Suzanne ‘pants on fire’ Goldberg
I had considered using the strapline ‘factual inaccuracy’ for this piece, as I did with Guardian reporter Leo Hickman in the wake of the raid on Tallbloke Towers by Lincolnshire police last December. But that doesn’t cover it. The Guardian’s smear campaign against the Heartland Institute has plumbed new depths with a May 22nd story (I use the word advisedly) from Suzanne Goldenberg about the ICCC7 conference hosted by the Heartland Institute.
It centres around the wire fraud committed by Pacific Institute Director and former American Geophysical Union Ethics Committee member Peter Gleick, in obtaining internal documents from Heartland using identity theft, and adding a forged document designed to smear the organisation to them before dissemination.
Goldenberg states:
The pressure point occurred last February when the scientist on the conference mugs, Peter Gleick, used deception to obtain confidential documents from Heartland, including a donors list and and plans to indoctrinate school children against belief in climate change.
my italics.
Goldenberg knows this last part of the statement to be untrue, which makes this a lie, rather than a factual inaccuracy. The ‘policy document’ containing the ‘plans to indoctrinate school children’ is a forgery unrelated to the real documents Gleick fraudulently obtained. It is unknown for sure at this stage whether Gleick wrote it himself, though it looks likely, given the similarity of the style to his other writing. It was included as a pdf document with a different production date to the real documents (which contain nothing remarkable).
Goldenberg continues:
[Heartland President Jo] Bast told the conference Heartland had met with the US attorney’s office to discuss criminal charges against Gleick. He said Heartland was waiting for a formal decision before deciding whether to sue Gleick.
The exposure led some corporate donors to cut their funds to Heartland – until Bast committed a huge PR blunder, approving a provocative billboard ad likening scientists to psychopaths.
This constitutes a second lie. Heartland’s Electronic billboard campaign, (withdrawn swiftly following criticism from their supporters) does not single out ‘scientists’ for comparison with psychopaths but believers in co2 controlled climate in general . Attack pieces containing lies lower the reputation of the Guardian further. Needless to say, this is not one of the Guardian pieces open for comment.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“OK, teacher, I have a riddle for you,” boasted Johnny. “Let’s say three women are at a bar and they each order a single scoop ice cream cone. The first one eats it by gently licking it around the edges, the second slowly sucks the ice cream off the cone from the top, and the third gobbles the top and then sucks the rest out of the cone. Which one is married?”
After a few seconds of contemplation, the teacher replied, “Well, I think it must be the third, the one that gobbles the top and sucks out the inside.”
Johnny responded, “No, teacher, you’re wrong — it’s the one with the wedding ring. But I like the way you think.”
Likewise, we now know Suzanne freely associates “psychopaths” to “scientists”, and thinks Gleick guilty of deception.
Lol: 🙂
Of course, we can’t prove we know what Suzanne Goldberg believes wrt the forged document. You’d think she’d at least note that the organisation which suffered Gleick’s self confessed misdemeanor says it is a forgery, in the interests of balanced reporting. I’ve sent the Press Complaints Commission a missive.
Has Goldgerg ever published an article which allows comments? The Guardian must know she’d be absolutely flayed.
Perhaps it’s a version of the truism about how to look slim: stand next to somebody fatter than you. Likewise when Carrington, Hickman et al. know they’re pushing the boundaries of credibility (OK, give me some poetic licence here), they wheel in Goldberg’s insane dribblings to make them look moderate.
They could use the same principle to make their year-on-year circulation figures look good:
The Guardian 214,128 ; -18.86 The Independent 98,636 ; -45.43 (Press Gazette, April 2012)
Not much substance in Goldberg’s article, just the usually blindness to the truth about the forged document published at the behest of Gleick. Another opportunity for Heartland to sue?
But, what matters is that global warming/climate change/climate disruption/sustainability it´s fine ! In a few days it will be held the 2012 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, then all efforts made by institutions, blogs, etc. to stop the “tricks” simply do not work.
