Paul Bongiorno submits this story:
Mr. Watts and company,
Good day Sir. I’d received a response from the UK’s Press Complaint’s Commission regarding the UK’s ‘Guardian’ story of, ‘Peter Gleick cleared of forging..’ fiction.
The ‘PCC’s Simon Yip forwarded me the following:
============================================================
The concerns you have raised relate directly to the Pacific Institute Board of Directors. Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without the involvement of the organisation in question. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval. In such circumstances, we would generally require a complaint from the subject of the article, in order to take the matter forward.
We recognise, however, that the concerns you have raised are significant. Therefore, in the first instance, we will attempt to contact the Pacific Institute Board of Directors to make them aware of our services and the fact that we have been alerted to this coverage as a possible concern. We will endeavour to keep you updated on the outcome, but I should make clear that these approaches frequently take some time to result in a decision whether or not to take forward a complaint, so it may not be possible in this case to revert to you.
You are most welcome to contact us if you would like to follow up on it.
With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Simon Yip
Complaints Coordinator
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk
=============================================================
The speculation is that Goldenberg got some inside information from somebody privy to the “independent investigation” commissioned by the Pacific Institute and then jumped the gun with it just like she did with the original Fakegate story.
Sounds to me like another bought and paid for bucket of whitewash of the Muir-Russell brand.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[SNIP: Your comment will be posted when you supply something other than a throw-away e-mail address and use something other than an anonymous proxy server. -REP]
[snip – this is the bit bucket – I’m still waiting for you to provide a better idea per the first question, and I’m not interested in providing you private name information when you yourself don’t use your full name here – be as upset as you wish – Anthony]
I found this long, and very articulate presentation on the Gleick scandal. I, for one, find it impossible to watch this without being absolutely convinced that Gleick, or an accomplice of Gleick, wrote the forged document.
Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence. Nor, I suspect, will there ever be any hard evidence until subpeonas are handed out. Until such legal action is taken, unscrupulous hacks such as Suzanne Goldenberg will be able to continue spewing out propaganda saying “Gleick Cleared”, “Heartland Exposed” etc, etc, and continue getting away with it.
Stephen Richards says:
May 31, 2012 at 1:29 pm
See the Heartland conference streams. Joe Bart explained clearly why no action had yet appeared in the public domain.
==============================================
… and those reasons would be?
This is both tragic & comical.
Tragic that the UK bureaucratic class is so well-schooled in Orwellian phraseology that they fail to recognize their own irony; comical in that the concerns expressed here are not directed at Gleick but at the Guardian (& its journalist Goldenberg). Full stop. No need to mention the PI, Gleick, or even Heartland.
One simple phone call: Susan, where’s the beef?
Kurt in Switzerland
“,,,Pacific Institute Board of Directors. Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without the involvement of the organisation in question. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval.”
wtf is simon yip talking about?
i thought the complaint was about goldenberg.
one or more of us is just freakin dense, obviously
oops – i just read kadaka’s comment. he did it so much better than i.
Re the comment that in the UK the Federation of British Industry (FBI) changed its name to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to avoid confusion. The Chemical Industries Association (CIA) didn’t change its name. In those far away days you could impress your friends by telling them that you had a morning meeting with the FBI followed by lunch and then spent the afternoon with the CIA..
Well if Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute clears him of wrongdoing, then that’s Peter Gleick’s institute clearing Peter Gleick. Greg Laden had a post up explaining how exactly this is very significant. Took him several screen pages…
copner says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:27 am
I’m sure you and many others are familiar with the Penn State “Inquiry” that “exonerated” Michael Mann, but it’s worthwhile bringing this out into the light of day occasionally. Those familiar with the “investigation” will recall that Allegation 2 was stated thusly:
(emphasis added)
Despite 1)clear evidence from ClimateGate that Mann agreed to forward a request to Gene Wahl to delete e-mails releated to an FOIA request; 2) Mann himself in a newspaper interview stated that he knew such a request was wrong and he regretted that “he did not instantly object when a fellow climatologist asked him in 2008 to delete e-mails subject to Freedom of Information requests”; and 3) the Penn State panel purportedly had in its possession all of Michael Mann’s e-mails, which presumably had the the request he forwarded to Wahl,
the panel still concluded
I can believe a certain kind of investigation could “clear” Gleick of wrongdoing.
69% of the American public believes that it is somewhat likely, or very likely that ‘global warming’ scientists probably falsified their research.
[snip – we don’t know for certain, that’s a risky statement – Anthony]
Do we have anywhere the wording of the complaint that was made?
Well, what’s sauce for the goose.
Publish (in the UK of course) an article that reports hearing that the Pacific Institute has concluded that Gleick forged the Heartland document.
Someone forgot to put 1. Do not use until give permission on the e-mail sent to her, or is Phil C saying she made it up? The trolls always confuse me like LazyTeenager.
Robert E. Phelan says:
May 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm
pokerguy and James:
I don’t suppose it may have occured to you that the problem is not a lack of effort on HI’s part. Let’s just say that there are other parties that are curiously unwilling to pursue the matter.
________________________________
That does not surprise me in the least. If the District Attorney decides Not to pursue a case you are out of luck no matter how rock solid your evidence is. (BTDT)
I do not think people realize just how much a District Attorney plays gate keeper to justice. The fact that a law is on the books, a crime has been committed, and there is plenty of evidence that suspect Y committed the crime does not mean there will be a trial because the District Attorney’s Office is the one who makes the judgment call as to whether there is “enough evidence” to bring a case to trial and whether it is worth their time to bring the case to trial.
In my case it was explained that although we had plenty of evidence to convict the thrice convicted ex-con, he refused to plea bargain. Since there was a maximum sentence of 2 months probation the court saw no reason to pursue the matter any further, after all my vehicle had been returned …. (It was grand theft auto and the guy was caught with the vehicle)
With traffic tickets there is a fine that accrues to the state so THOSE “crimes” make it to court without any problem (and clog up the docket) while other crimes, such as theft or assault and battery that have no fines attached just get swept out the door. /snarl
Just spend a couple days down at your county cort hous and see how many cases get dismissed at the preliminary court hearing
In some cases, such as ours, it does not even get put on the docket for a preliminary hearing!
@Gail Combs says: June 1, 2012 at 1:13 am
After watching far to much Law & Order (Ice-T is the boy) your legal system scares the hell out of me, I’m sure someone quoted 98% plea bargainning because you can spend 7-8 years awaiting trial.
= = = = = =
Anthony,
What is the ’email discussion list’ of your peers?
John
Shevva says:
June 1, 2012 at 3:38 am
@Gail Combs says: June 1, 2012 at 1:13 am
After watching far to much Law & Order (Ice-T is the boy) your legal system scares the hell out of me, I’m sure someone quoted 98% plea bargainning because you can spend 7-8 years awaiting trial.
________________________–
After having the stardust knocked off I agree it scares the hell out of me too.
The USA is no longer a nation ruled by law, it is a nation ruled by men (the District Attorneys) If you are a bank or large corporation you get justice. If your are the little guy you get stomped on. I know of seven families that ticked off someone, a local drug dealer, and found themselves fighting off “Child Protective Services” who were fed false information. Two guys went to jail, two families lost their kids, two families fled the state and only one family was able to fight because the child involved was old enough to refute the lie. Since I do not have kids, my horses were abused and two killed.
Try reading http://fear.org/
To say the US legal system is messed up is an understatement. We now have a system of “policing for profit ” instead of the Rule of Law.