Paging Suzanne Goldenberg and Guardian editors – Pacific Institute Says Gleick Review Not Final

Quark Soup writes: Gleick Review Not Finalized, Pacific Institute Says

Last week Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reported:

“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.”

But the Pacific Institute is telling me that no such clearing has occurred:

“The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation or announced any decisions at this point.”

=============================================================

I pointed out the “shonky” journalism employed by Gleick apologist Suzanne Goldenberg.

It seems she jumped the gun again, just like she did in the original Fakegate release without bothering to verify facts and documents first. When I first started in TV journalism in 1978, that sort of stuff would get me fired. Apparently the Guardian has no such standards for journalistic integrity.

The UK Press Complaints Commission is the place to start to make a complaint.

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kurt in Switzerland

Absolutely. Keep up the pressure.
Kurt in Switzerland

Just you watch. Gleick will be exonerated by the Spin Klatsch. Bleccch.

Kaboom

If he’s the one that brings in the donation money at the Pacific Institute you can expect him to be washed so white, people will think he’s his own ghost.

pokerguy

Agree with you mike bromley. Of course they’ll “exonerate” him. Just one more whitewash.

I tweeted to her (no response) just asking why she skips over the forgery aspect. In her lame article she says “Glieck didn’t do it” (jury is still out I’d say) but then does not deny the document was in fact forged and she willfully skips over the obvious issue – if Glieck *did not* do it, then who did? Glaring oversight for anyone calling themselves a “journalist”.

Rosco

He will not be exonerated – that means to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame;
It is like the way people use the word “refute” when all they are saying is “deny” – there is a big difference and it shows the ignorance of the types who will “exonerate” people like Gleick !!

Glenn

“The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation or announced any decisions at this point.”
The Board of Directors could not finalize a review, since none exists. Pacific Institute said in February that they hired an independent firm to do the review. Either they accept an acceptable result or change the result to suit their agenda. Be careful, Goldenberg and Pacific are likely allies. Complaints to the Guardian could easily be turned against sceptics when Pacific “review” exhonerates Gleick and Goldenburg. Don’t think this could be planned out? It isn’t over till the PI sings. And they’ve had more than two months to write the song. How would Goldenburg know who the “independent firm” is, if it even exists? Does anyone? Why not?

just some guy

So even if he did not forge the document, there is still the question of: Why did he go public with it? If someone truely sent it to him anonymously, the right thing would be to throw it in the trash, not release it as if it were a genuine document.
There is way more to this then we are being told.

Glenn
Glenn

just some guy says:
May 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm
“So even if he did not forge the document, there is still the question of: Why did he go public with it? If someone truely sent it to him anonymously, the right thing would be to throw it in the trash, not release it as if it were a genuine document.
There is way more to this then we are being told.”
Unless it was just Gleick who forged the memo after stealing the HI docs. Is there someone else who had enough information about HI to spin such a memo, besides Gleick, but who did not provide Gleick with those real documents? And Gleick would be covering for that insider? Ockhams razor and all.

Darren Potter

Suzanne Goldenberg reported “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents …”
Peter Gleick has admitted he used a false identity to illicitly obtain the documents released. Now, how does S. Goldenberg explain Gleick’s releasing of the forged document, given Gleick’s admission? Are we supposed to believe somebody slipped a forged document in with the documents Gleick illicitly obtained, and Gleick didn’t notice? Are we supposed to believe that Heartland created a fake document just to trip-up Gleick, despite the risks?
Left out of S. Goldenberg’s story is who’s or whom’s review cleared Gleick. Why does that lack of important information remind one of AGWers claims of Global Warming? Where is the data and work or in this case who’s review, the reviewer(s) involved, expert(s) and legal authority(s) involved, who testified, what fact finding was done, did Gleick pass a Lie Detector Test or was he merely taken at his word, …?

Richard Day

Suzanne Goldenberg, your new position in charge of the classifieds is calling! Youhoo! Suzanne!! Classifieds!!!

geologyjim

I thought it was just us guys.
But now it’s clear that this woman, Susan Goldenberg, is also susceptible to … … … …
PREMATURE EMACULATION
[Hope she cleans up the mess]

on the topic of Occam’s razor, and the thought that “There is way more to this then we are being told.”
Not necessarily. If Gleick is nothing but a pathetically overpromoted idiot who never understood actual science and instead played politics for his career while mooching off the work of those around him, then he would easily be stupid enough to never had a clue that all of this would blow up in his face.
the man is a moron. he has always been a moron, and in this affair he made the kind of mistakes you would expect an incompetent moron to make. That quite neatly explains everything.