“SayNoToFearmongers says:
May 24, 2012 at 10:57 am
Has Goldgerg ever published an article which allows comments? The Guardian must know she’d be absolutely flayed. ”
That would be nice, but I don’t think you get how the Guardian works. The handful of comments supportive of Goldberg would stay, all the rest get deleted (either just the comment, or the whole account). Ironically they then say “Comment is Free”. I’m on my 60th account at the G :-).
The “plans to indoctrinate school children” can easily be verified by Heartland’s budget and fundraising document. It’s on page 18 right here, complete with quotes from Wojick’s modules.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/292934-1-15-2012-2012-fundraising-plan.html
See also Heartland’s budget, p.19
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/292935-1-15-2012-2012-heartland-budget.html
Heartland itself verified that these documents are authentic, which I’m assuming you knew but chose not to mention.
Connor Gibson
Greenpeace USA
Hi Connor and thanks for joining the discussion. I read page 18 of the first document you linked. It appears on the face to be a well balanced approach to me, from a well qualified individual with whom I’ve had contact on Judith Curry’s site before.
Please could you outline what it is in this document that leads you to believe that Suzanne Goldberg’s use of the word ‘indoctrination’ is justified, when comparing and contrasting the multi-hypothesis approach of Dr David Wojick and the individuals who have contributed to the curriculum which currently only draws from one side of the climate debate.
Thanks.
Tallbloke–Wojick’s inclusion of lines like “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy” stands in stark contrast with scientific reality. 97% of working climate scientists around the world recognize that humans burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global climate change (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 2010).
This conclusion has been firmly cemented among relevant scientists publishing material peer-reviewed by other relevant scientists since the mid 1990s, and even before then climate researchers had high confidence. James Hanson’s Congressional testimony in 1988 is an example, as is the fact that his model predictions from the 80’s turned out to be very accurate now that we can examine what actually happened. The YouTube video from the Yale climate forum below has some examples going back to the 1970’s as well, and scientific discussion about human fossil fuel burning contributing to the greenhouse effect goes back to the late 1800s (Arrhenius, 1896, linked below the video).
David Wojick’s work reflects none of this reality, and Wojick himself is not an authority on climate science, which should matter if he’s being paid to teach such material to high schoolers.
My understanding is that the purpose of this website does not include promoting productive discussion on climate science anyway, and this blog itself is an example of the disconnect between the popular opinion on this blog and what climate scientists have been telling us for decades. Judith Curry certainly doesn’t represent accurate majority opinions on climate science, and we cannot forget that while scientists are certainly human, the process of establishing scientific conclusions (through the scientific method) is exhaustive.
Countless evidence exists–it is not my responsibility to catalog the entirety of climate science history for you and your readers and I suspect it wouldn’t matter anyway. Thank you for inviting me to discuss more.
Click to access Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Hi Connor: Thanks for your further reply. It seems to me that Dr David Wojick’s qualifications in science and communications suit him well to the task. I think his approach of presenting schoolchildren with a broader outlook covering a variety of hypotheses to consider and discuss is a sensible one given the uncertainty in data interpretation which demonstrably exists regarding the understanding of Earth’ climate systems.
Clearly it is your opinion that the better course is to present children with only one point of view. That of the primacy of co2 as the thermoststat of the planet.
I have to say that seems rather, dare I say it, doctrinaire?
This hypothesis that you prefer, and think children should be exclusively taught, is not validated, has failed with its predictions and has a lot of counter evidence against it. How do you justify narrowing the understanding and outlook of maturing children by seeking to prevent them participating in the wider field of relevant knowledge and preventing them from developing the skills required to critically appraise conflicting evidence?
Thanks for your viewpoint.
Hansen controls the record so what does he do with it. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/hiding-the-decline-at-giss/
He changes a cooling to a warming by adjusting the data.
Connor Gibson says: “…as is the fact that his model predictions from the 80′s turned out to be very accurate now that we can examine what actually happened.”
Connor if Hansen were correct he would not have to adjust the data.
Nice of you to visit Conner, now read the articles posted here rather than just blowing them off. You just might learn something. (I sincerely hope.)
