Peter Gleick Debate Invitation email thread

This email from Heartland communications director Jim Lakely is published unedited except for some email address and some telephone number redactions to prevent unwanted spam and calls –Anthony

UPDATE: I’ve run the email through this tool (Thanks Tom Nelson) to make it a bit easier to read, and added [BREAK]s to separate the messages, fixed broken links, plus cleaned up the flow. Oldest is at the bottom, read from bottom up. – Anthony

============================================================

From: Jim Lakely

Date: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:41 AM

To: Anthony Watts

Subject: Peter Gleick Debate Invitation email thread

Anthony,

Below my signature is the email thread between me and Peter Gleick from last month when The Heartland Institute invited him to debate James M. Taylor at our anniversary benefit dinner this August.

I think you’d find the correspondence interesting in light of Gleick’s recent confession in Fakegate – especially the timeline. Feel free to share and publish any and all of this correspondence, quote me directly, and inform your readers that I sent it to you.

Let me know if you have any questions.

We’ve also posted proof that we’re open to debate on Fakegate.org: Two videos of Scott Denning (one thanking us for inviting him to ICCC4, and one of a cordial luncheon debate at ICCC6).

http://fakegate.org/climate-debate-videos/

Best,

Jim Lakely

Director of Communications

The Heartland Institute

One South Wacker Drive #2740

Chicago, IL 60606

office: 312.377.4000

See who endorses The Heartland Institute!

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.

[BREAK]

—–Original Message—– From: Jim Lakely Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:06 PM To: Peter H. Gleick Subject: RE: Debate Invitation

Dr. Gleick,

I’m sorry to hear that you’ve declined our invitation, but I am thankful that you gave it serious consideration. If you’d ever like to engage in a public debate with a Heartland scholar on the topic of climate change, our door is always open.

As for the “entertainment” bit … I think you misunderstand. That word was not intended to make frivolous what Heartland does — in general, or certainly at our annual benefit dinner. We’re a think tank. We love debate, and thrive on intellectual back-and-forth. To me, and our supporters, such a stimulating discussion IS ALSO entertaining. Learning should ever be so.

Regardless, the invitation to our benefit dinner is open. We’ll happily comp you two tickets if you’d like to come to one of the world’s greatest cities for a day of leisure and an evening with Heartland’s scholars, staffers and supporters.

Warm regards,

Jim Lakely

Communications Director

The Heartland Institute

19 S. LaSalle St., Suite 903

Chicago, IL 60603

office: 312.377.4000

[BREAK]

—–Original Message—–

From: Peter H. Gleick [mailto:pgleick@xxxxx.com]

Sent: Fri 1/27/2012 9:33 AM

To: Jim Lakely

Subject: RE: Debate Invitation

Dear Mr. Lakely,

After reviewing your email and after serious  consideration, I must decline your invitation to participate in the August fundraising event for the Heartland Institute.

I think the seriousness of the threat of climate change is too important to be considered the “entertainment portion of the event” as you describe it, for the amusement of your donors.

Perhaps more importantly, the lack of transparency about the financial support for the
Heartland Institute is at odds with my belief in transparency, especially when your Institute and its donors benefit from major tax breaks at the expense of the public.

Thank you for considering me.

Dr. Peter Gleick

[BREAK]
At 03:25 PM 1/17/2012, Jim Lakely wrote:

Peter,

Thanks for your reply. Travel and lodging expenses would be covered by Heartland. Our annual dinner is tentatively set for August. This would be a moderated debate, though details about the question on the table, the time for each side, etc., is yet to be determined.

I will get back to you on your other questions.

But I’m sure you’ve seen James M. Taylor’s response to the funding questions at Forbes.com – a question he has answered publicly many times. In short: We used to publicly list our donors by name, but stopped a few years ago, in part, because people who disagree with The Heartland Institute decided to harass our donors in person and via email.

More donor information from our Web site:

Diverse funding base: Heartland has grown slowly over the years by cultivating a diverse base of donors who share its mission. Today it has approximately 2,000 supporters. In 2010 it received 48 percent of its income from foundations, 34 percent from corporations, and 14 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget.

Also from our Web site:

Policies regarding donors: The Heartland

Institute enforces <http://heartland.org/PDFs/DonorPolicies.pdf policies >
that limit the role donors may play in the selection of research topics, peer review, and
publication plans of the organization. Heartland does not conduct contract research. These
policies ensure that no Heartland researcher or spokesperson is subject to undue pressure from a donor.

And more donor policy/information from our Web site:

Q: Why doesn’t Heartland reveal the identities of its donors?

A: For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead.

After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors for the following reasons:

·         People who disagree with our views have taken to selectively disclosing names of donors who they think are unpopular in order to avoid addressing the merits of our positions. Listing our donors makes this unfair and misleading tactic possible. By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.

·         We have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue
influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.

·         We frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them as well as to us to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.

·         No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our budget, and most give far less
than that. We have a diverse funding base that is too large to accurately summarize each time we issue a statement.

And, as you know, we are under no legal obligation to release a detailed list of our donors – nor is any other non-profit organization. Our 990 forms are in full compliance with the IRS.

More here:

http://heartland.org/reply-to-critics>http://heartland.org/reply-to-critics

Regards,

Jim Lakely
Communications Director
The Heartland Institute
19 S. LaSalle St., Suite 903
Chicago, IL 60603

office: 312.377.4000

<http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/Endorsements.pdf>See

who endorses The Heartland Institute!

[BREAK]

From: Peter H. Gleick [mailto:pgleick@xxxxx.com]

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:39 PM

To: Jim Lakely; pgleick@xxxxx.org; James Taylor

Subject: Re: Debate Invitation

Dear Mr. Lakely,

Thank you for your email of January 13th, 2012, inviting me to participate in the Heartland Institute’s 28th Anniversary Benefit Dinner.

In order for me to consider this invitation, please let me know if the Heartland Institute
publishes its financial records and donors for the public and where to find this information.

Such transparency is important to me when I am offered a speaking fee (or in this case, a
comparable donation to a charity). My own institution puts this information on our website.

Also, I would like a little more information about the date, venue, and expected audience and format. In addition, I assume your offer includes all travel and hotel expenses, economy class, but can you please confirm this?

Sincerely,

Dr. Peter Gleick

[BREAK]

At 11:12 AM 1/13/2012, Jim Lakely wrote:

Dr. Gleick,

I’ve enjoyed the lively discussion via dueling Forbes.com columns and replies between you and James Taylor.

The Heartland Institute is in the early planning stages for our 28th Anniversary Benefit Dinner later this year. We usually  have a keynote speaker or debate for the “entertainment” portion of the event, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to come to Chicago to debate James Taylor. We’d donate $5,000 to the charity of your choice in lieu of an honoraria.

I think such a debate would be enlightening, and a lot of fun. Folks at Heartland don’t bite, and treat those with whom we disagree with respect.

(You can ask Scott Denning at Colorado State University about how he was treated at our last two climate conferences, or <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkL6TDIaCVw>go here to view his words of thanks at our 4th conference.)

Let me know if this offer is appealing to you, and if it might fit your schedule. (Our dinner
is tentatively scheduled for the second week of August.)

