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)

www.pacinst.org

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Priceless !!!!!
Considering the recent events !!!

wte9

Oh, how the noble have fallen.

Russ R

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.

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.

Honest ABE

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.

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?

Could we not reverse the order of these e-mails for easier reading?

rk

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

Scott Covert

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

RCase

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.

DirkH

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.

Jeremy

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

Mrs Whatsit

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.

MangoChutney

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

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…’)

Aaron

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.

John Greenfraud

CHICKEN little. What a hero of the revolution. Onward comrades. Hahahaha…

Mack

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.

Doug Proctor

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.

jonathan frodsham

[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.

Honest ABE

@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.

Sean Ogilvie

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.

Fredrick Lightfoot

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 )

Chris B

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.

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.

Dodgy Geezer

@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…

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.

Jimbo

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.

Ken Hall

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?

Morph

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

Jason Bair

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.

Unattorney

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.

Ken Hall

Here is a link to a donation page for people who support the legal defence fund to make donations to the Heartland Institute.
Please visit and please give generously. Be on the side of truth, honesty and justice and help to fight the dishonesty and deception and criminal activity of their opponents.
https://supportheartland.kimbia.com/legaldefensefund

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 …
.

David, UK

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]

mpaul

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?

Steve from Rockwood

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?

Frank K.

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

this looks like one of the ‘missing’ EPA grants from the database (Junkscience update)
Is this one for a $100,000 ?
83347101-1 Pacific Inst for Studies in Dev Not for Profit $100,000 05/27/2010
Courtesy of Wayback Machine (webarchive)
http://web.archive.org/web/20100621110515/http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/AllGrantsNarrow?OpenView

Thomas

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

Antonia

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 … ?

eyesonu

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.

pat

Another AGW nut case who can only survive among his ilk.

Jeff D.

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..

Kevin611

_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.

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.

Scottish Sceptic

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.

Sam

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.

Scottish Sceptic

_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.

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?