Well, this is what I meant, I think this is where the discussion stonewalls. There is only one relevant scientific viewpoint on climate change, and if the science is rejected then we’re just stuck with the politics. So no, I don’t think it’s relevant to teach children the “point of view” that has no foundation in contemporary science.
It’s not one side versus another, and that’s the problem with Heartland and co: the perpetuation of the myth that scientists studying climate are notably divided (they are not). It’s scientific reality versus fiction. Believe me when I say I wish you were all correct. Very much so.
“97% of working climate scientists around the world recognize that humans burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global climate change (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 2010).”
Arguably the only meaningful poll of climate scientists ever taken – and by far the most detailed – is the 2008 Bray & von Storch poll.:http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf. And arguably the most important question posed in this poll was: “how do you rate the ability of climate models to predict temperatures over the next 50 years?” Only 0.5% of the respondents said “very good” (8.7% said “very poor”).
And that’s over 50 years, not 100
Roger A: Connor’s ‘97% of scientists’ is in fact based on just 70 replies to the questionnaire. If it is representative of anything it is representative of the willingness of advocates to bend statistics to fit their preconceptions and their public facing propaganda.
TB:
Polls are all a question of spin. Here’s what I get when I put a deliberate skeptic spin on the results of the Bray & von Storch poll. All of these statements are factually correct:
33% of climate scientists aren’t fully convinced that climate change is happening
65% of climate scientists aren’t fully convinced that climate change, if it is happening, is caused by human activities
96.5% of climate scientists don’t think climate models do a very good job of reproducing historic temperatures.
99.2% of climate scientists don’t think we have a very adequate understanding of climate change phenomena.
99.5% of climate scientists don’t think climate models do a very good job of predicting global temperatures 50 years into the future.
100% of climate scientists don’t think we have a very adequate understanding of climate change theory.
The B&VS poll is well worth a read if you haven’t already read it.
Connor Gibson says, May 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm
What is the purpose of you? Maybe we need to understand that first.
Roger A:
At the Lisbon Conference I found Hans von Storch to be a doughty and tough personality. But he did give me a straight answer to a straight question:
I asked him how many years of nature refusing to co-operate with the co2 theory it would take for him to accept that it was falsified.
The figure he gave me was, to the best of my admittedly dodgy memory, 30 years, give or take 10 on the severity of the downturn I was predicting.
I told him I hoped we would have the opportunity to discuss the result. That was when he decided to disinvite me from his May 2011 workshop. 🙂
On Hansen’s predictions, go here:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/09/james-e-hansen-worshipper-gets-debunked/
Follow all the links. It’s very interesting.
James Hansen is in a unique position to make his predictions seem to come true, but he cannot make the seas rise, or the tempests destroy us all.
Hi Connor, perhaps you missed the fact that there are now over 1000 peer reviewed papers supporting sceptical arguments against CAGW.? And did you miss the fact that there isn’t a single shred of factual evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming?
Please read some of these excellent papers and learn what really drives Earth climate, so we can have an honest discussion, free from dogma…
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
TB:
Ten years, maybe I’ll still be around. Twenty years, unlikely. Thirty years and I’d be in triple digits. But maybe someone will find the Fountain of Youth in the meantime. It’s at least as likely as the Greenland icecap falling into the ocean. 🙂
I don’t have much respect for people who run around mindlessly parroting the “consensus” argument, and apparently neither does James Lovelock:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”
Sorry, getting O/T again.
From: xxxxx.xxxx@pcc.org.uk
To: “‘rog@xxxxxxxx.xxx'”
Subject: Press Complaints Commission – Our reference 12xxxx
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:05:27 +0000
Dear Mr Tattersall
Thank you for your email.
Your complaint will now be passed to the Commission with a view to it making a ruling under the Code. We aim to be in touch with you with a decision within the next 50 days (35 working days). In the meantime, should you have any queries or require any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact us on 020 xxxxx xxxxx.
A copy of the Code of Practice which all newspapers and magazines who subscribe adhere to, can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Roger A: Hang in there. The context of the discussion was that there had been no warming for 10 years, despite a lack of stratospheric volcanoes, and if my prediction of a drop in temperature held good, then the co2 hypothesis would be defunct by 2020.