Regards,

Jim Lakely

Communications Director
The Heartland Institute
19 S. LaSalle St., Suite 903
Chicago, IL 60603

office: 312.377.4000

<http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/Endorsements.pdf>See

who endorses The Heartland Institute!

Dr. Peter H. Gleick

President, Pacific Institute

Phone: +1-510-251-xxxx

Assistant: Terry Asbury (tasbury@xxxxxx.org)

<http://www.pacinst.org/>www.pacinst.org

Dr. Peter H. Gleick

President, Pacific Institute

Member, US National Academy of Sciences

MacArthur Fellow

Phone: +1-510-251-xxxxx

Assistant: Terry Asbury (tasbury@xxxxx.org)

http://www.pacinst.org

 

About these ads

117 thoughts on “Peter Gleick Debate Invitation email thread

  1. sarc/

    How do we know this email thread isn’t faked? Did you bother to check with Dr. Gleick to confirm it is authentic?

    /sarc

    Kidding aside, I’m very happy to see this, as it shoots all sorts of holes in Gleick’s story that Heartland is trying to silence debate.

    I’m not a huge fan of Heartland (despite my strong libertarian leanings), but the text of this exchange casts the in a rather favourable light. And I trust Lakely’s got the good sense to release the transcript verbatim, lest the alarmist fringe claim that Heartland is somehow distorting it to further discredit Gleick.

  2. My Real Science comment: “The guy [gleick] looks like a weirdo. A super geek. Gleick the Geek is a Berkeley “scientist,” a leftist radical who dons an unkempt oily beard and gaunt vegetarianish facade. A good spin would be that he’s a genuine bona fide hippie, but I like hippies, and this is no hippie. Real hippies, like in Santa Cruz, are open-minded, honest, decent. This self-righteous unctuous Berkeley radical is no hippie, and not a scientist per se, but a man with an agenda. And come hell or high water he’s going to try to foist this leftist agenda on the rest of us. Truth be damned.”
    The only response I’ve gotten from the Chicken Littles is that his beard is not oily, or unkempt. That’s arguable. But what about the other issues I raised? Silence.

  3. Ah so he was directly informed prior to the document release that the donors had been harassed.

    I guess he can’t claim ignorance as to the damages caused at this point – he knew what would happen which should help prove the “malice” requirement.

  4. Nice! But … would it be such a chore to rearrange the emails in order oldest first so it’s not necessary to loop-read from the bottom up to get the right sequence?

  5. Libertarians et al. need to wise up and form a Tides Foundation thru which donors can spend vast sums of money beyond inquiring eyes…for progressive causes

  6. It’s not [a crime] if you ask nicely first… Right?

    REPLY: Had to snip that and replace with a generic in brackets – too ugly – Anthony

  7. Wow, what principles and integrity !

    I’m guessing that this is in the AGW crowd’s playbook for how to artfully avoid the debate (that Gleick ironically mentions in his apology that needs to happen): Don’t debate with anyone until you know their funding sources. If subsequently presented with such sources, then decline based on not wanting to take money from such entities nor wanting to encourage such sources – no matter what or who those funding sources are.

  8. Gleick: “especially when your Institute and its donors benefit from major tax breaks at the expense of the public.”

    Didn’t Gleick’s Pacific Institute get taxpayer money? It wasn’t unethical when HE got the funding, right?

    The guy really had serious issues.

  9. According to its website, the Pacific Institute is a tax-exempt 501 (c) (3) organization, so the institute and its donors benefit from exactly the same tax breaks that Gleick was so high and mighty about.

    The contrast in that e-mail thread between the graciousness, warmth and cordiality of Lakely — even after Gleick had insulted Heartland — and the snarky smug rudeness of Gleick is so telling.

  10. On other threads, I’ve written that HI should take Gleick to court and then return damages received to Gleick, so that the only thing ruined for Gleick would be his reputation.

    After reading this, I take it back. Gleick deserves everything that’s going to happen to him. I just hope he drags the whole bunch of ideologically corrupt climate scientologists with him

  11. I’m definitely no fan of PG (his actions are dumb at best) or the HI (my politics wouldn’t fit there, although I am a climate skeptic)* – although the latter’s funding of the surfacestations projects seems fine to me.

    However I wonder if the HI were really serious ? If I were a “subscriber” (not meant as an insult, just looking for a word here) to the theory behind CAGW then I would find it hard accept this phrase: “the entertainment portion of the event”. It seems like HI are asking someone that they don’t agree with to be some kind of “performing bear” for them.

    I would also use this as an excuse to refuse, and slightly insulting really. But then again I may accept – the $5K to charity seems worthwhile.

    Just a thought.

    *(I’m kind of fed up with the right vs left portion of this debate, although I know it won’t play well here, but I had to say it. I’m not alone, Graham Stringer – the strongest ‘skeptical’ questioner in the uk parliament climategate hearings is also ‘of the left…’)

  12. Morph, they asked PG to participate in a debate. I think it was a serious offer. Skeptics have a strong record of trouncing opponents in such debates. They weren’t inviting him to just give a speech or something like that.

  13. I generally don’t like to impugn motives but, in light of recent events, it isn’t a stretch to conclude that Gleick’s excuse about not debating unless donor info is disclosed was disingenuous. Debate or not, he was fishing for a list of HI’s donors.

  14. I can imagine him telling his buddies, like Jones or Mann: “Why would I want to debate them, when all they’re trying to do is prove me wrong?”

    Sounds kinda familiar.

  15. [Is it just me or is this just pointless bollocks? . . kb]

    Ohh bummer, I wish he would have said a yes to the dinner, he could have bought his brother with him; after all he has two tickets. His big brother properly kicked his arse over this one. So his brother will not come as he is angry with little brother being an embarrassment to the family. I know he can come holding hands with his mate M.Mann. Now that would be something you got to see.

  16. @Morph “If I were a “subscriber” (not meant as an insult, just looking for a word here) to the theory behind CAGW then I would find it hard accept this phrase: “the entertainment portion of the event”. It seems like HI are asking someone that they don’t agree with to be some kind of “performing bear” for them.”

    Read the original phrasing of it. “Entertainment” was put in quotes. That totally changes the meaning.

  17. Morph says: February 23, 2012 at 11:47 am
    I’m definitely no fan of PG (his actions are dumb at best) or the HI (my politics wouldn’t fit there, although I am a climate skeptic)*

    *(I’m kind of fed up with the right vs left portion of this debate, although I know it won’t play well here, but I had to say it. I’m not alone, Graham Stringer – the strongest ‘skeptical’ questioner in the uk parliament climategate hearings is also ‘of the left…’)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    There are some political statements here but in general they are respectful.

    Many readers here are aware of the “left” beliefs of Steve McIntyre at: climateaudit.org

    I’ve never seen him attacked here for his political views. Below is an excerpt:

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/05/the-us-election/

    I think that Obama’s election is also very healthy for the U.S. in world terms. The U.S. stands for both good and bad in world terms. While U.S. economic dominance has faded, it is still the leading world nation and leadership from the U.S. is important. Obama is in a position to provide such leadership in a way that would have been impossible for McCain.

  18. definition of a Gleickopath,
    We can prove whatever we want to; the only real difficulty is to know what we want to prove.
    Emile Chartier, (Systeme des beaux arts )

  19. My follow up email to my earlier request for financial information from the Pacific Institute:

    Dear Ms. Nancy Ross,

    My apologies for spelling your name incorrectly in my previous email to you.

