UPDATE5: 5/5/10:30AM Donna Laframboise pulls out of the conference.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
Instead, those of us who had accepted Heartland’s invitation to take part in its conference found ourselves blindsided – a mere two weeks before the conference is set to begin – by a torrent of negative press. Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks it’s OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths.
Blindsided is right. AFAIK, not one attendee was given the courtesy of weighing in on the billboard campaign beforehand, and if I had been given that courtesy my answer would have been a resounding NO. Instead, I believe we all got the notice after the fact.
UPDATE4: 7PM PST Heartland issues a press release ending the billboard
May 4, 2012 – The Heartland Institute has pulled its global warming billboard starring Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber whose manifesto expressed his belief in catastrophic man-caused global warming. The digital billboard ran for exactly 24 hours along the Eisenhower Expressway near Chicago in the suburb of Maywood, Illinois.
The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312-377-4000.
“This provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment. And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people’s attention.
“This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message. We found it interesting that the ad seemed to evoke reactions more passionate than when leading alarmists compare climate realists to Nazis or declare they are imposing on our children a mass death sentence. We leave it to others to determine why that is so.
“The Heartland Institute doesn’t often do ‘provocative’ communication. In fact, we’ve spent 15 years presenting the economic and scientific arguments that counter global warming alarmism. No one has worked harder, or better, on that task than Heartland. We will continue to do that – especially at our next International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago from May 21 – 23.
“Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change, and $200 for a one-day digital billboard. In return, we’ve been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists. The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that.
“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
========================================================
UPDATE3: 3:15PM PST I saw this private letter to Joe Bast earlier from Ross McKitrick, and I agreed with Ross in a reply. He has posted it on Climate Audit so I’ll share an excerpt here:
He wrote: “This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation…”
“…hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited. Any public sympathy you had built up as a result of the Gleick fiasco will be lost–and more besides–as a result of such a campaign. I urge you to withdraw it at once.”.
UPDATE2: 1PM PST
From Joe Bast via email:
We will stop running it at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)
UPDATE: I’ve added a simple poll at the bottom to gauge opinion on this issue. – Anthony
There’s a disturbance in the farce. Tom Nelson captures these:
Do you believe global warming is real, poses risks to the environment, and needs to be addressed? The Heartland Institute, a think-tank based in Chicago which has promoted climate skepticism, wants you to know you’re in some sinister company.
Twitter / @eilperin: In new ads, the Heartland …
In new ads, the Heartland Institute suggests only terrorists believe in the link b/w human activity and global warming: wapo.st/IOUuEI
Predictably, ThinkProgress/Climate Progress is all bent out of shape.
But Joe Romm and Brad Johnson (who now also runs “Forecast the Facts” to hassle TV weatherpeople) think nothing of making a similar comparison about “deniers”.
Speaking of “mass murderers and madmen”….
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/25/277564/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/
Romm of course will be unable to embrace his own hypocrisy, because he’s reportedly paid a six figure sum by the Center for American Progress to write the hateful detritus he produces daily.
That said, I’ll be blunt; I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep, and does nothing but piss people off and divide the debate further. IMHO it isn’t going to win any converts, and had they asked me I would have told them that it is a bad idea that will backfire on them.
Here’s what they have issued in a press release about it:
May 03, 2012May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too.
Heartland’s first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – is the latest effort by the free-market think tank to inform the public about what it views as the collapsing scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming. It is also reminding viewers of the questionable ethics of global warming’s most prominent proponents.
“The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).
Bast added, “The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory.” For more about the billboards and why Heartland says people should not still believe in global warming, click here.
Ugh. Ugly.
There’s more than enough climate ugliness to go around. Though, it seems harder and harder to find this ultimate warmist embarrassment.
Anybody that can help with Donna’s suggestion?
And there’s many more examples of climate ugliness from the left that we’ve seen.
On another note, the serially mendacious commenter known as “Dorlomin” left this comment over at the Romm shop:
dorlomin says:
I thought I should clear this up. First, “dorlomin” of course is all about smear, that’s his MO, and the MO of the many anonymous cowards who purvey such things without having any integrity or courage themselves.
Second, the simple fact is that I didn’t know about the association of the person making the claim that “Climate skepticism could soon be a criminal offence in UK
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/19/climate-skepticism-could-soon-be-a-criminal-offence-in-uk/
Third, when I learned who was behind the story, I immediately took it down because it was an inappropriate source, just like I don’t post videos from LaRouche and other fringe organizations.
Of course “dorlomin” and left foot forward would have you believe that I consort with these folks and have them over for drinks and dinner, rather than the fact that once I learned more, I found them offensive and immediately deleted the story. It was my mistake for not checking sources further.
“dorlomin” is of course playing the very hate game he rants about, and is hypocritically blind just like Romm. The only difference is that one is paid to produce propoganda and the other is a coward.
But will Climate Progress delete their offensive story about climate deniers and terrorists? Not likely, it would hurt their sales figures image.
POLL:
Note: multiple anti vote stuffing features are enabled in this poll. I’ve made the questions simple so that editorial bias in the questions is minimal.
Bad move by Heartland. Now it makes them look like they are playing climate games. Stick to the facts and science!
OH heartland, what have you done ?
It’s like a friend who gets drunk at a party and pukes on the hostesses dress.
He’s still a friend , but …….
What were Heartand thinking of ? Can someone ask them? This is in very poor taste irrespective of what the ‘other’ side does..
tonyb
“That said, I’ll be blunt, I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep, and does nothing but piss people off and divide the debate further. IMHO it isn’t going to win any converts, and had they asked me I would have told them that it is a bad idea that will backfire on them.”
I’m so relieved to read this. I couldn’t agree more. This is just an awful idea, poorly conceived and guaranteed to do nothing but inflame. It doesn’t even make any sense…
Aww. That’s really nice of them… not.
This is a foolish choice by Heartland. It reduces their seriousness in my eyes, and I am a donor to Heartland. I urge them to end this immediately.
As to Romm’s hypocrisy- what else is new? Romm has never not been a loud mouthed jerk or a hypocrite.
Wait a min…………….
I was told that Heartland was a highly skilled and highly paid…..
…oh nevermind
Glad to see that Romm circulated the billboard advertisement equating warmists to criminals. [snip] They lie about the climate. They commit science fraud. (Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Phil Jones…)
Good on Romm for letting the other world…. his world…..look in the mirror for a few seconds…. hypocritical though it may be.
Are we sure gleick didn’t do a few more things on the side, while he was posing as a member of the board?
All joking aside, someone at Heartland made a serious mistake. The warmists are doing all they can to scrub their own extreme idiocies, re: ‘No pressure,’ from the internet, but they will hang onto this one tooth, appell and nail.
Osama believed in AGW – and he blamed AGW on the US:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/strange-but-true-bin-laden-on-global-warming
…causing ZT to divine Osama’s urban heat island effected hiding place: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/strange-but-true-bin-laden-on-global-warming/#comment-303133
…but as yet no reward paid to ZT 🙁
I think this is really stupid they should withdraw it immediately. The alarmist will be jumping all over it it amazes me.
Sorry. That’s just unwise and sophomoric. The fact that Torquemada believed in God doesn’t impeach the work of Billy Graham or Mother Theresa.
Sad to see Heartland has sunk to Romm’s level. This is the sort of thing that almost justifies Gleick’s actions. I do hope Heartland, despite their frustrations, will get back to sound science.
Hunter,
I was going to make a donation myself, but this is just so poorly done it makes me wonder if they’re to be trusted. Jesus. We’re getting to be no better than the other side. I feel sick.
Focussing on the Heartland’s billboard itself: I can’t understand the thinking behind this. Heartland have had the indisputable moral upper hand ever since Fakegate (and long before that in the eyes of many of us). And then they go and do this? I mean! Gleick would have happily faked up a story like this. Talk about own goal.
I come across dorlomin quite a bit on the Grauniad`s CiF page. He is, indeed, a coward.
BIG mistake by Heartland, just plain stupid. I hope that tank has not run out of ‘think’ because up ’til now I had a lot of respect for them. The pro/anti AGW ‘debate’ is getting crazier and I would love to know what muppet thought billboards like that were a good idea.
Add another vote to the ‘really dumb idea’ column…
Shouldn’t the ‘full up’ Warmista’s (Hot-stas?) know who they have ‘driven’ (read that ‘influenced’) with their CAGW drivel (Hansen and his coal ‘death’ trains for instance) over the years?
(I think HI may have just done that …)
BTW, for anyone still interested at this point, here is their rational: http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
.
Anthony;
Thankyou for writing this paragraph;
“That said, I’ll be blunt, I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep, and does nothing but piss people off and divide the debate further. IMHO it isn’t going to win any converts, and had they asked me I would have told them that it is a bad idea that will backfire on them.”
The issues pertinent to any PR campaign are
Is it true?
And
Is it effective?
Don’t run the campaign if the answer to either question is ‘No’.
This Heartland Institute campaign is ‘true’ because it is factually accurate, but it is unlikely to be effective because its extremism is not likely to interest the uncommitted. Indeed, the campaign’s extremism is likely to repel the uncommitted (as the AGW-alarmist ‘red button’ video repelled all except the alarmists).
It is foolish to spend money on a campaign which is likely to have the opposite effect to that which is intended/desired.
Richard
Heartland have behaved like a bunch of poisonous clowns on this one. The first time I heard of them was on CiF when the Grauniad were tripping over each other to be the first one to shoot themselves in the foot over Gleickgate.
Its just in poor taste and it is also irrelevant who believes or doesn’t believe in global warming.
I think billboards of astronauts saying something like:
“Global Warming? Probably.”
“Man’s Fault? Doubtful. “
“Catastrophic? NOT.”
Would be better.
[snip]
A dumb move, but funny in a, we can be just as crass and stupid as you, type of way…
pokerman,
I still support their broad goals, but Heartland just blew the advantage they gained form Gleick’s scam.
I told the Heartland people I know exactly this in no uncertain terms. I urged them to take these billboards down, NOW, and to apologize for lowering themselves to the same level as Romm, gleick, 10:10, gore, hanse, Mann, ettc.
Sadly they make a good point about terrorists and tyrants, but they are way past inflammatory and prejudicial. And this reduces the sympathy they deserve for what Gleick (and pals) did to Heartland. this could hurt them financially more than what gleick could have dreamed of in his fakegate.
“That said, I’ll be blunt; I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep, and does nothing but piss people off and divide the debate further. ”
Thanks for saying this; I agree. The last thing you want to do, when you have the moral high ground, is to give it up. Sure, the alarmists are in no position to complain, what with “deniers” and all…but now *we* are in no position to complain about *their* invidious comparisons. A bad move by Heartland, on many levels.
If those of us who are interested in preventing the Marxists from destroying civilization “stick with the science” we will loose. Exposing the true nature of the greenies is the only weapon we have. Hopefully the very few who’s brains are still capable of some function will see that they are nothing but tools of evil people out to enslave mankind.
Heartland’s justification for this ill-conceived direction can be found here:
http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
Wrong approach. The public needs real information, not a list of the nuts that support CAGW. Give them some comforting facts.
Doesn’t it make you want to get out your checkbook and send more money to the Heartland stinktank? Science by political consesus = Mutual-inter-assumptive confabulation.
Who gives a rip who believes it or not? That’s not science, but religion. The important questions should be who’s doing real science? And what have they found that can be proven?
Argh. After actually doing a lot of good by giving a platform for open debate, how could Heartland do something this foolish? Irrelevant to the debate (which we have long tried to keep focused on the science), foolish in its presentation and all around damaging to what they claim they support.
I would really like to hear what committee thought this was a good idea or who greenlighted this. They let the Poli Sci majors out the bar again it looks like.
Politicaly correct, isn’t always right. I believe Heartland has a point, global warming is the belief of mademenn and human haters.
Heartland you had it made with fakegate, and now with cagw crowd having a much bigger pr, you guys blew it bigtime.
I’m sure there are equally odious people who are skeptics on CAGW. But this would be equally irrelevant to the issue.
HI has jumped the shark on this one.
LOL – what makes any of you holy people think science decides the issue? Out here its all about propaganda and as any good strategists will tell you once the war is joined then all the fancy science has fallen to AGW propaganda as if it didn’t exist. Ask the Nazis how propaganda works or the communists – masters of propaganda all. There’s nothing pure about AGW, never was. And if we’re going to play with the big boys then get down in the trenches. Trillions of dollars spend by governments world wide wasn’t based on hard science – that was based on a long campaign of leftist newspaper, television, government paid lobbyists and climate “scientists” who played the propaganda game better than any of us.
Heartland aims, shoots…and hits itself in both feet.
This is incredible; they were winning by being squeaky clean and above the alarmist fray. Someone with clout tell them to remove it immediately with a big hands up and an admission that it was thoroughly ill conceived.
Just so shallow and down in the gutter, no different to pop stars appearing at politicians conventions or the argument it’s true because there is a “consensus”.
just dumb… utterly polarising (just preaching to very extreme members of the sceptic tribe)
very very dumb
(like 10:10) how could the not predict how it would be perceived and used.. Peter Gleick becomes a hero. Michael Mann, gets to say I told you so about Heartland, twitter frenzy about this about, a) how dumb Heartland are do this, b) this is what sceptics are like..
If Heartland are watching, pull it down now, and apologise, without reservation to ALL the sceptics (and everyone else) for doing something so dumb. Did they not see this is what Romm did with the Norwegian Killer..
Have I said it alllready..
I’ll say it again, dumb, offensive and polarising. Utterly counterproductive
Great, this garbage today and the ” connect the dots ” 350.org garbage tomorrow 🙁
Anonymous posting is not cowardly. That would be like saying that soldiers are cowardly because they wear camoflage. There was a time when it was actually considered cowardly to take off your red coat and put on camoflage. It was thought that a brave man didn’t hide, he stood up tall out in the open on the battlefield, instead of hiding behind a rock. But then people realized that if your goal is to protect your life and your freedom, you have no responsibility to make it easy for the bad guys to kill you. If you don’t care about proving your bravery, particularly because going into battle at all is proof enough, even with camoflage, then you are more likely to accomplish your goal with camoflage.
When posting about a controversial subject, anonymity gives some protection against retaliation. Valuing protection is not cowardice any more than camoflage is. It is just good sense. You wear a seatbelt, not because you’re scared or cowardly, but because it gives some protection.
On the other hand, if you are going to make slanderous factual assertions not based on the public record, or certain other nasty behaviors, then it may be appropriate for people to know who you really are so you can be held accountable .
I think the idea of billboards is great. We NEED to get the attention of the masses.However, I agree that a billboards more like John West proposed would be better. It seems most of the oblivious “sheep” out there have lost interest in global warming and they need to be re-engaged. The Obama administration, thru the EPA, contrary to what most people think, is still aggressively instituting the global warming agenda and it needs to be reversed. If we want an America that is still a world power and a leader in technology development we have to reverse course. We definitely need to get the majority of the people to wake up to what is happening and billboards would be a great way to bring it back to the forefront.
As a member of the English Defence League I know what it’s like to be smeared with the same brush as Anders Breivick because of a tenuous connection. I wonder if Wikipedia and Medal of Honor, which Breivick also cited, will receive the same treatment? Personally I think not.
It is not the way for science and or a civilized society to move forward.
Stunningly stupid.
IMO the UNO/Warmistas are guilty of institutional racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism – “Institutional racism is the differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society.”
Now consider the Rio 1992, UNFCCC, and Kyoto Protocol – due to (a) the risk of CAGW, (b) the Precautionary Principle means that (c) only ‘carbon neutral’ sustainable development is to be allowed in the future, so (d) currently rich nations must curb further growth by (e) replacing traditional energy sources with ‘renewable’ energy, and they must also (f) levy ‘carbon’ taxes on their citizens to be transferred (g) via the UNO and subject to a ‘handling charge’ to (h) poor nations as compensation for the lack of goods, service, and opportunities – that is to say, the institutional racism – which they will have to endure in the future in order to be compliant.
Find a ‘watermelon’, and observe the reaction to this argument.
I see the warmists are howling with rage, they obviously are the type of people who can dish it out but not take it…
It’s the true face of Climate Skepticism folks. You make make your bed, you gotta sleep in it.
BIG mistake Heartland, take them down and apologise
[snip. You know why. ~dbs, mod.]
We’re winning with facts, not politically inspired bulls**t. Besides, we believe in a degree or so of global warming coming out of the Little Ice Age. Just not in a politician’s ability to do anything about it.
Not helpful, guys at Heartland. You’d be better served pursuing criminal charges against Peter Gleik.
Anthony;
As my first post (above) explains, I think this PR campaign by the Heartland Institute (HI) is a serious mistake. I now write to say I think I know why the HI has made that mistake.
To begin I relate an anecdote.
I was talking with a representative of HI as the first HI climate conference (at which I was a speaker) was ending. He said (I think I quote him verbatim);
“This is great. All these journalists who’ve now heard all these top scientists speaking out. At last the public will hear about the ‘other side’ of this debate.”
I smiled and replied saying;
“I hope you’re right, but I don’t think so. I and others have been telling the truth about ‘global warming’ for decades to no effect. Journalists only publish news, and ‘Nothing to worry about’ is not news.”
The expression on his face told me he thought my reply was not good, so the conversation discontinued.
But I was proved right by subsequent events.
Since then, five more similar excellent HI climate conferences have been held, and all have had similar effect on journalists’ reporting of ‘climate skepticism’ (i.e. none). In fact things got worse:
when a BBC TV team attended an HI climate conference the result was a TV program which grossly distorted ‘climate skeptic’ views and used selective editing to misrepresent people the BBC had interviewed at the conference
and
the only significant response to the HI climate conferences has been Gleickgate (which also obtained little proper reportage in the media).
Being nice has not worked for HI and (understandably) the HI has got frustrated.
The HI has not reached the destination the HI hoped to obtain with its first climate conference. In these circumstances, a HI ‘change of direction’ is understandable. The PR campaign is such a change but, unfortunately, it steers straight at an iceberg. The campaign requires a course change or the next HI climate conference could imitate the Titanic.
Richard
Yea its a mistep from Heartland. Its cheap. Time to take it down and try another approach.
I don’t know. Yes I understand this is PERCEIVED to be over the top/nasty etc; but WHY ?
Consider : Anthony is taken to task because he posted a link to an utterance from a left wing organisation demonised as being NAZI (the BNP; if you dare read its manifesto is a socialist organisation; that is why it was called the National SOCIALIST Party).
No one thinks twice about those supporting Communists.
Yet Communism and Socialism make the National SOCIALIST tyrant Hitler look like a rank amateur in the crimes against humanity/mass murder stakes.
We are called deniers in an outright bid to make us look like Nazi sympathisers; meanwhile those doing so deny the following :
Scientific Method
Communism’s death toll
African Socialism’s death toll
That there was anything wrong with the 10:10 video
That there is anything wrong in lying
That there are moral absolutes (apart from the absolute that they are always without question right; even when they are wrong).
These people have infected our entire civilisations to the extent it is morally OK to support some of the biggest mass murderers in history (MaoZseDung; Stalin; Pohl Pot). But heaven help you if you dare question them; their motives or their right to order hoi poli around.
I can only assume some people in the Heartland Institute just got so sick of the sanctimonious preaching from the morally corrupt; that they cracked and decided it really was time to call a spade a spade.
A picture of Pachauri would have been far better.