And you are not off topic so far as I’m concerned.
The co2 hypothesis is already defunct. No need to wait for 2020 TB.
Wayne, maybe it just nicely past Hans retirement date… 😉
Connor
I was converted from being a warmist to climate skeptic by a former high-ranking Greenpeace member, Peter Taylor. Like him, I would be a highly active Greenpeace/Transition supporter but their appalling attitude to science put me and many others off the whole shabang. Taylor’s statements caused me to think again, not rely on the “authority” of “consensus”, but dig deeper for the facts, the data, the science. Click my name. But please don’t reply if my words leave you unchanged. I really grieve for the extent to which people continue “appeal to authority” rather than examine the science itself. Nobody who is a warmist has dug as deep for the science as have the best of the climate skeptics. On the contrary, the warmists have made a mockery of the “authority” of peer-review. Even climate skeptics have often not dug deep enough. Suzanne is a liar and the once estimable Guardian continues to let her print lies, with no comments allowed (which stinks in itself). That is the subject here.
Notice how your man, Connor, slunk away having had his head served to him on a silver platter ?
Typical Greenpeace zealot … our way or no way !
Maybe Connor should be taking care of the urban heating down his own street before bothering folk here with his religion:
Hi Connor,
Thanks for taking the time to drop by, and thanks for the links. However they don’t say what you claim they do:
“The “plans to indoctrinate school children” can easily be verified by Heartland’s budget and fundraising document”
The link just says about a sorely needed education plan. You use the word “indoctrinate”, well that’s what we currently have from the green side: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8410000/newsid_8414600/8414621.stm I can understand that you don’t want the situation changed as these children are parroting Greenpeace lines, they are your useful idiots.
Connor Gibson wrote:
There is only one relevant scientific viewpoint on climate change…
This statement contains a contradiction. If it is science, it is open to the admission of possible error. The exclusion of possibility of error renders it no longer science.
It’s scientific reality versus fiction.
Which is reality, and which is fiction? How can you ever be sure? This is not a trivial question. When you exclude doubt and the possibility of error, you set in stone the errors you have made.
Believe me when I say I wish you were all correct.
It seems likely to me.
I’d love to understand why Greenpeace are so totally confident that “Climate Scientists” provide the absolute truth, whereas “Nuclear Scientists” and “Genetic Engineering Scientists” are all out to con us.
Why? Really, why???
You guys are too funny. The argument being made here for there being “more than one view” would also apply to the statement “I can walk through walls”. Obviously, if I try to do this, I will most likely walk into the wall and be hurt by it, but there is a tiny, statistically irrelevant chance I would walk right through. Saying that there are other relevant views on climate science substantiated by consensus and evidence is nearly the same thing as saying “I can walk through walls” in this example. Sure…. there’s a chance. A statistically irrelevant chance.
Many of the comments here are written in bad faith, with the deliberate intent of spreading misinformation. There is no debate. Global warming is real. It is man made. And we need to take action to prevent the worst projected impacts from becoming a reality.
I’m really curious to know how much some of you all commenting on these articles have been paid by oil-funded think tanks and pr groups.
Anyone for a spot of squirrel fishing? 🙂
Roger
You have been invaded by the trolls.
Only one so far Richard. Connor was at least coherent. Within his own narrow frame of reference anyway.
Thanks Roger!
Well I don’t think Red Dragon was incoherent. Certainly his question “I’m really curious to know how much some of you all commenting on these articles have been paid by oil-funded think tanks and pr groups.” is hard to misinterpret.
And I’m prepared to answer it.
I hereby make full and complete disclosure of all payments made to me by oil-funded think tanks and pr groups since I started working on global warming and related issues 15 years ago.
$0.00
Anyone else done any better? 😉
Who is trolling? What I said wasn’t incoherent. It is an apt metaphor.
The trolls on this board are the paid staffers of big oil, who are trying to spin away from the science of climate change. These PR arguments and misdirection strategies will only work with readers who are extremely naive or who are new to the tactics of the denial machine.