    Please review the following link to an email exchange in which your President endorses full financial disclosure of your organizations donors and expenditures.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/23/peter-gleick-debate-invitation-email-thread/

    I trust this is sufficient authorization for you to direct me to where this information is made public.

    Thank you in advance.

    Chris B

    No response yet.

  20. For some real spinning on the subject, check the link below. The author spends hundreds of words deconstructing a single paragraph from a Heartland press release, with the conclusion that they are leaving too much wiggle room. Of course when you look at the paragraph they chose:

    An internal investigation by The Heartland Institute has confirmed that the “climate strategy” memo was not written by a staff member, did not originate in The Heartland Institute’s offices, and was not one of the stolen documents. We are still waiting for the report of a forensic investigation firm.

    That is from Feb 20. Compare to their original on Feb 15:

    One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

    No wiggle room in that, is there?

    These people are beneath contempt.

  21. @Russ R

    “…How do we know this email thread isn’t faked? Did you bother to check with Dr. Gleick to confirm it is authentic?…”

    No need. We asked DeSmog, and they said it’s the sort of thing they might say, so that proves it’s genuine…

  22. Russ R says:
    February 23, 2012 at 11:08 am
    Kidding aside, I’m very happy to see this, as it shoots all sorts of holes in Gleick’s story that Heartland is trying to silence debate.
    =================================================
    NOPE !!!
    Gleick (and his sycophants) can still claim that because Heartland did not agree to HIS terms !!!

    People like Gleick are the exact reason for Heartland to do this:

    After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors for the following reasons:

    · People who disagree with our views have taken to selectively disclosing names of donors who they think are unpopular in order to avoid addressing the merits of our positions. Listing our donors makes this unfair and misleading tactic possible. By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.

  23. Gleick’s aim seems to have been to find out, at any cost, the donors then launch a campaign against them to stop any further funding of Heartland. It backfired.

    Damn Heartland are good. On such a low budget they are able to punch well above their weight. Meet David V Goliath.

  24. Is there any chance of a tip-jar for donations to the Heartland Institute to try to compensate for any losses they may suffer due to the criminal activities of its opponents?

  25. Just wow. He asks them for their donor list before he would agree to debate for charity, is denied the list because persons on the list have been harassed because they’re on the list, decides to steal the list and then releases it.

    That’s just wrong.

  26. The Tides foundation and it’s progeny have created thousands of organizations such as Pacific Institute who now coordinate funding and messaging about the environment.

  27. Morph says on February 23, 2012 at 11:47 am


    *(I’m kind of fed up with the right vs left portion of this debate, although I know it won’t play well here, but I had to say it. I’m not alone, Graham Stringer – the strongest ‘skeptical’ questioner in the uk parliament climategate hearings is also ‘of the left…’)

    I just have to ask, what makes you ‘of the left’?

    Are you a Communist, or a Marxist, or a Socialist?

    Do you believe in authoritarian government control?

    What of private property rights and freedom (to travel, choose ones own schooling, trade, etc)?

    Taxation – whose money is it (yours/mine or governments)?

    Do you support strong ‘social’ handout programs by government?

    Do you know who David Horowitz, former self-identified leftist and member CPUSA and author of “Radical Son” (1996 ) is?

    I see this ‘I am on the left’ bandied about by a few, and I am just curious; I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I am still sincerely curious so short answers will suffice …

    .

  28. As has been suggested earlier, these email posts would be easier to read if the order were reversed to show the earliest correspondence at the top. Nevertheless, thank you for posting.

    [REPLY: Suggestion taken and implemented. Check the post again. Sorry, reading impairment. Anthony put in breaks for easier reading. Order is still, unfortunately, the same.-REP]

  29. The communication from HI is all very civil, respectful and cordial. Yet Gleick attempts to destroy the Heartland Institute seemingly triggered by HI invitation to debate. Its bizarre. Even to the skeptic community which has grown accustomed to the mean-spirited behavior of some in the global warming movement, Dr. Gleick’s behavior seems shocking.

    To review, Dr. Gleick is the co-founder Pacific Institute, in 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on water resources. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In 2011, he was named the launch Chairman of the “new task force on scientific ethics and integrity” for the American Geophysical Union. And in 2012, the NCSE appointed Gleick to the board of the NCSE.

    What would lead an individual who has achieved such success and standing in his profession to do such a thing?

    Megan McArdle writes:

    “And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier.”

    While I don’t dismiss the idea of a medical condition, I think there is a equally plausible explanation. The global warming movement has become radicalized.

    George and Wilcox, in their book “American Extremists”, list twenty-two common traits of extremists. The traits are:

    (1) character assassination; (2) name calling and labeling; (3) irresponsible sweeping generalizations; (4) inadequate proof for assertions; (5) advocacy of double standards; (6) tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil; (7) Manichean worldview; (8) advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of opponents and/or critics; (9) a tendency to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them; (10) tendency toward argument by intimidation; (11) use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought stopping clichés; (12) assumption of moral or other superiority over others [like Dr. Gleick self-identification as an "ethicist"]; (13) doomsday thinking; (14) a belief that doing bad things in the service of a “good” cause is permissible; (15) emphasis on emotional responses, and, correspondingly, less importance to reasoning and logical analysis; (16) hypersensitivity and vigilance; (17) use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions; (18) problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty; (19) inclination toward “groupthink’; (20) tendency to personalize hostility; (21) a feeling that the “system” is no good unless they win; and (22) tendency to believe in far-reaching conspiracy theories.

    The recent behavior of Dr. Gleick along with many of his online apologists would seem to meet nearly all of these criteria. Is it time for civil society to become alarmed by the rise of global warming extremism?

  30. I’m not sure why the Heartland Institute would release this information – after all isn’t it considered confidential by Gleick? It makes me wonder if Heartland has decided to smear in public rather than litigate. Doesn’t anyone have patience for the kill anymore?

  31. Gleick…
    “Perhaps more importantly, the lack of transparency about the financial support for the
    Heartland Institute is at odds with my belief in transparency, especially when your Institute and its donors benefit from major tax breaks at the expense of the public.

    The bolded section above just floors me, considering his organization took in LOTS of state and federal money!

    What is even more sickening is the fact that CAGW “scientists” like Gleick received millions in government “stimulus” funds in 2010 for their pet projects when the rest of the U.S. was awash in double digit unemployment.

    Just to remind people what the climate elites are raking in…

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf

  32. As much as I enjoy the term “Fakegate”, isn’t about time to call it what it *really* is? Gleickgate!

  33. For years the alarmists and governments have kept saying the debate was over. But the debates were very few and far between because the alarmists wouldn’t engage. I’d love to see Tim Flannery go head to head with Robert Carter but he won’t because he knows Carter would mop the floor with him. They all hide in the towers of academe and fret that they’re not ‘communicating’ their message well. No guys, your message just stinks to high heaven. Some, like Gleick, can’t take it anymore and obviously snap in frustration when all he had to do was open his mind and LISTEN to what the dissenters are saying.