FWIW….as a ‘pro-AGW’ scientist (whatever that is) it’s good to see the majority of posters here criticizing this. On either side, things like this are a mistake.
Almost unbelievably foolish but ultimately, no matter what the Warmists would have people believe, the Heartland Institute are NOT “the sceptical case”.
Even a PR blunder of this size won’t alter the facts of Natural Climate Change, whereas ever time the other side do something similarly stupid with their propaganda they’re chipping away at the only “truth” they’ve got.
This is hilarious – the blanket condemnation of Heartland and not one word on the AGW outrages printed on this same page.
Send ’em an e-mail. Here’s mine:
Your current billboards associating climate alarmists with notorious criminals is, as they say, “Worse than a crime, it is a blunder.”
I needed a great big laugh on a Friday afternoon.
Thanks for posting this hilarity.
Pull the billboards!
The science does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. Carbon dioxide is not a poison. Billions of dollars has been wasted and will be wasted on ‘green’ scams which do not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions such as the conversion of food to biofuel. The billboards do not communicate that message.
Silly, rude irrelevant billboards will not convince anyone and provide the media with an opportunity to attempt to marginalize the so called ‘skeptics’. (i.e. To discuss the billboards rather than to discuss the lack of warming, economics of wind farms and solar farms, and so on.)
I don’t have any problem with hitting hard, but this is a mis-aimed hit.
If you’re going to do shocking visuals, birds chopped by a wind-turbine would be more to the point. Or the grave of a Malaysian farmer starved by biofuel speculators, or an elderly British woman frozen in her flat because she couldn’t pay the electric bill.
I’d like to know what they were thinking. Can we now expect a contest to see who has the most crazies on their team? Kind of pointless and counterproductive, don’t you think?
I think it’s pretty funny , although stooping to Romm et al’s level is probably a mistake . That said , to take it down now would likely be seen as a victory for the “cause” .
damn heartland for telling the truth…the only difference between al gore and ted K is a few bombs
This criminal/terrorist connection is somewhat over the top indeed. However, Enron’s Global Climate Change Statement could be publicized widely, with no comment whatsoever.
To counter all the warmista talk about Big Evil Business, just saying.
The annual Heartland climate change conference is coming up later this month in Chicago. Maybe it was done to create some controversy and thereby get more media attention (which would likely have to be provided through local media sources since national sources are unlikely to send crews etc.).
Has this story been confirmed,this has got to be a fakegate 2
While the billboard campaign most likely seems very logical to the Heartland leadership, I had to read their rationale to see what point they were trying to make. The message is not billboard material unless it is immediately obvious to the people you want to reach. I could be wrong. Maybe I am the only one puzzled by what I saw.
Heartland had the high ground but will give it up with this billboard campaign. Quick, cover them up with something else or just paint them over for now and reply to the negative MSM publicity with a retraction, saying you simply made a mistake.
“…had they asked me I would have told them that it is a bad idea that will backfire on them.”
When your enemy is busy making a mistake, don’t be distracting him!
Sadly, the poor choice by Heartland will for many catastrophic AGW believers merely cause them to reconsider supporting the unibomber as a hero.
Comments on this issue are a stunning example of hypocrisy and cowardice in itself.
[snip – that’s over the top, sorry ~mod]
gerrydorrian66:
As a member of the English Defence League I know what it’s like to be smeared with the same brush as Anders Breivick because of a tenuous connection.
peter_dtm:
“Anthony is taken to task because he posted a link to an utterance from a left wing organisation demonised as being NAZI (the BNP; if you dare read its manifesto is a socialist organisation; that is why it was called the National SOCIALIST Party).”
This place is starting to worry me.
/me not sanguine my comment will get posted, but i liked it so ima copy it from romm’s puddle:
gnomish says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm
i think it would be a nice idea if each of you, when you go home today, thinks of something he can do to reduce global hypocrisy.
NO PRESSURE!
peter_dtm:
Your post at May 4, 2012 at 11:57 am is daft.
Fascists are right-wing and socialists are left-wing.
Fascists claim to be National Socialists because (everywhere except the US) socialism is liked and fascists know few people would vote for them if they said what they really are.
And the BNP is to the right of Genghis Khan.
Richard
Benjamin D Hillicoss says:
May 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm
“damn heartland for telling the truth…the only difference between al gore and ted K is a few bombs”
Moby.
I thought we’d passed the stage of giving credence to a proposition based on who believes or disbelieves that proposition a long time ago. Its a fallacy and a propaganda coup all rolled into one.
Jay P says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:49 am
“It’s the true face of Climate Skepticism folks. You make make your bed, you gotta sleep in it.”
Idiot.
A very bad move on heartland’s part. WE had the moral high ground because we had pretty much reframed from the mud slinging allowing the other side to do it instead.
Heartland should have followed Anthony’s lead of politeness and civility. (Anthony is much more patient in that regard than I)
How can Romm’s hypocrisy be stunning when it’s actually totally expected? I’d be stunned if he hadn’t compared skeptics to terrorists.
Just let the facts speak for themselves and leave the fear mongering to the alarmists. Why play their game? They’re LOSING.
Some reasoned comment from Brendan O’Neill…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100156243/environmentalists-compared-their-opponents-to-mass-murderers-long-before-the-heartland-institute/
“Okay, yes, it is not the most sophisticated advertising campaign in world history. But I don’t remember greens getting their panties in a bunch on the 700,000 previous occasions (that’s a rough estimate) when non-belief in global warming was likened to being a terrorist, a Nazi, or Beelzebub. Indeed, greens – including some of those who choked on their muesli this morning when they heard about Heartland’s advert antics – are world experts in comparing their critics to Hitler and other assorted nutjobs.”
A good point; the choir here (and mind you, there is nothing wrong or bad about choirs!) is only one ‘theater’ where events and media ‘happens’; then there is the larger ‘theater’ of Joe Six pack out there on the Dan Ryan Expressway in/around Chicago …
Mark me down as “No opinion” btw on this issue but I do see from where the concerns ‘spring’ or originate.
Meanwhile this will get/fetch far more press at low to no cost than HI could muster otherwise.
I might still like it explained by someone why it is egregious to point out the influence the CAGW crowd has had on some of our more notorious criminals (like Ted K.), too. At this point I don’t know how much ‘motive’ AGW was for some of these characters, but didn’t Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, have a copy of Algore’s book (Earth in the Balance) in his possession, or was it the parallel writing style the two had as when Algore’s book and Ted’s manifesto were compared?
Ted;s 35,000-word essay was titled: “Industrial Society and Its Future”. The FBI simply called it the “Unabomber Manifesto”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Manifesto
.
Patently an ad campaign not aimed at WUWT readers, but WUWT readers don’t need persuading.
This is aimed at Homer Simpson.
The question is… Are there more Homer Simpsons than WUWT readers?
You mention that “…multiple anti vote stuffing features are enabled in this poll.” Don’t you realize that I’m from Chicago and voting “early and often” is our right? All kidding aside, I think this is a big blunder on the part of Heartland. For one thing it could make the nonsense that spewed out of Gleick’s mouth believable. If the Heartland’s ad didn’t backfire and proved to be successful PR it would still be a bad think. Finally, I had the misfortune a few years back, to have had a boss who said I looked like the Unabomber and took to calling me Ted Kaczynski in the office. And I’m a skeptic for chrissake!
Light-heartedness is the key to effectiveness. Josh’s cartoons would have been better.
HI not only came up with a bad idea, it apparently didn’t “check it out” with sympathetic outsiders or a focus group first, which is just as bad a mistake (arrogant, headstrong).
How about posting charts of flat-lined temperatures, etc. over the caption, “The Warm Is Turning”?
Or a montage of dead windmills over a headline, “There are *** of these dead whirligigs in the US now, but still we’re building more–Why? (And why haven’t you been told this?)”
Or a photo of the pollution around a solar plant in China over the caption, “Clean? Green?”
It’s so simple.
“This is incredible; they were winning by being squeaky clean and above the alarmist fray. Someone with clout tell them to remove it immediately with a big hands up and an admission that it was thoroughly ill conceived.”
Too late. Damage done. it’s now akin to Glieke’s “Serious lapse of professional judgement…”
this kind of thing is like getting pregnant. it’s something that can’t be done half-way. they are now in and have to face the consequences and the loss of the Ace in the hole.
Too bad.
Unfortunately Jay Lehr has a bit of a history of going off the handle at times and doing things which just don’t make sense.
We have read in the main post about what some say who are critical of the Heartland billboards.
Here is part of the other side of the story from Heartland’s website which has a whole section about its billboards. Here is a small portion of what they say:
They are not pulling any punches nor apologizing. Let the discussion go on. It is time for a discussion of who supports alarmism and why.
John
If someone is throwing punches, should you just stand there? These guys are fighting REALLY dirty. The vast majority of the world couldn’t really give a fiddler’s fork about “global climate warming change catastrophe”. Should wake some people up anyway, …..
The poll needs a “Yes, Thank G*d” option.
I get what Heartland was after but they blew the execution of the campaign. They are tired of being painted as the ‘fringe’ when they (we) are not but trying to link CAGW belief to these madmen is a stretch too far and is unnecessarily offensive to boot.
I do agree that “winning on the science” isn’t going to work with a certain segment of the population. So, it’s good to try something else but not this. I would suggest going for humor/irony instead. It would be interesting to undertake a serious campaign about the evidence and catastrophic risks of the likely-to-continue natural global cooling. Think about the impact of such a campaign:
– It clearly shows that global warming is likely bogus (can’t cool and warm at once).
– Any attempts to refute the data (models aren’t accurate, temp measurements are approximate, etc) also undermine CAGW arguments.
– Mainstream media in search of a catastrophe story would snap it up.
– There is mounds of inarguable evidence, both current and historic.
– Global cooling can only be due to natural causes, so no policy proscriptions apply (however, it does highlight the real need for cost-effective, reliable 24/7 energy sources).
– Lots of fun creating valid cooling analogs for all the warming tropes: instead of greenhouse we have the icehouse house effect, instead of climate change we have the risk of our climate going ‘dormant’ (it would be disastrous if the climate stopped changing), theoretical cooling feedbacks might lead to ‘runaway cooling’, etc.
– Any discussion of the potential risks of CNGC (Catastrophic Natural Global Cooling), also makes a case for the benefits of warming.
If Heartland wants to ‘go negative’ with a counter-campaign to CAGW, this would be far more effective.
I agree with most posters here that this is probably a big mistake, but the world of PR sometimes delivers some surprises. Speculation above that this was done to ensure coverage by the media of up coming events might make it worth while. Keep in mind the public relations axiom there is no such thing as bad publicity (assuming you can spin things properly after the story breaks).
There are several ways I can imagine that this could turn out to be a positive move in the long run. The folks most offended here are the folks that would not have their minds changed by any means. It could however be a gateway to discussion in the open media of how often the AGW crowd have openly called for totalitarian moves against skeptics. The media has largely ignored the implicit threat in those comments but sometimes a strategy to make discussion of an undesirable topic is to make it look reasonable compared to some far more extreme comment.
Only time will tell, and I think it is either a very bad mistake or a very risky move that “could” somehow in the long run be net beneficial. For example if Heartland has some shocking discovery to announce showing malicious intent by the primary advocates of AGW that this campaign would open the door to expose.
Heartland I think you blew it, but hope you know what you are doing!
Larry
Simply put – 2 wrongs do not make a right (but 3 lefts do).
Ted Kaczynski probably believes that the sky is blue and that grass is green. Should I stop believing the same things just because Ted does?
Mr Bast needs to learn which side of the claymore mine is the “front” before setting it off. This belongs in the “I’m too dumb to be running an institute” bucket and the only sufficient apology is a resignation letter.
Grossly overstating your case is a strategic error. Reasonable people will stop believing you and your opponents will gain ammunition.
How many times has Al Gore’s ill-considered contention that “the debate is over” been used against him? It’s practically a hashtag of the skeptical community.
John Whitman,
I guess we’re not part of the consensus. I saw nothing dishonest about the billboard. But then, I always wear my heart on my sleeve.
I would have preferred to see a billboard with a picture of a reputable scientist or astronaut, with a good money quote.
Hmmm, their ad is accurate but “ill-conceived, badly timed, stupid, shooting their feet, jumping the shark”!?!?! I guess we can forget using Hitler or Pol Pot in the next one huh?
Whole lotta groupthink and politically correct nonsense going on here. This is how we got here in the first place. This is why billions of dollars have already been wasted. This is why your children are being brainwashed behind your back as we speak. This is how eco-Zealots have thoroughly infiltrated government agencies and NGO’s. This is why the lesser of two evils, the (R) party is called the stupid party.
The way to defeat the enemy is to make THEIR position politically incorrect, not by friendly fire from a politically correct bandwagon. I stand with agree with these commenters and the 25 others that voted NO to the poll question …
Even after everything that has happened from dodging FOIA requests and in-your-face personal attacks, lots of folks seem to still actually believe that this is a nice academic argument about Science, to be won on some intellectual level in a tempered venue. Sorry, this is not really about Science, not the big picture. Science is just the means to an end in this situation. The red-green radical Socialist left is coming after you on many battlefields, not just Science.
This was a devastatingly stupid misstep. Nearly 80% say it’s a blunder. And this is a skeptic website. The billboards should come down today. Don’t wait until tomorrow.
Issue a heart(land) felt apology. Quickly.
richardscourtney says:
May 4, 2012 at 12:23 pm
hold your nose & read their manifesto – then come back and say they are not left wing
Sorry I think something is really really wrong about this story
James Evans says:
May 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“peter_dtm:
“Anthony is taken to task because he posted a link to an utterance from a left wing organisation demonised as being NAZI (the BNP; if you dare read its manifesto is a socialist organisation; that is why it was called the National SOCIALIST Party).”
This place is starting to worry me.”
A little history for you, James.Henry Ford was an internationalist and a progressive; interested in “The Third Way” as it was called back then. What was the Third Way? The term describes attempts at finding something other than communism and capitalism that works. All kinds of systems have been proposed over time but during Henry Ford’s time several candidates existed:
-Stalin’s Soviet Union.
-a rising new movement in Germany.
-FDR’s progressive government with its planned economy. (An overview of the planning process is given in The Century Of The Self, a documentary by Adam Curtis)
Well, Ford supported Stalin (who changed the doctrine of the Soviet Union from “world revolution” to “socialism in one country” and embarked on rapid industrialization) by having his chief architect Albert Kahn’s company design the first 5 year plan for Stalin and 630 factories which were subsequently built by American and German companies.
And Ford also was the biggest benefactor of that new rising movement in Germany…. he later got a medal for it – in July 1938, the Adlerschild des Deutschen Reiches.
This modern distinction of communism as extreme left and that other movement as extreme right was obviously not apparent to Henry.
What does Joe Romm have to do with this? Seriously, if you want, write two posts, but trying to drag Romm into something he has nothing to do with in the spirit of they also do it simply labels whoever does this sort of thing and not well. Remember what Mom Rabett said, just because Antony Watts does it is no reason for you to.
BTW what fraction of a Godwin is Ted Kaczynski?
Sadly the Heartland advertisement has only a weak element of truth. Belief in CAGW (and it is a belief as there is no evidence) is indeed very much anti-Western, anti-American and anti-human civilization religion. It is a terrible thing to desire energy poverty and to desire to go back to horse and cart and no electricity (a sustainable existance). However, Heartland are making a grave mistake, those extremists who espouse CAGW may be misguided or gravy train fraudsters but this is still very very far from a terrorist.
Shame on you Heartland!
I voted “no”. To date, “Warmists” have done great damage to the economies of the industrialized nations and caused incalculable human suffering throughout the world. And they continue to do so to this day, despite the growing, overwhelming evidence that they are WRONG! They are doing it for political power, personal gain and/or both. Some may really be trying to destroy the Western economies. So as far as I’m concerned, this puts them in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. This should be publicized. There may be better ways of doing it, but it still must be done.
Jay Davis
Eli Rabett says:
“BTW what fraction of a Godwin is Ted Kaczynski?”
Truth hurts, doesn’t it, bunniboi?
And who are you, Joe Romm’s nanny? Does he need you for protection? Heh. Romm has a bunny to protect him.
THe Heartlands Institute say
“These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about how man-made global warming is a crisis and how mankind must take immediate and drastic actions to stop it.
2. Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?
Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming.”
They use the arguement of fault by association, which is not scientific.This is deliberately provocative and possibly ironic. They also asks us to “do our own research” and read theirs
This is an ad for the Climate Change Conference.I hope it will encourage people to attend and the media to report the conference and possibly also the science.
This is a bad move for HI…. I’m not one to say you should always seek the very highest “moral high ground” when in this climate war street fight, but diving into the gutter with Joe Romm and people like the 10:10 campaign “splatter” video is not the way to go, either.
Heartland should fight hard and aggressively for sure, but I don’t see this kind of thing winning any support. It creates ‘notoriety’ not credibility. Sure, the more scurrilous C-AGWarmists ‘deserve’ this kind of treatment, no doubt. But in terms of the effectiveness of public discourse I can’t see this to be helpful to public understanding.
Also, what the ‘other’ side can get away with in rhetoric and and distortion is not an indicator of what ‘skeptics’ can get away with. To the extent this campaign should draw any media attention it will be used solely to portray HI as a fringe player wrestling with the likes of the Unabomber and Fidel Castro. That’s not where they want to be in the public debates!!
It’s like the saying “wrestle with a pig and you both get muddy, but the pig likes it” I’m sure that Ted Kazynski and Fidel Castro (if either is still sentient) might be glad for the notoriety and attention, but I can’t see why Heartland Institute wants to be mentioned in the same breath with the likes of them….
Is Heartland trying to lose ALL their funding/ credibility, or what ?
WOW.
I’m shocked by the ineptitude.
“That said, I’ll be blunt; I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep, and does nothing but piss people off and divide the debate further. ”
No it will not win any converts. It may stiffen some backbones and wake some of the dead.
After years of reading that CAGW may, might and possibly cause larger or smaller breast sizes and so much more; sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.
I don’t think they should take it down…..
….just change the picture to this
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/anarchist-labels-600×465.jpg
I read the link with their rational. Because some nut-jobs believe in AGW doesn’t say anything about CAGW itself, doesn’t show how thin the ice is it is resting on, doesn’t show the deceit that has gone into it’s promotion and doesn’t show how it’s being used as an excuse to justify poor (at best) political decisions. Did I forget to mention how it has made most everything cost more?
I think they should replace everyone of them as soon as possible.
Put up a picture of our Energy Secretary with his quote about needing to raise gas prices.
Put up a picture of Obama with the quote about his plan would cause energy prices to skyrocket.
Put up a picture of Phil Jones and Mann and others with quotes from the Climategate emails.
This reminds me, it’s time to make another donation to Heartland. Especially since Obama made Government Motors [GM] cut off funding to Heartland.
Who is dorlomin? Perhaps:
http://s39.photobucket.com/profile/dorlomin
A superb piece of advertising … a shocking bit of science.
Do I condemn the Heartland for the cynical stooping to the level of the warmists “scientists” propagandists or do I congratulate them on the kind of advertising that gets noticed?
Let’s see. Are they scientists or lobbyists?
Never have I had to stoop so low as to defend lobbyists …
– – – – – – –
Smokey,
I found HI’s write up on the billboards very well put.
