Joe Bast responds to Dr. Judith Curry’s post on Heartland

From Lucia’s blog, by Josh of course, click for story.

Joe Bast is responding to: Heartburn at Heartland Posted on May 24, 2012by Judith Curry

====================================

Received via email:

Dr. Curry,

Thanks for reproducing in your recent post my account of the left’s attacks on our scientists and donors. It’s a story that isn’t getting nearly enough attention in the blogosphere. I’m disappointed, though, that you also reproduced, at length and even endorsed, the lies and distortions written about us by Suzanne Goldenberg. A simple call or email to me or Jim Lakely would have given us a chance to correct her many misstatements.

I won’t ask for a correction or apology, but please understand that …

(a) Concerning ICCC-7, we set a record for the number of cosponsors (60), 12 speakers asked to speak after only 2 withdrew, and the mood was decidedly upbeat. Opponents (including “Forecast the Facts” and Occupy Wall Street) promised to disrupt the conference and failed utterly – fewer than 50 people showed up for their rallies. Those who did show up wore boots on their heads and refused Christopher Monckton’s invitation to debate.

(b) You didn’t see many new faces on the program because 50 warmists invited to speak refused to show up, and we had set aside space on the program for them. I’ve said after nearly every conference since the 3rd one that “this is probably our last conference,” and I’ve made a fundraising pitch, because the ICCCs are expensive and I suspect they are subject to the law of diminishing returns, but we keep doing them due to popular demand. Stay tuned for news about ICCC-8.

(c) Concerning Heartland’s financial health, we’ve raised more money since the Fakegate incident than in the previous 11 months, and are on track to double our income this year. We’ve doubled the number of current donors since February. With only one exception so far, the donors we’ve lost either didn’t give in 2011 (or even in 2010) or have agreed to fund spin-off organizations we are creating, such as the R Street Institute, so the result is no net loss of our effectiveness, and actually an increase.

(d) The campaign against our directors and donors being conducted by “Forecast the Facts,” 350.org, and Greenpeace – not by “anonymous individuals” as you strangely suggest – in fact is unprecedented because it could not have occurred had not Peter Gleick stolen and revealed our donor list. But we are obviously well on our way to building a new and much larger donor base that is “Greenpeace proof.”

(e) Our PR response to Fakegate has been called “brilliant” even by the folks at DesmogBlog. History will record it as another major scandal that helped bring down the man-made global warming movement. But the MSM and environmental groups doubled down on their strategic mistake, understanding that the only way to prevent Fakegate from “becoming another Climategate” is to take down Heartland and its network of scientists and donors. Their tactics compelled us to match their intensity.

(f) I am not surprised or disappointed that you and other bloggers disapprove of our tactics. It is simply not your role in the controversy to be aggressive or controversial. But it is ours.

(g) The billboard, which cost $200, generated more than $5 million in earned media so far, and that figure doesn’t include television, radio, and tens of millions of page visits and online commentaries. Was the MSM coverage overwhelmingly negative? Of course. How could it be otherwise? There has been no positive coverage of skeptics since Fakegate broke, none at all, and reporters have made it clear that they will not report the debate fairly, so there is no longer any point in trying to appeal to their ethics or honesty. Thanks to the billboard, 37 million Americans now know that the debate over climate change continues.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me or Jim Lakely if you have questions or suggestions.

Joe

Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606

Web site http://www.heartland.org

Support The Heartland Institute today!

=============================================================

FYI, I can back up point (b) from personal experience, he said the same thing last year. Also I’ve seen the list of people invited who declined to join the debate. You’d think that if we were as wrong and as stupid as they claim, it would be easy to just show up and slaughter us intellectually, but for some reason they don’t want to even try. – Anthony

143 thoughts on “Joe Bast responds to Dr. Judith Curry’s post on Heartland

  1. Thank you for posting this, Andy (and Judith Curry).
    But the Billboard with the Unabomber was a mistake. Utterly tasteless. Accomplishes nothing besides further polarizing. Is that what you want? Really?
    It would be far better to focus on the apparent unwillingness of the AGW movement to agree to a debate.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  2. NICE POLITE ANSWER MR. BAST, YOU DID YOURSELF PROUD – Keep fighting for all of us that desire good fact based science on all items before we destroy our economic base in America like the EPA – Endangered Species Act did with our raw material through value added manufacturing sector. Cutting 5 million blue collar middle class manufacturing and mining jobs.

  3. “Thanks to the billboard, 37 million Americans now know that the debate over climate change continues.”

    ….and that’s all folks

    Thanks Joe!

  4. Kurt in Switzerland says:
    May 25, 2012 at 9:46 am
    Thank you for posting this, Andy (and Judith Curry).
    But the Billboard with the Unabomber was a mistake. Utterly tasteless. Accomplishes nothing besides further polarizing. Is that what you want? Really?
    It would be far better to focus on the apparent unwillingness of the AGW movement to agree to a debate.

    Kurt in Switzerland

    So, $5 million in earned media is “nothing”? Besides, when the other side is engaging in trench warfare, it’s time to ditch the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

  5. I hadn’t seen Judith’s post. I can’t imagine what was going through her head to think that CAGW info in The Guardian (of all places) was factual.

  6. Kurt in Switzerland says:
    May 25, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Thank you for posting this, Andy (and Judith Curry).
    But the Billboard with the Unabomber was a mistake. Utterly tasteless. Accomplishes nothing besides further polarizing. Is that what you want? Really?
    It would be far better to focus on the apparent unwillingness of the AGW movement to agree to a debate.

    Kurt in Switzerland
    ______________________
    Not nearly as tasteless and polarizing as a billboard featuring All Gore…

    Is the debate not already polarized?
    There’s more than one way to flush out a Burner Brownshirt.

  7. Latitude:
    More like this, “Thanks to Peter Gleick’s misguided zealotry and subsequent fall from grace, Heartland had a unique opportunity to capitalize on public consternation and indeed sympathy. Sorry, the 37 m Americans were already watching from February onwards! Unfortunately, this potential for a continued outpouring of good will was squandered by running a tasteless ad campaign comparing proponents of AGW with the Unabomber.”

    Good that Bast pulled the billboard after a day, and understandable that he was caught up into the fistfight in the first place. Too bad he doesn’t just leave well enough alone and write it off as poor judgement in the heat of battle.

    Two wrongs really do not make a right.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  8. If the billboard’s ‘message’ would have been headlined [i.e.] with:
    ”We don’t do ads like this:…”, there would certainly been mostly/only positive reactions…
    Go figure… ;)

    Brgds
    //TJ

  9. This is one of the reasons they have changed the topic – again. Climate change and it’s predecessors have been thrown under the bus and replaced with saving species. This will be the theme for Rio+20. Obama just made note of it also.
    Apparently some of the better known skeptic’s will be “Occupying” the festivities. Should be fun. ;)

    UN says case for saving species ‘more powerful than climate change’

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/16005/Time-for-Next-EcoScare-Obama-follows-lead-of-green-movement-and-demotes-global-warming-UN-now-says-case-for-saving-species-more-powerful-than-climate-change

  10. @Kurt no it wasn’t, it was an excellent idea! More please Heartland!

    If it makes one person wake up to this scam, to see that we are killing the future of humans on this planet due to disastrous laws banning something that actually feeds us then it is well worth it! We now cannot afford to be polite and nice anymore, they have been pushing and pushing this nonsense for too long… we need to start to fight fire with fire and show those that don’t know, or don’t care, just how important it is that we halt this now!

    Energy Bills are being based on this rubbish as we speak, we no longer have time to sit back and be nice!

    ‘The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.’ – Albert Einstein

  11. Curry has finally got off the fence and nailed her colours to the mast. Personally, I’m not too surprised at what they were …

    Pointman

  12. “Accomplishes nothing besides further polarizing. Is that what you want? Really?”

    (ignoring the $5 million in earned media, and DJ Hawkins pointed out)

    Yes, actually. This is now a binary political fight – there is no middle ground anymore, there is no hope of achieving any kind of “consensus” with our opponents. There is only the sorting of the two opposing sides and then the fight to see who wins, and who loses. That’s what this game is about now.

    I see you’re Swiss, it’s kind of like what the EU has to decide right now – they either have to start up the Euro printing presses to bail all the debtors out and keep Greece in, or they have to defend the currency and throw Greece out. The middle ground is gone, there is no “3rd way” in between those two very hard choices. It’s either / or, and all the wishing in the world won’t change that.

    We are in a fight where one side is right, and one side is wrong. That’s where the polarization comes from.

  13. I’m a big fan of Dr. Curry and was quite surprised to see her treat The Guardian and DeSmogBlog as credible sources on her blog, I’ve got to say as a possible defense, I’m not sure she even realized how partisan they are. There’s almost a kind of naivete about her. In any case, I’m glad to read your post Joe B.. I do think you guys made a mistake with the billboard, but it wasn’t fatal by any means. Keep up the good work. In fact, I plan on making a modest contribution in the next few days….

  14. DJ Hawkins: if “$5M in earned media” means the same to you whether that “earned media” is net negative or net positive, then you have a point. But Bast’s Billboard gave the likes of the Guardian’s Goldenberg the opportunity to portray Heartland as a lowlife organization, about to be abandoned by corporate interests. Good that he set the record straight for readers of Judith Curry’s post (as well as those on WUWT), but don’t expect the MSM to correct any misrepresentations.

    My advice for Joe Bast: focus on the science and remain civil, while reminding those sitting on the fence about the unwillingness of the AGW movement to debate.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  15. Thanks to the billboard, 37 million Americans now know that the debate over climate change continues.

    In his speech to Heartland, Czech President Vaclav Klaus points out that the warmists have recently toned down their strident attacks, pronouncements and catastrophic predictions. For good reason, he therefore, thanks Heartland

    …for keeping the global warming issue alive. This is an important achievement in a moment when it has already become half-forgotten. It has not happened accidentally, it was and is planned. It is a part of a carefully prepared tactic of global warming alarmists how to – once and for all – win their case. In the past two decades, they tried to do the opposite. They wanted to be as loud as possible to arouse our fears, now – when the whole issue becomes more and more suspicious – it is in their interest to stop any public discussion. This is the reason why they try to pretend that “the science is settled”, that the debate is over. We should not let them do it.

