The Guardian has a review of 2012’s environmental news at
I joined in:
22 December 2012 6:40 AM
Suzanne Goldenberg says:
“The [Heartland] documents, which detailed a plan to indoctrinate school children against climate science, brought notoriety to Heartland.”
But the key document was a fake, wasn’t it, almost certainly fabricated by Dr Gleick himself (his style was identified by critics before his involvement was even known about).
Why does the Guardian omit this important fact?
This was deleted so I tried this:
22 December 2012 8:05
Suzanne Goldenberg, in her report on Peter Gleick and the Heartland Institute, omits an important fact.
which prompted this exchange:
UnderminingOrthodoxy 12:40 PM 0
You appear to have neglected to include any facts in your remark.
gchambers 12:47 PM
Yes, well, as my great great uncle CP Scott used to say, “Comment is Free, but Facts are Secret”
UnderminingOrthodoxy 1:02 PM
Thanks for not sharing.
gchambers 3:03 PM
See my comments at 6.40AM and 8.23AM. I do my best.
UnderminingOrthodoxy 3:28 PM
This is the only point we are ever likely to agree upon.
See my reply to your comment of 8:18, oh wait, you can’t any more. You really do have the whole business of AGW utterly wrong, and i would like to be allowed to discuss it with you. I would rather your nonsense were left to stand so that it can be publically rebutted.
gchambers 3:37 PM What nonsense?
That all disappeared without trace, so I tried a different tack, dividing my post into three, so that if one part was found offensive, the rest could still stand.
Here’s my top environment stories of 2012
1) The Met Office admitted there’s been no measurable global warming for 15 years.
2) Climatologist Tamsin Edwards started a blog entitled “All models are wrong”.
3) The Royal Society broke with a three-centuries-old tradition of scientific neutrality by producing a report embracing Malthusianism.
4) Scientists and politicians met in Rio and nothing happened. Then they met in Dofar and nothing happened.
5) The BBC’s “best scientific experts” who attended a seminar to advise top BBC executives on the reporting climated change were revealed to have been green activists. Just two out of 28 were working scientists. The rest were from Greenpeace, the Church of England, insurance companies, the US Embassy, plus a documentary film maker from Venezuela, and another film maker who is now a director of the family luxury hotel complex in Greece.
6) The Guardian quoted Kenyan biologist Risky Agwama as saying that global warming is causing cheetahs’ balls to overheat and make their sperm curl up.
7) Suzanne Goldenberg wrote a dozen articles about something that turned out to be not entirely accurate
They all went, but not before joddpurr replied to my 8.19AM
Let’s see your peer reviewed paper that says otherwise. Are you saying that Risky was cheating ?
gchambers @joddpurr12:55 PM
Certainly not. At Guardian Environment I throw the Precautionary Principle to the winds and swallow everything, however Risky (or risqué)
Finally, I tried to be deadly serious and on topic:
Suzanne Goldenberg writes:
Heartland … was the target of a sting by a noted water researcher Peter Gleick. Gleick posed as a board member to persuade Heartland to release confidential financial materials and strategic plans – which he promptly passed on to reporters.
The documents, which detailed a plan to indoctrinate school children against climate science, brought notoriety to Heartland.
Ms Goldenberg wrote a number of articles about this at the time – about twelve I believe.
She failed to note then, as she fails to note in the article above, that:
– Gleick’s action in impersonating a member of the Heartland board in order to obtain the documents was illegal.
– One of the documents was a forgery, which Gleick claimed to have obtained anonymously through the post
– Before Gleick’s involvement in the affair became known, a blogger had already suggested, on stylistic grounds alone, that the forged document might have been written by Gleick (an accusation which Gleick later denied)
– The serious accusations against Heartland (for example Goldenberg’s accusation about the “indoctrination” of schoolchildren) were based on, and supported by quotations from, the forged document
C.P. Scott was my great great uncle.
But that went too. (It’s true about my being related to C.P. Scott, but I can’t be sure of the exact relationship.)
Two other comments deemed offensive also disappeared:
cjfield 10:37 AM 4
So 2012 had weather. The big prediction for 2013 is more weather.
You guys left out the part where the sky is falling.
You can argue about the legal problems of associating Gleik’s name with a forged document, or whether my criticism of Guardian journalists went too far, but cjfield and ccw9mm were both making, in an jokey and entirely inoffensive fashion, the point that weather is not climate. They were disagreeing with the tenor of the article, making a point supported by the entire scientific community.
Does it matter? In a few years the Guardian will have disappeared, and no-one will remember that for more than two centuries Britain had a radical press whch was the admiration of everyone all over the world who valued freedom.
No point in getting worked up about it, I suppose. I think I’ll go and have a mince pie.