Gutsy move by HI. They ain’t no walflowers and I do not think they are looking for support of the adoring fans of political correctness. No warm fuzziness from HI. : )
I would have done it differently, but individual style is to be expected in any PR campaign. They have my respect with this.
John
“The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society.”
Yes, this is true. It is the fringe leftist politicians and econuts that spawned and heavily promoted AGW and it’s push for deindustrialization, like O’s Science Czar John Holdren and his wish to de-develop the United States. So the gist of what they say is true, and those in the middle that subscribe to AGW have been duped by this leftist fringe and MSM.
Maybe the Unabomber thing is a publicity stunt, and it’s true that he as an avid luddite was also going to jump on board any de-industrialization schemes. But, that not the type of fringe we are interested in highlighting. Leftist politicians, not murderers! So, the ad campaign seems unwise, at least at first glance. People don’t like Obama and the radical left… so why not stick to highlighting the leftist connections to the abhorrent AGW theory?
wow, rapid response from Joe Bast…. now did they always conceive of it as just a momentary blast or is this a sudden change of course? I know that viral stuff on the web can be a huge multiplier, maybe this was meant as a brief guerilla move in the PR wars…. ha ha what fun the climate wars can be….
“That said, I’ll be blunt; I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep.”
Not very strong language, Anthony. I wonder if you’ve got a comparison of a scientific organization like AAAS, NAS, IPCC, Royal Society or AGU every doing anything remotely like this. Yet I’ve never know you to accept anything they’ve put on climate science out as accurate.
This billboard campaign is very timely. Because of it I am going to have many more topics for good discussions at ICCC-7 !!
Bravo! Can’t wait.
John
Sez Jason Samenow in his Washington Post whine:
Meaning that it’s true, it’s very effective, and he hates the hell out of it.
Don’tcha just love it when the target screams in agony to tell that you’ve got yourself a bull’s eye?
Without comment!
This so disappointing – if Heartland had money to throw about on billboards it’s clear it lacked the imagination to use its money wisely. I’m angry, because idiocy like this plays right into the hands of our warmist critics who will now enjoy sticking the knife in – and frankly they have every right to. The shame of it is that this is a self-inflicted wound, right ahead of the Heartland conference. What a disaster. I’m so angry, right now.
Every day I have to deal with the sneering disapproval of pro-CAGW peers who consider my sceptical climate views some sort of mental disease; thanks to these clowns at Heartland my opponents now have a big fat handful of ammunition to use against me.
Any confidence I had in the Heartland Institute to use it’s limited resources wisely in the fight against climate alarmists just suffered a potentially fatal blow. I just can’t believe these people would be so irresponsible…
How about this one.
Conspiracy #4
“Many believe that the government is actively denying the claims that the Earth is suffering climate change because it will affect profits of large corporations.”
http://www.conspire.com/top-10-conspiracy-theories/
You really can’t make this stuff up.
UPDATE2: 1PM PST
From Joe Bast via email:
We will stop running it at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)
===========
It is 3:25 CST right now, just make the f’n call if it is so simple.
Why wait.
REPLY: from what I understand of billboard system scheduling (I do some digital signage myself) they only do updates once an hour…I got the note right at 1PM, so it was probably too late for the closest update to kick it. Bear in mind these signs run remotely via cell phone modems…not direct links where you can shut down right away. – Anthony
to richardscourtney
I married into a family of journalists – from the U.K., now in the States. They woudl concur with your assessment. You can sell bad nows again and again and again. But as soon as you publish “there’s nothing to worry about – it’s all over. that’s the last paper you sell becuase of that issue.
What the skeptical community must recognize is that newspapers and radio and television are not in the entertainment or news business. They are in the business of providing an audience for their advertisers. PERIOD. Otherwise they will be OUT of business.
Phil Ford,
Ever think of asking them what’s so dishonest about quoting a lunatic like Kazynski?
He doesn’t sound any different than most of the alarmist crowd, does he?
Being right isn’t always good enough.
Some things are better left unsaid.
Heartland would be better served by giving people enough information for them to draw their own inescapable conclusions.
If I wasn’t clear enough in the previous post, I suggest the billboard be redesigned with Peter Gleick in handcuffs during his perp ……anticipated
Fair is fair. He IS a criminal. Let it be widely known that when you are a warmist you are in the company of criminals. Sound crass? Their crimes are crass. If you don’t want to be lumped in with the criminals, then speak out against them.
We wouldn’t need prisons and cops and shackles if the world was uniformly polite. There is a place for those who have attempted to ruin science through fraud at my/our expense. The worst of them, Gleick, Mann and Jones…. have this erudite pretense that make the crassness they should endure all the more deserving.
Just make them stop – this is stupid.
Harrison Schmidt and Buzz Aldrin would be better billboard choices. Astronauts are some of the only real heroes left that folks will listen to. Get some short, to-the-point quotes from them, and run with it. Invite them to the Conference. Great publicity.
The biggest problem with the pr mini-offensive is that it lacks obvious humor, laughs. It could have been funny if it was paired with the warmista agitprop of the same ilk, for comparison purposes. Rather it feels like a teenage stunt, or an attempt of Heartland to try to get iconic “evil dude” status from the delusional lefties, like the “Koch Brothers” do. Those type of obsessions have the unintended benefit of broadcasting the target’s message even further.
Also, it seems to be a “righty” type of failed discussion which really is a diversion. That is, if your Any Rand-type view of the world is challenged by the facts of corporate and business involvement in the CAGW discourse and games, these sorts obsessively point at some screaming lefty control freaks as the “reason” and force behind CAGW. To see the business sides would place them in deep depression because rea;ity their Rand-ish view of the world that sees big business, or “industrialists,” as working for the common good by pursuing their own specfic, special individual money interests. If those last words don’t make a logical connection to you, you are not a right wing business fetishist.
Also, the campaign is amateur hour because it does not distringuish global warming from aspect of its amount, or the anthropogenic issue.
I do believe that Heartland Institute people have been relentlessly smeared (as have you Anthony, and so many others, as all readers here know). But this billboard simply surrendered to the frustration and disgust that so many feel, saying “you smear us, now we’ll smear you right back!”
Of course the fact that murderers and psychopaths may have a particular view on something does not (logically) imply that others holding that view share anything else in common. Hitler and Himmler were reportedly vegetarians and nature lovers, but that doesn’t imply that vegetarians or nature lovers share other views in common with H&H, etc.
[I am something of a nature lover but not at all a vegetarian!]
I don’t think ‘shockvertising’ works as though it may draw a lot of attention it can backfire by debasing, as well as losing, supporters of the product or idea being promoted.
Wiki: “This form of advertising is often controversial, disturbing, explicit and crass, and may entail bold and provocative political messages that challenge the public’s conventional understanding of the social order.
“This form of advertising may not only offend but can also frighten as well, using scare tactics and elements of fear to sell a product or deliver a public service message, making a high impact.
“Perceptual defense is the tendency for people to protect themselves against ideas, objects or situations that are threatening.This means that if a consumer finds a certain kind of advertising content threatening or disturbing, this message will be filtered out.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_advertising
I don’t know how many there are but, there is a dorlomin here:
http://s39.photobucket.com/profile/dorlomin/index
It’s been pulled,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/heartland-institute-launches-campaign-linking-terrorism-murder-and-global-warming-belief/2012/05/04/gIQAJJ3Q1T_blog.html
“4 p.m. update: Heartland Institute President and CEO Joe Bast has issued the following statement:
We will stop running [the billboard] at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)
The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.”
Just because the “new deniers” (warmist) sling mud from the gutter; it’s better to step away from the gutter than to jump into also. Heartland’s reputation has been harmed with this, and the results will be that they have done what the other side couldn’t.
You don’t bring a bag of marshmallows and a hand full of willow sticks to a gun fight and expect to survive the battle. Same thing when you are fighting catastrophic global warming alarmism. Playing nice nice and acting like tolerant gentlemen simply won’t work. It is a knock down, no holds barred, brass knuckle, take no prisoners battle that we can’t afford to lose. They refuse to play honestly and honorably so we should pull no punches. When they are down we must make sure they stay down!
Heartland just sharked. Shame on them.
I have no issue with this tactic. You can hold true to Marquis of Queensbury rules if you like but after I get booted in the boys, I figure the opposition has decided to widen the boundaries of the contest. We’ve had much, much worse leveled on us not the least of which is the daily attribution of “flat-earthers” and “denier”.
What a bunch of wheezy old women you people are. These people want to take your money and your freedom from you and then spit on you for believing in God or capitalism or sharing code or whatever. They have complete contempt for you and every value you hold dear. Not only is this billboard accurate it is coming at just the right time. I keep telling people that Alarmists deserve no better place in society than Birthers or Truthers. Most people have never absorbed anything about “climate change” except what they get in the background from mass media. If you have some kind of belief that you are participating in some sort of battle here then the name of the game is to influence these people. They already know instinctively that this is some sort of tree hugger nonsense but, hey, never really thought about it being cool or not. Show the faces that let them know they don’t want to be associated with these people and that mind set.
Keep the billboards up. If the usual suspects cry foul, give ’em the bird and keep firing. Make your point to the average voter. “You believe in global warming? What are you, some kind of nut?” Again and again without fear.
A lot of you are Breitbart fans. Watch one of his last videos and listen to the last three words he speaks. Take it to heart.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/trailer-hating-breitbart-explicit-version
Poptech says:
May 4, 2012 at 1:51 pm
It’s been pulled,
[…]
The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.”
——————————————————–
Someone at Heartland is very very stupid.
Anybody that can help with Donna’s suggestion?
I can’t find any contact info or a way to respond on her site. Would you please forward my contact info?
You can either take the high road or circle the wagons. I thought taking the high road was working rather well for Heartland. It could also hurt their court case if they are planning one against Gleick. Credibility would be a factor and now Heartland has lost much of that.
That strikes me as making the same error as a recent quote i read indicating that all non-warmists are also flat earthers and creationists. People have a very wide range of beliefs and seldom are the various topics linked. Anti-abortionists are not necessarily religious or pro-murder of doctors for example. There are many other examples of closely held beliefs/opinions that do not fit a simplistic pattern.
I know very little about HI, really only as sponsors of a climate conference, the Gleick affair and now this. One good, one victim and one clanger. They have certainly lost credibility from this.
At least that indicates they had credibility to lose – unlike many.
My first thoughts were that their website might have been hacked. Unfortunately not. Epic fail chaps.
Another unfortunate faux pas for Heartland is that most sceptics don’t actually disbelieve in global warming – depending on the start date of course (I know it’s been flat for the last several years). We only question the cause and the magnitude.
On a positive note: When was the last time we saw warmists being so morally critical of one of their own? Doesn’t the very religious nature of environmentalism prevent them from criticising or questioning, lest the bubble bursts?
And if this billboard had replaced the words “still believe” with “don’t believe” you can bet they’d all be championing it, as we know Romm essentially already has. It’s good to be reminded of the different behaviours in the two camps.
Going forward, Heartland would do well to take down the billboard and issue an apology for the appalling judgement.
That kind of stuff is a major fail for the alarmists, it cannot possibly be a success for the sceptics. Every time I see an alarmist pull a similar stunt, I chuckle to myself knowing that it only serves to illustrate their specious arguments and places their true nature on display for all to see. It’s a disappointment to see Heartland take such a low road.
Hi Anthony – I am really pleased you took a leadership role in rejecting such inappropriate behavior! There is no place for such attacks in the discourse on climate science issues. Best Regards Roger Sr.
Nothing wrong with taking the gloves off, but I seriously doubt this will work out the way Heartland hoped it would. Perhaps they expected the billboards to drive people to their website to read their justifications and get a quality education in the bargain? If so, I think they could have found more effective and less risky ways of doing so. Example: display an outrageous radical greenie quote along with pictures of Gore and Kaczynski, and ask which said it. Answer can be found at heartland.org. Point taken even by those who don’t click through. I bet they were trying to emulate the very successful revulsion-by-association antismoking billboard campaign of several years ago. Fail.
Sadly, Heartland = a think tank, with strong emphasis on the second word. I hope I’m wrong.
What incredibly poor taste.
On Warmists comment sections I have been called all kinds of names but always keep my relative cool. As Napoleon once said:
Sadly Heartland interrupted them. Warmists’ nasty tactics have been one reason they are inadvertently stoking skepticism.
Dish it out. It’s a brutal world out there. When Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground, (after giving a couple days notice to the residents to VACATE…which they did!) he was roundly critisized. If I recall right his reply was, “War is HELL and I don’t intend to make it any better than that.”
Welcome to Hades Joel R.
Max
Eli Rabett says:
May 4, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“BTW what fraction of a Godwin is Ted Kaczynski?”
A millionth.
“Just because the “new deniers” (warmist) sling mud from the gutter; it’s better to step away from the gutter than to jump into also.”
They’re getting nastier because they are self-correcting their positions. They are trying to create a discussion milieu wherein it is accepted that they have always held the position that additional CO2 has some effect, no matter how small. The enemy “other” are not those who challenge “catastrophic” AGW as propelled by the UN and governments and gravy train science, but those who challenge the idea climate changes at all. Being lefties generally, they are susceptible to pseud0-scientific sounding argumentation. And being arrogant, they can never admit their own intellects were used against them. Heyhoe herself has said even one degree of warming is dangerous. Do you think she would of said that a few years ago, before public discussion of “climate feedbacks” brought that pseduo-science to closer inspection?
If you want to rattle their cages, you need to get them to say on the record how much warming will come, and if 1 degree of warming with CO2 doubling is dangerous and why. They are the Borg, you need to evolve against their evolving weapons systems. On our more reasonable side, we unfortunately have vocal rightists who believe this is a war on “capitalism,” which is true for only about 1% of the warmistas (prob. less). Can you imagine if Heartland ran a campaign showing how Enron, GE, Goldman, etc. etc. instigated and propeled this faux crisis? I can’t.
I thought it was a hoax. It has to be. Skeptics have been on the receiving end of being demonized and this has always hurt the AGW cause. To start dishing it out, especially this way, is really ugly. Not only that, but they’re using a logical fallacy. Bombing is wrong. But that doesn’t mean everything else they believe in is automatically wrong. If those things are wrong, it should be because of facts, not because one of their other activities is criminal.
Great attention getter in my opinion. Very effective too. I’ll wager the images and the association will linger in the subconscious of many individuals. Goody two-shoes ads put people to sleep; they are worthless. If the ads lead people to the Heartland Website, mission accomplished.
The sad thing is H.I. was riding so high with that pathetic assist from Gleick. Man, they look bad. Heads should roll. The most painful thing is that we’ve given the other side so much ammo, which is something they’ve not had in a long while. I’m sick.
@max
I would rather they ‘dished it out’ with cold hard facts than with UTTER TRIPE like that billboard.
A dignified reticence to comment whilst the Law takes its course would have been the appropriate action, IMHO
The problem is it relies on guilt by association, not malice or just error.
It’s a dirty trick and should be condemned.
I guess this is Glieck’s victory. He portrayed HI as rightwing nutters, they lost all other funding and so now live up (or down) to expectations.
They have to get what funds are available to them.
Meanwhile, our middling industries are being destroyed, our lives are being micro-managed, our freedoms are being whittled away – by the policies of marxists, both communist and fascist masquerading as the caring environmentalists – and so much more besides. Write the follow up ad campaign to stop people in their tracks without bringing in politics..
Mr Bast, make the call.
I am glad I find myself in the minority again. To the extent that I offended moderators’ sensitivities (which are happily asleep when “ideologically acceptable” views are expressed using much stronger language here).
Heartland’s billboards are true, there is no discernible difference between environmental fanaticism, terrorism, and totalitarianism. “Huge misstep”? Only if you think that marching in step with the renegade “consensus” is a good thing.
I, for one, refuse to say “Baa!”
“Jay P says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:49 am
It’s the true face of Climate Skepticism folks. You make make your bed, you gotta sleep in it.”
Considering we have Climate advocators talking about burning skeptics houses down I wouldn’t say the link to terrorism is all that far fetched. As much hate as I’ve had pushed my way I have to say I don’t have pity for the believers.
Does the Heartland Institute not engage the professional services of a competent Advertising & PR Agency? Where were they in this?
What was the internal process for this at Heartland? If any agencies were involved, they need to be fired! And big FYI: the vast majority of agency creatives are left-of-center, they don’t mind sabotaging/sacrificing/resigning a client they don’t like and/or who make bad decisions.. like this whopper!
Peter Gleick, et al, must be counting his lucky stars!
Just a picture of Al Gore would have been as effective. with him jetting between mansions.
They should replace it with one thats says.
“Ok, now that was a bit over the top, but that is how those skeptical of global warming have been linked.” How do you think they feel. !!
Which is more dangerous, the Unabomber, or a scientist with political and media clout who’s expressed a belief that the Earth’s optimum population should be <2bn?
Bad choice, stepping down to the level of Joe Romm.
Mr. Watts & WUWT Co;
I’ve mentioned this before, and it becomes ever-more the truth.
Climate-alarmism weakens its case, reduces it stature, and loses public standing, with its characteristic over-reliance on sarcasm, smirk, ridicule, and what I will generalise as ‘punk-mouth’.
This is a form of rhetorical delinquency & vandalism – and is readily recognized as such. When this tactic is employed by Heartland; to the extent that it is allowed to become SOP at WUWT, we have chosen to let our own behaviour “reflect” the lowest & weakest of our adversary. We thus mould ourselves in their least-effective image.
A clear opportunity exists for WUWT to further-elevate its leading place in the public forum, and to further-enhance the admirable works it is able to perform, by eschewing the ‘clever-tongue’ indulgence. We are not here to show what creative smart-asses we are capable of being.
This is not just a Heartland problem. Let their error be an object-lesson, Mr. Watts & All, pointing to the hazard of this slippery-slope … and the height of the credibility-precipice at its base.
Your ally & fellow sceptic,
Ted Clayton
[REPLY: Welcome back, Mr. Clayton. You did, of course, read the whole thread? Anthony has quite clearly indicated that this is not in any way countenanced by WUWT, let alone an SOP. You’ll forgive a reference to theater? “… the angels have chose, to fight their battles below…” -REP]
I’m beginning to connect the dots….dots….dots….dots….
Dumb. Very simply dumb. A waste of money and probably goodwill.
I see a lot of readers here letting off steam about Heartlands,see how the the Brits are doing it this weekendhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139591/Full-steam-ahead-Golden-age-rail-travel-brought-life-Flying-Scotsman-service-charges-Yorkshire-Moors.html
Interesting tactic – turnaround’s fair play and then some? Watch the “mainstream” Climate scientists, enc., squirm when the criticism first directed against Heartland is rather quickly found to apply more to the “mainstream” Climate Scientists themselves and then hopefully to their own Post Normal AGW “science”.
But it’s definitely a high stakes gamble! So naturally I voted for the tactic.
Bad taste is bad taste. HI needs to acknowledge this major PR error and move on. McKitrick’s letter at CA says it all very well. The battle is best fought with good science, not nasty, cheap shots.
Brilliant billboard. It was run as an actual experiment to see what kind of reaction would come from role reversals.
Role reversals are methods that sometimes apply when asking ethics questions.
What on earth were Heartland thinking? Advertisements like that will only put people off, not make people think. You gain respect from sticking to the moral high ground not advertising pictures of nutjobs to say if you believe in agw then you must be like him.