    In my opinion, the billboard did a service, and should be redeployed at some point prior to the presidential election. The issue is of course divisive, but as Bast observes, the delicate sensibilities of warmists are not a top priority right now. More important is getting rid of Obama and the highly destructive policies of global warming that he has endorsed. Obama should be forced to reiterate his positions on green energy, and on the money he’s gambled – and lost – on renewables. The billboard just flushd them out of hiding.

  16. No doubt the pro-CAGW protagonists will now try to attack heartland based on the “massive big-oil funding of $5m”. Let them, screech and wail, but good to see the work growing in strength an vigor.

    As for “aggressive”, facts don’t need to be aggressive. Assertive, maybe. A strength is to underplay the aggression, and present a calm, composed and rational persona as demonstrated by Lord Monckton’s numerous examples. Being calm, unruffled and sticking to the data-based facts is more likely to upset the doom-sayers than anything. The more you doggedly stick to the data & facts, the more intense and angry they become trying to deflect you away from it with red herrings, ad hominem attacks, appeals to (false) authority, etc. etc. because they can’t answer. You just have to stick with it. Also, focus on the people who suffer from their policies, as they will focus on Gaia, i.e. it is the earth that serves man, and not man the earth, as this is where the assertiveness can reap rewards. Push the questions on suffering back on them, pick a few core examples, cheap electricity to enable mass improvments and develop sustainable businesses for example, and keep probing, probing, probing.

    As for the MSM, just bypass them. Use all the internet tools and channels available against which they have no defence. If billboards, then fine, go for it.

    I just wish I could have been at ICCC-7, but maybe next year.

  17. I support WUWT and Heartland financially. Just those two. For their size and shoestring budgets, they are David to the mainstream’s Goliath. So I put my money where it will get the most bang for the buck.

    • • •

    [Also, I attended the Conference and picked up some “Peter Gleick/Fakegate” and Heartland’s “Don’t Tread On Me” T-shirts. If anyone would like one, send your name & mailing address to my throwaway email acount: themistocles2010-2020 at yahoo.com. State your size. Offer good until my supply runs out.]

  18. “reporters have made it clear that they will not report the debate fairly, so there is no longer any point in trying to appeal to their ethics or honesty. Thanks to the billboard, 37 million Americans now know that the debate over climate change continues.”

    It is good to know that Joe Bast is not wearing blinders as so many skeptics do. I am very happy to learn how successful the billboard was and I hope Heartland will do the rest of them. Please put one on Rt. in New Hampshire just north of the MA border Joe.

  19. A good response, and I wish Heartland well. Thanks for the online presentations.

    The end does not justify the means re: the billboard saga. It seems like it was a knee jerk reaction that was out of character, though it was understandable under the circumstances. I hope lessons will be learned from it rather than just taking an arrogant “it was right” kind of stand. It takes a long time to build up credibility and only one second to lose it.

  20. Not that it matters that much, but I also believe the billboard to be highly accurate and appropriate.

    When you are dealing with religious zealots determined to destroy society at any costs, they have to be met with at least the same level of effort. To do anything less strengthens their resolve and is seen as a self justification.

    Nah… That billboard was right on the mark.

  21. wws, Switzerland is in Europe, but not in the European Union (probably a good move on their part). Unfortunately, the (unelected) folks in Brussels will probably find a third way, even if
    it’s just waiting things out….
    The sad part about the billboard is that the point was valid, but the people it was aimed at
    are probably a little too thick to get it (considering that they have their wagons circled
    around “consensus”)…

  22. Like Anthony, I remember Joe Bast saying “this might be the last ICCC” at Washington last year. Anthony and I might have been at the same table. IIRC, Bast went on to note he would be spending a lot of the July 4th holiday talking to donors and others for money to pay the bills for that conference. He also noted they knew it would be a money losing proposition from the outset and that they kept the registration fee low to help keep attendance high.

    He also wondered if there was as much of a need for future ICCCs, as the previous ones did a good job of getting skeptical scientists together (see Bill Gray’s essay about Heartland wherever it is), and providing interested media a chance to learn about the other side of the issues.

    I didn’t make it this one, in part because I’ve learned a lot from the two I’ve attended and in part due to schedule conflicts. However, I’m glad to hear there might be an ICCC-8.

  23. I wondered at the stupidity of the global warmer supporters when they drew so much attention to the billboard. Didn’t they realise how much free publicity they were giving Heartland?
    No doubt the tactic worked.
    Parody of Churchill quote,coined by Anthony Eden:
    “Never has so much been surrendered by so many, to so few.”
    It’s amazing to think how much people have given up, or had taken from them in the name of climate change.
    Personally I think the war has already been lost, and I am not talking about climate change.

  24. “Thanks to the billboard, 37 million Americans now know that the debate over climate change continues.”

    Mm. Perhaps those of us outside the US are not as familiar (yet) with the concept of successful negative attack ads. I just thought the billboard stank, and was a gift to the warmistas. Sorry, Mr Bast.

    One caustic, funny witticism can do more damage than a hundred snarky attacks. See Josh for examples.

    And why have you replied to Dr. Curry by email here, and not directly on her blog?

  25. “If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over.” Al Gore

    The AGW proponents have long since left behind the possibility of engaging in intelligent consideration of scientific data.

    “War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.” Carl von Clausewitz

  26. Well done joe
    I didn’t like the billboard, it was a bit naff and I thought it would alienate the ‘newly curious’
    which is a crucial battlefield in my opinion.
    Judiths post was worrying, but this response here is excellent.
    well done , and good luck mate

  27. Judith Curry’s article is very disappointing, and Joe Bast’s response is a right.
    I have not been disappointed about the billboard. It is a political battle and the other side tries as hard as they can. By showing simple facts in dramatic pictures, we do not fabricate anything, what is not true. When they scream, something was done the right way. Ross McKittrick should reconsider …

  28. …continued

    And HOW is one supposed to have a rational debate with an opponent who has a boot on their head ? We are more used to debating catastrophists who wear tin-foil helmets, or biscuit tins at least

  29. “The billboard, which cost $200, generated more than $5 million in earned media so far, and that figure doesn’t include television, radio, and tens of millions of page visits and online commentaries.”

    That billboard shocked many because it signaled that Heartland had allowed itself to be dragged into an advocacy mud pond. Once you’re in that pond, you can forget about regaining an image of “high minded seekers of truth for its own sake” and attracting those who abhor mud. When a $5 million return on a $200 investment becomes your sole standard of judgement, better get accustomed to the color “brown”.

  30. I must say, however I didn’t like the Heartland billboard, they are right – there’s little point to be trying to be fair in a debate if the other side isn’t playing fair too. And it definitely got attention.
    But I still don’t like it.

  31. At first I agreed with Anthony that the billboard was in bad taste, but I have since changed my mind. The warmists really need to take a hard look in the mirror. Why do they not want to engage In a public debate? Because they know they cannot defend their position. It is as simple as that!

  32. Spartacusisfree says:
    May 25, 2012 at 10:33 am
    Have you not heard of gumboot diplomacy?

    now i have to clean coffee of my laptop keyboard and screen!

  33. You know, I understand the upset and anger from the skeptics over the Unabomber ad. I sympathize with your position. It seems to lower us to the level of the AGW propagandists. It’s a fair concern. And one not to be dismissed lightly.

    But I think it ended up being a brilliant propaganda move for our side. It was run for one day, right? And Heartland explained very clearly afterwards what the intent was. What the point was. And I think they made their point. Fabulously.

    Has Heartland received a lot of negative press? Yup. Are they being branded as extremists and “haters”? Yup.

    But how is that any different than what has already been happening over the last few years? Did the ad really make things any worse?

    The world is filled with people looking for a reason to be upset. Filled with people looking for a reason to be outraged. Filled with people who absolutely know that they are our betters, and are willing, at the drop of the rhetorical hat, to let everyone know that blindingly obvious fact. Filled with people who are willing to use character assassination, legal loopholes, and outright theft to advance their “greater good.” Particularly the self-appointed guardians of Gaia. And their self-awareness and sense of irony is so profoundly lacking as to be non-existent.

    Which was really the point of the ad. We have been demonized for years by these jackasses. Years. Our reputations have been trashed; our careers jeopardized; our families threatened; etc. We have been the butt of horrible jokes. We have been compared to Hitler, rapists, child murderers….

    The Unabomber ad was a shot across the bow. Enough is enough. We have to start fighting fire with fire. Does that mean breaking the law, as they have managed to do on numerous occasions? No. Does it mean lying? Absolutely not. But it does mean, among other things, fighting the propaganda war that they started in a way that is effective. To “hit back twice as hard”, to quote one of their icons.

    It’s time to shove their sh*t back in their faces. We are at war. AGW is just one of the fronts. But it is a critical one, as it involves so many huge international governmental agencies that would love nothing more than to collect yet more money and power to exert over all of our lives. The perfect vehicles through which the nannyists can accumulate more control.

    Sorry for the rant. I hope you leave it up, Anthony. I think this is important, and needs to be said.

    Repeatedly. We have to fight back. We have to be ruthless.

  34. I’m kinda shocked to see that Dr. Curry used Guardian and DeSmogBlog as sources. Does she even know anything about them?

  35. Noelene, after reading about Biffra’s Yamal data manipulations, I have to say that I don’t think it ever was about science.

  36. When I was involved in the Creation – Evolution wars , we never ducked a chance to debate the C-ists. For good science to prevail one has to be willing to cover the same ground over and over again, like a teacher. It’s the only way to make sure the lesson sticks.

  37. Kurt in Switzerland says:
    May 25, 2012 at 10:37 am
    “……..My advice for Joe Bast: focus on the science and remain civil, while reminding those sitting on the fence about the unwillingness of the AGW movement to debate.” Kurt in Switzerland

    Kurt,
    Have you provided any financial support to Heartland?
    MtK

  38. You can’t really blame Dr Curry she does hang out in one of the most biased parts of US society, Academia.

    Shame she did not have 2 minutes to send an e-mail though.