Grey Lensman

Why is Gleick still free and why has not Goldenberg been served with defamation and rico papers ( Look up RICO).

noaaprogrammer

People, it’s very obvious who cleared Gleick. It’s Suzanne Goldenberg herself. The left uses words to shape their ‘reality’ – not report it.

u.k.(us)

What part of “wire fraud” am I missing here ?
From Wiki:
Wire
18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
===============
Seems the “or property” part might apply.

Just some guy

Heartland should press charges. Might be the only way to yank out the facts. Unfortunately, if there’s not enough evidence, a lawsuit could also backfire and just give charletons like Goldenberg more ammunition.

“When I first started in TV journalism in 1978, that sort of stuff would get me fired. Apparently the Guardian has no such standards for journalistic integrity.” Unfortunately the Guardian is not alone or even in a minority position. TV is one of the worst of a pitiful lot. They have turned into press release repeaters and advocates.

Isn’t there a pursuit of an identity theft crime committed by Gleick? What am I missing when I think that Heartland, and the person who Gleick impersonated, both have criminal complaints they could pursue. It seems that since Gleick confessed, a prosecution would be a slam dunk, and it would matter in no way what the Pacific Institute “found.” Or what the Guardian opined.

stan stendera

I thought there was no one in the world of journalism as bad as Seth Boreinstine [sp?]. Apparently I was wrong; there is Suzanne Golderburg?

Reg Nelson

Grey Lensman says:
May 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Why is Gleick still free and why has not Goldenberg been served with defamation and rico papers ( Look up RICO).
******
Because the DOJ is a political joke. Both Holder and Obama spoke out against SB1070 before they even read it.
It is a sad time we live in.

pokerguy

Rosco writes in response to my comment about Gleick:” He will not be exonerated – that means to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame;
It is like the way people use the word “refute” when all they are saying is “deny” – there is a big difference and it shows the ignorance of the types who will “exonerate” people like Gleick !!”
I put the word “exonerate” in quotes. Why do you suppose I might have done that?

D. Robinson

Folks, pay no mind to the whole farce of ‘a review’. Is not Mr Gleick ‘President and cofounder’ of the Much heralded ‘Pacific Institute’? It is asinine to think for a second that Gleick will suffer any damages from his own ‘institute’ for his transgressions. It’s his house, kingdom, fiefdom. I wish that Heartland would actually sue him, though I’m starting to doubt that will happen either.
I’m with all of you about what should happen to him, but don’t hold your breath. Goldman just printed the article a month too quickly by mistake.

Babsy

Gleick! Set! Match!

Mindbuilder

Even if Gleick didn’t create the fake document, nearly as big a crime was that he lied about the source for no good reason. He claimed that he was an insider and that he got the fake document from Heartland, apparently to increase its credibility. He has admitted that he was not a Heartland insider and that he didn’t get the fake document from Heartland. Now he claims that he got it from an anonymous source. He could have and should have just reported the true source of the documents from the beginning. The reason he didn’t is obvious, he knew it was fake. If somebody brings forth a fake document and lies about the source, it is fair to assume that he faked it himself.

BillyV

As long as speculation is rampant, did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleick? She may have some pangs of conscience with the situation he is in and what better way to try to extract him from the mess. Birds of feather syndrome?

wws says:
May 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm
on the topic of Occam’s razor, and the thought that “There is way more to this then we are being told.”
Not necessarily. If Gleick is nothing but a pathetically overpromoted idiot who never understood actual science and instead played politics for his career while mooching off the work of those around him, then he would easily be stupid enough to never had a clue that all of this would blow up in his face.
the man is a moron. he has always been a moron, and in this affair he made the kind of mistakes you would expect an incompetent moron to make. That quite neatly explains everything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can only add to that very insightful comment. Also, we shouldn’t forget that Goldenberg is a complete imbecile as well. More, she’s a moron who has been shown to be one who fabricates stories.

Just some guy

Lets not get carried away. There’s overwelming evidence pointing to Gleick. There’s, um, no evidence pointing to Goldenberg.

joe

i love it when the MSM accuses someone (Heartland) of being “right-wing”, lol. When you’re as far to the left as they are, everyone looks “right-wing”.

juanslayton

BillyV: …did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleick?
I doubt it. The forged document was superficially plausible. Ms. Goldenburg’s writing isn’t.

