Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Gleick uncleared | Main | Swords at dawn »
Sunday
May202012

Gleick "cleared"

The Guardian is reporting that Peter Gleick has been cleared of forging the Heartland documents.

A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his exposé of the rightwing Heartland Institute's strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.

Which is odd, because they then say this...

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.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (85)

So who did it?

May 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

In fact, who did it, who knew about it, and who were the accomplices, if there were any? :)

May 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

"cleared"? By whom?

The Guardian news item is short of actual news.

May 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

The only mention in the article that admits there may have been a forgery:: "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."

Claimed?? Is this report going to suggest it is genuine?

May 20, 2012 at 5:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndyL

By whom?

The Guardian would know who as they would have, without a doubt, authenticated the report before publishing an article about it. Under normal circumstances, this would include verifying the authorship and any references quoted. ::)

May 20, 2012 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

"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."

Pal review?

May 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteveW

"Cleared"???

This is a remarkably defective piece of "reporting" even by low Guardian standards!

At most this article suggests that results of some vague unspecified "external investigation" (who, what, where, when, how, why??) is going to be made public at some future date.

The utter lack of curiosity and investigatory zeal displayed by the Guardian in this article is contemptible.

This is not journalism, but "churnalism" -- circulating someone's PR which was evidently provided in confidence to the Guardian, since there is no actual information about sources and details.

What a squalid excuse for a journalistic entity this Guardian has become.

May 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

This suggests, that the matter of who 'cleared' Gleick might be harmful to the newsworthiness of his clearing.

May 20, 2012 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

No suggestion that it was either an independent or impartial review, just external.
Very weak.

May 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteveW

It reads to me like it's the Pacific Institute that's (claiming to have) done an investigation.

May 20, 2012 at 6:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterSleepalot

Yeah cleared by whom, and how? Have they found the actual "leaker"?

This is a classic tactical -short on actual information- kind of article that should leave any normal sceptic asking for more but will likely be embraced as the new messiah of exonerations by the gullible faithful.

I mean

Gleick, for his part, has consistently denied forging the document.

Consistently!? She can only link to his last Huffpo piece where he claimed he got an anonymous document. His last and only comment on the subject. If this is a tactical attempt to try it on and hope enough time has passed to sell shinola to the faithful then they're going to have to eventually show something better than this "assertion" from a standard simple minded enviro-bot Graun journo.

May 20, 2012 at 6:12 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

The way these idiots keep clearing each other of wrongdoing in the face of facts and evidence is great. No opponent could do a better job of trashing their credibility. Keep it up, guys! By the time they finish handing out ritual absolutions to each other nobody else will even care.

May 20, 2012 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT2

'A review'. A review by whom?

Him? His mates?

This is what passes for modern journalism?

Imagine this headline in the Guardian, "Murdoch cleared by review."

May 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

Rebekah Brookes has consistently denied any wrongdoing!

I would say you couldn't make it up, but it appears that they have :-)

May 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteveW

This is presumably the investigation by a independent external firm that the Pacific Institute launched when Heartland Insider story imploded.

Bishop Hill said: "Which is odd"

I don't follow. The external investigation into Peter Gleick's activities is claimed to have cleared him of the forgery only. He admitted obtaining the documents by deception so they are unlikely to have come to any conclusion on that. Heartland say one of the documents wasn't theirs. This apparent investigation into Gleick is saying it wasn't Gleick's invention either. I will be curious to see how this has been conclusively proved if at all.

May 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

It's amazing what can pass as journalism nowadays in a "national." Cleared by whom is the obvious question not answered by the article, but that doesn't matter, the headline will get away with the propaganda. As for Gleick -

"It’s probably not a view shared by many people on the climate realist side, but I consider such people to be real assets in our struggle. The number of ordinary people they can totally alienate with their wild claims is extraordinary, not to mention the rather guilty pleasure I take in watching their own supporter’s sharp intake of breath, every time one of them gets anywhere near a public podium. You can nearly read their thoughts – “Oh God, what are they going to say now.” I think of them as liabilities best left in place, to wreak the damage, which both their egos and personalities will inevitably compel them to do."

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/

Pointman

May 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterpointman

I'm surprised the Guardian hasn't nominated Gleick for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The article is full of praise for this man and poison about Heartland.

May 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

This by the way appears to be Gleick's bid to become 'the environmental movement's Alger Hiss'. Hiss went to his grave denying his opponents' account of his actions as a Soviet spy, but the evidence showing his guilt accumulated relentlessly over the decades. Hiss' fans in academia and on the far left though continued to idolize him to the end of his life, and even today, as their version of a persecuted saint.

May 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT2

It doesn't metter...we're all doomed anyway...back to black

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093

May 20, 2012 at 6:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterme

From RB's BBC article:

"Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere."

Are there really thousands of sites which have not been ice free for many millennia, but which are now free from ice?