  39. Well, I have just changed my position. I said at the outset that the poster was a bad idea, would do more harm and opened the skeptics to ridicule. But Joe is saying it’s not about trying to win an argument – it’s about showing the world that the argument is still going on. People are still fighting, and where there is fighting, the public want to learn more.

  40. nukemhill says:
    May 25, 2012 at 11:39 am
    “…….Which was really the point of the ad. We have been demonized for years by these jackasses. Years. Our reputations have been trashed; our careers jeopardized; our families threatened; etc. We have been the butt of horrible jokes. We have been compared to Hitler, rapists, child murderers….”

    nukemhill,
    Well said, Sir!
    ‘ I’m mad as hell… and I’m not going to take it any more!’
    Does that about sum it up?
    MtK

  41. Mr. Joe Bast,
    Thank You, Sir! Your response was eloquent, yet unambiguously direct. Well Done!
    MtK

  42. Personally, I think Dr Curry is a little too ambiguous or non-commital with her stance. Obviously, there is probably a case for not wanting to bite the hand that feeds her (?) – but even so, I’d like to think any real scientist would rather starve (metaphorically speaking) than have their name attached to false or bad science. If we stick to straightforward scientific proof (of CAGW I mean) there should be no scientists on the alarmist side! Ok, the ‘fencesitters’ are perhaps more acceptable, as ‘some’ AGW is always possible BUT it is exactly these folks who should be shouting the loudest – instead of sitting in the wings with their heads down! It is ‘science’ that is being abused in the CAGW scam. For my money, anyone directly involved with perpetuating the scam should be dishonoured – for example, any scientist who has published works using the known sham data like Briffa’s Yamal stuff – they are a disgrace for NOT checking sources, etc, etc..
    just sayin……

  43. The billboard was in poor taste. Taste and principles are objective.

    However, given the fact that the replies included calling skepticism a crime against humanity, and explicitly calling for the arrest (and presumably execution) of every member of Heartland, I find that the allusion is more apt than we had dared to fear.

    http://junkscience.com/2012/05/23/kevin-deanna-doubting-climate-change-crime-against-humanity/

    http://junkscience.com/2012/01/29/hansen-put-fossil-fuel-kingpins-on-trial/

    This is no random person, but strong, official voices. This is the OFFICIAL declaration. Opposition to them is a crime. The Unabomber is a frighteningly accurate representation.

    What Heartland should have done is not put Ted up there, but Hansen, with his quotes. Kill them with their own words. Play a game of “attribute the quote”. That would have given proper context.

  44. “But the Billboard with the Unabomber was a mistake. Utterly tasteless.”

    Compared to a video of children being blasted into bloody chunks for disagreeing with CAGW cant?

    I think the billboard was a refreshing piece of honesty and directness.

  45. Luther Wu, Carrie, sunshinehours1, wws and others who “adore the billboard”:

    No, this is not about the sensitivities of your arch enemies. I’m thinking about the vast majority of people who “generally believe there is a climate problem associated with atmospheric CO2 and that it is generally a good idea to drastically restrict humans’ emissions of GHG.”

    Most people are not in this trench warfare as is Joe Bast. And they will respond negatively to attacks which are tasteless. They still “trust scientists.” The MSM are watching. Copying egregious errors of the proponents of AGW will not win you any points from the very important “undecided.” I don’t care if Al Gore and David Suzuki are behaving like fools themselves. Let them.

    Tallbloke’s assertion that Goldenberg’s representation about the meaning of the billboard was a lie (parsing the term “scientists” with “believers of CO2 controlled climate”) is really only a nuance, which will be missed by 99+%. The Billboard raised emotions, for sure … but the wrong ones.

    Sorry, I’m with Ross McKitrick and Donna Laframboise on this one.

    I’m more interested in reading about Goldenberg’s claim that Gleick was exonerated of forgery (since Steven Mosher’s keen eye flushed out Gleick as the forger in the first place, which led him to admit to impersonation, identity theft, etc.)! Andy Revkin of NYT Dot Earth reported that Gleick’s former institute hadn’t drawn any conclusions (two days after Goldenberg’s article claiming Gleick was cleared [of forgery] by an investigation/review), which leads one to conclude that the Guardian was quite careless to publish the article. (Not that I’m particularly surprised about that).

    Kurt in Switzerland

  46. Noelene says:
    May 25, 2012 at 11:07 am

    ….. Personally I think the war has already been lost, and I am not talking about climate change.
    ______________________________
    Unfortunately I think you may be correct. The problem is they do not give up – EVER.

    As an illustration.

    American Consumers and Farmers have been fighting the World Trade Organization’s Animal ID and Traceability for almost a decade. The “Regulations” made it to the Federal register in Febuary of 2007 and got a resounding HECK NO! of over 5,000 comments (I read most of them) Did that stop them? Of course not. They tried again in March of 2009 and then again last winter. Each time getting a resounding NO! So now the “Ruling” is going to be fast tracked to president Obama to sign because the USDA “found” a mad cow.

    Given how the USDA “Found” test results showing “Mad Sheep” and destroyed a herd owned by the Fallices (Fallice is the scientist who found that Sheep Scrapies did NOT caused Mad Cow disease much to the disgust of politicians) I find this very suspicious. Especially when a Freedom of Information Act show 400 tests were actually performed and ALL WERE NEGATIVE

    …A few weeks later, Linda Faillace heard there was more information held by the USDA and used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to request the data. Two weeks after the request, the FOIA revealed four hundred negative results on sheep, including additional negative tests on the four sheep that Rubenstein and the USDA claimed were positive. Davis Buckley asked the court to force the USDA to surrender their entire file, which consisted of over 1,000 pages.” link

    (Rubenstein “POSITIVES” were done at an unlicensed lab using an unproven test method. He was also a pal of the USDA agent.)

    We also have the defeat of the Cap and Trade bill followed by the EPA ruling CO2 a pollutant anyway.

    We now have a government run by a bureaucracy that is not even bothering to give lip service to Congress. A PRIMER ON MONEY: SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE. COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY documents how control of US money was wrested from the US government by the Federal Reserve by signing the “Accord” in 1951 and then going to the media with the “Story”. The President and Secretary of the Treasury who was in the hospital at the time had a different interpretation of the “Accord” (pg 103 – 107)

    The government-industry revolving door puts industry-friendly experts in positions of decision-making power. is of course well known.

  47. Pointman says:
    May 25, 2012 at 10:24 am

    Curry has finally got off the fence and nailed her colours to the mast. Personally, I’m not too surprised at what they were …
    ______________________________________
    Trojan Horse

  48. @ Kurt in Switzerland says:
    May 25, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Luther Wu, Carrie, sunshinehours1, wws and others who “adore the billboard”:

    No, this is not about the sensitivities of your arch enemies. I’m thinking about the vast majority of people who “generally believe there is a climate problem associated with atmospheric CO2 and that it is generally a good idea to drastically restrict humans’ emissions of GHG.”

    ******************************************************************************
    Vast majority? I hope you have some reliable polling numbers for that statement. Last I heard the subject was last on the list of concerns. I doubt that the ‘vast majority’ have more than a nodding acquaintance with the subject at all.

    Back up your claim, please.

  49. Jeff says: @ May 25, 2012 at 11:01 am

    ….The sad part about the billboard is that the point was valid, but the people it was aimed at
    are probably a little too thick to get it (considering that they have their wagons circled
    around “consensus”)…
    ________________________________
    The billboard was not aimed at the econuts. It was aimed at the typical American Zombie in hopes of waking them up enough to actually look at the issue instead of just going along with the rest of the lemmings. http://rgifs.gifbin.com/320sw0sw7847.gif

  50. Was the billboard successful?
    Well it certainly is responsible for me comparing TK’s manifesto – with Mr Gores’. That is something I would not have researched on my own.

  51. The Unabomber billboard was infantile (“Gee, Hitler believed in Christianity. Do you?”) and Bast non apology of saying that skeptics should get to slander people as well is just as idiotic. People make mistakes though. I think Bast relized how bone headed it was and pulled the billboards immediately. It takes a big man to admit he made a mistake though and unfortunately Bast chose to pretend his purpose all along was to stir the pot.

    Still, Heartland does encourage debate on Global Warming which is something that no alarmist organization does. I’m hoping that he is able to continue bringing climate change skepticism to the public through more reasoned marketing and further climate conferences.

  52. IMO MS Curry….did more harm to her scientific / research credibility by quoting Suzanne Goldenberg | The Guardian.

    Ms Curry stated, in her defense, something like ” It was the only outlet covering Heartland at the time of my writing” [ not quoted verbatim – see her blog ]…..BUT Ms Curry, you used Suzanne Goldenberg | The Guardian to bolster your arguments.

    C’mon!

  53. Here! Here is ABC NEWS (U.S.).
    Scan the video forward to min. 2:40 for the pay dirt!
    NOW, you tell me, was there something wrong with their report?

  54. I do not like Mud Slinging but it has been around in political fights for eons.

    A History of Political Mudslinging and Character Assasssination

    The Herman Cain campaign for president is a classic example in the recent press of just how effective mud slinging can be. Was there any truth to the accusations? Who the heck knows but $$$ can buy a lot of sexual harrassment accusations against a sixty year old guy especially if you do not have to prove anything in a court of law. Heck a major dislike of someone, few scruples and a media willing to pay for “tell -all” sound bites is all it takes.

    Unforgettable Moments in Political Mudslinging
    …Back in the 19th century, anonymous pamphlets wreaked havoc on politicians, much like comments left on today’s blogs. Then, as now, slurs centered on sexuality, origins and religion. And woe to the candidate with a funny-sounding name. Sometimes accusations were true, sometimes half-true, and often times as fanciful as unicorns. And they worked. One day a candidate was up, the next day, sayonora….

    You can start with Andrew Jackson v. John Q. Adams go on to Lyndon B. Johnson v. Barry Goldwater, mud slinging has been around in this country’s politics from the beginning and unfortunately the nice guy often finishes last. However as the Elizabeth Dole v. Kay Haganmud slugfest shows you better not get caught in the lie or it will backfire on you.

