Suzanne Goldenberg writes that one of Gleick’s unnamed buddies says that he didn’t commit forgery, and that his fraud and theft was all good – because it helped stifle debate.
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.
Gleick’s sting on Heartland brought unwelcome scrutiny to the organisation’s efforts to block action on climate change, and prompted a walk-out of corporate donors that has created uncertainty about its financial future.
Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Suzanne then goes on to brag about how little money skeptics have. In her next article she will forget about this, and discuss the big money denier machine.
There was a time when liberals demanded debate and free speech. The end never justified the means. Now people like Suzanne have become the epitome of what they claim to despise – thanks to their mindless primitive fear of CO2, and fear of anyone who doesn’t share their neuroses.
Odd how a sceptic determined it was Gleick even before Gleick admitted to it, because the faked document used certain word combinations (such as “anti-climate”) which sceptics don’t use, but which Gleick used in his other writings…
Yeah. That is odd. The fake was full to the brim with Gleickisms. But he didn’t write it says Susie. Somebody else intercepted the legitimate Heartland documents, that Gleick committed a felony to acquire, then cherry picked through them to cobble together a collection of half truths and fiction to make the Heartland look bad, all while mimicking the writing style of Peter Gleick. Then they returned the whole kit to Gleick’s inbox leaving him none the wiser!
Bet that happens more often then people getting bit by a shark.
Ask her if she believes in the fairness doctrine.
She won’t answer…….
I think Gleick cleared himself…… Steve, I think we need to have our own external “review”. And then just post it. Stating that the first reporting was obviously an error and that Suzanne clearly intercepted the wrong memo. And state that if she turns it over, perhaps we can determine who forged her document. 🙂
She doesn’t have a fear of CO2, just a love of ca$h.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.