    Meanwhile the indefatiguable Bob Carter, David Archibold and even Anthony Watts have been on the road doing the hard yards, delivering presentations in the back rooms of sporting and social clubs. Monckton and many others do the same. Their dedicated and sacrificial witness has impressed many to open their minds to the possibility that maybe, perhaps … ?

  34. That email exchange certainly looked like an expense paid invitation as well as a form of compensation to debate at Heartland. Clearly the opportunity to debate was rejected.

  35. Steve from Rockwood says:
    I’m not sure why the Heartland Institute would release this information.

    I would guess that is was in response to his confession where he stated ” We Need Debate “. This just refutes his half confession and once again exposes the layers of lies within.

    My only guess as to why his confession was worded in the way it was is to try and keep the “Team” from tossing him to the wolves. For the most part it has worked but I see the cracks forming as time goes on. When Kevin tosses him under the buss we will all know the fat lady has sang..

  36. _Jim

    I would consider myself to be a left leaning climate sceptic. Here is what it means to me:

    I don’t like ignorant people who are looking for handouts. I want my tax dollars going to towards every level of education. I’m perfectly okay with paying for someone going through as much schooling as they can so they won’t ask me for money on he side of the road.

    Without education disadvantaged(poor people) never realize they have any choice in life except to be a screw-up.

    Everyone should have access to healthcare. The benefit is a productive efficient work force. Oh yeah, also not seeing friends and family die horrible deaths because they couldn’t afford healthcare. Or worse yet, because they could afford healthcare, but the insurance company won’t cover their ailments because their condition is pre-existing.

    I don’t believe that corporations should enjoy the right of personhood.

    Beuracracy creates jobs. Yes, there is such a thing as too much democracy. I just want someone to have job/career.

    I’m also against the prohibition of drugs. I hate hearing people who take psychoactive prescription drugs without consulting a mental health professional complain about people that consume marijuana. Also, people an get high off half of items at home depot. Why not regulate rat poison, spray paint, and most adhesives.

    Those are just a few of the items off the top of my list.

    I think communism is fine on a small scale with willing participants. It should never be implemented as a form of governing more than a couple of hundred people.

    I am firm believer in the right to bear arms.

    I don’t believe in spending money to develop other nations.

    Seperation of church and state are also high on my list.

    No, I’m not here to debate the merits of each point. And I don’t speak for all
    left-leaning sceptics. I may respond to more questions, but only if I feel they appear to be based more inquisitive than accusatory.

    And as always, thank you Anthony for all your hard work.

    PS-typing on a phone. So there are probably plenty of spelling/punctuation mistakes.

  37. Maybe, if the invitation had appeared to come from a “warmer” and the price was jacked up to $25 grand (apparently the minimum grant that he has come to expect), Gleick would have taken the bait.

  38. TheGoodLocust says: I guess he can’t claim ignorance as to the damages caused at this point – he knew what would happen which should help prove the “malice” requirement.

    Very good point. I didn’t spot that one.

    You’ve got to wonder who is going to fork up for this. How much could Heartland get? Certainly more than Gleick could afford. So, will they be able to bring in others with more money as part of the conspiracy.

  39. Jim
    “I see this ‘I am on the left’ bandied about by a few, and I am just curious; I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I am still sincerely curious so short answers will suffice …”

    Socially liberal (support gay marriage, pro-choice) and favor increased social spending are probably the only assumptions you can make when someone refers to themselves as leftist. Other positions vary dramatically- for example some leftists want to eliminate the income tax and replace it with federal sales tax (Gad Saad, “The Consuming Instinct”) which is a view that is shared by some libertarians.

    Ironically some of the things you listed as “left wing” are also part of some right wing groups. Social programs and increased taxation are part of the National Front, a French right-wing group.

  40. _Jim says:
    I just have to ask, what makes you ‘of the left’?

    Are you a Communist, or a Marxist, or a Socialist?

    Jim, compared to many people here I am certainly “on the left”. What you describe above isn’t “left” in any meaningful sense. When you get so extreme … politics is not a line from left to right, it is a circle … and if you go as far as the communists and Marxists to the left you find the Nazis, BNP,etc. meeting you from the right.

  41. Thank you Heartland for wearing your heart on your sleeve.

    I have seldom seen such an ugly contrast between your patient, kind, warm invitation and clarifications to Gleick, and his serial backstabbing betrayals of your trust and goodwill.

    You explained why donors’ names were no longer published – so he, with malice aforethought, publishes. You invited him to an enjoyable and relaxed discussion, explaining why you promote discussion – so he, with malice aforethought, lies about you as if you are attempting to shut down discussion.

    This man who is breathing murder, has been Chair of something set up to uphold integrity…. what kind of people have been believing him?

  42. Kevin611
    “Beuracracy creates jobs. Yes, there is such a thing as too much democracy. I just want someone to have job/career.”

    I know you aren’t here to debate this, but those are two seperate points. Federal job programs are rarely about making more bureaucrats. The issue over bureaucrats is, for any government program 1) Do we need the current number in order to run the program, 2) do we need the program at the current level and 3) do we need the program. Obviously it is possible to have too many or to few and the exact number needed, if it is possible to make them more productive or if they are underpaid is an issue that will probably never be resolved.

    Creating jobs runs into the problem that long run unemployment is resistent to government job creation programs. It works for the short-term if the market is out of equilibrium but if the employment market is near equilibrium it will displace private employment.

    Of course what constitutes out of equilibrium, how much and effect… well you get the idea. There are probably studies and answers to these questions, but I’m not confident enough to make any definitive statements.

  43. _Jim said @ February 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    *(I’m kind of fed up with the right vs left portion of this debate, although I know it won’t play well here, but I had to say it. I’m not alone, Graham Stringer – the strongest ‘skeptical’ questioner in the uk parliament climategate hearings is also ‘of the left…’)

    I just have to ask, what makes you ‘of the left’?

    From The Political Compass:

    There’s abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today’s complex political landscape. For example, who are the ‘conservatives’ in today’s Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher?

    On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It’s not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can’t explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as ‘right-wingers’, yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

    There’s a questionnaire to determine where on the left/right and authoritarian/libertarian spectrum you fall. Much to my surprise, I’ve moved very slightly to the left over the last few years; I would have thought the opposite.

  44. Sam says on February 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Ironically some of the things you listed as “left wing” are …

    I don’t see where I had them listed as particularly ‘left wing’ in kind of a random series of questions … interesting to see how that was ‘scored’ though, I was thinking more liberty/totalitarianism …

    .

  45. “Eric Simpson says:
    February 23, 2012 at 11:11 am

    My Real Science comment: “The guy [gleick] looks like a weirdo. A super geek.”
    Glasses. Me Yes.
    Trimmed beard. Me Yes.
    Salt’n’Pepper hair. Me Yes.
    Likes tweed. Me Yes.
    Scientist. Yes.

    I must also be a geek. In fact, throw a stone at a biochemistry conference and you will hit five or six similarly dressed people.

  46. It so happens I’m attending a performance by the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra this evening. One part of the printed program my wife scans eagerly is the list of donors, to see who is there (or maybe she just wants to make sure our names are spelled correctly). In the upper gift brackets are several donors listed as “anonymous”. So do I gather that were I to offer a couple of complimentary tickets to Dr. Gleick he would refuse until the ASO disclosed all their funding sources?

    That does seem a bit extreme. A pity too, as Leila Josefowicz is performing.