    Elizabeth Dole v. Kay Hagan

    The 2008 US Senate race in North Carolina proves that women can be just as vicious as men in hitting below the belt. Or whatever. During the notorious battle between Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole and challenger Kay Hagan, the Dole campaign hit upon a tactic that would surely take down her rival, who had been inching ahead in the polls. Hagan would be denounced as an atheist. An ad called “Godless Americans,” cooked up to target Hagan’s religion, featured a voice saying, “There is no God!” over a picture of the candidate’s face. The voice was not Hagan’s but the ad sure wanted you to think it was.

    That was a sling too far for Hagan, who launched her own ad reminding voters that she was a Sunday school teacher. In the end, Dole’s repulsive ad backfired, and Hagan’s lead in polls doubled. “Godless Kay” beat Dole with a nine-point margin. http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154346/you're_an_atheist%2C_madam!_9_unforgettable_moments_in_political_mudslinging_/?page=3

  55. I posted this in the comment section of Willis’ post, but maybe its more appropriate here and add a bit.

    I’ll continue to shout my support for HI’s billboard campaign and I highly encourage them to continue. We are well past the time that we quit talking about the potential harm of the policies enacted to fight CC/CAGW and start pointing out the proper comparisons to these lunatics. It isn’t a question of “they did it first”, it is a question of the projection, duplicity and hypocrisy of the alarmists.

    To me, it doesn’t make any sense not to point out fundamental truths about who our opponents are in this climate discussion. The comparison to the Unibomber isn’t just truthful, it is apt. He is a Luddite who decried the industrialization of the world and killed people to further his ideology. How is this different than the killings and forced mass sterilizations which are occurring in efforts to further the alarmist agenda? http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/these-animals-are-committing-crimes-against-humanity/ There are, of course, many more crimes against humanity these people are engaged in, which I hope to unify into post soon.

    We should avoid talking about this and putting it in proper context because if offends the sensibilities of some climate skeptics? They make Ted Kaczynski look like a choirboy.

    The climate discussion was never a discussion about science. It was always about an ideology attempting to take over the control of our energy and fuel resources. With the documented data manipulation and the earth’s stubborn reluctance to conform to the dire prognostications of the alarmists is enough evidence to know that faux science has been debunked.

    The temps don’t show an increase without “revisions”. The sea levels don’t rise without “revisions” to the numbers in either satellite data or tidal gauges. Ice extent has been so stubborn that we now see the discussion moving to mass, and having people pretend they can adequately account for it. (lol, like the -4gt of the Himalayan ice, +/- 20gt)

    It’s ludicrous to cower from discussing the realities of these maniacs’ advocacy.

  56. The fact that Heartland is still the focus of such a concerted and ethically challenged effort to destroy it is evidence enough for me to suspect that they are still being quite effective, although it must be admitted that they never have nor likely never will amount to more than a flea on the back of a Bull Mastiff versus the CO2 demonization machine which has been so successful in embedding the Big Lie of Evil Carbon in the collective human consciousness that, even among the mostly skeptical crowd here, very few rise to challenge the implicit fallacy that reducing carbon is an unquestioned good. A seeming majority still cling to the naive notion that this civilizational war can only be won by maintaining our arguments within a cocoon of “scientific” purity.A view which requires ignoring the fact that among those most responsible for creating and maintaining the antiCO2 movement the science has always been a pretext and a distraction from their real plans.

    Of course, actually accepting that fact will get you branded as a “conspiracy theorist” which is just another indication of how effective they have been at manipulating the language of the debate to suit their purposes. I have never been willing to call their plans a conspiracy because, to my mind, a conspiracy requires an effort to be covert and these folks have never made the slightest attempt to keep their true goals secret. They could be secure in their transparency knowing that every major path of information transmittal ( journalism, academia, and entertainment) was thoroughly dominated by like minded individuals and the only statements they made that would see the broad light of day would be the ones that they desired to do so. The Internet has assured that their strategizing efforts will always be accessible, but their multigenerational program to transform education has also assured that few will be left with the curiosity to seek them out.

    That transformation of education is also why focusing on the science will never do much to curtail their plans. The notion of education as a system to develop the capacity for critical thought has been replaced by a system whose goal is the develop revolutionary consciousness. If you doubt this check out the works of Bill Ayres, Obama’s old mentor, who went from terrorist murderer to a leading light in educational philosophy and who is also utterly transparent about his goals. Goals he and his Weather Underground colleagues, most of whom who have not assumed room temp are now in academia, have been so successful at implementing that in recent years a number of graduate schools of Education have actually attempted to enforce a philosophical litmus test as a requirement of admission.

    Polls about CAGW are notoriously unreliable, mostly because the language of the debate has been completely corrupted, but many recent ones suggest that doubts about the consensus view are moving to a majority position. But even if a large majority can be made to see that weakness, if they can’t be made to see, and more importantly actively resist, the harmful consequences of the regulatory despots and green subsidizers who have embedded themselves throughout human culture, winning the scientific battle will mean nothing because we will have lost the war. The real consequence of that loss will be the virtual elimination of any chance for humans to live in circumstances where they have any actual opportunity to live in real freedom.

    I have long maintained that our Founders in accomplishing the American Revolution created what was and still is the only real revolution in human history. Throughout history and even today over most of the world the proper role of people vis a vis their governors was to be subjects. The men who drafted our Constitution sought to reverse that and make governance subject to its citizens. Recognizing that the will to power was of constant of human nature they constructed a structure with intricate checks and balance and sharply enumerated limits on government authority hoping restrain the natural human tendency toward despotism. The power hungry among us have been whittling away at that structure from the very beginning. We now have as President, a supposed Constitutional scholar, who believes those restraints were not the primary genius of the American experiment, but that they are a primary weakness. The forces of freedom have been engaged in a long delaying action for over a century, but recent years have turned the struggle into a philosophical version of Sherman’s march through Georgia. At this point I fear we have about as much chance of reversing the war between human freedom and despotism as the Confederates did of reclaiming their cause after Sherman but, if there is any hope, we are well past the moment where the gloves need to come off

    The notion that those pushing the consensus cause deserve any kind of respect or deference is a nicety that we can no longer afford. Even if, in what seems to be a highly unlikely circumstance, they are sincere in what they choose to believe and espouse the solutions to this phony crisis that they are promoting are such a clear and present danger to the entire human community that they must be resisted by any and means available. Personally I am not all that hopeful that the task is achievable. Too many have already been assimilated by the environmental Borg, but even if “Resistance is Futile” I still think it is an effort we need to make.

    Rant/off

  57. nukemhill says:
    May 25, 2012 at 11:39 am

    “It’s time to shove their sh*t back in their faces. We are at war. AGW is just one of the fronts. But it is a critical one, as it involves so many huge international governmental agencies that would love nothing more than to collect yet more money and power to exert over all of our lives. The perfect vehicles through which the nannyists can accumulate more control.”

    Damn right! Thanks for the rant nukem. my feelings exactly.

    Rich

  58. @Gail Combs. Yes like a Trojan Horse, I suppose but it reminds me more of Aesop’s fable of the Scorpion and the Frog. In the end, the scorpion had to strike – it was its nature after all.

    Pointman

  59. I would like to see a billboard that challenges the AGW brethren to come and debate the issues… LIVE.

    Come and debate….. Come on Al, Jim, Mick et.al.. IF YOU DARE !!!

    Let the public know just how scared they are to even say hello !!! ;-)

    The AGW brethren are cowards.

    They know they would be on a hiding to nothing in any real debate.

    Because of this cowardly attitude, the debate, as such, has to be at many arms’ length, and has never really started.

  60. Kurt in Switzerland is absolutely correct on this matter. I rarely find myself in complete agreement with anyone.

    Most people care about the economy, their family and how they will make things better for all.
    Global warming is a fringe interest. They have no knowledge of what is going on. They don’t need to; it’s not important to them (they think).

    But guilt by association is dirty. It is not what people want to agree with. It is self-smearing.

    Raise the profile of the issue by pointing out the fraud (Tiljander, Yamal, the fiddling of GISS). Do not raise irrelevancies like random nutters spouting rubbish.

    The billboard lost the high ground.

  61. From Judith Curry’s site, “The organisation has been forced to make up those funds by taking its first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry. The main Illinois coal lobby is a last-minute sponsor of this week’s conference, undermining Heartland’s claims to operate independently of fossil fuel interests.”
    ====================================================
    Uhhh…So what?
    I say it’s about time the industries being maligned and targeted by these, at best, willfully ignorant groups wake up and support their knowledgeable supporters instead of paying extortion money to the “Greenpeace” types.
    The CAGWers are the ones that have created the myth that accepting money from these industries means Heartland is not being honest and unbiased. Where does their money come from? AL Gore? How much has he made in Yamal timber futures?

  62. Ian Hoder says:
    May 25, 2012 at 1:33 pm
    “The Unabomber billboard was infantile (“Gee, Hitler believed in Christianity. Do you?”) and Bast non apology of saying that skeptics should get to slander people as well is just as idiotic. ”

    Ian, read a history book. About Hitler. Or the wikipedia. Anything.

  63. Dave Wendt says: @ May 25, 2012 at 1:
    ……The Internet has assured that their strategizing efforts will always be accessible, but their multigenerational program to transform education has also assured that few will be left with the curiosity to seek them out.

    That transformation of education is also why focusing on the science will never do much to curtail their plans. The notion of education as a system to develop the capacity for critical thought has been replaced by a system whose goal is the develop revolutionary consciousness. If you doubt this check out the works of Bill Ayres, Obama’s old mentor, who went from terrorist murderer to a leading light in educational philosophy and who is also utterly transparent about his goals. Goals he and his Weather Underground colleagues, most of whom who have not assumed room temp are now in academia, have been so successful at implementing that in recent years a number of graduate schools of Education have actually attempted to enforce a philosophical litmus test as a requirement of admission….
    _________________________________
    About the demise of our educational system. A bit more on that: John Dewey (Fabian Socialist) started it over a century ago: http://www.ordination.org/dumbing_down.htm

    We have now progressed to drugging anyone in school that is not a brain dead follower including our gifted children: see: http://www.scn.org/~bk269/r-ball.html

    ESPECIALLY white males…

    …..prevalence and treatment have been documented to vary by all three factors, with the highest rate of ADHD among 6- to 9-year-old white boys (LeFever et al., 1999; Safer & Zito, 1999; Safer et al., 1996). Safer (1999) has presented, although not published, data indicating that from the early to mid-1990s the rate of ADHD treatment (i.e., school-administered Ritalin) among white boys in Baltimore County elementary schools was over 15%. Failure to report more specific findings when they are available can distort patterns in ADHD care…. the study may have yielded an artificially low rate of ADHD and its treatment…. http://www.srmhp.org/0201/adhd.html

    ….The American Academy of Pediatrics reports as many as 3.8 million schoolchildren, mostly boys, have now been diagnosed with the newly-coined “ADHD” — attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder — a psychiatric “disease” with symptoms to which most of our grandparents would have responded by simply smiling: “Boys will be boys.” Or perhaps by asking, “Could it be that he finds your school boring? Does it really make sense to spend three or four years teaching reading, a skill easily mastered in six weeks if you’d just use phonics?”