Elftone

BillyV says:
May 25, 2012 at 8:45 pm
As long as speculation is rampant, did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleick?

An interesting point, barring the fact that she’s (in my humble opinion) barely competent to tie her own shoelaces, let alone copy his writing style. She seems to subscribe to the “salad shooter” style of current journalism, where – if one flings enough enough stuff, factual or not – some of it is bound to stick.
Anyway, a formal complaint has been lodged, which may or may not have any effect. But it at least might irritate the powers that be at The Grauniad, and cause them to look twice at her belchings before allowing her to post her unsubstantiated and poorly-written diatribes.

pat

shameful stuff from The Economist:
26 May: Economist: Climate scepticism (unattributed)
Toxic shock
A climate-change sceptic is melting
THE Heartland Institute, the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change, is getting a lot of heat…
The institute’s problems began in February when an American water scientist, Peter Gleick, published internal Heartland documents that he had obtained under a false name. They provided details of its accounts—including references to an anonymous donor who gave $8.6m between 2007 and 2011—and of a plan to send teaching materials denouncing global warming to American primary schools. (Mr Bast says that far from exposing his institute, the documents exonerated it from charges that it was a front for the fossil-fuel industry.)…
http://www.economist.com/node/21555894
Wikipedia: The Economist
The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England,[9] owns the rest…
The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming…
The Economist has endorsed both the Labour Party (in 2005) and the Conservative Party (in 2010[33]) at general election time in Britain, and both Republican and Democratic candidates in the United States…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

BillyV says:
May 25, 2012 at 8:45 pm
As long as speculation is rampant, did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleck?

Implausible, unless she’s adept at Gleick’s style of writing — a forensic analyst pointed to Gleick as the probable author: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/professional-forensic-stylometric-analysis-of-the-fake-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-concludes-peter-gleick-is-the-likely-forger/

joe says:
May 25, 2012 at 9:14 pm
i love it when the MSM accuses someone (Heartland) of being “right-wing”, lol. When you’re as far to the left as they are, everyone looks “right-wing”.

Unless they’re describing Marxists — then the adjective is “moderate” or “middle-of-the-road”…

pat

it’s all over, Ms Goldenberg:
25 May: Deutsche Welle: Nathan Witkop: Bonn climate talks end in squabbling
Bickering over procedural issues tied up much of the two weeks of UN climate talks that ended in Bonn on Friday, the first time negotiators met since last year’s summit in Durban.
“The window of opportunity is very slowly closing down on us,” said conference chairwoman Sandea de Wet towards the end of the session, as delegates struggled to agree on a chair for an important new working group known as the Adhoc Durban Platform…
***”The spirit of collective action was broken in Bonn,” said the European Union’s main negotiator Artur Runge Metzge…
Separately, the International Energy Agency reported on Thursday that the world is increasing its dependence on carbon-intensive energy. In a report, it said emissions from fossil fuels reached a new record of 31.6 billion tons last year, up 3.6%…
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15978278,00.html
26 May: Reuters: Nina Chestney: Deadlock on climate talks could sink global deal
Hopes are fading that climate talks in Qatar late this year will make even modest progress towards getting a new globally binding climate deal signed by 2015, as preliminary negotiations in Germany this week have left much work to be done…
“(We know) trade talks collapsed in Doha. Are we setting the stage for the collapse of climate negotiations?” said Mithika Mwenda, co-ordinator for campaign group the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance.
“This is like the Titanic, where both developing countries and industrialized countries will sink.”…
“I think it would be unrealistic to think there will be major breakthroughs very soon,” the IEA’s chief economist Fatih Birol said on Thursday, referring to the climate talks.
“Climate change is sliding down in the international policy agenda, which is definitely a worrying trend.”…
Expectations for international climate talks in general have faded since a summit in Copenhagen in 2009 failed to deliver a globally binding deal…
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/05/25/19800076.html
Mwenda should give thanx, and the final excerpt should have said “faded since Climategate in 2009″.
——————————————————————————–

davidmhoffer

pat says:
May 25, 2012 at 9:44 pm
shameful stuff from The Economist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I quit reading the Economist a long time ago. Like many of the science journals, the quality and accuracy of the articles has become so abysmal that it isn’t even worth reading for the purpose of mocking them.