    Even in supporting non-controversial organizations, some people which to preserve their privacy. Dr. Gleick has no right to demand Heartland disclose their donors, or the Atlanta Symphony, or the Red Cross, or Children’s Hospital, or …

    This really isn’t about integrity and transparency in science; it is about suppressing the exercise of free speech on public policy. I thought we settled that issue over 200 years ago.

  47. Okay, I can save a lot of time addressing individuals in one post; the hard question (private property rights and taxes) seems to have been skipped (exc by 1 maybe 2 ppl), and after skimming the essay answers, I conclude their are really very few real leftists or persons of the left after all. Much more like the middle or perhaps of the -oh, dare I say it- ‘the right’?

    Being of the left does provide light cover though, from accusation of being perhaps old-fashioned, narrow-minded and over principled in today’s secular hypersensitive world where offense (in the workplace, in school, etc.) is verboten, so, from now on, I too and a person of the left …

    Welcome me with open arms … comrades!

    .

  48. Kevin611,

    Becareful what you wish for in terms of revoking corporate personhood.

    There are a number of potential unintended consequences.

    Some of the earliest (early 1800s) court cases that created the foundation of corporate personhod were about the ability of corporations to make contracts. End corporate personhood and all union contracts with corporate employers could become null and void.

    This could end up making liability lawsuits against corporate defendents impossible. Victims would be forced to sue individual corporate officers. While possibly satisfying, the vast awards in the asbestos and tobacco cases would have been largely uncollectable.

  49. Kevin611 says:
    February 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    You sound more Libertarian to me. Here is the political spectrum according to Russ. The far left wants government to control your life to the finest detail. The far right wants the government to control many details of your life and are willing to let corporation control the rest. Neither are for personnel freedoms. Most people are in the middle and want the government to interfere as little as possible. Our problem of late is that the far left and right choose the candidates that we get to chose from. Now! Back to bashing CAGW alarmists!!!

  50. What I want for my children is a world where private organizations can be truly private. Why should the Heartland Institute or any other private body have to discuss what is does with its money? It receives donations for its purposes, then it spends the money in the way it wants. What’s up with that? Likewise, Anthony, is a private individual, it’s between him and the IRS what his financial affairs are, I say Good luck to him. If he managed to hide lots of funding from the lefties, if he kept the ecofascists in the dark about what was going on, then bad on them. America’s a free country, and God help us, let’s keep it that way.

  51. Sam,

    Thanks for an honest and thoughtful response.

    I agree that question of “what is needed” is valid and important. If it is a job that doesn’t need to be done then it is overkill to create that position.

    Along those same lines, should that job be carried out through the private sector?

    I don’t have those answers for every instance. I do however believe that there should be more private sector integration in the GAO. The government should be held a countable by people outside the government.

    _Jim
    I belive that property rights should extend a mile down under the Earth and only so high into the sky without interfering with general aviation.

    I don’t believe that imminent domain in its current state is beneficial to citizens of the USA. There are instances where imminent domain can be used for the greater good. As our country grows we will need more infrastructure. However, property owners should receive above fair market value along with compensation for business considerations. For example, a farmer cannot simply pick and farm elsewhere. They should receive enough compensation to begin again.

    I support taxes that are used for the greater good. Yes, they are used in an authoritarian manner in many instances. Legislatora love giving big contracts to their best buddies, but we still need roads to drive and schools to keep us educated.

    I hope this makes my position a little more clear.

    Thanks for asking _Jim. And thanks for keeping an open mind.

  52. Libertarianism, and hence the Heartland Institute, is Left Wing.

    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp

    “In fact, libertarianism is planted squarely on the Left. – The terms were apparently first used in the French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789.”
    “Frédéric Bastiat, the radical laissez-faire writer and activist, was a member of the assembly (1848–1850) and sat on the left side along with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the “mutualist” whose adage “Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order” graced the masthead of Liberty, the newspaper of the American libertarian and individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker.”

    To call Libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism) right wing is ignorant.

  53. Matt,

    Great point!

    The execution of changes to laws is often more important the changes themselves.

    I am hopeful for a day when unions are no longer a neccesity. It will only happen when quality is once again held in higher esteem than quantity.

    I’m not a union guy myself. It is unfortunate that so many unions have developed so much bloat at the top. Some unions are dedicated to simply doing as little as possible for as much money as possible.

    On the other hand, laborers and craftspeople would never be able to earn a fair wage without the tools available for collective bargaining.

  54. Political Compass ?

    I’m sorry for taking the thread a bit further off-topic, but some of the above posters might want to look at this, and take the test:

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

    Take a look at the analysis page. Look where “lefty” Gordon Brown is, for example.

    I was going to post some things that would be more on-topic, but after the expletives were moderated out, there wouldn’t be much that remained !!

  55. TheGoodLocust said, Ah so he was directly informed prior to the document release that the donors had been harassed…I guess he can’t claim ignorance as to the damages caused at this point – he knew what would happen which should help prove the “malice” requirement. (February 23, 2012 at 11:12 am)

    Delicioso! Good catch, GoodLocust! It’s a big-un, better stuff and mount that one on your hunting lodge wall!

    The thing to remember is that even the best investigators and lawyers can miss the obvious in the rush of a case with reams of material evidence. We tend to reason that for sure someone would have thought of the obvious, but not always. Perhaps you should send a brief note to Heartland on this, it’s your “baby,” after all.

    The contrast between Heartand’s warm invitation and Dr Gleick’s graceless and churlish decline certainly screams “malice.” One has to be a certified, malicious p—k (no, it’s not my initials) to be informed on several occasions about problems and dangers donors had been experiencing and facing, and then to gleefully publish their names and addresses. God forbid something unpleasant should happen to anyone on the purloined list; Gleick and the others will be in even deeper doo-doo then. I can only shake my head and marvel; are these people utter cretins?

  56. “Bureaucracy creates jobs. Yes, there is such a thing as too much democracy. I just want someone to have job/career.”

    I meant to write “too much Bureaucracy “.

    I am not sure that there can be too much democracy. Unless, that would mean holding a general election on every piece of legislation in the entire country. That would be too much democracy and it would definitely lead to too much Bureaucracy.

  57. Thanks to Ken Hall’s link I donated to Heartland. I also checked the boxes saying I wanted to be anonymous, and not to share my info.

    I guess Gleick wouldn’t visit the Humane Society where I work 5 days a week, because they have a Donor list that goes from $1,000 to $2 million, and there are always anonymous donors.

    Of course the truth is that Gleick is afraid to debate, and used the financial demand to avoid it. For one day’s all-expense paid entertainment, Gleick could have provided $5,000 to any charity he chose.

    Come to think of it, there aren’t any debates any more, are there? The entire alarmist contingent has chickened out en masse.

    . . .

    Pompous Git: I took your test. According to them I’m a fiscally conservative Libertarian.

  58. So he was fishing for a donors list. I suspect he had plans for distributing that list to the attack hounds.

    Since the fish didn’t bite, he used an artificial lure.

  59. Smokey says:
    February 23, 2012 at 3:47 pm
    ================================
    Who are you calling a pompous git ?? Ha ha.

    I thought I would end up somewhere in the middle, my fiscally conservative views canceling out my views on abortion and other supposedly “left”-leaning social issues. The weighting may be off, because I ended up close to Ghandi !!!