    At least a million children now take Ritalin for this “disorder.” In two school districts near Virginia Beach, Virginia, for instance, a 1999 study by psychologist Gretchen LeFever found fully 20 percent of white boys in the fifth grade in the 1995-1996 school year were receiving prescription drugs for ADHD. And even the AAP acknowledged in a recent study that many cases are misdiagnosed…. http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/supryno.html

    Worse is the side effects

    ADHD: Ritalin – Brain damage, heart attacks, hallucinations & liver damage
    Ritalin is prescribed to 6 million children with ADHD every year and like all drugs comes with a long list of side effects including nervousness, nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, insomnia, joint pains, headaches, increased blood pressure, fever, rapid heartbeat, abdominal pain, and psychosis….

    http://www.cchrint.org/2010/11/15/adhd-ritalin-–-brain-damage-heart-attacks-hallucinations-liver-damage/

    Not to mention death

    ….Between 1990 and 2000 there were 186 deaths from methylphenidate reported to the FDA MedWatch program, a voluntary reporting scheme, the numbers of which represent no more than 10 to 20% of the actual incidence…. http://www.ritalindeath.com/

    And psychosis – the desire to KILL

    http://familyrights.us/bin/white_papers-articles/drugging_our_children/

    ….What’s frightening is that this study documented a better than 6- percent rate of psychotic behavior in children taking stimulants at a time when 5 to 7 million children are now taking the stimulant Ritalin. Psychiatrists have known for decades that Ritalin can cause psychotic behavior. In 1975, psychiatrist Daniel Friedman wrote that Ritalin was one of five drugs that “produced psychotic reactions.” Even at low doses amphetamine-like drugs “may occasionally produce psychotic states, and such psychosis may be prolonged, resembling paranoid psychosis.” In fact, in 1973, psychiatrists were giving amphetamines to volunteers in order to observe their reactions. The reactions frightened researchers, who noted that several of the
    subjects expressed “a desire to kill” or to do something “bad or destructive.”[xxxix] Researchers concluded that there was a potential danger of impulsive murderous violence caused by amphetamine-induced psychosis
    ….

    Parents can be hauled into court for refusing school perscribed Ritalin http://www.schaler.net/inthenews/ritalin.htm and http://breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81 and http://www.cchrint.org/tag/ritalin/ (Israel)

    Yes schools can prescribe the drug and enforce dosing of YOUR kid in the USA.

    …Earlier a school nurse practitioner […] decided the Carroll’s seven year old son, Kyle, was suffering from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) because he was restless in class. A physician, under contract to the school (whom had never “examined” Kyle) prescribed Ritalin… the Carrolls informed the school that they were going to take Kyle off the drug on a trial basis until they could have Kyle examined by their own physician. A school administrator reported them to Child Protective Services…. They not only found themselves facing Family Court Judge Gerald Maney but also later discovered they had been “posted” on a statewide list of alleged child abusers. The charge against them by the school was “educational neglect” not child abuse.

    There was no defense…. The Carolls believed they would be able to contest the administration of a very addictive psychotrophic drug to their offspring without their own family physician examining him and either agreeing or refuting the school nurse practitioner’s “diagnosis.” They were wrong on both counts. This was not to be a hearing where actual evidence was examined. Judge Maney told the Carrolls if they did not agree to the school’s demand that their son be placed back on Ritalin, the court would order their children removed from the home and placed in the foster care system…. http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/pjarchives/realworld/Children-and-Ritalin.cfm

    So if you are wondering why kids now a days act “Brain Dead” it is because there is a good chance the actually had their brains fried by the government school system.

    No wonder there is no real debate!

  64. If you want much press to cover the conference, set up a “Press Only Area” where they can get free coffee, juice, fruit, donuts, waffles, mufins, and toast.in the mourning and soda pop, sandwiches, pizza slices and other tasty snacks in the affternoon. They will show up droves! Have known these guys to turn free food?

  65. I supported the HI ‘s billboard tactics and the wonderful media blitz generated by HI’s billboard from the initial announcements of the billboards here at WUWT. I think early on in the initial WUWT post on the billboard that it was just Smokey and I who indicated positive views of HI’s actions. (SMOKEY – It was nice being introduced to you at happy hour during the ICCC-7).

    HI has shown in the billboard experience that it is neither a wallflower nor a politically correct pansy. : )

    I think HI knows that, although objective climate science research is necessary to debunk the thematically biased ‘science’ supporting IPCC’s CAGWism, they also think that objective climate science is insufficient by itself to win the overall dialog. It is my view that HI knows it is also necessary to apply all the intellectual weapons of an integrated philosophy (HI’s in this case) to debunk the many headed snake of false ideology that informs the IPCC leaders and their fawning acolytes in the science community.

    The HI has brilliantly and efficiently refocused, with its billboard, on the broad irrationality of the IPCC centric CAGWists.

    I applaud the HI. I support HI intellectually in this billboard experience.

    John

  66. Geneke11y says: May 25, 2012 at 2:24 pm ….

    I suggested tying CAGW to Job Loss.
    For example:
    ____________________________
    What ate your Job?

    The United Nations Crazy Climate Computer

    Want the real science? => http://www.heartland.org
    ___________________________

    No just have Josh design a funny cartoon around that “Mann eating Computer” (snicker)

  67. Superb letter. Can’t disagree with a word. Notwithstanding the out-of-joint noses and sniffs of disdain thru same, I think the adage, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity!” does apply here (though it doesn’t always.)

    How do you teach a mule? First, take a 2X4, …

  68. Curry is no scientist as she demonstrates in her biased letter. She is just another AGW cult member, albeit one who up till now tried to manage her reputation by giving the appearance of being a scientist. Now her reputation is in tatters.

  69. I didn’t want to write anything with regards to ‘the debate on the HI billboard’ as to not let on the the ‘greens’ lobby that the more they tromped the issue, the better for Heartland. Heartland let the cat out of the bag, not me. The result was just what I anticipated. Unwitting friends?

    I read something recently that the ‘Unabomber’, Kaczynski, is writing in the Harvard yearbook. Occupation listed: “prisoner”.
    Under awards: “Eight life sentences, issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 1998.”

    I’ll say no more. My eyes remain open and my lips were sealed.

  70. Gunga Din says:
    May 25, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Oh yeah, the Boot Head Guy, I think he just missed his mouth.

    Nah, happened one morning when he was about to park his head as usual in his inferior orifice, and he liked the look.

  71. I apologize for an error in the above comment.

    Kaczynski is writing in the Harvard alumni guide, not in the Harvard yearbook.

  72. AndyG55 (from down-under) says:

    May 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    I would like to see a billboard that challenges the AGW brethren to come and debate the issues… LIVE.

    Come and debate….. Come on Al, Jim, Mick et.al.. IF YOU DARE !!!

    Let the public know just how scared they are to even say hello !!! ;-)

    The AGW brethren are cowards.

    *

    Well said, AndyG55. I like this! Let the world know they are cowards – again and again and again. Regular folk might start to wonder why those screaming the loudest about CAGW won’t front up and clean up the skeptics in debate. Hey, and maybe even why the CAGW crowd won’t show their data, not even to “save the world” and, again, clean up the skeptics with their data. If they are so sure of CAGW and their authority and consensus – WHERE ARE THEY?

  73. I remember years ago when Gore in unison with a number of scientists and political pundits declared the debate was over. And then someone published that being a skeptic was a crime against humanity and that skeptic should be taken before a tribunal and subjected to the equivalent of Nuremberg trials. It appeared to me that our small little group of skeptics went quiet for a heartbeat. Those being the early days when there were but a few. This vicious attack seemed to generate an introspective silence. In response to these attacks I added a new category to my website and named it “It ain’t over until the fat lady sings!” And after that the ice was broken and the chatter resumed.
    As far as the billboard is concerned, it was your call. And I respect that.
    Heartland provides a great service to the skeptical community by providing these conferences. And I wish to thank you for all of your efforts in this struggle to reach the truth.

  74. The billboard worked well Joe…after all it’s a ‘gunfight’. Why take a knife to a gunfight, I think the saying goes. Thanks for all that Heartland does to prove a point.

  75. DirkH says:
    May 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    “Ian Hoder says:
    May 25, 2012 at 1:33 pm
    “The Unabomber billboard was infantile (“Gee, Hitler believed in Christianity. Do you?”) and Bast non apology of saying that skeptics should get to slander people as well is just as idiotic. ”
    Ian, read a history book. About Hitler. Or the wikipedia. Anything.”

    Ian used the Hitler spiel as an example of an infantile remark. Even if Hitler did not “believe in Christianity” there are others in history that have and committed atrocious crimes. Associating all Christians with those that have committed crimes is an example of what young children sometimes engage in. T

    Hitler, the Unabomber, Manson are all criminals that committed criminal acts. Belief in AGW is not. Ian is right on target. It was idiotic and infantile, no matter the reason.

  76. pokerguy says:

    May 25, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I’m a big fan of Dr. Curry and was quite surprised to see her treat The Guardian and DeSmogBlog as credible sources on her blog, I’ve got to say as a possible defense, I’m not sure she even realized how partisan they are. There’s almost a kind of naivete about her.

    Naive? Or, crazy like a fox?