It should be about science, not political leanings, religion etc. Both sides are guilty of this and it really gets my goat. I’m a skeptic because of the science I have read. I’m not right wing, religious, in pay of big oil or a nature hater. My politics are left leaning, I don’t believe in any god, I create wildlife habitats and enjoy wildlife photography and no oil company is paying me a thing! Stick to the science, all the politics and religious stuff really puts me off.
Heartland blew it on this one. The best thing they can do is to take it down immediately and admit they made a mistake. That it was over the line.
When you have science on your side, why go for cheap shots like this? It’s so unnecessary!
I see your point but it’s still bad TACTICS. We are in guerrilla warfare and you don’t make friends with the local villagers by killing their families. All Heartland has to do is stick to the science.
Uhmm, we’re going to pretend murders didn’t happen in the name of this eco-madness?
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/by-their-fruit-you-will-recognize-them/
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/more-reaping-the-fruit-of-what-was-sowed/
There’s a difference between fact and fiction. The facts are people have been murdered because of this insane global warming fiasco.
I wonder when was the last time that any “propaganda” from the warmist regime was repudiated with such speed and vigour?
Kudos to all that object to this kind of pugnacity. Having been “Gleicked” is no reason to sink below any level of propriety.
The facts support the argument and that should and will always be enough to win the day. Name-calling and wallowing are best left to the losers, as always.
Dorlomin has attention seeking disorder. His obfuscative online personality is crafted around this disorder. You’ve just gifted him a mention on your popular blog so he’s happy.
I agree. Big mistake.
Total loss of credibility.
They have let the side down. Now everyone who stood up for them over the recent scandal is tarred with the same brush. How can they expect any support after this?
Yeah, probably not the best idea in the world (but factual and not libel). How’s about this – guy in a T shirt with I Believe in Human caused global warming is at the door with a manikin at his side. Caption I couldn’t find a real girl, so I brought this model…
OK, I’ll go to my room now…
Mike
Stupid to do such a billboard.
Ok, I get it, and many here get it… but how many of the people who actually saw the billboard actually have a clue where it came from or what it means? Very few… because the vast majority are still being inundated with the AGW “message”, and only that.
In advertising and in spreading a message, it is essential that the attitudes and reactions of the target audience are understood. It seems to me that this campaign failed to take into account that only a very small percentage of viewers will have any idea (or even interest) in what it means.
The net result is negative perception. The tiny portion who even “get” what it means will not be swayed by it… therefore it was a mistake, and will likely only have a negative result.
(PS… what did Wiebo Ludwig believe? And why would I care? And why does the CBC openly revere and worship this terrorist? And why do so many Canadians also agree with this Alberta version of the unabomber? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/04/f-wiebo-ludwig-timeline.html?cmp=rss )
Looks like someone got to them:
Group pulls plug on billboard linking global warming believers to terrorists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/group-pulls-plug-on-billboard-linking-global-warming-believers-to-terrorists/2012/05/04/gIQAU2q51T_story.html
G.
I’m heartily disgusted by the majority of responses on this thread, in which we find all sorts of noise about how Heartland “let down the side” and supposedly sank to the level of the Watermelon liars by making truthful observations about exemplary specimens of warmist Prominenten.
What the hell is going on with you people?
If it’s accepted as valid that you’re judged by the company you keep, then those maliciously misinformed suckers who feel inclined to believe in the AGW fraud really ought to learn something about the folks to whom they’re cleaving in their religious fervor, ought they not?
Heartland – Stick to the Science – and let the facts speak for themselves.
This ugly childish behavior will have cost you more than you can imagine. Why sink to the lowest excesses of those whom you disagree with. It only serves to denigrate your own position to that of your detractors.
KJ
Playing nice with radicals is a losing strategy.
Alinskyites are imposing their rules on your game:
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Alinskyites fear being caricatured and ridiculed, because they know it works:
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Big mistake. Just when science is starting to get the upper hand, Heartland pulls this garbage. Whoever thought that this was a good idea should be looking for another job.
I encourage everyone here to go to Heartland’s “contact” page. Email their media contact. Tell them that a no apologies apology isn’t enough. Let them know they have damaged every rational skeptic and non-alarmist. media@heartland.org ;
There is nothing wrong with the ads. Get over it. You sanctimonious people do more harm to Hartland than Joe Rohm. Crawl down off those high-horses.
Although they have now pulled the poster it will be used incessantly to deride anyone who disagrees with the CAGW theme.
Unlike a rant on a blog or an ill-judged public comment this was a planned action which has to raise serious questions about the group responsible.
Ross McKitrick’s letter refers to an imminent conference organised by Heartland: in my view it would be a huge mistake for him or any of the other leading campaigners to attend.
AndyG55 (from down-under) says:
May 4, 2012 at 2:41 pm
“Ok, now that was a bit over the top, but that is how those skeptical of global warming have been linked.” How do you think they feel. !!
==========================================
I like it…….but most people will not catch that one either
I don’t see any damage from this at all…….other than a few Appells in the loop…..most people will not even see it or catch it
I don’t think it’s a road Heartland should go down…..for all of the reasons mentioned
I voted “No, not a mistake” in the poll. This was a hard call, and I frankly think that those (including most commenters) who regard it as easy may be viewing the matter from a purely PR perspective.
Not that that perspective is irrelevant; it is quite likely more relevant than the perspective of Truth. And my personal grasp of PR has always been disastrous; just ask my wife.
But from the point of view of Science, Truth, and Objectivity — Heartland is absolutely right. The people pushing hardest for Global Warming (but not those who may believe it but not be pushing for it) are clearly the usual Leftist control-freak nutjobs.
Who for goodness sake thought up thios ridiculous campaign at Heartland…Those ads will lose almost all the huge ground made by us in last 10 years, and send heartland into the bin!!!!
What were they thinking…absurd!!!!
I didn’t vote in the poll because I think the word “blunder” overstates the case. It was, however, a mistake. I posted the following at ClimateAudit:
Heartland is over-reacting to the insanity of the behavior of the warmists. That said, I understand the anger of Joe Bast and his core group which must have precipitated these ads. In their defense, the ads themselves are not inaccurate. People like Kaczynski, Castro and Manson believe in the so-called consensus science because it dove-tails with their world view. Not unlike Gleick and Mann.
But a group like Heartland needs to respond to provocations with their head and not their heart. Glad to hear they’ve announced a strategic retreat. They win the argument by sponsoring conferences and funding good causes, not by trashing the opposition through guilt by association.
Perhaps Joe Bast can borrow Mitt Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch? Of course, the etch-a-billboard is down as I write; I’m just being a smartass (sorry, Mr. Clayton!) Unfortunately, people have memories and the MSM etch them deeply when they wish to, no matter how frantically we invert and shake. And that is the heart of this error: Heartland cannot hope to get a pass from the media the way the warmist gaffes generally do. Propaganda is the warmists’ home court. When we choose to play there we had better be very well coached and in top form. And I do agree to a point with Mr. Clayton. While we all like to quip, our side need to make sure we maintain a substantial, objective, fact-based message at core. It’s OUR home court!
I was wondering what Roger Pielke Jr was tweeting about :
“Heartland invited me to debate a skeptic at their mtg, I declined due to a conflict if I accepted, would have canceled after new ad campaign”
Until I visited WUWT and read this post.
Anthony, you give the public too much credit for intelligence that they do not have.
Logical arguments do not sway the public. Scientific discussions are to complex for most people who are challenged by simple tasks like managing their own personal finances and who lack the attention span needed to invest in learning the subject matter well enough to appreciate your argument. Facts are nice to have on your side, but the truth, and good, do not win just because they should.
The left have stooped to dirty but successful propaganda techniques, appeals to emotion, claims of authority, attacks on the messenger, the big lie repeated often, creating fear, doubt and uncertainty, and setting up one scapegoat to blame (evil big oil capitalists and their nasty skeptic supporters).
If you want to fight public opinion making by the left then you need to break some eggs and get down in the trenches. History is littered with nice guys who did not win because they played fair and counted on truth to prevail.
The billboard’s implication that climate change activists are terrorists may be a clumsy effort, but it is not far off. Climate change activists are in a real sense agitating for the destruction of our economy and our lifestyle. Some of them go so far as to call for skeptics to be killed as in the 10:10 no pressure campaign and Hansen’s many threats, or to take actions like blowing up pipelines and shooting people at TV stations. Sounds like terrorism to me. Just the kind of real dirt that the public needs to begin to associate with the green movement if you want them to listen to your facts.
An observation of verified fact is merely a datum. It’s only when the entirety of an argument is predicated on nothing more than that particular datum (in this instance the personal past histories of certain prominent True Believers in the AGW fraud) that a fallacy or even an arguable deviation from honorable conduct can be considered to have been committed.
In medicine we commonly discuss disease processes and treatment options while presenting specific (de-identified) patient histories in which the pertinent diagnoses were made and therapy undertaken. It’s called a “case presentation.”
That’s no more argumentum ad hominem or argument by association than are these observations by Heartland of the plain fact that the ranks of the AGW True Believers are replete with specimens who have no respect whatsoever for the individual human rights of innocent people.
Meaning that those innocent people out there have to be really skeptical of both the AGW conjecture and the schemers who are pushing it, right?
Heck, the Watermelons delight in attacking the (alleged) personal pecuniary motives of specific skeptics who give their Cargo Cult Science charlatans the razzberry, don’t they?
It is both truthful and effective for those of us on the responsibly skeptical side to voice perfectly honest observations about the character of conspicuous people who have made vehement public commitments to the most spectacular fraud in the history of the human race.
Well, from the comments above I’d say the ad worked…
Swaying public opinion requires a fine touch. It’s easy for it to go pear shaped. This ad was about as deft as a drunken bull elephant.
Heartland’s ad is a stretch but the current state of the AGW debate calls for and may be effective by mocking those who still adhere to the theory. That is certainly the trajectory of the issue.
More “Bad Press… ”
From the Heartland: Schoolchildren, Climate, and… Mass Murder?
Huffington Post (blog)
In February, leaked internal budget (PDF) and fundraising (PDF) documents from the Chicago-based propaganda contractor The Heartland Institute exposed the group’s plans to spend $100000 to create a 20-unit national school science curriculum falsely …
See more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/heartland-institute-billboards-_b_1479262.html
Too bad they did these dumb billboards!
G.
What an idiotic stunt. To make a mildly controversial statement to garner publicity, fair enough maybe, but this doesn’t even have a logical point to make. Charles Manson believes in global warming. So? He probably brushes his teeth too, but that doesn’t make tooth brushing evil. Why did they think this would be in any way clever or effective? They have a whole field of open goals to choose from in terms of the lies, statistical fabrications, failure of predictions, circular reasoning and cherry picking endemic in the suffocating CAGW establishment. They could win the argument on the disparity between models and observations alone. Yet they manage to choose the most quick and effective way to make themselves look like a bunch of loons and alienate themselves from those who would really like to see reason and clear thinking replace the politics and the stupid PR war we currently have. Nice one.
The real problem is that the HI’s penny ante budget does not have the resources needed to buy the same kind of PR talent and media placement that the massively funded green activists have access to.
Keep in mind a old rule of thumb for information releases. If the agency makes a press release (has speech or some other high profile event) and it happens on a Friday, they want it to happen but not get much press coverage. If they want wide press coverage they do it on Monday do it will run all weekend.
With that in mind, this was not intended for general public consumption, but was a targeted message at some specific demographic (such as news editors) who will notice it and perhaps decide to provide a camera crew and a reporter to the next HI climate conference.
If they wanted national coverage the would have run the bill board in Washington or New York, but this bill board was local in Chicago, their own home turf.
A few national news feeds picked it up but coverage of Cinco De Mayo and the Kentucy Derby, and today’s jobs reports will wipe this off the national news by tomorrow.
For what ever reason they wanted to plant a seed and get this association out there, possibly for future reference to compare and contrast the media reaction their comment and other AGW comments that have been in the same vein.
Note also the Ted Kaczynski was born in Chicago and went to Harvard (just like a lot of high profile pro global warmers). Had a Phd in Mathematics and taught at University of California. Save for his conviction for bombing he would be a prime example of the sort of person the AGW crowd look up to and assert are more knowledgeable of the science than the skeptics.
Based on those observations I think this was a tactical move to set up conditions for some future action.
All that said some PR folks have done some truely bone headed promotions that rank right up there with throwing turkeys out of helicopters (Thanks Les Nessman 😉 )
Larry
“Looks like someone got to them:”
Sure they did: Ross McKitrick, Anthony Watts, Keith Kloor,… By the way, has anyone actually taken a look at the Unabomber’s manifesto to check if Heartland are factually correct? Oh, thought not. It’s actually available online for free if you know how to use Google. I certainly couldn’t find a single reference to global warming or climate change.
Hm. Interesting. I voice comments contrary to the majority’s “Heartland made a big blunder” noise, and my posts disappear without a trace.
How Romm-ish.
Ah, the wonders of the Intertubes. I remark on the curious absence of my previous comments critical of Mr. Watts’ and the majority’s condemnations of Heartland in this delightfully apt and manifestly gut-kicking advertising campaign, and those comments appear on the page.
[Reply: Certain words and phrasees trigger posts going into the Spam folder. This is a WordPress function, not a WUWT function. The Spam folder is not checked nearly as often as the awaiting Approval queue. If your comment doesn’t appear, ask us to check the Spam folder. It is not personal; all comments that don’t violate site Policy are posted. All of them. ~dbs, mod.]
Matching your opponents’ tactics by getting into the gutter will only work if you have a superior coercive machine. It also means that you have given up on the science and are willing to simply bash your opponents into submission. This is very bad tactics for the much smaller sceptical machine which has hitherto done very well by taking and retaining the high moral ground, consistently emphasising the science and, for the most part, observing gentlemanly standards.
Whatever the Warmists may deserve, I believe that the Heartland Institute has made a serious tactical error which they should immediately rectify.
You might keep in mind Milton’s words (slightly altered, for clarity) in his Areopagitica: “Then let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Whoever knew Truth to be worsted in a free and open encounter?” Let’s try to keep this free and open.
They should refrain from emotional appeals. To retain their credibility they need to be perceived as objective and their position should be based on merit. It is especially critical now, since people have learned that the “global warming” campaign was designed to manipulate perception in order to support a political and economic agenda. The Heartland Institute cannot afford to embrace tactics already exploited by those interests.
I have to admit that I never had a good feeling about the Heartland Institute and this lack of taste and implementation confirms it even more. I know politics makes strange bed fellows, but these guys are like the dudes that you never want to hear at the Karaoke bar – out of tune, out of tone, and out of touch.
I have to wonder if HI tried running this campaign by Dave Wojick or not? I’d think he’d have shot it down. OTOH, if the late John Daly were still around I think he’d have liked it. I complained to him one time that he didn’t help the skeptics position by being so harsh personally with the warmers. He replied that you had to fight fire with fire. I’m with the majority here and think trying the left’s tactics against them is wrong and won’t work.
Being nice and polite with bandits and thieves got us into two World Wars, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, etc., etc., not mentioning numerous other catastrophes, conflicts, calamities, and social problems. And yet, the majority still insists on keeping up the smoke and mirrors of the non-existing “civilized debate.”
I’d say it is not “decency” any more. It is cowardice.
Tim,
Thanx for the baseless ad hominem attack, but Heartland is an excellent organization. It is a small counterweight to the CAGW behemoth. If you want to attack dishonesty and theft, there are Peter Gleick threads for that.
While y’all are hyperventilating over this you might want to remember that the people shown ARE “environmentalists.” You also must remember that there is a LARGE contingent in the Gorebull Warming Camp who BELIEVE we need to seriously REDUCE the world population.
Tell me how they plan on doing this?!?!?!?!?!
In other words there is NOTHING misleading or dishonest and the signs are very appropriate in also reminding those in the Gorebull Warming camp who many of their ALLIES or FELLOW TRAVELERS really are!!! When you are a USEFUL IDIOT it is good to be reminded of that occasionally.
“While y’all are hyperventilating over this you might want to remember that the people shown ARE “environmentalists.” “
Environmentalism wasn’t the basis for the HI billboard. Many sceptics are “environmentalists”, by the way.
Definitely a boneheaded move by Heartland. The people behind this billboard fiasco should be fired immediately.
Maybe you should have followed the link above associated with Ted Kasinky’s name that leads you directly to a quote from his manifesto.
“169. In the third place, it is not all certain that the survival of
the system will lead to less suffering than the breakdown of the
system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to
cause , immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that
for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with
each other and their environment, have been shattered by contact with
industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of
economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the
effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much
of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out
of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies.
Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread
throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see
paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone
depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that
cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new
technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and
irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate abut
what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?”
Of course many of us watched news coverage of his bombing campaign over the years and already knew well his anti-technology philosophy, and did not need to re-read old news.
Larry
Tucci78 says:
May 4, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Ah, the wonders of the Intertubes. I remark on the curious absence of my previous comments critical of Mr. Watts’ and the majority’s condemnations of Heartland in this delightfully apt and manifestly gut-kicking advertising campaign, and those comments appear on the page.
==================
Yep, now did you have anything to say ?
J Bowers
May 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Try greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect.
Tucci78 says:
May 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Hm. Interesting. I voice comments contrary to the majority’s “Heartland made a big blunder” noise, and my posts disappear without a trace.
How Romm-ish
=============================
Tucci, you used the word f—r—-a—-u………. d
Wordpress doesn’t like that word….so wordpress dumped you into the spam folder
……has nothing to do with WUWT
I immediately wrote to both Heartland: the billboard was a bizarre concept worthy of firing the PR firm and whoever at Heartland approved it. The ad hominem attack on warmists is unacceptable. Most CAGW believers are there because they have a deep belief in the goodness of others, that those in authority will not mislead them for ulterior, personal motives, that “scientists” cannot be purchased through fear of career or grant loss, and that they do not give the benefit of doubt to their own emotional desires. The feel-good, fuzzy Green who likes kittens and polar bear cubs drinking Coca-Cola are NOT the type of people that the average Joe wants to execute (Unabomber) or assassinate (bin Laden).
There is something called “preaching to the choir”. Heartland, through these ads, appealed to the rabid skeptic (note “rabid”), while aggressively insulting the supposed audience, the wavering warmist or new-to-the-conflict, undecided.
After 10-10 and Peter Gleick, you would think Heartland would have both a clue about fairness and a suspicion that the warmists think Heartland is made up of cruel neo-Nazis, and that maybe a softer image would be appropriate. Instead, the Heartland PR guys handed them the whip and leather boots.
Fire somebody. Publicly. Apologize for being on the toilet when this decision was made.
If I hadn’t come to question CAGW from my own technical work, those ads would have pushed me into the warmist camp. Just as 10-10 would have pushed me into the skeptic camp.
Jeez. You’d think we were working with adults here. Some of this stuff makes me want to say “A plague on both your houses.”
As for those on the Heartland program, like D. LaF: nicely done, Heartland. So all of those guys you’ve invited also think the “enemies” of Global warming and/or Heartland are psychotic killers?
I agree with McKitrick, this is pretty childish. 1 very embarassing own-goal from the Heartland Institute. They should apologize immediately.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, even the Heartland Institute. Gleick et al went after them in a no holds barred criminal fashion and the best defense, is a bloody good offense. It has never been about science but politics and propaganda. We’d be fools to not play the same cards back at them.
They’re screaming loud because those ads are right on the nail.
Unpopular though it appears to be, their move gets my vote.