May 20, 2012 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteveW

And what's with this "sting" meme? Is that new?

Gleick's sting on Heartland

Fakegate, as [Heartland] termed the sting

Goldenberg uses it twice, seems to be thinking of Gleick in a more smoky Paul Newman role, wonder what she's learned? ;)

Can we call climategate a "sting" now?

May 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

A bit OT, but does anyone else think that photo looks like Sergie from the compare the market (meercat) adverts?

May 20, 2012 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterSunderlandSteve

Translation: we've finished hiding our deceptive practices in obtaining grants to distort public opinion

May 20, 2012 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Reference to Black on the BBC. Why do you bother to read anything that man writes?

May 20, 2012 at 6:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

May 20, 2012 at 6:53 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

I have an interest in self-delusional people?
Nah, to be fair, I tend to usually follow links posted, as I don't like relying on other folks' interpretations of what someone else has said.

As a tribute to your name, btw, an old joke.
Schrodinger's cat walks into a pub, and it doesn't.

May 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteveW

Blimey. Well that settles it then. Here I was thinking that Gleick was blatantly guilty - but no, there was a review:

"A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his exposé of the rightwing Heartland Institute's strategy and finances..."

His "exposé of the rightwing Heartland Institute's strategy and finances" - which exposed what, exactly? I can't help feeling that it is the word "rightwing" which is the real key to the Graun's bizarre blind spot in this area.

May 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

Move along nothing to see...

May 20, 2012 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterTomRude

'The Guardian'. Is that short for 'the guardian of facts'?

May 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterHugh K

The Leopart In The Basement said:

Can we call climategate a "sting" now?

I don't think there has been any evidence of any wrongdoing or deception yet. In the obtaining/duplication/publication of the emails that is...

May 20, 2012 at 7:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

Re: the RB article about methane --
Methane concentration in recent years has increased by about 5 ppb /yr. How much effect does this have upon global warming? The annual increase is equivalent to approx. 0.002 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. [Source] At this rate, in 100 years, it would amount to 0.2 W/m^2. [To be precise, it's a little less than that, because the forcing is not linear in the concentration of methane. But to one significant digit, the exact value is still 0.2.] Using the IPCC's range of 2 to 4.5 K for a CO2 doubling (3.7 W/m^2 of forcing), this comes to an increase in average global temperature of 0.1 to 0.2 K over a century.
.
I wonder why RB didn't include this rather basic information in order to put things in perspective.

May 20, 2012 at 7:20 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

Steve W: That's what I tell my wife

May 20, 2012 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Schrodinger's Cat

Just sayin'
:-)

May 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterme

May 20, 2012 at 7:20 PM | Gareth

Ok let's not compare Climategate with "The Sting", how about "The Great Escape"? ;)

May 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Who conducted the investigation and what did they investigate? I'd guess investigation was conducted by the Pacific Institute and that they didn't find any evidence that the fake memo was written on Gleick's work computer. This will be their excuse for allowing Gleick to return to his position.

The evidence is absolutely clear that Gleick: a) personally obtained the information needed to prepare the fake memo, b) must have given that information to whoever he claims wrote the fake memo (assuming he didn't do it himself), and c) personally distributed the fake memo (which he knew wasn't an original) along with the authentic documents he stole. At minimum, he is guilty of conspiracy to produce and distribute libelous information. Some of the characteristic phrases in the fake document strongly suggest that Gleick contributed intellectually to the content of the fake document.

Someone asked: What was Gleick cleared of? Typing the fake document on his work computer.

May 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

These mysterious independent investigators have done the Impossible. They have proved a negative hypothesis. It appears to be accepted by all parties that the document was a forgery. Therefore, the hypothesis has to be 'Gleick did not write the forgery'. in the absence of proof of the positive hypothesis, ie that some other person did write the forgery, Gleick's innocence cannot be proved.

Re whether there are thousands of sites which have been ice free for millennia, the evidence says no. Yes. There have been Bond events during the Holocene, and the earth has cycled up and down on a time scale of hundreds to the odd thousand years, but basically this is superimposed on a slowly decreasing temperature from the Holocene Maximum around 6-8000 years ago.

May 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterDespairing

Goldenberg’s article on Gleick’s innocence was posted just one minute after her other article on Heartland (the 15th, by my count)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash
This article claims that “the thinktank's claims to reasoned debate lie in shreds ... Along with the damage to its reputation, Heartland's financial future is also threatened by an exodus of corporate donors” but ends with the good news that fossil fuel companies have stepped in to fill the gap left by those leaving the ship, which apparently isn’t sinking yet.
Goldenberg also calls Gleick a liar. Strong words from the journalist who continued to quote the document Gleick didn’t fake long after the Guardian had admitted that it was false.