    After all of her visitations to the various blogs and boards discussing “GW”, for her not to know that The Guardian and DeSmogBlog are highly partisan “sources” is simply unfathomable.

    One would be wise to be careful when considering whether her motives are those of science or economics.

  77. Kurt in Switzerland says:
    May 25, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Most people are not in this trench warfare as is Joe Bast. And they will respond negatively to attacks which are tasteless.

    Warmism has a large base of support, despite frequent tasteless attacks for decades.

    Your argument is invalid.

  78. I would like to see the next billboard to feature Suzuki. Maybe Hansen after that.

    Best to wait a while, not overload the “Pavlov reflex” that caused the press to respond so thoroughly to the first one.

  79. @ sunshinehours1. Hahahaaaa! That video of David Suzuki is quality – what a feckin nut-job! I know it was forty years ago, but still….

  80. John Whitman says:
    May 25, 2012 at 4:12 pm [ … ]

    It was a pleasure meeting you too, John. We don’t seem to be part of the consensus regarding the Heartland billboard. But I have not changed my view: Kazynski’s polemic and Gore’s Earth In The Balance have much in common. Others are even closer to Kazynski’s point of view, with their proposed Eugenics-style eradication of most of the human race. [Of course, not a single one of them ever leads by example.]

    To me, the comparison to Kazynski was apt. And for those like Donna Laframbois, who disagreed with the billboard, she didn’t have to self-righteously and publicly scold a very good organization. A private email would have conveyed her views just fine. But I suppose it’s OK for Donna to publicly trash a fine organization run by human beings, because she has probably never made a mistake in her perfect life. In that case, she has every right to preach to the rest of us fallible humans, who are not as free from error as Donna obviously is.

    As for Dr. Judith Curry, she’s just being a politician, and her shameless use of the Guardian puts her in the same class as the self-serving Donna L. Joe Bast’s response to her is spot on.

  81. reply to jaschrumph at 11:50 am, Spiritual salvation is very personal and much considered over a lifetime. The results of this consideration are deep felt and lasting and will not be displaced by anothers vague arguments. The spirit within me that is my deepest self acknowledges a supreme being and I believe Jesus Christ manifested that being in the flesh. Where will your supposed arguments get you when this life is over? By the way, I think Heartland has been on target with their approach in this battle to return the debate to science instead of propaganda.

  82. Glenn says:
    May 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Hitler, the Unabomber, Manson are all criminals that committed criminal acts. Belief in AGW is not. Ian is right on target. It was idiotic and infantile, no matter the reason.

    Gleick admitted to (some of) his criminal acts in the name of CAGW. Why is he not in jail?

    Unabomber and Gleick, both crazy and both criminals. I think the billboard.

    Also what billboards used Hitler and Manson, BTW? I missed that part.

  83. tallbloke says:
    May 25, 2012 at 10:04 am
    I got a response from the press complaints commission in the UK about Suzanne Goldberg’s latest piece:
    =========
    If you haven’t visited tallbloke’s site, take the time to have a look. There are plenty of interesting ideas. Given climategate 2 and the police raid, tallbloke has got someone in high places worried.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

    Some may not agree with the science presented, but that doesn’t make it wrong. A lot of what is considered nonsense today was the accepted science not long ago. A lot of what is considered obvious today was heretical blasphemy not so long ago.

    For many that is the fascination of science. In an infinite universe there are an infinite number of new discoveries yet to be made.

  84. Glenn says:
    May 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Hitler, the Unabomber, Manson are all criminals that committed criminal acts. Belief in AGW is not. Ian is right on target. It was idiotic and infantile, no matter the reason.
    ==============================================================
    Wrong. There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of AGW. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of AGW advocacy. This really isn’t a surprise. They told us they would do such atrocities and their feelings toward their fellow mankind.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/how-i-know-enviro-alarmists-are-misanthropists-and-work-against-human-advancement/

    It doesn’t matter if one is active in CAGW advocacy or if they’re passively accepting this lunacy, if you throw your lot with those lunatics you are either accepting the atrocities (and giving approval to such) or actively encouraging them.

  85. The views of Ted Kazynski on global warming have been truthfully presented by Heartland. I suspect that Ted’s support for AGW is “An Inconvenient Truth” for other CAGW fanatics. If the shoe fits, wear it!

  86. James Sexton says:
    May 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    “There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of AGW. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of AGW advocacy. This really isn’t a surprise. They told us they would do such atrocities and their feelings toward their fellow mankind. ”

    I don’t know who you mean by “they”, but substitute AGW for X:
    “There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of X. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of X advocacy.”

    Replace X with most any ideology or belief and you get the same result.
    I doubt you are able to get a hint, but not all AGW believers have murdered, raped, sterilized or confiscated land, nor condon those behaviors.
    By the way, what are you basing your claims on? Specifically, who has “murdered”, “raped”, and “sterilized” in the “name of AGW”??? Or are you taking liberties with the meanings of those words?

  87. Reg Nelson says:
    May 25, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Glenn says:
    May 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Hitler, the Unabomber, Manson are all criminals that committed criminal acts. Belief in AGW is not. Ian is right on target. It was idiotic and infantile, no matter the reason.

    “Gleick admitted to (some of) his criminal acts in the name of CAGW. Why is he not in jail?”

    Maybe because “pretexting” via email isn’t specifically outlined as a crime yet in the US.

    “Unabomber and Gleick, both crazy and both criminals. I think the billboard.
    Also what billboards used Hitler and Manson, BTW? I missed that part.”

    You missed it because I didn’t claim it. And Gleick isn’t the only AGW supporter in the world, nor does he represent all the AGW supporters in the world.

  88. “Those who did show up wore boots on their heads and refused Christopher Monckton’s invitation to debate.”

    As I understand, Mr. Bast, only one person wore a boot on his head. Was that an unintentional mistatement or? You see, I’m getting a little tired of one side doing the same thing as the other side, and claiming victory.

  89. James Sexton says:
    May 25, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    I’ll continue to shout my support for HI’s billboard campaign and I highly encourage them to continue. We are well past the time that we quit talking about the potential harm of the policies enacted to fight CC/CAGW and start pointing out the proper comparisons to these lunatics. It isn’t a question of “they did it first”, it is a question of the projection, duplicity and hypocrisy of the alarmists.

    Maybe so, but the question before us is, Should Heartland do it? The answer is No, because it has given its enemies an effective stick to beat it with, just like Hansen’s “death trains” has been an effective one for us. These “fringe” accusations, true or not, play poorly in Peoria; and guilt-by-association tactics are frowned upon by educated persons. Such tactics hurt Heartland, which is a would-be player in the mainstream. How can its representatives now be invited to testify before a congressional committee, with this embarrassment tied to their tail, giving the media and Democrats an excuse to mock and disregard whatever they say?

    If an electronic billboard costs $200 a day, an ad hoc coalition of people here could rent it out and put up some hard-hitting, challenging, stick-it-to-the-man material. It’s self-defeating for Heartland to do so.

  90. PS to the above. Heartland’s billboard was worse than a crime, it was a blunder. It has given its opponents what they’ve always wanted–an easy means to marginalize whatever it does or says or publishes, and to bludgeon its donors with. Most MSM reportage on its doings and sayings will now include an obligatory passing reference to this event, especially in conjunction with Heartland’s crusade against Gleick, under the pretext of being balanced.

    It’s surrendered the high ground. If people here think a down and dirty approach is needed, it should have been taken by a brawler like Moreno. Not Heartland.

  91. Re: Heartland Institute’s billboards.
    They were exactly to the point, and very effective. (Kurt from Switzerland and other milk-toasts just don’t get it. They still think it is about “scientific debate.” It’s an armed robbery, Kurt, and supporting AGW in any way or form is not an “opinion” — it is as criminal as supporting any totalitarian ideology.)

    Russians have an ancient proverb that could be loosely translated this way:
    “An honest fool causes more grief than a clever thief.”

    Re: Judith Curry.
    I told you so. Most likely, her boss called her with a simple message: if she wouldn’t do it, her professional career is over. Result: wet pants, full compliance.

    As “climate change” mantra loses power, and as voodoo climatology loses its funding, the elbow space available around that unsavory feeding trough is going to be more and more congested. Wait for other false friends to throw their masks off.

    Nobody is “entitled” to respect. Respect must be earned. It is precious and fragile. Once you lose it, it’s gone forever.

  92. With all the economic and political problems, and preparations for war, going on in the world, this (CAGW ) isn’t even on the radar.

  93. re: Gail Combs says:
    May 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    I do not like Mud Slinging but it has been around in political fights for eons.

    =========================================================================

    oh yes it goes right back to the beginning days of our republic:

    Mud-slinging against Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson

    Even before 1800 Callender was here smearing Alexander Hamilton with a mixture of fact and falsehood (yes Hamilton did have an affair, but no Hamilton was not guilty of financial corruption).

    Thomas Callender was alternately useful to the Jeffersonians and then to anti-Jeffersonians, but he certainly knew how to smear (he would weave some possibly factual but unproved claims intermixed with falsehoods).

    re: the Heartland billboards, they use a factual statement in a context which seemed to suggest a fallacious piece of reasoning with guilt by association: some highly unsavory characters believe in CAGW to one extent or another, therefore….. ?? what follows?

    As a piece of guerilla theater turning the tables on all the smears from the CAGWarmists, the billboards were entertaining and possibly effective. Certainly satisfying!! I still don’t think they bolstered Heartland’s reputation or role in the battles over CAGW and policy. If you want to be credible in a wonky sort of way on the scientific and policy issues, I simply don’t see how it helps to engage in the tit-for-tat of guerilla theater…. no matter how much the CAGWarmists deserve it, and no matter how great the prior provocations and temptations.

  94. rogerknights;
    You keep making these contrafactual assertions! “self-defeating” “surrendered the high ground” etc.

    Funding and support has about doubled for HI in the short time since the billboards went up.
    The boycotters and withdrawers were replaced many times over by new participants.

    You sniffers-with-disdain who have thereby disjointed your own noses are just trying to hide from the reality of the seriousness of the fight. Or, in some cases, make the skeptics fight with both hands tied behind their (our) backs. Sorry not to accommodate.