Pointman
DJ says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:58 am
A picture of Pachauri would have been far better.
======
Along with “I also believe in reincarnation too.” You know how some of leftists feel about religious stuff. It’s funny that they always tried to paint me as bible thumper yet I rarely ever step in church (mainly for weddings) when it had nothing to do with anything I was discussing over climate stuff. Crazy…
Like everyone has said – a serious lapse in judgement (where have I heard that before?).
I daresay I was offended – because I believe in global warming. And I believe it global cooling. Its merely a question of timing and duration of a naturally cyclic process.
Further – I suspect that the CAGW could trot out some horrific persons on MY side of the debate as well.
But of course NOW they’re getting all sanctimonious about how offended they are (conviently forgetting their perjorative ‘denier’ term).
But they’re going to bash us without mercy. This stuff has no place in civilized debate – which I had THOUGHT that the Heartland was trying ro promote. Bad move, Heartland.
Mike Mangan-
you nailed it. the thing is, ‘publick’ has lost the ability to define right and wrong. e.g., nobody expects honesty from their elected officials yet they repeatedly pay for and endorse them.
how can this be? democracy. gang-rape is the epitome of democracy. the greatest good for the greatest number – and voted by the majority. you see, americans have substituted the concept of need for the concept of rights. therefore, they are unable to argue for their rights – instead they have accepted gangsterism that is democracy and they side with one or another gang.
there is no virtue that can be achieved by this vice. they are too crippled to understand that, though they sometimes have a vague feeling about it.
the fact that the heartland comparison of unabomber to the ecocommunists is accurate to the tiniest degree. but even those who stand to benefit from this understanding lack the wit to appreciate it. they might not hug a tree, but they sure would hug a cannibal.
and that is why losing is inevitable. there is no morality they can define – they have substituted political consideration – acceding to emotional blackmail – as the standard of value to guide their actions. good obedient sheep.
i’m sure heartland never expected this particular publicity stunt (for that’s all they do – they produce nothing of lasting value and can not, for they are mere epiphytes on parasites) would bomb among their presumed target audience. they surely must know that prosecuting gleick would be a winner – but perhaps they wish to trade forbearance for some favors from the establishment – you know- influence among our rulers.
until people do stand up and say no, they are merely negotiating and their abuse is therefore a business arrangement agreed to by all parties. as long as they pay up, are polite, and vote- they have no right whatsoever to complain about abuse. they asked for it, paid for it, elected it and bread a vast population of willing suppliers by virtue of their huge demand for it.
if anything, at least heartland billboard was close to open defiance. i have to give them credit for having some avocadoes. in an avocadoless world, that makes them pretty special.
Joe Bast’s Heartland Institute billboard expresses something I’ve thought about myself!
Why does no one discuss it? It is pretty obvious and offensive – but also a very very inconvenient Truth. What’s wrong with stating the facts about the dubious nature of the True Believing infamous fellow travelers?
Therefore, since I can see a lot of positive Truth telling, and since the Believers have very very deeply poisoned this well, I believe it may well clarify more than it obscures.
And thus, I think the stance Anthony defends – this will backfire – needs more support: who the Heck will remember ‘all the goodwill’ fallout from Gleick-gate in six months?
If one has to wrestle with pigs, how can anyone expect to stay clean?
Quiz – who said it – Algore or the Unabomber?
“Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber? It may be more difficult to decide than you think.
Each quote below is either from Al Gore’s Book Earth in the Balance or from the Unabomber’s Manifesto.”
http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“The twentieth century has not been kind to the constant human striving for a sense of purpose in life. Two world wars, the Holocaust, the invention of nuclear weapons, and now the global environmental crises have led many of us to wonder if survival – much less enlightened, joyous, and hopeful living – is possible. We retreat into the seductive tools and technologies of industrial civilization, but that only creates new problems as we become increasingly isolated from one another and disconnected from our roots.”
1. __ Gore __ Unabomber
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“Again, we must not forget the lessons of World War II. The Resistance slowed the advance of fascism and scored important victories, but fascism continued its relentless march to domination until the rest of the world finally awoke and made the difference and made the defeat of fascism its central organizing principle from 1941 through 1945.”
2. __ Gore __ Unabomber
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries, many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating.”
3. __ Gore __ Unabomber
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
More – see link above
At 4:52 PM on 4 May, Alexander Feht had written with punishing clarity:
I wasn’t a line officer, but I think I can still give that a great big “Bravo Zulu.”
REP;
Thank you, tho I never left – usually visit at least twice a day; just rarely speak up. 😉
The SOP that I refer to is not the sensational self-inflicted debacle that bids to reduce Heartland’s relevance, but the routine use of what the Left fondly euphemism as “snark”, here in the posts at WUWT.
There is a steady drizzle of such wince-worthy distractions in the post-Titles and content here on WUWT, such as are embraced at GRIST et al … current examples;
“I Feel a FAIL Coming On…”
“Jumping the shark…”
“[Sirs,] your crow pie is ready now.”
1.) Because WUWT is now well-established a leading go-to source for news on the Right side of the Debate-that-is-over, it does not need these attention-getting devices that – at their root – are what Nobodies employ to secure their first notice (and then hope their Content is actually of interest to the visitor). Snark-devices are not cost-free.
2.) The debate that has become the signature topic & success-venue of WUWT (tho I have it on impeccable rumour that Anthony Watts would love to wander other fields, too) is clearly going in Sceptics’ favour these days, and has been for some years now. Winners look better, when they look & act like winners. It is a ‘luxury’ that should be indulged – once one is winning, *be* the winner.
3.) Discipline is an essential ingredient of the Scientific Method & Position. As in the military, and conservative scenes in general, discipline is both a structural asset and an aesthetic element of the scientific personality/psychology. Judith Curry can turn a nice piece of humour … but she marches & salutes beautifully. Habitual snark is inherently antithetical of discipline.
If things continue as they are now for Anthropogenic Global Warming, it will not be long before the level of interest in it will begin to wane. As it finds its place between Phrenology and Phewey, its power to drive visitors to WUWT will fall. Mr. Watts will again wander the technical fields; take up anew interests neglected during the heyday of climate-arguments. He has the potential to convert the success of WUWT on the climate stage, to a new success on a stage of its/his own design.
I look forward to explorations inspired by asking, “what’s up with that?”.
[REPLY: It looks like almost two years since your last comment… would that some (perhaps even myself!) could exercise such restraint. Your comments are always welcome. Moderators are not really supposed to engage the commenters and I’ve far exceeded my allowance for the year today. WUWT encourages engagement. -REP]
Okay, Okay cut the crap!! Everyone knows that having a view on an issue does not mean that you are in anyway similar to a criminal lunatic with either the same view you have or a view different from what you have, grow TF up!!
Our local mass murdering lunatic has a view? who would have thought.
I also read Ross McKitrick’s letter earlier and he has hit the nail on the head. Heartland should not stoop so low. Heartland is supposed to be a professional outfit.
Pointman: It’s bad tactics no matter how you feel. Think about this: Just because someone you are opposed to commits war crimes does it make it OK for you to do likewise? An extreme example I know but I hope you get the gist of where I’m coming from.
OK, I’m out of my room.
Although I’ve said this before on other threads, let me repeat here.
A friend and I volunteer at a school district owned planetarium. This is one of the modern computer powered full dome video systems that can do about any subject justice and with a huge wow factor to boot. Hard science is a snap with this equipment, and even languages, history, sociology and the like can be presentations on the big dome.
One question from both students and adults floored me. What about the horoscope being a month off and a new sign of the zodiac? Huh? So we went through and explained the signs were developed some 4000 years ago, and over time the axis of the earth has shifted and…usually at this point their eyes are glazing over.
This year it is the Mayan calendar that has everyone spooked. What’s going to happen on December 21st? (the calendar starts over!) OK, well no worries because the conjunction of the planets this year is 180 degrees and we’ve already experienced a conjunction in 1982 that was close to 90 degrees and….(the eyes glaze over)
My colleague and I are both skeptical of the AGW position, and make no bones about it when it is brought up. We don’t attempt to push too much just mention there is a large body of science that supports our position. (eyes glaze over).
Don’t underestimate the power of an elementary teacher. They, as a group, prevented NASA from declaring Pluto a Dwarf planet for 20 years. Not because of the facts, but because they had been teaching Pluto was a planet their entire career. They prevented, single handedly, that announcement from the time Pluto was discovered to be only 1400 miles in diameter until just a few years ago.
In short, my interaction with what will soon be a voting block hasn’t impressed me. These people are easily distracted by the unimportant but flashy (read Hollywood here) and the pronouncements of the “pretty people”.
With HI, I believe them to be a good organization. I hope there is a better plan then just this lousy billboard. I’ve got my fingers crossed. At the moment it seems a huge error – on many levels. I’ll be patient for a while so you can show me this was more than a shot in the dark.
Mike
I agree with Pointman’s view, among others outside the consensus here. I really don’t understand the folks demanding that someone should be “fired” for this billboard.
I would like to ask those folks who are demanding someone’s head, if they personally contribute to Heartland? [I’ll assume the answer is No, unless they post that they do contribute.]
This was no big deal. Where is the untruth? In American jurisprudence, truth is an absolute defense. In fact, the lack of truth is pretty much entirely on the side of those pushing the CAGW scam. Why should they get another free pass? They hide out from any real debate, they only appear in tightly scripted, sympathetic venues… and now, no one is even allowed to show the kind of people who are pushing the Big Lie?? How does that work? Is the truth now off limits?
There is nothing wrong with showing the kind of people who support the “carbon” scare. Their policies unquestionably cause starvation and death, and closer to home their policies are the cause of rising food and gasoline prices. But we’re supposed to be all kissy-face with them? Why?
Since those sounding the false climate alarm are afraid to debate their position in public, too bad if it’s pointed out what kind of people they are, and what kind of people support their cause. The truth hurts the dishonest. That’s a good thing.
Finally, this has no comparison to ‘war crimes’. Heartland simply told the truth. Keep that in mind.
The early resonance within the warmist community seems that this type labeling is confronting to them. Why wouldn’t it?
Remember the equation of sckeptics as Holocast deniers. At this stage of the debate, when the sceptical view is holding and accelerating, they now have to manage negative perceptions of their humanitarian motives.
More heart and mind warfare by brokers like Heartland will see this mob of eco-warrior rent seekers off sooner rather than later. But their attack wedge isn’t the major one. New understandings and a cooling planet are quickly catching up.
Consider the change in the nature and polarisation of the debate since Climate-Gate 2, Glieck, ever more revealing data, Stevsmark, Nikolov, UHI, etc.
Tipping points, lines in the sand, whatever you call it, it has been crossed. This billboard reflects one mindset only in the new phase of the debate. Welcome to the future.
“the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/mikhail+gorbachev
Mikhail Gorbachev quotes:
Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.
I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/kohlmayer051107.htm
“..Scores died and countless others suffered from diseases caused by exposure to radiation. Many could have been saved had Gorbachev done the decent thing. Chernobyl thus stands as tragic evidence of Gorbachev’s disdain both for nature and human life which, sadly, is all too often found in those who espouse the communist worldview.
Yet today this man is one of the world’s most prominent eco-lobbyists and an ardent proponent of global warming. The question is how we are to reconcile Gorbachev’s past behavior of environmental destructiveness with his present-day activism. We would do well to ponder this, because the answer sheds light not only on a wily personal reinvention, but also on the motives of those responsible for the creation and spreading of the global warming hysteria.”
====
Hmm, the political is still the strongest perhaps.., but I do think humour could be used to effect. I rather like the question posed by:
u.k.(us) says:
May 3, 2012 at 8:24 pm
multiple choice question for our fearless leaders.
12.500 years ago the Chicago area was:
A) Delightful
B) A swamp in need of draining
C) Future home of the most corrupt city in the country
D) Being scoured by a mile thick glacier, moving south-southwest
on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/03/jumping-the-shark-climate-change-a-national-security-threat/#more-62859
Those pushing the green agenda are just as evil as Stalin, etc. We can not pretend that we are dealing with reasonable people who just have a difference of opinion. Being afraid to call the greenies out for what they are is just as bad as standing by silently as the fascists march across Europe.
At 5:29 PM on 4 May, Nerd had recounted:
Having myself long been a confrontational George H. Smith atheist (in much the same sense as is Penn Jillette), I delight in the Watermelon warmistas’ hostility to the worshipers of the Great Sky Pixie while they themselves are victims of their hysterical uncritical acceptance of bilge no less preposterously fantastical.
It’s like something out of Saki (H.H. Munro) when he depicted resentment between a couple of mooching confidence men “…to support the truth of the old saying that two of a trade never agree.”
[Moderator’s Note: Tucci is re-working the sermon about the beam and the mote. Let’s not let this go any further. Please. -REP]
@Jimbo. It’s not about how I feel, it’s about coldly assessing it as a piece of infowar propaganda. Ticks all the boxes, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not aimed at us superior beings in the blogosphere but Joe Public; simple, direct, the raw truth and nice and punchy.
Vocal climate skeptism needs to get out of the blogosphere closet and yes, that’ll involve getting down and dirty occasionally. It’s called fighting back. Why everyone is behaving like a virgin, who’s just got her bum pinched on this one, is beyond me.
Pointman
Oh, woe is me; Heartland has committed a terrible transgression. I think I’ll go to my room and cry or faint or something. Does anyone have a tissue?
What the hell? HI has been in the trenches and taking the battle to the loons for years! Much longer than some of you johnny-come-lately half-ass wannabe skeptics.
[SNIP: James, I completely agree, but let’s not do this here or now. Please. -REP]
James Sexton says:
May 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm
===============
ROTFL……exactly
I would really, really like to know what exactly that ‘terrible transgression’ is; can you point it out? And be specific as well please? (Your post may have missing a /sarc tag; IDK.)
Up-thread I asked:
“… why it is egregious to point out the influence the CAGW crowd has had on some of our more notorious criminals (like Ted K.), too. At this point I don’t know how much ‘motive’ AGW was for some of these characters, but didn’t Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, have a copy of Algore’s book (Earth in the Balance) in his possession, or was it the parallel writing style the two had as when Algore’s book and Ted’s [Unabomber] manifesto were compared?”
No answer to date …
.
came across this poem, seemed appropriate:
Resist the NEOCON deniers. We must believe.
We must trust the carbon trading markets and corporations and politicians to manage the temperature of the planet.
We must call it consensus even though all of the thousands of consensus scientists all have personal and unique views of CO2 climate crisis.
We must trust the good and trustworthy politicians who promise to lower the seas and make the weather colder by taxing the air.
We must continue to believe in climate change crisis despite Obama not even mentioning the crisis in his state of the union address.
We must believe even though the number of consensus scientists vastly outnumbers the marching climate change protesters.
We must believe and spread our love for the planet as we condemn billions to a CO2 death just to make sure the kids turn the lights out more often and vote left.
We must believe even though the thousands of consensus scientists refuse to march in the streets themselves. Don’t they have families to save too?
Believe. Believe. Believe so we can defeat the evil bible thumping necons and those ignorant of the ways of THE SCIENCE!
ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
He maketh me lie down in Greenzi pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.
He selleth my soul for CO2:
He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason,
I will fear no logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me;
Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my fear runneth over.
Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever
Well, well. So, WUWT must not be anything more than a relief valve.
Anything more is “over the top.”
Cowardice.
We held the ethical high ground until now. This was just plain stupid.
_Jim says:
May 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Up-thread I posted a video.
and yes, the sarc tag was missing.
This really perturbs me. (well what it does would get snipped, so I’ll leave the language . . . family friendly). This is a huge ‘own goal’. Far more damaging to Heartland than what Glieck did was to the Pacific Institute. Someone needs to resign over this. I think Heartland will have a long row to hoe to retrieve their credibility. And almost certainly their funding.
Jim asked:
“… why it is egregious to point out the influence the CAGW crowd has had on some of our more notorious criminals”
The answer Jim is. It isn’t relevant to the debate. There are bad people in the world and they say bad things. As we were told when we were young, two wrongs do not make a right. Up until today, the skeptic side had the high road. No longer. And if that doesn’t anger you, then you don’t understand the long term power of ethics.
JE
I’m with Pointman and Smokey here. The billboard states a fact: The Unabomber believes in CAGW
To the U.S.A. Commander of the encircled town of Bastogne.
The fortune of war is changing. …. All the serious civilian losses caused by this artillery fire would not correspond with the well-known American humanity.
The German Commander.
——————–
To the German Commander.
NUTS!
The American Commander [General Anthony McAuliffe]
——————————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe
…although I do see the other side of the argument…
James Sexton says:
May 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm
What the hell? HI has been in the trenches and taking the battle to the loons for years! Much longer than some of you johnny-come-lately half-ass wannabe skeptics.
James:
The answer is. Up until today, we could claim the high ground. That may not matter to mud wrestlers, but it does matter to real men and women of science. And up until today, we were winning. This is a catastrophic loss, caused by our own side. It will not be fatal, but it will set the debate back 10 years. I do not look forward to explaining why I don’t have to explain this.
The ads are depressing. Stupid beyond redemption. But who in the heck thought them up? If a single person, that person needs to be fired. I don’t know how long the billboards were up, but no matter how short a time, this is a gift that is going to keep on giving. Dumb, dumb. Did Bast approve these billboards? If so, he needs to take a vacation.
Anyone checked the wheat crop for mold lately?
Baghdad Romm
This ad isn’t aimed at people like WUWT regulars and its no surprise most don’t like it.
I see the target audience as the CAGW true believers and its objective is to cause self-doubt. By that measure it may have some success.
In the ABC’s I Can Change Your Mind About the Climate, the one point when Nick Minchin (the sceptic) got a reaction from the CAGW believer was when he pointed out that AGW actions such as carbon taxes were hurting poor people in the developing world.
A large proportion of the CAGW believers out there believe they are doing a ‘good’ thing. The science is beyond them and any scientific argument will fail to persuade them. What will cause them to question their belief is to associate CAGW belief with bad things.
Sure the Heartland ad is propaganda, but most advertising is.
Strange, ain’t it? All these new people, supposedly on “our side”, magically turning up here to help condem the HI’s adverts. Since they’ve obviously been mobilised for this one, it’s sort of a reverse endorsement.
Pointman
I don’t really have a problem with the billboard.
What I do see as a problem is average Americans not taking a few weeks to search out ‘manmade global warming’ for themselves until they understand what is going on in the issue. But they have plenty of time for American Idol, video games, texting, chat, etc., etc., etc.
At 7:30 PM on 4 May, Amino Acids in Meteorites had posted:
Throughout the majority of comments on this page can be read arrogant expressions of contempt for “average Americans” as if all reading hear should accept the proposition that those average people are beneath consideration as human beings, incapable of managing their own lives, exercising their liberties, making their own decisions.
Where the hell is this elitist crap coming from, anyway?
These “average Americans” are real people faced with a plethora of concerns about phenomena in their lives which they have to assess and meet with whatever resources they can command, and the biological principle of least effort applies with a vengeance. They have to cope, and it’s not easy for anybody these days, especially in light of what should be every reader’s appreciation of the intrusive and undeniably predatory nature of civil government in our republic.
It may be more proper to look at Amino Acids‘ frustration about these average folks “…not taking a few weeks to search out ‘manmade global warming’ for themselves…” and instead consider what stimuli might give those people some incentive to look into the great gaudy man-made global climate change scam with their critical faculties – no matter how blunted by their widespread victimization in government schools – armed and active.
