Peter Gleick Debate Invitation email thread

Oh, how the noble have fallen.

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.

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?

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

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.

LOL, Belief in transparency and yet he kept his mouth shut during all the CRU FOIA refusals
HYP-O-CRITE

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

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

@aaron chmielewski – I agree but the language is a little bit of a get out perhaps.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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..

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.

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.

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?

_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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !!

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?

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 !!!

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.

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??

@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.

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.

An addendum to my comment above in response to this comment:

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.

From Peter Gleick at http://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2009/05/05/the-water-to-grow-beef :
I’m not a vegetarian

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” 😉

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 🙂

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]

Kevin611 says:
“Beuracracy creates jobs. ”
Greece is a fine example.

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.

@ 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.

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

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.

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.

[snip – antisemitic rants are not tolerated here – don’t post this again – Anthony]