Heartland doubled the number of individual donors since Peter Gleick’s Fakegate scandal

Jim Lakely, Heartland’s communications director, takes Daniel Souweine of the TV meteorologist hassling group Fabricate Forecast the Facts to task in this piece on the Heartland blog:

Reports of Heartland’s Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated

By Jim Lakely

Yesterday, the boss addressed an article in a recent edition of The Economist reporting wishing for the downfall of The Heartland Institute. Definitely check it out — especially for the part in which the esteemed international publication acknowledged Heartland’s important and influential position in the climate debate.

On the heels of that Economist story came a piece at the Huffington Post by Daniel Souweine, the campaign director for Forecast The Facts — a recently cooked-up astroturf outfit that has engaged in a social media and letter-writing campaign against some of Heartland’s corporate donors.

The title of Souweine’s piece is, “The People-Power-Inflicted Downfall of Heartland.” Hate to break it to you, Dan, but there is no “downfall.” While you and your leftist activist buddies have been exchanging high fives and taking a “victory” lap, Heartland has been keepin’ on keepin’ on — and better than ever.

Below is what I wrote in the comment section below Souweine’s piece. The response to my dousing of rain on their parade brought predictably lame counter-comments — which have added amusement to my weekend. Anyway, on to what I wrote:

The big trouble with your piece, Daniel, is that its overall theme – that Heartland is in “decline” and has brought about its own “downfall” – is simply not true. Or, to borrow from Mark Twain: Reports of Heartland’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

As Mr. Bast explains in his blog post, the idea Heartland lost nearly $1 million in donations is false: “Most of the donors who have said they won’t continue to support us have agreed to fund new or existing groups that will continue our work; some already contributed this year before their announcements; and others had indicated they would not fund us even before the billboard controversy. We have now raised considerably more from current and new donors than we may have lost due to the controversy.”

So not only is Heartland not “down” a net $1 million, Heartland is not even at a net “zero” after spinning off its dedicated insurance projects. We’re up in funds, overall. Heartland has already doubled the number of individual donors since Peter Gleick’s Fakegate scandal, and we expect that number to continue to rise steeply throughout 2012.

In short, exactly the opposite of what leftist activists intended – let alone claim to have achieved – has actually occurred. If you think 2012 marks the “demise” of The Heartland Institute, I suggest you check back with us in five, 10 or 20 years. We’ll still be here, fighting for smaller government, individual liberty and free markets – just as we have for the last 28 years.

And I’m betting Forecast the Facts won’t exist anymore in three years. Any takers?

We might have more to say about this, and in greater detail, at a later date. But know this: The leftist “victory” over Heartland is all in their heads.

If you’d like to make a tax-deductible donatation to The Heartland Institute, visit this site.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
79 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Whitman
June 4, 2012 7:46 am

James Sexton says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:30 am
= = = = = = =
James Sexton,
Hey, thanks for your response.
Yes, as you indicated, I do disagree with your idea that abandonment of religious based morality has created the necessary conditions for the occurrence of the apparently sheeplike followers of anti-human ideologies aligned with some cults of environmentalism. Not a ‘Quelle surprise!’
My thinking is it is the two dominating philosophic traditions in our universities for the past 100+ years that are the cause of uncritical followers (sheeplike) of irrational movements, and the cause of the irrational movements themselves. Those two philosophic traditions that have dominated our institutions of higher education in the 20th century to date are Pragmatism and Neo-Kantianism. In America it appears that Pragmatism is slightly more dominant than Neo-Kantianism. In Europe it appears that Neo-Kantianism is more dominant.
John

John Whitman
June 4, 2012 8:08 am

DirkH says:
June 3, 2012 at 6:20 pm –
– – – – – – – – –
DirkH,
Thanks for your comment and the reference to Eric Berne’s book Games People Play. (1964) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_%28book%29
In my comment to James Sexton above, I indicated that I think two philosophic traditions that dominate our universities are the prime contributors to modern society having significant numbers of uncritical followers of irrational movements; and also they are a significant cause of the irrational movements themselves. I think the two traditions are Pragmatism and Neo-Kantianism.
Next time I am in a major library I will try to look through Eric Berne’s book.
John

Gilbert
June 4, 2012 8:16 am

Jim Lakely says:
June 2, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Congrats on the funding recovery.
Now , redo the Billboard with a much simpler message. Something like “CO2 is plant food”.

DirkH
June 4, 2012 11:58 am

John Whitman says:
June 4, 2012 at 8:08 am
“I indicated that I think two philosophic traditions that dominate our universities are the prime contributors to modern society having significant numbers of uncritical followers of irrational movements; and also they are a significant cause of the irrational movements themselves. I think the two traditions are Pragmatism and Neo-Kantianism.”
There are German names for this: “Gesinnungsethik” (“disposition etics”) (Kantian) – where the motive of an action is assessed for its moral merits (Kant = “Moralischer Imperativ”) – one of my colleagues was an arch social democrat and at the same time a big defender of Kant…
The other school is “Verantwortungsethik” – “responsibility ethics” – what you describe as pragmatism.
The two words were introduced by Max Weber and are still in use in German academia. Try a google translate on this or read a bio of Max Weber…
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verantwortungsethik