This Heartland billboards program as planned was perfect for this purpose.
Anybody reading here recall that last line from The Teahouse of the August Moon (1953)? It’s when the character of Sakini breaks the fourth wall and says to the audience:
To get the attention of these “average Americans” busy in their daily lives, rubbing their nose in the fact that by assuming the validity of the “We’re All Gonna Die!” man-made global warming hoax they’re joining in common cause with the goddam Unabomber.
Among other unsavory characters they properly regard with suspicion and hostility.
Is that something in the way of Sakini’s “pain”? You betcha.
Might it make them “think”? Very likely. Note how hysterically the warmist clowns have received it, leaping and squealing like scalded stoats.
And could that “make life [more] endurable” for those of us dedicated to exposing their gaudy garbage to put an end to the criminal machinations of the Algoreans?
Oh, yeah.
Joanna says:
May 4, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Anyone checked the wheat crop for mold lately?
LOL!
Mold is not part of the 5 year central plan.
media reference on Bangor Daily News :
Plug pulled on controversial global warming billboard
Good article on other points, too.
John Eggert,
It sounds like you speak for all scientific skeptics. You don’t, any more than Heartland does. There is not a controlling clique like there is with the alarmist crowd.
The only moral high ground you can claim in this instance is your own. I respect that. But passing judgement on Heartland is only an opinion. And I remind you that telling the truth is an absolute defense.
That said, as I’ve posted a couple of times now, statements by Astronauts Harrison Schmitt and Buzz Aldrin would generate a lot of credibility for scientific skeptics. [Aldrin, from Wikipedia]: In 2009, Aldrin said he did not believe humans were causing current climate change: “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.
Schmitt [again from Wikipedia]: Schmitt voiced objections to the notion of a present ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change as any policy guide… “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union,” Schmitt said. “Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.”
That would be more productive. But I still think that painting the entire climate realist population for a decision that was made [and quickly reversed] is a tempest in a teapot. Every time it is brought up, the prompt response should be the 350.org, ACT, etc., etc. And if they’re still upset, this might help.
Do I disagree with the ad? Yes. While it certainly gets attention, its going to be the wrong kind of attention. This can only have a negative outcome.
However, on the other side of the spectrum, as Anthony and others have pointed out, many proponents of AGW do this, and worse. For most of us, Gleicks actions still leave a bad taste in our mouths.
Heartland has only been trying to instill debate, and have been attacked unmercilessly. IMO, we can easily forgive them for the sudden outburst. In the face of what they’ve withstood, I can say they have shown more patience and civility then I would have shown.
Sorry, but those billboards are a huge embarrassment. The HI needs to get some sane advisors.
While I think there may have been a better approach, I’m not completely in the “bad idea” camp. As mentioned earlier you have to consider the target here. In addition, it is well known that mud slinging works in political campaigns.
One can’t keep bringing dull knives to gun fights and expect to win. We’re already winning the “science” arguments but that may not be enough to win the war. The other side quit doing science a long time ago.
Anybody that can help with Donna’s suggestion?
I’ve got a copy of the 10:10 Exploding Skeptics video;
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2010/10/1/crazy-offensive-10-10-global-warming-commercial-1925116
on my Break channel;
http://www.break.com/user/JustTheFacts
along with the Skeptic Combusting Video;
http://www.break.com/web-user-yt/5-4-2012/2323914
the WWF 9/11 Video
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/9/crazy-offensive-9-11-world-wildlife-fund-wwf-commercial-1180487
and the Plane Stupid Polar Bears from the Sky video:
http://www.break.com/web-user-yt/10-1-2010/1925188
All of the videos are available for imbed and I, of course, have all of the associated video files.
John Whitman says:
”Here is part of the other side of the story from Heartland’s website which has a whole section about its billboards. Here is a small portion of what they say:”
”They are not pulling any punches nor apologizing. Let the discussion go on. It is time for a discussion of who supports alarmism and why. “
So which is it GW or AGW?
Can you point to where “man-made” appears on the billboard?
This is absolutely sending the wrong message. It makes it easier for us to be painted as “deniers” of overwhelming unambiguous evidence.
For Example (at press conference): Mr. Heartland VIP, would you characterize the average global temperature today as warmer, cooler, or about the same as the global average temperature of 1850?
Heartland VIP: Warmer.
Then why Mr. Heartland VIP do you suggest on billboards that belief in a warmer world is associated with the mentally ill?
Heartland VIP: Well……. I ……. uh ……. you see ……. uh …… They started it!
Next Headline: “Skeptics: 1st grade deniers!”
No thanks! Deny certainty of the magnitude of warming (realized or projected), deny continued (recent) warming, deny certainty of future warming, deny the primary cause of warming is anthropogenic, deny catastrophe; but please, please, don’t attempt to or supply an easy perception that “skeptics” in general deny the world is not warmer now than it was in my Grandfathers’ day, there’s just too much evidence to support it.
In other words, Heartland just associated me and most everyone else with the criminally insane as I too believe that the world has warmed since the LIA. I realize that’s not what they meant, but that doesn’t matter to someone not already familiar with and in support of Heartland’s actual position.
Bad wording at the very best.
Alexander Feht says:
May 4, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Well, well. So, WUWT must not be anything more than a relief valve.
Anything more is “over the top.”
Cowardice.
========================================
WUWT is just a relief valve? If you mean letting the hot air out the CAGW preachers, I’d have to agree.
Cowardice?
I missed the date when Al Gore and Michael Mann will be in a public debate with Monckton or Anthony or Ball or … just about any of the people post articles here that the rest of us comment on. Do you have that date and location?
John Eggert says:
May 4, 2012 at 7:02 pm
James Sexton says:
May 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm
What the hell? HI has been in the trenches and taking the battle to the loons for years! Much longer than some of you johnny-come-lately half-ass wannabe skeptics.
James:
The answer is. Up until today, we could claim the high ground. That may not matter to mud wrestlers, but it does matter to real men and women of science. And up until today, we were winning. This is a catastrophic loss, caused by our own side. It will not be fatal, but it will set the debate back 10 years. I do not look forward to explaining why I don’t have to explain this.
==================================================================
John, I completely and entirely disagree. Putting aside the fact that the skeptical advocacy never literally murdered anyone (as opposed to alarmist advocacy) so we could never lose the “moral high ground”. If the “real men and women of science” can’t face up to what they’re fighting, then their utility is very limited.
It isn’t “moral” highground to avoid talking about the genuine issues the climate debate revolves around. I don’t give two shakes about some vapid obscure event in the history of the arctic ice cap or the IR absorption bands of CO2. I engage in this discussion because alarmist advocacy is misanthropy executed by a totalitarian marxist agenda. If those people had their way Pol Pot would look like a choir boy. So, HI had a billboard with innuendo, casting alarmists in a bad light…… good! Our future history books should, as well. If we don’t put these guys away, they’ll never cease. They will continue in their efforts to destroy individual liberties and control the very essences of our existence. Energy, Water and Food.
NEWS FLASH TO THE “REAL MEN AND WOMEN OF SCIENCE”!!! The battle you’re fighting isn’t science based. It never was. It is ideological.
Joanna says:
May 4, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Sorry, but those billboards are a huge embarrassment. The HI needs to get some sane advisors.
==============================================
Exactly, they should have went after the alarmists harder!!! But, maybe this is just the first part of an ad campaign where it starts with innuendo and then smacks them with ads on their true criminal behavior they so actively engage in……. or do you think that’s toooo mean?
The billboard is bad — the subsequent attempt to pass it off as a deliberate and successful attention-grabbing stunt is straight out of the Splattergate apologists’ playbook.
Romm’s hypocrisy is by-the-by; he’s a hypocrite, and that’s what they do.
But my respect for Heartland has gone through the floor.
Good for you Heartland, while the high moral ground may be good for the soul, if you do not fight the fight based on the “rules” your opponent plays by, your soul is all you’ll end up with….(now having stated that, stick to the facts, don’t lie and, if you have proof the AGW crowd sleeps with the devil, put it on a billboard!)
Rick Bradford,
Are you so easily influenced that you make a snap decision over one tiny, very temporary aspect of a stand-up organization that has been fighting the good fight for decades on a shoestring budget?
If so, that says a lot more about you than Heartland, whose ‘sin’ was to tell the truth.
So, what’s your opinion of Gleick’s actions, or 350.org, orany of the other propaganda outlets?
Philip Bradley says:
May 4, 2012 at 7:17 pm
“What will cause them to question their belief is to associate CAGW belief with bad things.”
Exactly. The more run-of-the-mill Progressives I know are extremely worried about merely being associated with “bad things” or being called “bad names” – even though they seldom seem to understand the basis for which the “bad names” are rightfully applied in appropriate cases where the names or terms are therefore correctly descriptive, instead of functioning like the inherently unhinged infantile name-calling used as a primary method by the “mainstream” Climate Scientists, enc..
Likewise, as per what “Pointman says: May 4, 2012 at 7:19 pm”, the very mass of the o’so “concerned” newbies suddenly showing up here at WUWT probably does indicate “sort of a reverse endorsement” by the at risk Warmist Totalitarians.
In the comments about the “Group Think” post someone commented that they thought WUWT was an example of it. I’d say this thread disproves that!
James Sexton says: May 4, 2012 at 8:04 pm
NEWS FLASH TO THE “REAL MEN AND WOMEN OF SCIENCE”!!! The battle you’re fighting isn’t science based. It never was. It is ideological.
I disagree, I think we are fighting and winning a battle based on scientific and empirical evidence, e.g.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-quarterly-update/
The Heartland billboard is a question of tactics, and in this case, I think Heartland is mistaken. We should stick to the facts and leave the hand-waving to the Warmists.
Just The Facts says:
May 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm
James Sexton says: May 4, 2012 at 8:04 pm
NEWS FLASH TO THE “REAL MEN AND WOMEN OF SCIENCE”!!! The battle you’re fighting isn’t science based. It never was. It is ideological.
I disagree, I think we are fighting and winning a battle based on scientific and empirical evidence, e.g.:…….
================================================
Well, then we can agree to disagree…….I will state, that if we only engage in the science, then we aren’t winning and at best can only win half of the battles, and can never fully win.
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; ……Sun Tzu
Gunga Din says:
May 4, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Alexander Feht says:
May 4, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Well, well. So, WUWT must not be anything more than a relief valve.
Anything more is “over the top.”
Cowardice.
========================================
WUWT is just a relief valve? If you mean letting the hot air out the CAGW preachers, I’d have to agree.
Cowardice?
I missed the date when Al Gore and Michael Mann will be in a public debate with Monckton or Anthony or Ball or … just about any of the people post articles here that the rest of us comment on. Do you have that date and location?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lol, Gunga, I think you missed the point of Alexander’s comment. I think he’s stating that he’s a bit appalled at the sudden sensitivities of some supposed skeptics. Suddenly, we are the faint of heart.
We are engaged in a war over this issue. Our only goal is to win – which we are – but progress is slow and sometimes hard to see. Anything else is a distraction. The truth will out eventually, but in the meantime any effort that may help to assist uncommited people in seeing the scam for what it is will probably be helpful. Accordingly, I commend and thank HI for its initiative. I doubt that those who think HI has made a tactical error here will be seen to be correct in the long run.
LOL,
how many people would have known about the billboard if Anthony and Joe said nothing about it?
I never would have since I do not live anywhere near Chicago that has a few of these billboard paid for by H.I. that shows a message that most of you have not understood.I am surprised at you guys.
Maybe staying quiet on it would have been a better idea?
The Heartland billboards are a most unfortunate tragedy. The battle we fight cannot be purely a relentless attempt to put genuine science back into climate science. It also requires other tactics such as humour and plain speaking.
Unfortunately, the Heartland billboards are not the way to go since the are crude and nasty and resemble the AGW warmists behaviour far too closely. They quite simply undermine the advantage Heartland had after the Gleick affair by sticking to the high road. .
“The climate activists do information war, not science. That is merely a veneer of authority to be used selectively in any way which will advance their political objectives. They do information war in all its guises; propaganda, disinformation, censorship, misrepresentation, character assassination, lies, intimidation and the rewriting of history. Science just provides ammunition in the form of sound-bite bullets of information which are to be used judiciously or suppressed if they aren’t on message.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/happy-birthday-pointmans-2/
And we’re not supposed to do a bit of infowar? What do you people think we’ve been fighting for years?
A clue, it wasn’t science …
Pointman
Mike Mangan says:
May 4, 2012 at 1:58 pm
What a bunch of wheezy old women you people are. These people want to take your money and your freedom from you and then spit on you for believing in God or capitalism or sharing code or whatever. They have complete contempt for you and every value you hold dear. Not only is this billboard accurate it is coming at just the right time. I keep telling people that Alarmists deserve no better place in society than Birthers or Truthers. Most people have never absorbed anything about “climate change” except what they get in the background from mass media.
[snip]
They already know instinctively that this is some sort of tree hugger nonsense but, hey, never really thought about it being cool or not. Show the faces that let them know they don’t want to be associated with these people and that mind set.
————————————————————————————–
Well, this ‘wheezy old woman’ (which objectively, I am) worked in advertising and marketing for many years and says that what you claim is nonsense.
You do not convince people to buy your product through insulting them by association.
Apart from being strategically stupid, the ad is counterproductive because it offends the very people whose minds you are trying to change. Telling them that if they disagree with you they are no different to Osama Bin Ladin or the Unabomber is dumb, dumb, dumb.
It is the sort of thing you expect to see in a student newspaper, and has done Heartland a lot of harm. Many people who are cautiously supportive or neutral towards HI will be repelled by this undergraduate fit of pique and spite.
There are many ways for advertising to be hard hitting without descending into the slimepit with 350.org et al. It is not about being wimpy, it is about being smart and not giving away one of the few advantages that you have – your reputation for ethical conduct.
We’ve tried being polite. We’ve tried being the voice of reason, against a shrieking storm of unreasonable criticism and massive expenditures which have done pretty much nothing but shovel money to folks who didn’t deliver on their promises.
We’ve been called every name in the book, and they’ve invented new names when the old ones lost their sting.
We’ve not adhered to the AGW religion unquestioningly, and activists have called for us to be burned.
I think it’s long past time we used the same tactics. When you have one side whispering and the other using a bullhorn, the attention will be to the louder. THIS is an example of using a bullhorn to get people’s attention, and I – for one – think it an effective way to shock people and get them to go “Wait… WHAT WAS THAT?”
It’s a clue-bat to the head – getting your attention and making you think about your belief and reconsider what you’re really believing.
It’s about bloody time.
It’s over. None too soon; it has proved there is such a thing as bad publicity.
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/05/04/heartland-institute-ends-experiment-unabomber-global-warming-billboard
You do not convince people to buy your product through insulting them by association.
That’s not the point. The point is to persuade people not to buy the competing product (CAGW).
James Sexton says: May 4, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I will state, that if we only engage in the science, then we aren’t winning and at best can only win half of the battles, and can never fully win.
But we are winning;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/concerns-global-warming-stable-lower-levels.aspx
and the key battles that remain are to win over the opinion leaders, the scientific community, the politicians and the main stream media who still believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Heartland billboard certainly doesn’t appeal to any them, and might actually serve to harden some of their perspectives.
We will “fully win” when the editorial board of the New York Times realizes that CAGW isn’t happening.
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; ……Sun Tzu
“We may convince others by our arguments; but we can only persuade them by their own.” Joseph Joubert
James Sexton says:
May 4, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Lol, Gunga, I think you missed the point of Alexander’s comment. I think he’s stating that he’s a bit appalled at the sudden sensitivities of some supposed skeptics. Suddenly, we are the faint of heart.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
That wouldn’t be the first point I’ve ever missed. I haven’t been here long enough to recognize who all the commenters are and where they coming from. (Another example of how this place isn’t “Group Think”.)
I’m willing to accept the billboards as “a smack on the rump” to get peoples attention. But if they aren’t followed up with some correction, the billboards just remain a smack in the rump with no lesson to be learned.
Smokey says:
**So, what’s your opinion of Gleick’s actions, or 350.org, orany of the other propaganda outlets?**
I dislike them all, to various degrees, one criteria being whether they are prepared to engage in civilised debate, or are content with unpleasant and dismissive ad hominem attacks.
Heartland’s sin is not in telling the truth; it is in telling a crude and unpleasant angle on the truth, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and then trying to pass it off in exactly the same way as 10:10 did with Splattergate.(“Well, that got your attention, just as we planned!”)
It is a stupid ploy, worthy of the Warmists themselves. I thought Heartland and Joe Bast had more class.
Just The Facts says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:23 pm
James Sexton says: May 4, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I will state, that if we only engage in the science, then we aren’t winning and at best can only win half of the battles, and can never fully win.
Just…. I truly do love many of your comments and observations on the blogs, but, this is what I’m talking about….. winning the CAGW discussion is just one battle, and we’ve seen where many have already jumped to other issues.
In fact, I just did a post which now seems very relevant to this topic. Food is one area where they are going to attempt to assert themselves….. they will combine this issue with an attempt to control our water….. and this is where it gets relevant. As we all know HI recently was embroiled in and won a battle. They disgraced Peter Gleick. But, they didn’t finish him off. He’s out of the CAGW game, right? But, he’s not out of the totalitarian Marxist misanthropy game….. he’s still running strong. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/thats-just-what-we-need-completely-incompetent-and-delusional-greens-to-tell-us-how-to-feed-people/ (towards the end of the post)
If you confine your arguments to science, you’re playing “whack-a-mole”.
Skeptic wrote:
First I would have to see the “sound science” they ever have produced. Heartland Institute is a political think tank with a political and ideological agenda. They are not a scientific institution.
as a brief “experiment” to display the hypocrisies and grotesque double standards of the C-AGWarmists I’m more prepared to consider whether this exercise was worthwhile…. it’s hard to predict what the lasting memories of this episode will be in various quarters, but perhaps something good can result, I simply don’t know…..
To those pouring scorn on those of us who expressed doubts, no one can predict how particular PR battles (which is what this is) will turn out, but when the C-AGWarmists have the vast arsenals of (most) media and pols and activists on their side it it worth being very careful to maintain the credibility and seriousness of the “skeptics”…. everyone has to decide how to approach these matters. I, for example, am surrounded (family, colleagues, most college and grad school friends etc.) with people more aligned with Al Gore than with skeptical perspectives. Sure I can self-immolate, attack, and disown them all (and vice-versa), but stopping short of that I try to bring reasonable questions and careful challenges to their attentions as they are willing to consider anything I have to say. I don’t mean that this Heartland billboard issue should be understood as a “personal” matter for each of us, but this is an illustration of how (I think) discussions of C-AGW proceed all over the land, one by one. I don’t claim to know how minds can best be changed on these issues, but I do know that none of the people I deal with personally (including some very distinguished scientists and policy wonks at leading universities) can be positively influenced by comparing them to the Unabomber etc.
Just The Facts wrote:
So what are you saying? The majority opinion of the public is the deciding criterion for the validity of scientific theories? Politics and ideology determine what the scientific truth is?
REPLY: are you this person? http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jperlwitz.html
Neither anger nor disappointment, but a lesson learned. It is unlikely that both sets of competing interests will be able to exploit the same tactics. The “global warming” campaign has already claimed the lower ground. Leave it to them.