  95. The Unabomber billboard issue is just another tempest in a teapot. The false outrage of the global warmists is really rather amusing, given their propensity to use any vile lie to promote their cargo-cult Cause.

    For decades, the global warming alarmist camp has been full of lies, deceit, scientific fraud, academic intimidation, threats of violence and real acts of violence against those “climate skeptics” who dared to oppose their repulsive brown-shirt behaviour and their voodoo science.

    Anyone disputing these facts need only read the Climategate emails to fully confirm the validity of my previous sentence.

    The actions of the global warmist cult betray their true colors: “Nothing is wrong , no act is too indecent, if it supports the global warming Cause”.

    I say run a series of billboards highlighting the warmists’ repugnant attempts to stifle legitimate debate, threaten and intimidate their opponents, lie about the science, fabricate data to support their failed CAGW hypothesis and so on, and so on.

    This long ago ceased being a scientific debate, if it ever was one. For decades, the climate skeptics have been bringing “Robert’s Rules of Order” to a street fight with vicious thugs, and have been brutalized again and again.

    The only rule in this street fight should be: Are climate skeptics telling the truth? That rule alone will differentiate the climate skeptics from their opponents.

  96. First, thank you Anthony and Joe Bast for this post. My compliments to Mr. Bast on the excellence of his response.

    Second, the billboard was factually accurate. It may not be to an individual’s taste but it was truthful in its entirety. I regret that some my find the truth distasteful, but after the tactics exhibited by the CAGW, perhaps saying the simple truth may be necessary even though unpalatable. Folks, I am sorry that you may find the truth so…so…tawdry.

    Third, negative advertising works. For those who find the referenced billboard “distasteful” (although truthful and accurate), the reason that it was used is: IT WORKS!

    For example : Jack Ryan was winning the Illinois Senate race in 2004. Then “HE whose Middle Name cannot be Spoken” found a corrupt Democrat judge to open sealed documents from Mr. Ryan’s child custody battle. It destroyed Mr. Ryan. That piece of negative advertising was just downright evil but it worked. I know a woman who was on Jack Ryan’s campaign staff. It destroyed Jack Ryan’s campaign chances and destroyed him psychologically so that he could no longer continue to fight. That was the point. It’s the Chicago way. See here:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

    (I cannot say HIS middle name as there are those who would stone me for being a racist. Just like the Olden Days. After all, “HE is the ONE we have been waiting for”. HE says so.)

    http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

    Anyway, thanks again Anthony.
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  97. I suppose I could add to the argument…but instead, I will send $200 to Joe Bast so he can run the billboard again if he likes. I like the idea of using rules for radicals against despicable activist radicals.

  98. Allan MacRae says:
    May 26, 2012 at 5:58 am

    I say run a series of billboards highlighting the warmists’ repugnant attempts to stifle legitimate debate, threaten and intimidate their opponents, lie about the science, fabricate data to support their failed CAGW hypothesis and so on, and so on.

    Great. Brilliant. But … I suggest the following exercise. On every billboard you see, do a word count. Tabulate only how many 10.

    Then consider how you would word and compose those fact-filled b-boards you propose. Good luck with that …

  99. Oops, forgot the effect of carets. Here’s what got wiped out:
    Tabulate only how many <=10, and how many >10.

  100. “You didn’t see many new faces on the program because 50 warmists invited to speak refused to show up, and we had set aside space on the program for them.”

    I would love to see that list who were invited and refused to show up. Why not publish it here on WUWT so everyone can see?

    “Also I’ve seen the list of people invited who declined to join the debate. You’d think that if we were as wrong and as stupid as they claim, it would be easy to just show up and slaughter us intellectually, but for some reason they don’t want to even try. – Anthony”

    I wonder why! Some ‘skeptics’ I have discussed with on this forum still refuse to accept that humans are the cause for the increase in CO2 while in the scientific community there is a general acceptance and agreement (even by Professor Lindzen and Dr. Spencer) that humans are causing the increase. Now I don’t know if amongst the speakers of Heartland there were any individuals who refuse to accept that simple fact. How does one debate with such a refusable person on stage?

  101. Brian H says:
    May 26, 2012 at 5:49 am
    rogerknights;
    You keep making these contrafactual assertions! “self-defeating” “surrendered the high ground” etc.

    Funding and support has about doubled for HI in the short time since the billboards went up.
    The boycotters and withdrawers were replaced many times over by new participants.

    (Citation needed.) I doubt it. I suspect there’s been new cash and new participants since Fakegate, and that that’s what you have in mind. It’s implausible that withdrawers would have been replaced many times over within a week of the Billboard–that’s too fast.

    Even if it’s true, it’s pennywise. HI needed to be spotless and respectable and high-minded to get mainstreamers to come aboard, to get itself invited to congressional hearings, etc.

    You sniffers-with-disdain who have thereby disjointed your own noses are just trying to hide from the reality of the seriousness of the fight. Or, in some cases, make the skeptics fight with both hands tied behind their (our) backs. Sorry not to accommodate.

    I didn’t view the tactic primarily with disdain. I said it was a blunder for Heartland. I boldfaced the word to bring out my point. I said it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder–which implied my judgment was based on realpolitik. I said it should have been done–if someone felt it needed doing–by someone whose strategy isn’t compromised by not taking the high road, like Morano.

  102. .
    So Curry’s evidence that Heartland is ‘losing the battle’ is based on Guardian reports, eh? She’s obviously not British, otherwise she would know better – it a bit like her stating that because PRAVDA supported Stalin, he was a lovely person.

    In fact, the comment is so farcical it highlights the complete naivety of her position. If she can be so deluded as to cite the Grauniad, then the rest of what she says just has to be taken with a wholesome pinch of skepticism.

    .

  103. Smokey

    You appear to have significant issues with Donna L. Are there factual errors in her book that you can bring to light? Or is it that you did not like her calling out the IPCC for what it really is, a political cult. This is a serious question. I always want to be on the side of the facts (which is why I am a climate sceptic). Funny thing I was taught long ago that scepticism is at the very centre of science.

  104. RobW,

    My only ‘issue’ with Donna Laframbois is that she publicly trashed Heartland, when a private email would have been sufficient. It was entirely self-serving, at the expense of a great organization. I have no problem with Donna’s criticism of the UN/IPCC.

    But I strongly disagree with Donna’s very public attack on Heartland, which has always been extremely polite and accommodating to her, offering to pay her expenses and giving her a forum to express her views. In return, she bit the hand that fed her, for her own self-aggrandizement. I don’t like people who treat their friends like that. I expect it from vermin like Gleick, but not from fair-weather ‘friends’ like Donna.

  105. Why not a $200 billboard that says:

    “We asked all these people to explain why they claim CO2 is a threat to mankind when there is no evidence there is, and they refused. …. Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick ……. Is there something they don’t want you to know?”

    For $200 Heartland got the creative, innovative, compelling thinking they paid for. But as Bast says, his job isn’t to win opponents or the undecided over. It is to be combative and angry- making.

  106. I think it’s mistaken to assume that the billboard compared AGW “believers” with the Unabomber. Rather, it effectively compared AGW “proponents” with the Unabomber, and there’s a league of difference between a believer and a proponent. For that matter, a proponent might not even believe, but just be a charlatan, which might not be far from the truth here also.

    What the billboard accomplished, beyond achieving tremendous publicity, was to link the proponents of AGW with the likes of the Unabomber, and when you look at the morals of some of the strongest proponents (Gore, Hanson, Gleick, etc.,) the linkage is not all that misleading. The leaders of the AGW movement have already caused untold damage to the people of our planet and, if given their heads, would multiply those damages many times over. And, yes, people are even dying due to their efforts, as precious resources are diverted to further their cause. Were they simply honest scientists following their instincts, the situation would be different, but Climategate outed them as anything but honest scientists, at least when it comes to AGW advocacy.

    So, if the effect of the billboard was to make people question their belief in AGW, given that its proponents can effectively be compared to the Unabomber, I’d call it successful. As for its effect on the proponents, who really cares? If it upset them, great. If it drove them to tears, fine. If it caused them to question their role in the cause, well, that’s unlikely, since it was aimed directly at them in very personal terms. But if it caused some believers to wonder about the motivation, methods, or achievements of their leaders, then that would be an accomplishment, particularly since the mainstream media typically portrays those leaders as being pure as the driven snow.

    If the billboard caused even 1% of the people who “believe” in AGW, but otherwise take no interest in it, to wonder if their belief is misplaced, it was successful. The vast majority of the population does not, after all, even read WUWT, as popular as this site is. They do read billboards, however.

  107. sunshinehours1 says:
    May 26, 2012 at 10:19 am

    rogerknights: “HI needed to be spotless and respectable and high-minded to get mainstreamers to come aboard”

    NASA Astronauts are mainstream people.

    They’d already signed up, and the ones who attended were convinced skeptics. Borderline cases will be less likely to identify with Heartland in the future.

  108. rogerknights writes, “HI needed to be spotless and respectable and high-minded to get mainstreamers to come aboard”.

    I think that at this point, this set of tactical decisions by Heartland is really mostly about the upcoming election. It is a well-known fact that Romney and certain other high-ranking Republicans are and have been highly suspect on the issue of AGW. That being the case, Heartland, I would think, would naturally want to participate in the process of holding their (and especially Romney’s) feet to the fire. And to do that, they would need to get the TEA party fired up about it. And if possible, they would want to keep turning up the heat steadily on Romney et al as the election approached, so that Romney et al could really get a good, strong, ROBUST taste of exactly how much their voters care about this issue.

    FYI in case any readers didn’t know, the TEA party is the mainstream now, within the Republican Party. In most states right now, if you get them, you’ve got the Republican Party. So, a bit of friendly advice to all you Heartland detractors who might still be plodding along in the mental landscape of yesteryear:

    Time to Wakey Wakey, smell the coffee.

    RTF

  109. Glenn says:
    May 25, 2012 at 8:52 pm
    @ James Sexton, May 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm: “There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of AGW. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of AGW advocacy. This really isn’t a surprise. They told us they would do such atrocities and their feelings toward their fellow mankind. ”

    I don’t know who you mean by “they”, but substitute AGW for X:
    “There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of X. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of X advocacy.” Replace X with most any ideology or belief and you get the same result.