Global warming is real – there is no debate about that. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is man made. We need to take steps now to invest in a clean energy economy and stop dragging our feet so that the titans of industry and their attendant suckerfish who get paid to post on these blogs can continue to put their profits over the welfare of people and this planet. If you don’t believe me, then click this link: http://bit.ly/r8BnTM
Hi Roger. I know you’re only about eighty miles from me, (I’m in Peterlee.) I’m pretty sure you’re nowhere near my age however, (I’m nearly sixty.)
Have you in your lifetime noticed any significant change in your local climate? I Haven’t in mine and apart from a nine years in the RAF & about six living in High Wycombe, I’ve always lived in this region.
The claimed rise so far since the LIA is only 0.24% which I would consider pretty stable.
Roger Andrews,
No, my zero earnings only date back three years.
Tallbloke,
Your apparent faith in getting a reasonably objective ruling from the Press Council is probably misguided. I have no experience with the U.K. Press Councils, but have tangled with Canadian ones.
The Ontario Press Council, like most, is funded by the press and is extremely reluctant to bite the hand that feeds it. Their rulings are very few and they do their best to duck controversy.
Whenever an opinion columnist writes absolute drivel with clearly demonstrable errors of fact, the Press Council takes the view that “opinion writers are given a wide latitude for interpreting facts.”
My guess is that you’ll get a response along those lines and a refusal on part of the Press Council to engage. If they state reasons for their refusal, they’ll give you a good imitation of the effectiveness of the Climategate inquiries.
Please keep us posted.
I don’t like her pieces either, but you could at least give her correct name: Suzanne Goldenberg.
Red Dragon says:
May 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm
I challenge you to open debate on the cause (CO2) global warming. We all agree that warming has taken place since the bottom of LIA and that is a good thing. The cause is the real dicussion point.
If you wish to debate any of the other smarter than I folks on this blog just state whom and I am sure they would take up the glove.
If I don’t hear from you I will of couse assume you admit defeat.
Ed, I’m still waiting. I don’t think Big Oil is going to cough up these fabled checks personally. The alarmista have got a lot better paid suckling on the fat tit of government grants (paid for by us) than we’re going to see, that’s for sure. 🙂
HaroldW, I’ve fixed that, it wasn’t a deliberate error, thanks for the heads-up.
Anthony Watts has a post up from Willis who has summarized the ICCC 7 conference:
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
mkelly says:
May 25, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Red Dragon says:
May 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm
I challenge you to open debate
Looks like it’s the usual huffing and puffing and argument by assertion to me. Which is the usual M.O. since they don’t have a scientific leg to stand on when we down to specifics..
Connor @ May 24, 2012 at 8:25 pm
I did idly wonder how a graduate of an UVM Environmental Studies programme could think “…..There is only one relevant scientific viewpoint on climate change” and talk about “if the science is rejected” (my emphasis). One would hope that any decent course would expose students to the scientific debates (even if you worry this might be a bit rich for younger ears).
I did however find that you appear to have earned some of your credits through the Greenpeace Organising Term (http://www.uvm.edu/~envprog/formslinks/assets/GOT_191-291_guidelines.pdf presumably). I guess independent research/practicum is worth including in an academic programme, but GOT seems to be such a programme with attitude:
“Students! The Greenpeace Semester is an incredible opportunity for you to learn what it takes to save the planet and gain experience to become environmental leaders on your campus and in your community. So much more than an internship, the program combines a series of intensive workshops in a classroom setting with hands-on project and field experience, working side-by-side with Greenpeace staff.
“You’ll learn how to use grassroots organizing and strategic campaigning to win real victories for the planet. You’ll learn the latest information on critical issues as you work side-by-side experts on climate change, ocean protection, nuclear energy, forest conservation, toxic pollution, and corporate abuse of the environment.”
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/getinvolved/get-involved/semester/
Does it occur to you that you might be the product of the very process you worry about Heartland creating?
I’ve just saved the squirrel fishing clip – brilliant!
You should make squirrel fishing shorthand for nutty comments more often.
Good luck with your complaint, but on past performance your chances of success are somewhat less than trying to fish for squirrels, sadly.