Gunga Din says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:28 pm
……………
++++++++++++++++++++++++
That wouldn’t be the first point I’ve ever missed. I haven’t been here long enough to recognize who all the commenters are and where they coming from. (Another example of how this place isn’t “Group Think”.)
=====================================================
Lol, no doubt…… this is an incredibly diverse group, here. There really is only one thing we nearly unamiously agree upon. CAGW is garbage. Some of the most contentious discussions here, are the ones where skeptics argue amongst themselves. I’ve witnessed many. It’s what happens when the we’ve beaten the lunatics’ talking points de jour…. we get bored and beat up on ourselves.
A few years back, this used to bother me a lot. But, it was a different time. Now, it’s good exercise.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Just The Facts wrote:
But we are winning;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/concerns-global-warming-stable-lower-levels.aspx
So what are you saying? The majority opinion of the public is the deciding criterion for the validity of scientific theories? Politics and ideology determine what the scientific truth is?
====================================================================
Jan, you know, or if you read the rest of his comment you would have known that wasn’t what he was stating at all. He was talking about preventing a dystopian world being thrust upon us by implementing ludicrious solutions to an imaginary problem…… and that involves politics and ideology. But, alarmists have used that knowledge for a very, very long time.
As far as scientific “truth” goes, the alarmists lost that fight quite a while back, and they continually lose with their catastrophic dark fantasies masquarading as science.
Bast from Heartland Institute spins:
Equalizing people who agree with the views of mainstream climate science with mass and serial murderers, and after the predictable response to this outrageous, insulting, and inciting smear campaign, Bast is trying to paint Heartland Institute as the victims of evil “climate alarmists” in this affair. How pathetic.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Skeptic wrote:
I do hope Heartland, despite their frustrations, will get back to sound science.
First I would have to see the “sound science” they ever have produced. Heartland Institute is a political think tank with a political and ideological agenda. They are not a scientific institution.
===========================================================
Yes, and they’ve produced better science than our govermental ideological institutions such as GISS and NOAA and the gang. That’s why paultry sums kick the crap out of the huge amount of wasted taxpayers money.
It was a stupid experiment and unfortunately may cost the Heartland dearly in terms of the very hard won credibility over the last few years. A shame as it would have been easy to check by just asking a few diverse folks what they thought BEFORE putting the ad up.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm
————————————————–
Jan P. Perlwitz, I think poster “Just The Facts” made it clear upthread that he is primarily interested in the scientific evidence, not in taking a poll of the public (see excerpt of his post below). The links to Gallup polling came in a specific CONTEXT: that of discussing whether what JTF and others here believe is the best scientific understanding of the evidence (however disputable it must be) is coming to be recognized or believed by the public. That is the context for the phrase “we are winning” and a link to a public poll. It was not a blanket statement of, as you put it in a critical question,
“The majority opinion of the public is the deciding criterion for the validity of scientific theories? Politics and ideology determine what the scientific truth is?”
That is not the view of JTF (or any posters here that I’m aware of), it is a “straw man” of your own creation. Perhaps you had not read the thread, or perhaps you need to pay closer attention to the words and thoughts of others before you mis-characterize them in careless straw-man argumentation??
———————————————————————————————–
Just The Facts says:
May 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm
…. I disagree, I think we are fighting and winning a battle based on scientific and empirical evidence, e.g.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-quarterly-update/
The Heartland billboard is a question of tactics, and in this case, I think Heartland is mistaken. We should stick to the facts and leave the hand-waving to the Warmists.
Philip Bradley says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:16 pm
You do not convince people to buy your product through insulting them by association.
That’s not the point. The point is to persuade people not to buy the competing product (CAGW).
———————————————————————————
Philip, you are not going to convince Apple fanatics to buy Microsoft by insulting them, ever. If you are aiming at agnostics, then a campaign which depicts your opponent’s users as greasy haired, nose-picking adolescents living on junk food in their mother’s basement will certainly attract a lot of publicity. But people who are not strongly invested are more likely to be turned off by this sort of advertising, because it is patently dishonest, just like the Heartland ads. What they want to see is people using your product whom they admire, or aspire to be like.
I am not saying that all negative advertising is ineffective, or unethical. I think a series of ads featuring Al Gore’s rhetoric against a backdrop of his mansions and jet-setting could be very effective, and perfectly ethical.
The trouble with the HI ad is that it is neither.
Mr./Ms. anonymous moderator. Why is it relevant whether I’m this person? Also, just recently it was claimed by some commenter here everyone here already knew who I was. Are you a new one? It is noticable how eager some people here are, especially the moderators, to disclose my professional affiliation to the audience, when I write comments, although everything I write here expresses my personal view, and in no way any official position of any institution with which I’m affiliated in my work.
If you want to say something, just say it, don’t use innuendo by the mean of a rhetorical question.
REPLY: So you are with GISS then, thanks. Just curious.
I Notice a just a couple people echo this, but the thought that the high ground is going to eventually win against these nut-cases is going to lose it for us.
Case in point is McCain in the last election. He decided to run a high ground kind of election where instead of confronting every issue he could on Obama and letting Palin talk as much as possible to diffuse the arguments and show what she really was instead of what Obama portrayed her as, he decided to run a “clean campaign” and in the process the much better media related Obama team was able to convince America that their image of Palin and McCain was correct. He was too old, Palin was too stupid and to this day most of America knows no better because frankly he was allowed to write the tempo of the election.
That is politics folks. If you think this is about science or about anything like that, you obviously haven’t been paying attention since the climate-gate emails were released and investigation after investigation has come out showing that there will be no justice from within, just white-washes and slaps on the wrist for those on the alarmist side who can do no evil. Its politics pure and simple.
There are ways to win in politics and ways to lose. Sure, the argument here that “the higher ground is always right” is the loser argument here. People just don’t want to hear about global warming anymore, so like a bunch of media savy politicians these people have changed the terminology and tricked people into going along with the same politicies and the same science as before.
The same scientists are getting funding for the same global warming research under different names with the same pal review in place as before climate-gate. Nothing changed and we sceptics despite dismantling the science completely have done nothing to stop this train.
Obviously, the high ground has not worked, will not work and never will. The common person out there has no clue and is being hood-winked daily, and so any kind of billboard like this might make them think twice. Is this the right billboard to use? That is the question to ask, not whether its right to “Stoop to this level.” This is a game for keeps, its a game for the future of our respective countries and the freedom to be able to use energy for everyone.
Perhaps better arguments will be showing people freezing to death under wind turbines frozen during winter. Or similar pictures to cement the images into the common man. The battle is to show that the EPA in the US is out of control and is battling global warming.
Don’t let them change the terminology. Keep the global warming name, and make them eat that every step of the way. Force them to deal with the truth on your terms not theirs. Politics is about thinking ahead too. Remember, that whatever HI’s motivations are here, they might have a game-plan that we can not see, and I hope they do, because this poster is not one I would choose for an experiment myself.
If you want to beat this crowd, the best place to start is to hoist them from their own petards and start from the top. Make the world see the EPA for what it is and start with Obama and his lies about energy security and green jobs. Go on the offensive against him and high gas prices.
Everytime you cut at him against Keystone and everything else he has done that has killed American jobs, forced the future price of gas to rise and otherwise made the economy worse, Americans will pay attention and even the worst educated Americans will pay attention. That is how you get through to normal Americans, and don’t back down.
If someone is going to argue with you, stick to your guns and don’t back down. If they come at you with something you haven’t heard of as obfuscation tactics, stick to your main argument. Tell them flat out its irrelevant to your main point and stick to it. Rub their faces in what they are doing to everyone else by insisting on not understanding the science themselves, and by all means, make it so bad that Obama is forced to say something about global warming in speaches. The second you do that, the EPA and Obama secret agreement is over and the charade is over.
That is how you defeat a political machine that is so tenously based on deceit and fraud ….. you have to get the word out and in politics taking the high road at all times will get you defeated like McCain. I for one am not willing to lose a political battle because I think its wrong to tell the truth in an ugly fashion. Why shouldn’t we as sceptics tell the unvarnished truth about 10/10 and other green nonsense in huge billboards?
And why shouldn’t we remind people that mass-murderers and terrorists also believe in global warming and support this stuff? We are still being morally correct and not breaking any laws by telling the truth there. These people do believe it, and its true, so as long as we don’t lie, stick to the truth and tell the ugly truth for all its worth, why in the world should we say HI is wrong here?
What is wrong is Peter Gleick and others who lied, committed fraud and should be in jail but are not.
I like it.I read why they did it,and it makes sense.Now that we’ve got your attention…let’s discuss facts,I don’t see much wrong with it. I see a lot of people claiming the moral high ground in these comments.I thought a scientific debate is supposed to be about data and facts,do you believe you are morally superior because you question?I must be a virtual saint then,I’m sceptical of everything I read.
It would have been interesting to see people’s reaction to the billboard,my reaction was I knew Manson was big on the environment(one of his tools to brainwash his followers)I didn’t know the Unabomber was.It would never have crossed my mind to compare climate scientists to the Unabomber.Give the public some credit.
James Sexton says: May 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm
winning the CAGW discussion is just one battle, and we’ve seen where many have already jumped to other issues.
No doubt, but Heartland has chosen to focus resources and a conference (which I attended last year) on CAGW.
In fact, I just did a post which now seems very relevant to this topic. Food is one area where they are going to attempt to assert themselves….. they will combine this issue with an attempt to control our water….. and this is where it gets relevant. As we all know HI recently was embroiled in and won a battle. They disgraced Peter Gleick. But, they didn’t finish him off. He’s out of the CAGW game, right? But, he’s not out of the totalitarian Marxist misanthropy game….. he’s still running strong. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/thats-just-what-we-need-completely-incompetent-and-delusional-greens-to-tell-us-how-to-feed-people/ (towards the end of the post)
More power to you to fight the fights you want to fight, but Heartland has to be more careful. Heartland publishes scientific reports and hosts a science conference, if they want to help us win the scientific arguments around CAGW they need to focus on the facts.
If you confine your arguments to science, you’re playing “whack-a-mole”.
But why not at least try to argue the science, i.e. its not getting hotter;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
global sea ice area is above average;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
sea level rise appears to have slowed or stopped;
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
I guarantee that Josh can come up with much better billboards.
Jan P. Perlwitz says: May 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm
So what are you saying?
That I’ve looked at the facts;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/
and do not see any signs of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The majority opinion of the public is the deciding criterion for the validity of scientific theories? Politics and ideology determine what the scientific truth is?
I do not agree with either of these statements, nor did I say either of them.
No, NOT a blunder.
In hindsight I think this might have been a huge winner for the skeptic case. I think that with time it will count big time. Associating warmists with crazies and criminals with facts to prove it…. its brilliant! It only needed one day exposure. Maybe that was what was intended. There is probably much more to this than meets the eye. When arguing with a warmists you can now always bring up this fact. I for one, did not realize that these crazies all believed in AGW did you?
Skiphil at May 4, 2012 at 10:41 pm wrote:
So, I misunderstood when I interpreted the comment that “Just The Facts” used the opinion polls as evidence for the claim that he/she and like minded were winning the scientific argument?
Actually, the add’ did exactly what was needed. It catapulted the subject into the headlines. Perhaps now people will look at the science. Most people are ‘asleep’ most of the time. Perhaps a second advert could show hunters culling polar bears … the truth ain’t necesarilly pretty.
Actually, it looks like its getting huge coverage on mainstream press which I think was the intended point by HI. Now everybody will know that those crazies believe in AGW. Brilliant!
https://news.google.com/news/section? I don’t think it will backfire https://news.google.com/news/section?
https://news.google.com.au/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&q=topic:global_warming&ict=ln
Jan P. Perlwitz says May 4, 2012 at 11:33 pm
So, I misunderstood when I interpreted the comment that “Just The Facts” used the opinion polls as evidence for the claim that he/she and like minded were winning the scientific argument?
I can’t address your understandings and interpretations, but it is my opinion that scientific evidence educates the public and positions them to challenge the alarmist claims. From one of the Gallup articles I cited, “In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
James Sexton wrote:
I haven’t seen any valid science produced by the Heartland Institute so far. Which one would that be? And the claim that NASA GISS or NOAA were ideological institutions is just baseless nonsense. The work of the scientists at GISS isn’t based on any political or ideological agenda by which they were driven. They are scientists, it’s a bunch of nerds like at any other scientific/academic institution who is mostly driven by scientific curiosity. Whatever you think sinister is going on there, it’s just in your head, it’s just something you imagine in your conspiracy fantasy world. On the other hand, Heartland Institute are the ones who are driven by a political and ideological agenda. I just need to read their official public statements to recognize this.
James Sexton at May 4, 2012 at 10:25 pm wrote:
I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Please could you be specific to what statements you refer here made when and in what scientific publications?
I’m can’t help but look at all the handwringing above and think, that’s why level-headed skeptics are routing the the wild-eyed, slavering alarminsts on the science, but making only slow progress in the court of public opinion. More than half of the alarmists’ support is from people who couldn’t buy a clue, but think if someone claims they speak for “Science”, then they must know what they are talking about. Derision and mockery is absolutely the appropriate tactic at this time.
The skeptics have knocked their opponents to the mat. Time to kick them in the ribs. This isn’t some gentlemanly boxing match. This is a street fight. The reason the contest has gone on as long as it has is that the alarmists have known that from day one, but the rational folks didn’t and, judging by the above posts, still don’t.
They don’t pull their punches. Neither should we. They ARE crazy. They ARE loons. They think they can imagine how they want reality to behave, find a few points of fact which are not inconsistent with their fantasies, and voila, they’re Scientists! They’re not. They are craven, bullying, supercillious, venal, delusional, parasitical vermin. And, those are their good qualities!
As the good General Patton would admonish: The Enviro-Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them… I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything, we’ll let the Greens do that. We are advancing constantly, and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to expose his pose, and we’re going to kick him in the CO2 gas. We’re going to mock the hell out of him all the time, and we’re going to go through him like polar bears through moose.
snert says: May 4, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Actually, the add’ did exactly what was needed. It catapulted the subject into the headlines. Perhaps now people will look at the science.
Roger says: May 4, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Actually, it looks like its getting huge coverage on mainstream press which I think was the intended point by HI. …
https://news.google.com.au/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&q=topic:global_warming&ict=ln
“Group pulls plug on billboard linking global warming believers to terrorists” Washington Post headline:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/group-pulls-plug-on-billboard-linking-global-warming-believers-to-terrorists/2012/05/04/gIQAU2q51T_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop
“Heartland Institute compares belief in global warming to mass murder” Guardian headline:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?newsfeed=true
“The Short Hot Life of Heartland’s Hateful Climate Billboard” Dot Earth headline
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/the-short-hot-life-of-heartlands-hateful-climate-billboard/
I struggle to see how this helps us…
$200 for a one day billboard on the highway? That’s pretty good. I like the idea of a billboard experiment, but I can think of some much better things to put up there. How about a picture of a spotless cool-toned sun with the heading and caption:
Philip, you are not going to convince Apple fanatics to buy Microsoft by insulting them, ever. If you are aiming at agnostics, then a campaign which depicts your opponent’s users as greasy haired, nose-picking adolescents living on junk food in their mother’s basement will certainly attract a lot of publicity.
Its interesting you would bring up Apple. 15 years ago, many people in the industry, myself included, were predicting the imminent demise of Apple. Apple had inferior and over priced products. What Apple did was make buying an Apple product a fashion statement. Apple advertisements at the time portrayed Microsoft buyers as uncool, if not unwashed.
CAGW is for many a fashion statement. These people have no understanding of the science and CAGW beliefs are comparable with buying an Apple product.
The point of the ad is that by believing in CAGW, you are on the same side as dangerous lunatics. Not very cool.
I would have used Joseph Kony, rather than the Unabomber, as many young people wouldn’t know who the latter is.
It was supposed to be an experiment? What was the question: Could we be as stupid as our opponents? How fast can we burn up any goodwill we had built up recently with the Gleick idiocy? Are there any PR thinkers at this think tank? How much foot damage can we inflict on ourselves? Can we give tons of ammunition to our opponents? Can we nullify our credibility by appearing as a nut group? Can we take our friends and supporters down in 24 hours? Who should resign if we do such a stupid and shortsighted idiotic escapade?
Just The Facts at May 4, 2012 at 11:04 pm wrote:
And what exactly is the supposed scientific argument here? You are showing a temperature time series confined to 15 years of data, where the natural variability is so high that is not possible to draw any conclusion about the presence or absence of a long-term temperature trend only by looking at it.
Are you talking about the upward wobble in the sea ice this year? What is the supposed scientifically valid conclusion from this with respect to the multi-decadal trend?
Really? Like in 1994 to 1996? Or in 1998? And this makes the multi-decadal trend go away?
Interpreting some wobbles due to short-term variability, which overlay a long-term trend and are directed at the opposite direction of the trend, as evidence, which allegedly refutes the long-term trend, isn’t a valid scientific argument. It just points to a wishful interpretation of data.
Just The Facts at May 4, 2012 at 11:53 pm:
I suppose you mean with “alarmist claims” what mainstream climate science says about anthropogenic climate change? So what does these opinion polls prove to you? That the “scientific evidence” has educated the public? But mainstream climate science just hasn’t got the memo yet how the “scientific evidence” has disproven what mainstream climate science says? Because what I see is the view that anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming are real with possibly serious negative effects on the human civilization is less disputed among climate scientists today than in 1997.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:33 pm
“So, I misunderstood when I interpreted the comment that “Just The Facts” used the opinion polls as evidence for the claim that he/she and like minded were winning the scientific argument?”
=====================================================================
Yes, it’s a clear conceptual distinction even if often muddied in the public debates. Try to distinguish (1) the scientific arguments about facts and evidence and climate projections etc. from (2) what citizens in the vast voting public “believe” at any given time about the state of the science. It is not invoking opinion polls to settle a scientific debate but to indicate that a growing proportion of the public believes the science has been distorted in the public arena. That does not “settle” any scientific issue but it may increasingly affect the public policy issues wrt whether any Gore-Hansen style bombastic exaggerations continue to be taken seriously as a basis for governmental action.
Yes, you jumped to attribute an easily ridiculed straw man position in order to knock it down. I hope that’s not how you proceed in your scientific work, because it is not intellectually respectable.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:57 pm
The work of the scientists at GISS isn’t based on any political or ideological agenda by which they were driven. They are scientists, it’s a bunch of nerds like at any other scientific/academic institution who is mostly driven by scientific curiosity.
Right, Jan, surely no one who looks like that “James Hansen” we often see and hear of in the media lecturing us on fossil fuel CO2’s alleged “destruction of Creation” and the fossil fuel Companies’ alleged “crimes against nature and humanity”, and who seems to enjoy getting his picture in the paper by being arrested during protests against Big Coal, etc., could possibly work with you at Giss.
I think it was brilliant and want more please!
The warmist’s ARE murdering people on a daily basis due to huge increases in food as a direct result of growing biofuels in the poorest countries on Earth, let alone the destruction of rainforests in order to plant new trees to gain monetary benefit causing death and destruction to our closest relatives and other animals, whilst simultaneously sucking much needed extra water from the soil.
The likes of Osama and James Lee DID jump on the warmist bandwagon. Children have been murdered by their parents because they believed the warmist’s dogma, the parents have then taken their own lives. The truth hurts sometimes!
Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity, if it gets people thinking it ain’t a bad thing; for too long the warmist’s have ruled the media whilst crushing anything not agreeing with ‘the cause’, the Guardianista set getting excited by this is great stuff! Bring it on!!