  60. So the Lefties want to incriminate anyone that took private funding. Big deal. Squeal out their cash sources. Let’s hear about every dollar they have taken before we need to talk about quiet money for his projects that Anthony has silently.

  61. Smokey said @ February 23, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Pompous Git: I took your test. According to them I’m a fiscally conservative Libertarian.

    Not my test ;-) I’m slightly left of centre and very libertarian. Many of my leftist friends consider me to be right of centre; I suspect they are confused by the libertarianism I espouse.

    And yes, it’s a pity that debate is so often stifled; it’s a great way to learn.

  62. philincalifornia said @ February 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Smokey says:
    February 23, 2012 at 3:47 pm
    ================================
    Who are you calling a pompous git ?? Ha ha.

    Probably me :-) I think I’m going to have ask people to stop calling me PG, though :-(

  63. If silently, quietly he took Heartland money while the Lefties and Ecofascists were not looking, because they were “in Bali” and he wasn’t then this is only the same as the fierce grab onto the IPCC government checks??

  64. Let me please offer another explanation for this whole debacle. Those who still blindly support Man-Made Global Warming (AGW) and the “Green” agenda/cult have become so used to lying, that it has become a very useful tool for them and almost second nature…

    If you’re going to lie about manipulated data, deny natural cycles and promote false science, then what’s a little fake document ?

    Gleick did what he has always been doing in the AGW circles – he lied.

  65. @Smokey
    >>Come to think of it, there aren’t any debates any more, are there? The entire alarmist contingent has chickened out en masse.

    Were there ever any debates of any noteworthiness? I’ve been watching this thing for a long time and I don’t recall ever seeing any real debates between real climate scientists. That, in itself, has told me quite a bit about the CAGW proponents’ position, i.e., they don’t have one.

    Speaking of alarmists, I haven’t seen William Connolley and his acolytes hanging out here. I wonder why.

  66. The Pompous Git says:
    February 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    philincalifornia said @ February 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    ===========================
    I didn’t see you’d posted that. Must have been in moderation while I was taking forever typing my post. Great minds think alike, and all that !!!

  67. Eric Simpson says:

    My Real Science comment: “The guy [gleick] looks like a weirdo. A super geek. Gleick the Geek is a Berkeley “scientist,” a leftist radical who dons an unkempt oily beard and gaunt vegetarianish facade.

    Can we leave the “vegetarian” out of it please? I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons. I am also a staunch opponent of the climate change hoax because it harms the planet, harms people, and harms wildlife. Vegetarians who care about animals are your natural allies because you support the truth, which will ultimately help animals, but any visiting vegetarian who isn’t familiar with the issues will quickly come to see you as his opponent, and since most people don’t think logically, will also come to view your cause as wrong and even evil.

    Only a complete fool continues year after year, as happens on this site with numerous commenters and with one prominent poster, to insult your natural friends and allies. I support this site, I support its goals. I have supported Anthony in a number of the absurd and grubby attacks that have been made against him. This can be verified by looking at my record of comments here and at my own site, for example here. On other threads on WUWT I read about accusations of hate speech against skeptics. So you attack people for being vegetarian? You don’t defend against unjust accusations of hate by being really hateful and thereby proving your critics right. Vegetarians are a minority who have been misunderstood and ridiculed for the entirety of my life. Climate realists are a minority who are also ridiculed for their ethical views (believing in finding the truth). Please help make this place a friendly spot for all people of good will.

  68. Jay Curtis, Connolley was in earlier on at the crowdsourcing thread, taunting us about being slow with the text analysis, but he dropped off after about two or three “drive-bys.” None of the other usual suspects around, though. I guess this isn’t happy time for them.

  69. Ron House, I agree. Looks aren’t important. Actions are.

    . . .

    Jay Curtis, here are a few debates:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union

    http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070316_notcrisis.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/05/agw-proponents-lose-yet-another-debate-down-under

    Skeptics won them all. Gleick knows that, and so he chickened out. IMHO Gleick never intended to let himself be put into a formal debate venue. Instead, he showed the world his M.O.

  70. philincalifornia said @ February 23, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    February 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    philincalifornia said @ February 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    ===========================
    I didn’t see you’d posted that. Must have been in moderation while I was taking forever typing my post. Great minds think alike, and all that !!!

    There ya go! I always thought it was “great minds like a think” ;-)

  71. Ron House, Eric’s broadside caught those of us who have shaggy beards, longish hair and sometimes dress like Peter Gleick as well. I let it slide, because I can’t get exercised about a guy commenting about another guy’s look, but I see your point about being sensitive regarding vegetarianism. Mea culpa, I too like to poke at fodder munchers, I mean vegetarians, especially since many of my friends are thus deprived. I’d like to know that I’m among friends here, though, and that if I inadvertantently offend someone, he or she will tell me that I’m being a jerk, whereupon I’ll offer my sincere apypolylogies.

  72. Ron House said @ February 23, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    Eric Simpson says:

    My Real Science comment: “The guy [gleick] looks like a weirdo. A super geek. Gleick the Geek is a Berkeley “scientist,” a leftist radical who dons an unkempt oily beard and gaunt vegetarianish facade.

    Can we leave the “vegetarian” out of it please? I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons.

    Don’t be so thin-skinned Ron. I’m “insulted” regularly here and other sceptic blogs as a historian, philosopher, and organic farmer & gardener. However, I don’t take offense at the remarks because they are not aimed at me personally.

  73. Smokey said @ February 23, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    Jay Curtis, here are a few debates:

    And never to forget Mark Seal’s post on Green Advocates Failing in Climate Debate

    When I launched the TalkClimateChange forums last year, I was initially worried as to where I would find people who didn’t believe in global warming. I had planned to create a furious debate, but in my experience global warming was such a universally accepted issue that I expected to have to dredge the slums of the internet in order to find a couple of deniers who could keep the argument thriving.

    The first few days were slow going, but following a brief write-up of my site by Junk Science I was swamped by climate skeptics who did a good job of frightening off the few brave Greens who slogged out the debate with. Whilst there was a lot of rubbish written, the truth was that they didn’t so much frighten the Greens away – they comprehensively demolished them with a more in depth understanding of the science, cleverly thought out arguments, and some very smart answers. If you want to learn about the physics of convection currents, gas chromatography, or any number of climate science topics then read some of the early debates on TalkClimateChange. I didn’t believe a word of it, but I had to admit that these guys were good.

    In the following months the situation hardly changed. As the forum continued to grow, as the blog began to catch traffic, and as I continued to try and recruit green members I continued to be disappointed with the debate. In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (Reds, as we call them) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed.

  74. Smokey says:

    Skeptics won them all. Gleick knows that, and so he chickened out. IMHO Gleick never intended to let himself be put into a formal debate venue. Instead, he showed the world his M.O.

    Dead right Smokey. It’s an MO repeated ad nauseum by the alarmist camp. And made all the worse by their sanctimonious calling for a “debate”. Where’s that going to happen exactly, if they refuse all invitations and ban realists from their meetings too?

  75. mpaul says February 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm: “The recent behavior of Dr. Gleick along with many of his online apologists would seem to meet nearly all of these criteria.”