From another recipient of $0.00 from Big Anything or shady ‘denialist’ PR outfits. Clearly, a lot of us have been robbed. 🙂
The ‘97% of working climate scientists’ claim from Connor in perspective:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html
I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but I can’t help it…
the odds of me being able to walk through a wall according to red liazard is statistically ilrelevant. Nice strawman argrument but even this fails. What if I am in Japan? Tropical island with thatch walls? Oh snap, now my odds are not statistically illrelevant.
I win. I showed your example to in fact to be possible. Even though anyone with a brain knows that even climate scientist don’t claim 100% certainty.
I walk through walls all the time, but I am smart enough to use the doors built in for the purpose.
Walking through walls is easy as Richard says. It’s the glass ceiling separating us from the rarified air the consensus climatologists breathe that seems to be impenetrable. Mind you, I suspect you could cut the fog they wander around in with a knife since the latest Yamal revelations anyway. 😉
Tallbloke, I admire your patience with Connor Gibson but ultimately this chappy is an astro turfer dropping litter into a tidy place.
Walking through walls is a breeze. Just swap out the face cream for embalming fluid (see picture above). The albedo effect of mascara is controversial though … but if you’re worth it, use this and this. Covers up a multitude of sins – excellent for waxing down squirrel fishing rods too!
Tallbloke,
Thanks for correcting Goldenberg’s name.
And may I add in response to Red Dragon that I have received precisely half as much from “Big Oil” as Roger Andrews, edcaryl and johanna.
Lucy Skywalker and others:
There are no comments on Goldenberg’s articles because she’s a reporter, not an editor or writer of opinion pieces. So (Political Junkie) the “opinion” excuse couldn’t be used.
Goldenberg and Tomasky were bad reporters at the Graun on the US presidential election four years ago, letting their pro-Democrat leanings show in every sentence. Tomasky’s been replaced by a British journalist, and Goldenberg got shunted to US environment reporter.
Like Harriet H, I’ve been through a few identities at CommentisFree. I still have a naive belief that there may be someone at the Graun who believes in normal journalistic values, and who can see that Goldenberg’s thirteen (!) articles on Heartland since the Gleick affair are a journalistic absurdity, and that for an environmental reporter to go to a climate change conference and not report a single word about the environment or about climate change is an absurdity, and a waste of the Graun’s very limited cash.
These are the arguments which would strike a chord with an editor, and I’d suggest writing to the editor of the Guardian before the Press Complains Commission. OK, the letter will just get filed, but the file will get thicker, and one day someone outside the Guardian Environment pages might start asking questions…
Tallbloke,
Am I the only one who gets a pop-up at the bottom right of my screen that says “Follow Tallbloke’s talkshop”? It’s large and intrusive (since it scales with font size increases, which I need to suit my eyes). I can’t see any way to get rid of it (I don’t want to follow the blog – I just want to come here and read it), and truly, it cheeses me off.
Hoping there’s something you can do…
While I know for sure that I’ve never received a groat of big-oil money, I cannot in all honesty say that I can be 100% confident that all of you other deniers (of being oilophiles) are telling the truth.
[Reply] Well there you go Steve, that’s scepticism for you. 🙂
I just remembered that about 40 years ago a gas station in Salt Lake City gave me a free coffee mug. I’d add that to my $0.00 big-oil earnings but I don’t know how many groats it works out to. 😉
Darn! I forget about the free Esso wine glasses, of which I still have several! That explains my views, obviously.
Is this exhaustive?
Adrian Goldberg (BBC News)Alexander Goldberg (The Guardian)
David J Goldberg (The Guardian, The Independent)
David Goldberg (The Guardian)
Gideon Goldberg (The Guardian)
Mark Leon Goldberg (The Guardian)
Michael Goldberg (Financial Times)
Michelle Goldberg (The Guardian)
Myshele Goldberg (The Scotsman)
Suzanne Goldberg (The Guardian)
Reply] Try again with Goldenburg – I got her name wrong initially. 😉
Oops, darn it.
Suzanne Goldenberg (The Guardian)
Tia Goldenberg (The Scotsman)
Which is nothing excessive.