May 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

How very, well, "convenient" that Goldenberg should have learned of this alleged "review" (and its purported results) on the eve of the Heartland conference - about which she has a "companion" piece.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash?intcmp=239

Both of her articles seem to be vehicles for recycling (and reinforcing) the memes found in the faked memo - which she, of course, was instrumental in promoting in February (without verifying its provenance and authenticity).

Goldenberg demonstrates her remarkable facility for accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative wrt Gleick, whose status as "hero" she is valiantly attempting to keep intact. Predictably, she also succeeds in eliminating the positive and accentuating the negative wrt to Heartland. Her verdict:

the thinktank's claims to reasoned debate lie in shreds and its financial future remains uncertain.

Post-modern "journalism" at its finest!

May 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterHilary Ostrov

How very, well, "convenient" that Goldenberg should have learned of this alleged "review" (and its purported results) on the eve of the Heartland conference - about which she has a "companion" piece.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash?intcmp=239

Both of her articles seem to be vehicles for recycling (and reinforcing) the memes found in the faked memo - which she, of course, was instrumental in promoting in February (without verifying its provenance and authenticity).

Goldenberg demonstrates her remarkable facility for accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative wrt Gleick, whose status as "hero" she is valiantly attempting to keep intact. Predictably, she also succeeds in eliminating the positive and accentuating the negative wrt Heartland. Her verdict:

the thinktank's claims to reasoned debate lie in shreds and its financial future remains uncertain.

Post-modern "journalism" at its finest!

P.S. Sorry geoff, just saw your post with similar observations - and apologize for this duplicate as I had neglected to "login" prior to first attempt to post [which may well appear as it is now in moderation limbo]

May 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

While if its to the normal standard of 'investigative' in climate science it consisted of asking Gleick is he did then just taken his word for it if he said no. That of course will impress no no else no matter how desperate the Guardian is to promote it.

Goldenberg on this subject cannot be trusted, they show their willing to lie time and again over this , the biggest give away is that the Guardian is has never opened up any of her articles to comment becasue they know she taken to bits for the vast amount of BS is pumping out .

May 20, 2012 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Johann Hari must have advised him.

May 20, 2012 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterAC1

A bit OT, but does anyone else think that photo looks like Sergie from the compare the market (meercat) adverts?

May 20, 2012 at 6:50 PM | SunderlandSteve


Ha ha ha! Thank you for that. Whenever I saw his picture I wondered who he reminded me of.

May 20, 2012 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterA Lovell

Anyone here still in any doubt that it's all infowar over at the Guardian, rather than even the semblance of the truth? Post-modern journalism at its finest.

Pointman

May 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterpointman

exposé?

The only people exposed were Gleick, his accomplices and the apologists who said anything goes.

May 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Bishop Hill, J'accuse!

You are indeed implicated to be among the leaders of "a shadowy network of rightwing organisations working to discredit climate science", casting your flimsy web of deception about the gullible in order to zombify your diabolical fossil-fueled cult. However the jig is up, "Bishop". You will soon answer for your heinous crimes before the tribunal, which no doubt for your treacherous designs against Gaia (not to mention your blasphemous moniker) will sentence you to unending 'treatment' until you confess your transgressions publicly, declare your undying loyalty to Mannkind and and call out your evil henchmen one by one for punishment.

May 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterneill

A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his exposé of the rightwing Heartland Institute's strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.

In other news, Charles Manson has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

So many lies, so many media shills, so little time.

May 20, 2012 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterCarrick

Cleared.
No doubt in the same way as Muir Russell "cleared" CRU.

May 20, 2012 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Presumably this is the outcome of the 'independent' investigation by a firm of friendly consultants that the Pacific Institute announced in February. I have just checked their website, but all references to the Gleick affair have vanished from their list of press releases:

http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/archive/

WUWT documented the mysterious doctoring of online announcements about Gleick at the time the affair first came to light here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/24/peter-gleick-requests-leave-of-absence-from-pacific-institute/

Probably only the Wayback machine can now resurrect what was actually said at the time.

I expect that PI is putting up the streamers and balloons for the 'welcome back' knees-up for PG as we speak.

And yes, all of science must be waiting with bated breath for the methodology of this investigation, which for the first time ever, has conclusively proved a negative. Perhaps they found a leprechaun that was sitting on his shoulder at all material times?

May 20, 2012 at 10:44 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Shades of Walter Duranty and the NYT? The sooner the Grauniad slides into the dustbin of history the better. To quote one of your heroes, Grauniadistas; "'You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on—into the dustbin of history!'" (Leon Trotsky). LOL

May 20, 2012 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris M

Strange sense of deja vu. He's been cleared and can now return to this post. Presumably it was an "independent" review chaired by Muir Russell, helped along by someone who worked for the Pacific Institute for 18 years.

May 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

I get a 404 error from that page now, so perhaps the Ministry of Truth is rethinking its doublespeak.

May 20, 2012 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJon Jermey

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>