    Yeah, that’s why we call them CAGW zealots. Yet when they extend from blogs and columns to the real world with real acts and real consequences that looks like some kind of mental illness. I’d add Jones and Hansen to that category, with Mann close on their heels due to his ongoing paranoia.

  76. Peter Kovachev says:

    Ron House, Eric’s broadside caught those of us who have shaggy beards, longish hair and sometimes dress like Peter Gleick as well. I let it slide, because I can’t get exercised about a guy commenting about another guy’s look, but I see your point about being sensitive regarding vegetarianism. Mea culpa, I too like to poke at fodder munchers, I mean vegetarians, especially since many of my friends are thus deprived. I’d like to know that I’m among friends here, though, and that if I inadvertantently offend someone, he or she will tell me that I’m being a jerk, whereupon I’ll offer my sincere [apologies].

    The Pompous Git says:

    Don’t be so thin-skinned Ron. I’m “insulted” regularly here and other sceptic blogs as a historian, philosopher, and organic farmer & gardener. However, I don’t take offense at the remarks because they are not aimed at me personally.

    Hi Guys, I wasn’t personally insulted or offended, I was posting some (hopefully good) advice on making friends and influencing people. Admittedly though, it came with the context of 50 years of being interrupted by rude meat eaters demanding to know how I “justified” my personal choices, when all I was trying to do was eat my dinner in peace. Yes, they are only a very tiny percentage, but there are so many carnivores and so few vegetarians that we run into obnoxious carnivores with much greater frequency than you run into obnoxious holier-than-thou vegetarians. So discount my accompanied baggage by about 90%, but please don’t ignore the message. I can tell you how climate realist sites often look to casual green, vegetarian, leftist, you name it, visitors, and at times it can be a big turn-off. And it’s entirely avoidable.

  77. Gobsmackingly stupid man. This brain explosion by Gleick has really exposed him as being profoundly stupid. How does someone like that get a McArthur? Just amazing, the whole sordid tale, including the brusque and dismissive emails and tweets in the Realclimategate saga. I think this brain explosion comes from the internal conflict generated by the empassioned advocate (belief, noble cause and all that) arguing internally with the scientist as the science seems to come apart before his eyes and being sociopathic the internal conflict causes him to seek an external agent so it is not his science that is wrong, it is the unbelievers trying to attack his noble goal via inherently invalid attacks on his unimpeachable “science” that are wrong and evil.

    There’s a minimalist tragedy opera waiting to be written about this classic affair, complete with a Glass minimalist score and wacky characters like SuperMandia in costume! I can see scenes like the first meeting of the Ethics committee after he becomes Chairman, a solo number with chorus where he lays out how he is going to lead them into a new promised land of ethicality, the feverish few days of activity when he commits the crimes and the furtive browbeating before confessing online! Complete with live tweets from the cast to back projection screen and Lucinda Child’s correography! There’s a ready-made duette to be sung – him and Laker’s too-ing and fro-ing with the invite and his childish attempt at “high ground” by demanding “to see the accounts”. Classic tragedy, almost Sophoclean!

  78. I’m not at all surprised over Gleick’s lack of ethical behavior despite chairing an ethics committee. This is still the same buffoon who submitted a “review” of Donna Laframboise’s book “The Delinquent Teenager…” without actually reading it. He can use whatever excuse he wants but his behavior speaks for itself. I hope you enjoy the unemployment line.

  79. Ron House, if you think being vegetarian’s hard, you’d be amused at how I have to juggle some of the bigger Sabbath dinners we have. With kosher food you have three categories; meat, dairy and a neutral category (called parve), which is sort of vegetarian. but includes fish and eggs, but no milk of course. The meat eaters have to have meat, brecause otherwise it’s not a true sabbath meal and they’ll go hungry even if they devour their way through half the table. The vegetarians will sometimes not eat vegetarian items cooked in meat utensils, especially if they are planning on having a dairy desert when they get home and can’t wait the six hours between meat (which includes vegeraian items cooked in a meat utensil) and dairy. Some will have fish, but others won’t touch it. Can’t include dairy at the sitting, of course, because you don’t put meat and dairy on the same table in the same meal. Are you still following this? Then, you have your gluten-free folk, and those who’ll eat only “organic” (and don’t get me going on that one, Pompous Git), and of course the occasional type who’ll die if they even look at a nut. Kosher food is expensive. Imagine kosher, organic, gluten and nut-free kind, with the table split into virtual food ghettos with omnivores like me poaching from everyone, hoping we won’t have a hand bitten off in the process. Not too many have philosophical issues with or dietary sensitivities to my good single malts, of course.

  80. PS, and , Ron, kind of you to correct what you thought was a typo or spelling mistake of mine, but I did actually intentionally write, apypolylogies for apologies. That’s from A Clockwork Orange with Malcolm McDowel in the charater of Alex. Arguably the best film of the 20th century. Still “contemporaneous” and shocking, even for our times. Snuck in a Viennese theatre to see it when I was thirteen, where it was called Uhrwerk Orange. Check it out, and viddy it well, mydroog; I promise you you’ll be blown away, especially if you like Beethoven, the lovely, lovely Ludwik Van.

  81. Surfer Dave says:
    February 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Gobsmackingly stupid man.

    I think this qualifies as “another nail in the coffin”. Hard-hitting cogent stuff Surfer Dave!

  82. Surfer Dave says:
    February 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    “…..I think this brain explosion comes from the internal conflict generated by the empassioned advocate (belief, noble cause and all that) arguing internally with the scientist as the science seems to come apart before his eyes….”

    I think you hit the nail on the head, with that.

    These must be hard times for many who “drank the Koolaid.” It must be especially hard in Europe. They swallowed the Global-Warming-Bull hook, line and sinker, and now are awaking to the fact they have invested billions in a fraud.

    WW 1 was so awful that to many the idea of WW 2 was unthinkable. They scoffed at Churchhill’s warnings, and belittled him as a “war monger.” Think how horrible it was for them to realize that their hope and idealism wasn’t going to keep WW 2 from happening, and in some ways caused it to happen. Some completely cracked up, for a while at least. Fortunately most got over it, and buckled down to facing the problem at hand.

    History does repeat itself. Gleick is cracking up. I have my doubts as to whether he will be one of the people who can get over it, and buckle down to facing the problem at hand.

  83. Lots of political comments in this thread which I could comment on but won’t. I think this video, “The American Form of Government” pretty much says it all. It’s quite clear where we’re headed and why.

  84. Peter Kovachev said @ February 23, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Ron House, if you think being vegetarian’s hard, you’d be amused at how I have to juggle some of the bigger Sabbath dinners we have.

    ROFL! I’m so glad my father was raised as a Catholic rather than as a Jew :-)

  85. Transparency indeed. Don’t reporters hide their sources with anonymity? We’ll have to see if he is willing to reveal his own now.

    His position and faith is easily revealed in his own words, “I think the seriousness of the threat of climate change is too important…”

  86. Lucy Skywalker says:

    “Thank you Heartland for wearing your heart on your sleeve.

    “I have seldom seen such an ugly contrast between your patient, kind, warm invitation and clarifications to Gleick, and his serial backstabbing betrayals of your trust and goodwill.

