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
Transparency indeed. Don’t reporters hide their sources with anonymity? We’ll have to see if he is willing to reveal his own now.
His position and faith is easily revealed in his own words, “I think the seriousness of the threat of climate change is too important…”
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]
Caleb says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:00 pm
“These must be hard times for many who “drank the Koolaid.” It must be especially hard in Europe. They swallowed the Global-Warming-Bull hook, line and sinker, and now are awaking to the fact they have invested billions in a fraud. ”
Not to mention all the journalists….. Oh, the irony of it all !
Kevin611 says:
“Beuracracy creates jobs. ”
Greece is a fine example.
Peter Kovachev says:
Thanks Peter for that funny and yet informative post. Just shows you what you can miss if you don’t pay attention!
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.
The Pompous Git @ur momisugly February 23, 2012 at 4:03 pm
I am libertarian and my friends and colleagues think me somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun – who was in reality a community organizer.
@ur momisugly 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.
I agree with the recommendations for:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
It highlighted to me that the most important axis is Liberal/Authoritarian rather than left/right and why so many people flip from extreme right to extreme left without ever going through the middle.
I’m also aware that although I score in the Liberal/Left quadrant I have more in common with Liberal/Right people than those who are Authoritarian/Left.
Guess I just don’t like rabid, draconian people who try to impose their beliefs on others whatever their beliefs happen to be.
Oops, please read “anyone left in Japan who now does NOT know how absurd…..”
@chris B
The Pacific Institute does put its donors names where its mouth is…
http://pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/Funders%202009.pdf
http://pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/10%20Audit.pdf
http://pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/Pacific_Institute_990_tax_10.pdf
The Pompous Git @ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly Jim: “I just have to ask, what makes you ‘of the left’?”
I don’t buy into the current — notice I say “current” — Republican mantra that the role of government is to disappear or that regulation is ipso facto a bad thing or that markets can solve any problem. Markets are very good at some things. I know that some people blame credit default swaps and hence the current economic precipice the world is still in on “too much” regulation, but personally I don’t buy that. The economic problems Obama has faced in his administration were created through the collaborative policies of both major parties but led by “free market.” Yet his opponents at every turn try to blame him for circumstances over which he had zero control he came into office and which would have become MUCH worse had he not done what he did. That’s not to say that Obama wasn’t way too nice to the Banks. But that’s another matter. He saved the US industrial base by shoring up the auto industry and three years later that industry is robustly profitable.
Contrary to the right wing mytheme, home loans in themselves marginal because of being made to borrowers who lacked the means to repay constituted a small amount of the junk paper still being flushed out of the system five years after-the-fact; many of those same borrowers, had they not been sold on predatory terms that the sellers themselves then repackaged and resold in order to avoid taking any responsibility for their own lending, might be in good standing. Republicans, with the collusion of some Democrats, successfully instituted public policies that turned greed into a virtue and coddled the delusions of grandeur of people who were no better than white collar crooks, very few of whom have had to suffer any consequences for their reckless disregard of what should be very basic standards of ethical conduct.
I also believe that changes productivity require a new kind of negotiated settlement between capital and labor or the world will reduced to a new form of slavery in which 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth. I think that the current corporate model of education being foisted on public institutions of higher institutions is pernicious in its failure to comprehend what real education should be.
I could go on, but these are some reasons I am an AGW skeptic “on the left.”
Thank you for asking.
Best wishes,
psi
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.
A troubling sign of the times where honest debate is met with threats and intimidation.
[snip – antisemitic rants are not tolerated here – don’t post this again – Anthony]
If you ever do find yourself in a debate with one of these guys, be sure to go to the NSF. gov website and print out their requests for proposals. Discuss THEIR funding and discuss whether anything can really be learned when funding is so profoundly biased.