is already in so far breach of the Geneva conventions and international law on a plethora of other matters that the ambulance issue is neither here nor there. 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 shows quite clearly that the Geneva conventions and much of international law don’t really apply to America and her allies.
You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you think that there would be any consequences for Israel if the ambulance incident were real, because you would then be certifiably delusional.
Guys and gals worried about the password…. stop it. It’s either a glitch which will be corrected, or (most likely) some information Anthony wishes to put out to his team, and his team alone, and maybe, discuss some things with them before posting something.
PhilC and Peter are people to point and laugh at.
James 🙂
Kozlowski says:
May 21, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Curious how they talk about an investigation clearing him but give zero info about WHO the investigator(s) were. It will be great fun reading the “investigation.” I wonder what evidence they used to prove he did not write the memo.
Evidence? *Evidence*?!? We don’ need no steenkeeng evidence!”
I suspect the investigation will just say there is a lack of evidence to place blame. (which the Guardian spins to mean “cleared”)
How does one prove something like this? The only way would be if someone directly involved actually stepped forward.
This video clip highlights the problem. No matter what science, facts or truths you throw at them they continue. As per the video, this would be a joke, but for the fact that they have infiltrated everywhere.
It is clear that new effective fronts need to be opened possibly starting with Gleick being charged/idicted and some others as well for fraud.
Something else occurs to me. Even assuming Gleick is telling the truth about this memo being “sent to him anonymously” (which we know is false), wouldn’t it still be extremely irresponsbily and libelous for him to “release” it as if it were a real document?
Either way, he would have known the document did not come from Heartland, so there’s a crime whether Gleick is the forger or not.
So the article is back up. The major change seems to be that this paragraph has been edited a bit from the original.
“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 did say “He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public, the Guardian has learned”
The Wiki page has also been edited because of the takedown of the Guardian article.
Nenndul says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm
100% with you on making up news stories, indefensible.
Then why did you just make up this one?
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 shows quite clearly that the Geneva conventions and much of international law don’t really apply to America and her allies.
Got a link to that vid? And the results of the investigation that stated definitively that it was Coalition troops shooting at civilians, as opposed to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or the Mahdi Army (MA) shooting at civilians, or as opposed to Coalition troops engaging AQI or MA (who wear civilian clothing — in violation of the Geneva Convention)? I realize that your stated beliefs won’t let you accept it, but US troops operate under the microscopic eye of the electronic media, and even false claims of war crimes (such as the Haditha incident) result in good people being castigated for doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing — engaging the enemy.
You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you think that there would be any consequences for Israel if the ambulance incident were real, because you would then be certifiably delusional.
You seem to live in a world in which there is no such thing as objective truth, only the perception of what the truth *needs* to be in order to justify your views.
Well, rather than just moaning about standards I went to the Guardian website and emailed Suzanne Goldenburg with this request.
“Hello,
I was reading the Guardian Environment section and found this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
This seems incomplete. There is no reference to who cleared Peter Gleick, what investigation took place or who defined the admitted fraud as a “sting”? The latter part surely raises questions about the impartiality of the review.
Please will you update the story with references?
At the moment this article is indistinguishable from mere rumour.
Thank you
Matt Courtney”
I also copied in the editor.
Look, it seems to be a disease keeping dodgy journalists.
News International, whose reporters, editors and quite possibly publishers were engaged in rampant phone hacking, seeking out of private bank account details and the like, are still employing two journalists caught hacking one of their nemeses, the labour MP Tom Watson.
The Independent reports this morning that ‘they are still employed by NI’.
Make sure you trash a more right wing media vehicle equally to one who is clearly less to your taste.
You wouldn’t want your reputation brought down by uncritical admiration of Murdoch, after all.
Your reputation will only remain high so long as you focus on climate issues, not becoming politicians who trash opponents and cover up the same misdemeanours of your own ‘family’.
Back on topic: A Google-query for “Gleick cleared” gives 15,800 hits, with at least the first 300 (because I didn’t scroll any farther) citing the Guardian article as the sole source of that information.
A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits.
A Google-query for “Guardian fails to print corrections” — 41,300,000 hits.
stefanthedenier says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm
yes, I agree – the whole global temp thingy is a more bulldust than science – but, as Mosher would say, it’s all we have to work with! 🙂
on a more serious note – the limitations of temp measurement and anomalies, etc, etc are well discussed (certainly in respect of the warmist claims of temp rises etc) but as yet I have not seen a universally ‘accepted’ totally validated dataset. By that I mean I am unaware of the existence of a major dataset (available to the public) where both the raw data and every adjustment ever made is documented and explained to the satisfaction of the warmist/skeptics alike – a proper ‘consensus’ version, if you will!
But then again – with statistics and data ‘analysis’, and of course, the modeling (LOL) – the climate boys can show anything they want – so in reality, the quality of the raw data could well be considered irrelevent?