    “You explained why donors’ names were no longer published – so he, with malice aforethought, publishes. You invited him to an enjoyable and relaxed discussion, explaining why you promote discussion – so he, with malice aforethought, lies about you as if you are attempting to shut down discussion.

    “This man who is breathing murder, has been Chair of something set up to uphold integrity…. what kind of people have been believing him?”
    —————————————————————-
    Boy, Lucy, you sure cut through all the layers of intrigue to find the central message here: The man is vile, and so are his defenders. And these are the people who accuse US of all kinds of evil. Their projections are mind-boggling.
    ———-
    Re: Ron House: You have my sympathy. The use of words like “vegetarian” and “pagan” as slurs is common among some self-proclaimed Christian conservatives, though I think of them as labels of virtue. And my vegetarian friends are physically beautiful.

    Now I’m off to offer prayers to Isis, who actually answers them, unlike certain grumpy gods I won’t name….

    [Moderator's Note: Let's agree that this will be the last comment in this vein. Denigrating the dieties of others, and their dietary choices is not acceptable. -REP]

  87. Caleb says:
    February 23, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    “These must be hard times for many who “drank the Koolaid.” It must be especially hard in Europe. They swallowed the Global-Warming-Bull hook, line and sinker, and now are awaking to the fact they have invested billions in a fraud. ”

    Not to mention all the journalists….. Oh, the irony of it all !

  88. Peter Kovachev says:

    Not too many have philosophical issues with or dietary sensitivities to my good single malts, of course.

    Thanks Peter for that funny and yet informative post. Just shows you what you can miss if you don’t pay attention!

  89. Kevin611;
    “Beuracracy [sic] creates jobs.”
    Sure does. Fat, lifetime, well-pensioned parasitic jobs. Bureaucracies operate to expand their purview and never seem to “complete” their mandates. Since unionization of government employees was foolishly legalized, one level of government after another has found itself drained of resources.

    It costs 2+ private jobs for every new ‘crat hired. Forever.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

  90. The Pompous Git @ February 23, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    I am libertarian and my friends and colleagues think me somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun – who was in reality a community organizer.

  91. @ Morph. *(I’m kind of fed up with the right vs left portion of this debate, although I know it won’t play well here, but I had to say it. I’m not alone, Graham Stringer – the strongest ‘skeptical’ questioner in the uk parliament climategate hearings is also ‘of the left…’)

    I have to gree. The idea that the “right” has a monopoly on climate skepticism is a cliche/stereotype that is rapidly outwearing any usefulness it might once have had. People, as long as you keep trying to make this into a left-vrs-right thing, the slower public awareness of the real and monumental flaws in AGW thinking is going to be. Left-leaners will continue to regard you as whacko right wingers and everyone will stay where they are.

    I also feel the same way, incidentally, about analyzing Gleick’s “hippy” lifestyle. That’s all beside the point. It might make one feel ideologically pure, but what good is that, really? There are plenty of valid reasons for someone to be a vegetarian, grow a beard, or enjoy Crosby, Stills Nashe and Young or a puff of herbal painkiller in his grey years. None of those things have anything more than an incidental connection the science or even the politics of Global Warming. Our world has serious ecological problems – like the threat of imminent collapse of global deep sea fishing stocks, which would be a disaster of great and perhaps irreversible proportions. I’m sure Lucy Skywalker could enlighten us on other REAL environmental problems that everyone, left or right, ought to be concerned with solving. After recent events in Japan, for example, we see finally exposed, without any ground for doubt, the hypocrisy of a nuclear power industry that has for decades, even after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, continued to assure us that its operations are benign. Is there anyone left in Japan who now knows how absurd that is?

    I probably don’t agree with a lot of things the the Heartland Institute advocates. I do happen to think, with many posters to this site, that the Institute is on the right track on the AGW debate. Let’s please try to stick to the science. Thanks.

  92. I agree with the recommendations for:

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

    It highlighted to me that the most important axis is Liberal/Authoritarian rather than left/right and why so many people flip from extreme right to extreme left without ever going through the middle.
    I’m also aware that although I score in the Liberal/Left quadrant I have more in common with Liberal/Right people than those who are Authoritarian/Left.
    Guess I just don’t like rabid, draconian people who try to impose their beliefs on others whatever their beliefs happen to be.

  93. The Pompous Git @ February 23, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    I’m a slightly libertarian lefty:
    Economic Left/Right: -3.88
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

    But I bow to no-one in my contempt for Gleick’s disingenuous vigilante action, in my skepticism of catastrophic hypothetical feedbacks mehamsims or (especially) in my disgust at the idea that right-thinking on climate forcings is the definition of morality.

    I’m not sure the political compass works.

  94. @ Jim: “I just have to ask, what makes you ‘of the left’?”

    I don’t buy into the current — notice I say “current” — Republican mantra that the role of government is to disappear or that regulation is ipso facto a bad thing or that markets can solve any problem. Markets are very good at some things. I know that some people blame credit default swaps and hence the current economic precipice the world is still in on “too much” regulation, but personally I don’t buy that. The economic problems Obama has faced in his administration were created through the collaborative policies of both major parties but led by “free market.” Yet his opponents at every turn try to blame him for circumstances over which he had zero control he came into office and which would have become MUCH worse had he not done what he did. That’s not to say that Obama wasn’t way too nice to the Banks. But that’s another matter. He saved the US industrial base by shoring up the auto industry and three years later that industry is robustly profitable.

    Contrary to the right wing mytheme, home loans in themselves marginal because of being made to borrowers who lacked the means to repay constituted a small amount of the junk paper still being flushed out of the system five years after-the-fact; many of those same borrowers, had they not been sold on predatory terms that the sellers themselves then repackaged and resold in order to avoid taking any responsibility for their own lending, might be in good standing. Republicans, with the collusion of some Democrats, successfully instituted public policies that turned greed into a virtue and coddled the delusions of grandeur of people who were no better than white collar crooks, very few of whom have had to suffer any consequences for their reckless disregard of what should be very basic standards of ethical conduct.

    I also believe that changes productivity require a new kind of negotiated settlement between capital and labor or the world will reduced to a new form of slavery in which 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth. I think that the current corporate model of education being foisted on public institutions of higher institutions is pernicious in its failure to comprehend what real education should be.

    I could go on, but these are some reasons I am an AGW skeptic “on the left.”

    Thank you for asking.

    Best wishes,

    psi

  95. psi says:
    February 24, 2012 at 7:17 am

    Oops, please read “anyone left in Japan who now does NOT know how absurd…..”

    Overall that wasn’t a bad post. But your inane “nuclear industry” slurs are just uniformed. Zero deaths or injuries from reactor operation or damage occurred in Japan. It was the 40′ high wall of water that killed and damaged.

    The nuclear industry has fewer injured or killed workers and ‘civilians’ than any other energy providers, bar none. That’s by total numbers, per Gigawatt output, per annum, or any other metric you care to choose.

  96. We used to publicly list our donors by name, but stopped a few years ago, in part, because people who disagree with The Heartland Institute decided to harass our donors in person and via email.

    A troubling sign of the times where honest debate is met with threats and intimidation.

  97. If you ever do find yourself in a debate with one of these guys, be sure to go to the NSF. gov website and print out their requests for proposals. Discuss THEIR funding and discuss whether anything can really be learned when funding is so profoundly biased.

Comments are closed.