Perry

J.K.Rowling must have had Goldenberg in mind when writing Rita Skeeter into the Harry Potter stories. Rita Skeeter is a reporter for the Daily Prophet & specialises in yellow journalism, defined thusly: “Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Golden is a type of yellow!! Says it all, really.

Ian Hoder

Actually I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she had inside information from someone on the investigation team who told her “Gleick will be cleared of forgery when our investigation concludes. We start the investigation tomorrow by the way.”

mfo

The only review likely to be going on is by the Pacific Institute’s legal counsel and liability insurers into the potential liability the Pacific Institute may have resulting from the actions of Gleick.
As they could be subject to litigation the Pacific Institute will know they have a duty to preserve documents and electronic records. Their computers will need to be digitally forensically examined to determine whether Gleick used their computers in deceiving Heartland and whether there is an electronic record of the forged document.
All data, records and documents which may be subject to discovery and subpoena will have to be located, reviewed and prepared for litigation so that they can be produced quickly upon request.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
It would be extremely foolish to give this kind of information would to Goldenberg.

DirkH

Perry says:
May 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm
“Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.”
No. The NYT, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel are operating in a coordinated fashion, citing each other, giving each other accolades, creating a new warped and corrected interpretation of reality. The three serpents of leftist journalism winding around each other. (The Guardian looks a little blue around the nose, though, when one looks at its circulation. Hope it dies. What will the other two use as replacement? Well, they could declare the Pravda as a trusted source, then it would come full circle.)

Davy12

Mafia clears wise-guys of robbing banks. After a full and thorough investigation into the bank robbery the Mafia found no evidence to support the claim. A local police spokesman confirmed his satisfaction with the speed and thoroughness of the inquiry.
Guardian Journalist Suzanne Goldenberg says this investigation proves that the Mafia has changed. Before they would have had no investigation or inquiry.

Aside from the broader tendencies of a crime syndicate, isn’t “Pacific Institute” pretty much another name for Peter Gleick? He’s not just an employee who happened to be hired; the “Institute” is his corporate structure.

polistra

Aside from the broader conspiracy, isn’t “Pacific Institute” pretty much Gleick’s own corporate structure? He’s not just an employee who happened to be hired.

Jimbo

The problem is that even if he’s cleared doesn’t mean mean he didn’t do it.
Now onto some literally brighter weather news (not climate):

“Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat.
……………………..
The writer of this article observed during this week’s flight closer to the mountain, recovering snow piled up, covering the whole mountain peak.”
http://www.eturbonews.com/29410/snow-adorns-crown-kilimanjaro

[my bold]
Expect a pal reviewed paper out soon in your area explaining how it’s caused by global warming climate change.
H/t Marc Morano

Jimbo

News just in: Suzanne Goldenberg has been seen buying up truck loads of whitewash.
I still don’t know who carried out the investigation that Ms. Goldenberg refers to. If the Pacific Institute employed external investigators then who are they?
Now onto some terrible climate news:

British butterfly defies doom prediction to thrive in changing climate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/24/brown-argus-butterfly-climate-change

This must be the first story that I have read from the Guardian in which global warming has been good for good things. 😉

cui bono

Nail casserole*. Gleick was identified by the literary fingerprints in the forged document. Later he admitted to everything except the forgery. Now he’s been ‘cleared’ of the forgery.
How..er..ironic.
* Put nail in casserole dish, Add vegatables, lamb cuts, onions, carrots, diced suede, stock, sauce, sauted potatoes, etc. Cook in oven slowly for 90 minutes, stirring occasionally. Remove from oven. Throw nail away. Serve.

LearDog

The headline
– “Peter Gliek cleared of forging documents in the Heartland expose” and text
– “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”
seem to fail the Code’s tests on Accuracy –
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information…
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence…

just some guy

Gleick forged the memo!
Here is a quote from Gleick: “I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html
How many people use the word “set” to describe a group of individuals?
Here is a quote from the forged memo: “I propose that at this point it be kept confidential, and only distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff.”

The Guardian, like the Independent, has its very own notion of what journalistic integrity is.
“As for his employers and editors, they don’t appear to have marched him out of the building holding his bits in a cardboard box; he’s got away with it. Give it a few months of wound licking and he’ll be back up on his podium holding forth as if nothing has happened.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/another-body-floats-by/
Pointman