    That doesn’t nullify his statement. Nor does saying, “So what? Everybody else has done that” justify atrocities committed under the Green Banner.

    By the way, what are you basing your claims on? Specifically, who has “murdered”, “raped”, and “sterilized” in the “name of AGW”??? Or are you taking liberties with the meanings of those words?

    The big push for biofuels to replace petroleum began roughly 10 years ago. Palm oil growers saw the dollar signs on the horizon and began expanding their tropical plantations on whatever land they could buy. Sometimes, the owners — subsistence farmers, mostly — wouldn’t sell.

    In Colombia, several companies hired local thugs to force the farmers off their land: “More than 100 villagers were slain, and as many as 3,000 farmers were forced to abandon 247,000 acres, a swath about a third the size of Rhode Island….The palm companies then built roads through the forest and planted nearly 15,000 acres with African palm, which is used as a biofuel…”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032202029.html

    The same thing happened in the Philippines and in Indonesia, but the palm oil growers greased governmental palms, and national troops performed the evictions and the shootings.

    http://www.panap.net/en/fs/post/food-sovereignty-resistance-land-grabbing/1068

    http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2112

    Ditto in Uganda. Villagers who objected to being thrown off their land were shot; villagers who protested the shootings were also shot:

    http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/material/Palm2.pdf

    So, James Sexton was correct in that land confiscation occurred and murders were committed in furtherance of one of the items on the AGW agenda — pushing for biofuels to replace petrolem. I’ll let someone else address the rapes and forced sterilizations — it’s late here, and the server has been hiccuping.

  110. To all those who decry the Heartland Billboard I give you Australia’s Al Gore – Tim Flannery:

    “Climate change campaigner Tim Flannery says mercury tooth fillings should be removed from corpses before they are cremated …

    Prof Flannery said undertakers should be required to remove the fillings and families also could request it.

    “You just need a pair of pliers,” he said.

    “It is a $2 solution.””

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/cheaper_than_his_usual_solutions/

    HI should do a billiboard in Australia. Tim Flannery defiling the dead with pliers.

    The AGW cult is bat**** crazy.

  111. Bill Tuttle says:
    May 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    “The big push for biofuels to replace petroleum began roughly 10 years ago. Palm oil growers saw the dollar signs on the horizon and began expanding their tropical plantations on whatever land they could buy.”

    What you don’t realize is that “dollar signs” is not “in the name of AGW advocacy”. People have died as a result of others seeing dollar signs in all endeavors. Do you own gold? Diamonds? Use gasoline? Those that “push” for biofuels can not be held accountable for the actions of the unscrupulous anymore than you can because you use gasoline or advocate for the use of gas rather than biofuels. The methods you reference are not advocated by AGW believers. If you can understand any of this, you will understand that I wasn’t and am not saying “So what? Everybody else has done that”.

  112. rogerknights: “Borderline cases will be less likely to identify with Heartland in the future.”

    Borderline mentally ill cases like David Suzuki and Tim Flannery are not wanted.

    roger, you seem to want HI to try and appease the deranged.

  113. Rod Everson says: @ May 26, 2012 at 11:17 am
    ……What the billboard accomplished, beyond achieving tremendous publicity, was to link the proponents of AGW with the likes of the Unabomber, and when you look at the morals of some of the strongest proponents (Gore, Hanson, Gleick, etc.,) the linkage is not all that misleading….
    ______________________________
    What you are saying is the only difference between the UNabomber and the ones using CAGW to feather their nest is either degree or they have not gotten caught.

    Bill Tuttle @ May 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm shows exactly how close these people are to the UNabomber. In some cases the only difference is they are too rich to get their hands dirty and the damage is much greater. I will add Goldman Sachs, Cargill (privately held by a family) ADM and Monsanto to the list. Those companies reported record earnings in 2008 all because of the high price of grain that caused food riots in thirty seven countries. According to the UN about 10 million people die of hunger and hunger-related diseases in an average year. However in 2008 the ranks of the world’s hungry increased by 250 million.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html

    Should Heartland have put up that Billboard? I do not really know but I can certainly understand the anger behind it. Perhaps Friday Mukamperezida would be a better poster child for Heartland. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
    Friday Mukamperezida the first person killed by anthropogenic global warming burned to death while ill in his bed so you can have biofuel to drive your car.

  114. Brian H says: May 26, 2012 at 7:39 am

    Oops, you also forgot – electronic billboards can do more words, scrolling, etc..

    You also forgot that many of the messages are short, for example:

    “Humans are maggots.” – David Suzuki

    From the ClimateGate emails:
    “Mike’s Nature Trick”
    “Hide the Decline”
    “It’s the Divergence Problem”
    “Where’s the $%^&* Warming?”

    More at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/

  115. A big hand to Mr. Bast who responded eloquently and truthfully.
    I normally like the good Doctor Curry, but she should have checked her sources when it came to the article. The Guardian and Forecast the Facts are NOT reliable and are biased.

  116. Allan;
    It’s not a question of billboard capacity, but of driver attention and time: how many words can be read at 30 mph, 45 mph, 60 mph, 75 mph? If drivers are stuck in a traffic jam, they may have time to read through long messages, but only a few will be in that situation at a time–by definition of “jam”. ;)

    Note that the HI b-b was ~8 words. That’s about as far as you want to go.

    As I suggested, look at real-world examples. They’re short and punchy for a reason.

  117. Glenn says:
    May 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    @ me, May 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm: “The big push for biofuels to replace petroleum began roughly 10 years ago. Palm oil growers saw the dollar signs on the horizon and began expanding their tropical plantations on whatever land they could buy.”

    What you don’t realize is that “dollar signs” is not “in the name of AGW advocacy”.

    The palm oil growers wouldn’t have made the land-grabs and committed the murders if there weren’t huge sums of cash to be grabbed from the subsidies politicians created based on the noisy push to stop for biofuels. It’s the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.

    People have died as a result of others seeing dollar signs in all endeavors.

    Again, just because “everybody did it” doesn’t excuse it.

    Do you own gold?

    Nope.

    Diamonds?

    Nope.

    Use gasoline?

    Yup. And probably 75% of the things I either own or wear are derived from petroleum or its byproducts. That’s probably a good guess at the percentage for the things you own and wear, too.

    Those that “push” for biofuels can not be held accountable for the actions of the unscrupulous anymore than you can because you use gasoline or advocate for the use of gas rather than biofuels. The methods you reference are not advocated by AGW believers.

    The only ones *culpable* are the culprits themselves. However, take a good look at the Malthusians waving the green banner and listen to what they’re actually saying — they believe that what the palm oil growers did was justifiable.

    If you can understand any of this, you will understand that I wasn’t and am not saying “So what? Everybody else has done that”.

    Then why did you say, “There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of X. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of X advocacy”… ?

    Okay, that was a cheap shot. You didn’t say, “So what?”, although that was the tone that came across.

  118. Bill Tuttle says: @ May 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    “The big push for biofuels to replace petroleum began roughly 10 years ago. Palm oil growers saw the dollar signs on the horizon and began expanding their tropical plantations on whatever land they could buy.”
    ________________________________
    Glenn says: @ May 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    What you don’t realize is that “dollar signs” is not “in the name of AGW advocacy”. People have died as a result of others seeing dollar signs in all endeavors….. The methods you reference are not advocated by AGW believers. If you can understand any of this, you will understand that I wasn’t and am not saying “So what? Everybody else has done that”.
    _______________________________________
    , NO YOU DON”T, You can not wiggle out of the blame that easily.This is the typical projection of YOUR attributes onto the “Enemy” we see so often.

    CAGW (and PETA) would be nothing but fringe cults like the Flat Earthers if it was not for the Big Money that was pushing the crap in the first place. All it takes is a quick look on the internet to see that H. L. Mencken was correct.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

    I have talked to those advocating Communism/Socialism or what ever they want to call it while living in Massachusetts, home of the foremost scholars of Marxism as one told me proudly. As far as they are concerned wiping out a major portion of humanity is very acceptable.

    This attitude is expressed by Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren in chapter 8, page 235 in the book ‘Human Ecology’

    “The fetus given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

    So YOUR side does not even consider the rest of us Human because we have not had “The essential early SOCIALIZING experiences” – read brain washing by the state.

    Read the discussion of what John Holdern wrote at: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

    Here are some other quotes from just one website: http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/quotes-the-club-of-rome-green-cultists-and-eugenics-freaks/

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” — Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” –Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    “The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”

    “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” — Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore’s mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.

    Sorry dude hiding behind your false front does not work here.

  119. thojak says:
    May 25, 2012 at 10:21 am
    “If the billboard’s ‘message’ would have been headlined [i.e.] with:
    ”We don’t do ads like this:…”, ”

    thojak – you are perfectly right. It would have been the best way to shut down the name calling and would have opened an bigger adds area where each warmist add or name calling could have been countered. That would be fun.

  120. Billboard idea for HI.

    Reality is saying to Hansen of NASA – “It’s over Jim.”

    : )

    John

  121. rogerknights says:
    May 26, 2012 at 12:43 am
    . . . the question before us is, Should Heartland do it? The answer is No, because it has given its enemies an effective stick to beat it with, just like Hansen’s “death trains” has been an effective one for us.

    I think that’s right. The billboard was an effective weapon, but should have been deployed by someone independent, so as not to sully HI’s reputation as sponsor of serious academic conferences—CFACT for example, as they are more of an activist group.

    /Mr Lynn

  122. We have to “think globally.” ;-) If our side countenances a Unabomber analogy, we could no longer act offended if 10:10 (say) posted a Norwegian shooter billboard with the caption, “He still denies global warming; do you?” We could claim that that would be unfair, because we’re right and they’re wrong, but that would be special pleading–or at least perceived as such.

  123. If Steve McIntyre were to respond to his citics by getting down in the mud with them, he would give them a stick to beat him with and lose effectiveness. Ditto here.

    and HI chose an objectionable analogy. If it wanted to do so in an unobjectionable way, Chavez and Mugabe, who both spoke lengthily at Copenhagen, to loud applause, would have been better targets.

Comments are closed.