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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@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.
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.
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?
@aaron chmielewski – I agree but the language is a little bit of a get out perhaps.
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.
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.
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
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 …
.
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]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:
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:
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?
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?
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
As much as I enjoy the term “Fakegate”, isn’t about time to call it what it *really* is? Gleickgate!
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 … ?
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.
Another AGW nut case who can only survive among his ilk.
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..
_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.
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.
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.
_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?