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.
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.
_Jim said @ur momisugly February 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm
From The Political Compass:
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.
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 …
.
“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.
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.
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!
.
Your EPA is erasing/has erased Gleick from their database of grants http://junkscience.com/2012/02/23/breaking-epa-scrubs-web-site-of-gleick-grants/
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.
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!!!
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.
Just donated a c-note to Heartland “in memory of Peter Gleick”
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if everyone here remembers memogate from the 2004 elections.
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 !!
Anthony expect a bump in views; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104908/Fakegate–new-nadir-climate-change-swindle.html?ito=feeds-newsxml The Daily Mail is widely read in the UK.
And another thing:
Heh, I’ve been saying for some time that we are dealing with Crimatologists, and now possibly Gleick demonstrates the point. We shall see …. popcorn?
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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 !!!
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.
Smokey said @ur momisugly February 23, 2012 at 3:47 pm
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.
Probably me 🙂 I think I’m going to have ask people to stop calling me PG, though 🙁