M Courtney:
re. your post at May 22, 2012 at 12:26 am, that is excellent!
Please copy any response(s) you get to here.
Dad
Rhys Jaggar:
Your post at May 22, 2012 at 12:41 am is a disingenuous ‘red herring’.
Everybody knows the Murdoch press is reprehensible, but that has no relevance to this thread which is about an article by Suzanne Goldenberg which was published in the Grauniad (i.e. not published in a Murdoch newspaper).
In the event that a Murdoch newspaper publishes a similar article then we will consider it. Until then your accusation of “trashing opponents” is a reprehensible falsehood with the clear intent of smearing this blog.
Richard
Bill Tuttle writes:
Back on topic: A Google-query for “Gleick cleared” gives 15,800 hits, with at least the first 300 (because I didn’t scroll any farther) citing the Guardian article as the sole source of that information.
A Google-query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” — 226,000 hits.
A Google-query for “Guardian fails to print corrections” — 41,300,000 hits.
Hey, I absolutely love the “google query count” game! Here we go…
A google query for “Bill Tuttle is a moron” – 11,300,000 hits
A google query for “Anthony Watts scores an own goal” – 1,440,000 hits
A google query for “The Heartland Institute is full of liars” – 1,230,000 hits
Good stuff!
****
Phil C says:
May 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm
No I’m not paid to post here.
*****
Dirty deeds done dirt-cheap?
richardscourtney says:
May 22, 2012 at 4:40 am
The only response from the Guardian so far was an automated acknowledgement of receipt.
In fairness to Ms Goldenberg, she is in New York. I was not expecting a result within 24 hours. The time difference gets in the way.
Phil C says:
May 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Funny thing. Heartland admitted within days that the majority of the documents were actual Heartland documents. The rest of the world managed to see it. Why didn’t you?
The reporter’s cohorts in the AGW industry have assured her that a report “clearing” Gleik (is there any other kind) is in the works, It appears that the reporter has her own schedule, however, since she needs to have an article out there to disparge Heartland while the big conference is underway.
Jake Diamond:
Bill Tuttle provided a post which reported the coverage on the web of the alleged acquittal of Gleick as indicated by Google counts. He showed that all the coverage is based on the Guardian article which is the subject of this thread. Additionally, and clearly for interest, he cited Google counts concerning veracity of the Guardian as a source of information (i.e. related information).
Your post at May 22, 2012 at 5:21 am purports to be a response to the report from Tuttle. It quotes Tuttle then reports accounts of abuse of Tuttle, the Heartland Institute, and Anthony Watts which you say (I have not bothered to check) is indicated by Google counts.
Please explain the relevance – if any – to this thread of your abusive post.
Richard
Nenndul says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Israel is not in violation of any of the Geneva conventions, not that the Palestinians bother to follow any of them.
Nor did the video of allies shooting civilians in Iraq ever happen either.
Why don’t you go and peddle your myths and hatred of the west somewhere where there are people who care?
Jake Diamond says:
May 22, 2012 at 5:21 am
Hey, I absolutely love the “google query count” game! Here we go…
A google query for “Bill Tuttle is a moron” – 11,300,000 hits
Hiya, Jack, wanna play? Toss something relevant into the pot on the next deal…
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 shows quite clearly that the Geneva conventions and much of international law don’t really apply to America and her allies.
————————————
You’d have us believe that the terrorists are scrupulous adherents to the Geneva conventions? What does the Geneva Convention say regarding sawing off the heads of captured non-combatants? As someone committed to the universal enforcement of the Geneva Conventions that seems like something that you should look into.
richardscourtney says:
Bill Tuttle provided a post which reported the coverage on the web of the alleged acquittal of Gleick as indicated by Google counts.
Ah, so you think “Google counts” have value. I am genuinely amused.
A google query for “guardian best newspaper ever” – 66,000,000 hits
A google query for “Richard Courtney wears diapers” – 2,110,000 hits
A google query for “Jake Diamond is a genius” – 18,200,000 hits
Yeah, those “Google counts” really do have incredible value. I’m a believer!
He showed that all the coverage is based on the Guardian article which is the subject of this thread.
Actually, he didn’t. Of course, I’m using the standard definition of “all.” If you’re using a different definition (e.g., a definition where “all” and “some” mean the same thing), your conclusion will be different.
Additionally, and clearly for interest, he cited Google counts concerning veracity of the Guardian as a source of information (i.e. related information).
A google query for “Guardian an unreliable source of news” – 227,000 hits
A google query for “Guardian a reliable source of news” – 1,980,000 hits
Oops!
Your post at May 22, 2012 at 5:21 am purports to be a response to the report from Tuttle..
It is a response. Are you starting to understand it now?
Please explain the relevance – if any – to this thread of your abusive post.
You’re welcome!
All those supporting and opposing Israel and its behaviour:
Please take your argument to an appropriate blog. WUWT is not it.
Richard