You can do science, or you can do rhetoric; you can’t do both. The point is that rhetoric is the refuge of those who don’t have the science on their side.
Is it a fact that OBL and the Unabomber believe in man-made global warming? Sure. Is it relevant? Nope. And not because of who they are, but because their beliefs aren’t grounded in rigorous empirical science. It wouldn’t matter if Albert freaking Einstein “believed” in the AGW thesis, because it has been falsified by observed data, full stop.
Heartland should stick to publicizing facts and empirical science, and leave the idiotic ad hominem rhetoric to the alarmists. If your enemy is destroying himself, you should stand back and let him. You certainly shouldn’t join him.
I support Anthony’s position completely. Making comparisons like this is abominable. Furthermore, I think the Heartland Institute should withdraw their retraction and simply say that they goofed and that they weren’t thinking clearly and promise not to do this sort of thing again. Instead, they might want to run a new billboard with the following quote by Jan P. Perlwitz of GISS on one side:
On the other side, they could put a picture of Dr. James Hansen of GISS being arrested as part of his political activism. I think something like that would be much more effective.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:34 am
“You are showing a temperature time series confined to 15 years of data, where the natural variability is so high that is not possible to draw any conclusion about the presence or absence of a long-term temperature trend only by looking at it.”
I would argue the same w.r.t. the 30 year increase from 1970 to 2000, which is almost identical to the 30 year increase from 1910 to 1940. This is clearly cyclic behavior with an approximately 60 year period, and 30 years is the worst possible interval to choose to draw trend lines.
“What is the supposed scientifically valid conclusion from this with respect to the multi-decadal trend?”
What “multi-decadal trend”? Three decades? That’s pitiful.
“And this makes the multi-decadal trend go away?”
Again with the “multi-decadal” bit. This time for a measly 20 years.
“Interpreting some wobbles due to short-term variability, which overlay a long-term trend and are directed at the opposite direction of the trend, as evidence, which allegedly refutes the long-term trend, isn’t a valid scientific argument. It just points to a wishful interpretation of data.”
You’ve just arbitrarily defined the “short-term” and the “long-term” to be that which supports your argument. This proves nothing, and the burden of proof is on you.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:02 am
“Because what I see is the view that anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming are real with possibly serious negative effects on the human civilization is less disputed among climate scientists today than in 1997.”
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:57 pm
“The work of the scientists at GISS isn’t based on any political or ideological agenda by which they were driven.”
I believe we have established that you have a pattern of seeing what you want to see.
Do these billlboards allow for video ? If so I think a clip from the ’10:10 No Pressure’ video should be shown.
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h8EUtB45RvE )
Along with the tag line ‘ See what happens when you dont accept the consensus !’ running along the bottom
You can see the video at
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/04/keeping-the-no-pressure-video-alive/
without signing in. That will give the genral public cause for complaint.
Carrie says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:23 am
I think it was brilliant and want more please!
The warmist’s ARE murdering people on a daily basis due to huge increases in food as a direct result of growing biofuels in the poorest countries on Earth, let alone the destruction of rainforests in order to plant new trees to gain monetary benefit causing death and destruction to our closest relatives and other animals, whilst simultaneously sucking much needed extra water from the soil.
The likes of Osama and James Lee DID jump on the warmist bandwagon. Children have been murdered by their parents because they believed the warmist’s dogma, the parents have then taken their own lives. The truth hurts sometimes!
Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity, if it gets people thinking it ain’t a bad thing; for too long the warmist’s have ruled the media whilst crushing anything not agreeing with ‘the cause’, the Guardianista set getting excited by this is great stuff! Bring it on!!
————————————————————————-
Carrie, if there is no such thing as bad publicity, why do you think politicians surround themselves with spin doctors and carefully rehearse their lines before speaking in public? You might care to reflect on the fate of a few public figures, such as Strauss-Kahn (now a former candidate for the French presidency), Eliot Spitzer (who used to be a big shot in New York) and John Edwards, who would be lucky to get elected as a dog-catcher thanks to the publicity surrounding his trial.
Your points about some of the bad outcomes of CAGW mania are valid, but calling ordinary people murderers because of their beliefs and comparing them to Bin Laden or the Unabomber is not only wrong, it ensures that the hard core of the CAGW movement can point and say – see, these people are deranged. Up till now, that very argument has been a powerful weapon in the skeptics’ arsenal.
Putting the truth out there is one thing, but comparing those who do not agree with you to acknowledged criminal mass murderers is another. 350.org’s exploding children video backfired massively on them – as this has on HI.
Jan P. Perlwitz says: May 5, 2012 at 12:34 am:
But why not at least try to argue the science, i.e. its not getting hotter;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
And what exactly is the supposed scientific argument here?
Atmosphere CO2 levels are increasing rapidly;
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
but the atmosphere does not appear to be warming rapidly:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif
Do you see any indications of rapid warming in the data?
You are showing a temperature time series confined to 15 years of data, where the natural variability is so high that is not possible to draw any conclusion about the presence or absence of a long-term temperature trend only by looking at it.
Here’s the MET’s CRU graph back to 1850:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png
Do you see any indications of rapid warming in the data?
global sea ice area is above average;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
What is the supposed scientifically valid conclusion from this with respect to the multi-decadal trend?
Global Sea Ice Area is remarkably stable;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
,Antarctic Sea Ice Area has been increasing;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
and Arctic Sea Ice Area has decreased;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
primarily due to Atmospheric Oscillations and Wind;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/02/hurricanes-and-global-warming-opinion-by-chris-landsea/#comment-816893
Do you see any indications of rapid warming in the sea ice data?
sea level rise appears to have slowed or stopped;
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
Really? Like in 1994 to 1996? Or in 1998?
Yes, Sea Level increase was also quite flat during the 90s;
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
And this makes the multi-decadal trend go away?
Sea level has been increasing for the last 20,000 years;
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/fig_hist_1.jpg
in light of this, do you think that this trend;
http://www.climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
is indicative of a rapid increase?
Interpreting some wobbles due to short-term variability, which overlay a long-term trend and are directed at the opposite direction of the trend, as evidence, which allegedly refutes the long-term trend, isn’t a valid scientific argument. It just points to a wishful interpretation of data.
I couldn’t agree more. We have 133 years of suspect surface temperature data and 32 years of reasonably accurate satellite temperature data, on an approximately 4.5 billion year old planet. Our measurement record of Earth’s climate system is laughably brief and the entire data record appears to be “wobbles due to short-term variability”…
Jan P. Perlwitz says: May 5, 2012 at 1:02 am
But mainstream climate science just hasn’t got the memo yet how the “scientific evidence” has disproven what mainstream climate science says?
Yep, that’s the part I don’t understand. The data is readily accessable, anyone can review it. It doesn’t make sense that the supposed “climate scientists” aren’t aware that Earth’s climate system shows no indications of rapid warming. Can you please explain and provide links to any evidence that supports your point of view, whatever it may be?
@ Larry Ledwick
Yes, I’ve now seen that, thanks. I also found another reference to the greenhouse effect:
“118… and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.”
“169…No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen.”
Sounds like Roy Spencer’s view on the greenhouse effect, and the George Marshall Institute’s view on ozone depletion.
I have only read 50% of the comments, but read all of the Heartland Institute material regarding their bill board.
vukcevic says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:46 am
It is not the way for science and or a civilized society to move forward.
Isn’t this ‘way’ precisely depicted? The identities used in the billboard used propaganda and science to move societies backwards.
richardscourtney says:May 4, 2012 at 11:16 am
……..
The issues pertinent to any PR campaign are
Is it true?
And
Is it effective?
Don’t run the campaign if the answer to either question is ‘No’……..
…. It is foolish to spend money on a campaign which is likely to have the opposite effect to that which is intended/desired.
My understanding is that the the digital billboard costs $200/24 hour.
Is that an effective use of money?
What $ are expended by RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), PETA, Wilderness Society etc? AND the African-Aid agencies (famine, starvation, malnutrition, female genital mutilation, rape, child soldiers, [?corruption, ?lack of electricity]) in their public advertising of cruelty towards human beings?
This is like killing civilians in war time, just because the other side routinely does this this type of thing, there is no need for the good guys to do the same.
Sinking to the alarmists’ level scores no points at all. In fact, it is more likely to have thrown them a life line – so, this gimmick was just a stupid, ill considered, blunder.
Hardtalk – James Lovelock – Population reduction (max 1 billion)
http://tinyurl.com/cfhadv4
Arne Naess (Co-inventor of the Deep Ecology cult)
Naess believes there are too many humans on the planet: “I think we must have no more than 100 million people if we are to have the variety of cultures we had one hundred years ago.” (Devall and Sessions, 1985) The pressure of the human population is making it impossible for us to co-exist with the rest of nature.
http://tinyurl.com/d3el99y
From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People
http://tinyurl.com/3koyynn
Ted Turner, Dave Foreman,Eric R. Pianka,Mikhail Gorbachev,John Holdren,Dave Brower, etc etc etc
They Love Death
http://tinyurl.com/76jk9xd
While I understand the reaction to Heartland’s poster and a desire not to descend into the sewer with the warmists, there is a need to take seriously the desires expressed by the warmists as above.
It is not just rank hypocrisy when the warmers demonize others IMO, it is a deliberate propaganda strategy. It deflects attention away from themselves when they loudly accuse others of that of which they themselves are most guilty. We need to not be squeamish of calling them on this, despite their (false) protestations of martydom.
There is way too much at stake.
I figured Perlwitz for the alarmist immediately… I could tell from the arrogant, condescending crap spewing right from the first post, followed by the claim that their affiliation was unimportant (it is important) and claim that we should all know him/her (we don’t, and most don’t care).
Then I see a few straw men set up and knocked down, some more condescension and arrogance, some replays of horrendously bad GISS “science”, and general dismissive crap.
Unfortunately it’s not possible to directly engage someone like this, they are so blinded to the world outside their windows that they don’t even believe they are part of a political movement. They may actually believe it’s “about the science”.
Credibility flew out the window the first time I saw downward adjustments to long-ago records, the state of the USHCN, denial of UHI, belief in models that clearly don’t work, belief that 30 years is a definition of “climate” (it’s more like half a climate cycle, but hey), and a few other clearly failed things from the alarmist side.
It’s actually really simple: You don’t know the average temperature 100 years ago. You have error bands larger than a guess could provide, but apparently don’t even realize this. You don’t know that there has been any significant warming, but claim there is anyway. You can’t make a case for a connection between CO2 and warming, not least because there is no actual evidence of warming, but mostly because CO2 increases are not connected with any current warming. NO weather events can be attributed to CO2. Current climate at ANY point on this planet is within the norms of previously recorded climate. NOTHING is outside of where it should be.
And yet, here Perlwitz is, apparently defending the Unabomber. Awesome.
I find Heartlands explanation totally fine! they ran a small experiment to test a theory and they did it in the real world not in a model so what’s the problem ? well the problem is that even though the true believers have near total control of the media /political/economic non debate and can say what they want and do anything without so much as a harsh ticking off ,skeptics are still utterly scared of them and petrified of doing anything that might be seen by the other side as ‘out of line’ and how we should never ‘sink to their level ‘ well good luck with that! sorry but the high moral ground maybe a great place to see the sights from but the other side will one day kick the pedestal from under your feet and they won’t give a dam as to how the achieve that end!!
“He who stays on the defensive does not make war, he endures it”
– Field Marshal Colmar Baron von der Goltz, 1883
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:02 am
But mainstream climate science just hasn’t got the memo yet how the “scientific evidence” has disproven what mainstream climate science says?
Quite simply, that’s because “mainstream” Climate Science is intentionally and specifically not practicing real science. Mainstream Climate Science is nothing more than a massive Propaganda Operation. Therefore, why should its propagandistic “method” pay any attention to real science’s method and evidence, which could instead essentially falsify or make completely moot the propaganda method’s very goal of looting and controlling as much of the world’s populace as possible? Why should such a propaganda operation unnecessarily risk defeat at the hands of real science by agreeing to the rules of the latter?
So, yes, the real scientific evidence does effectively falsify the hypotheses involved with CO2 = CAGW, but mainstream Climate Scientists don’t seem to care, when given their selfish anti-scientific goals, there is simply no reason why they should care.
More shennanigans. Over at Kloors, Roger Pielke Jr. is claiming that although the Heartland Institute lists him as a Heartland expert, he has had no contact with them and certainly never agreed to associate with them. Curiously, Richard Courtney is also so listed, although there is no picture of him.
Did RC agree to serve/be listed in this way?? If not a curious pattern emerges.
Roger says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:29 pm
“I for one, did not realize that these crazies all believed in AGW did you?”
Oh. I think lunacy is a necessary condition to believe in CAGW. Well, either lunacy or your pay cheque…
johanna says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:54 am
Carrie says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:23 am
Your points about some of the bad outcomes of CAGW mania are valid, but calling ordinary people murderers because of their beliefs and comparing them to Bin Laden or the Unabomber is not only wrong, it ensures that the hard core of the CAGW movement can point and say – see, these people are deranged. Up till now, that very argument has been a powerful weapon in the skeptics’ arsenal.
Putting the truth out there is one thing, but comparing those who do not agree with you to acknowledged criminal mass murderers is another. 350.org’s exploding children video backfired massively on them – as this has on HI.
But.. the video did show that ‘mainstream’ supported mass murder as a solution to ‘global warming deniers’, so HI is accurate here.
Oh dear. Bugs Bunny has arrived.
Post of the year. Thank you for that. Every single word.
It has been downright embarrassing and unbearable to read through these posts. Friendly fire from many on ‘our side’ that actually CHOOSE to shoot their natural allies at Heartland who attempted some minor discrediting of the enemy. You can’t make this stuff up! And on cue, trolls show up to agree with them.
So for me, your comment (especially the brilliant Patton send-up) managed to erase the bad memories of at least a hundred earlier hand-wringing, bed-wetting confessionals.
I had trouble deciding whether I thought it was a blunder. In the end, I voted “no”. Bart’s comment May 5, 2012 at 12:08 am pretty much says it all. This is a street fight. And, in a street fight you fight dirty, or you lose. They can’t really wail about how “unfair” and “mean” it is for the Skeptics to use the Warmistas’ own weapons against them. I don’t know if it was a tactical error. Time will tell.
Well I suppose it has highlighted the fact the Warmists lie, cheat, steal and use rancid laguage all the time but the mainstream press just accept it as normal!
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Politics and ideology determine what the scientific truth is?
======================================
Only in cases like this…when the science sounds so stupid
I support HI’s strategy to publicize the alarmism of well-known public figures.
As HI shows, it is in the public record that the public figures are alarmist and it should be emphasized that they are alarmist.
Well done HI.
John
Time will tell. What is certain, at least up to this point, is that neither past moral high ground nor the science has made one iota of difference where it matters: the powers to be and the big players. The calls to rather use humour or satire or whatever for persuasion? Please gentle people! That approach presupposes that the target audience is even remotely sufficiently intellectually engaged/capable to respond to such gentle prompts. Certainly in my country they are not. The science is needed as bedrock for the strength of one’s conviction, but this has been a propaganda war. A totally different kettle of fish. Whether or not this is the right propaganda I don’t know, but propaganda is what is required. The other side is not squeamish.. Good luck and fortitude to HI.
A mistake is a mistake. Best approach is to apologize and do not repeat the mistake.
http://news.yahoo.com/billboards-compare-climate-scientists-unabomber-mass-murderers-174829689.html
In a statement by Heartland president Joseph Bast, the organization announced that it will be taking down the Unabomber billboard after only 24 hours. Bast wrote that the billboard was an “experiment” meant to “turn the tables” on climate-change advocates.
“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment,” Bast wrote. “We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
The “experiment” resulted in “uncivil name-calling and disparagement” from climate-change scientists and activists, Bast complained.
Billboards popping up in the Chicago area compare climate change scientists and advocates with Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, murderer Charles Manson and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
The billboards, paid for the Heartland Institute, are designed to promote the organization’s International Congress on Climate Change in Chicago later this month. The Heartland Institute describes itself as a nonprofit devoted to promoting free-market solutions for social and economic problems.
Blade said:
It has been downright embarrassing and unbearable to read through these posts. Friendly fire from many on ‘our side’ that actually CHOOSE to shoot their natural allies at Heartland who attempted some minor discrediting of the enemy. You can’t make this stuff up! And on cue, trolls show up to agree with them.
So for me, your comment (especially the brilliant Patton send-up) managed to erase the bad memories of at least a hundred earlier hand-wringing, bed-wetting confessionals.
————————————————————————–
Blade, what you don’t seem to understand is that Heartland is not a ‘natural ally’ of everyone who reads WUWT, let alone of the wider community. No matter how many times people say it on this site, it doesn’t seem to penetrate – whether or not people subscribe to CAGW is not simply determined by their views on other issues. It does seem though, that some commenters would prefer it to be that way. While this chest-beating is no doubt gratifying (like the ‘self-rewarding’ endless barking of the dogs next door), it is not the way to win support in a democratic political system.
If you really think that deploring this ill-advised fiasco is a sign of being a hand-wringing bedwetter (whatever that means), then Anthony Watts, Ross McKitrick and many others including me are in that category. So, go and put up your own billboard if you care so deeply.
According to your poll, over 20% DON’T think the ads were a mistake?!?!?!?
Wow.
Perhaps you could suggest to Bast that he ask the opinion of you and others before embarrassing himself and Heartland in the future. He can think of it as a WUWT consensus.
Smokey:
With respect, you are missing the point in your post at May 4, 2012 at 5:49 pm that asks:
“This was no big deal. Where is the untruth? In American jurisprudence, truth is an absolute defense. In fact, the lack of truth is pretty much entirely on the side of those pushing the CAGW scam. Why should they get another free pass? They hide out from any real debate, they only appear in tightly scripted, sympathetic venues… and now, no one is even allowed to show the kind of people who are pushing the Big Lie?? How does that work? Is the truth now off limits?”
None of that is relevant to this thread where we are discussing a PR campaign and not a court of law. So, your statements about “jurisprudence” are not relevant.
Clearly, you missed my post (above) at May 4, 2012 at 11:16 am which directly addressed these issues. It says this;
“The issues pertinent to any PR campaign are
Is it true?
And
Is it effective?
Don’t run the campaign if the answer to either question is ‘No’.
This Heartland Institute campaign is ‘true’ because it is factually accurate, but it is unlikely to be effective because its extremism is not likely to interest the uncommitted. Indeed, the campaign’s extremism is likely to repel the uncommitted (as the AGW-alarmist ‘red button’ video repelled all except the alarmists).
It is foolish to spend money on a campaign which is likely to have the opposite effect to that which is intended/desired.”
Richard
Heartland listened and pulled the add, thankfully. A little face saving talk about an “experiment”, but they pulled it.
We “Climate Realists” need only science based on empirical evidence,
and the passage of time.
Experiment or not, tit was dumb.
Some very good posts about the billboard ! Great points for and against it from Bart etc. I voted no and I stand by that vote regardless of the arguments for it.
I understand, or at least I think I do, what they were trying to do. I just think that they could have achieved the same result without using the face of a murdering bastard who should be left to rot in jail and forgotten.
H.I. can use this publicity to their advantage if they play their cards right, and I have to admit Joe Basts statement made me smile with admiration.
Any time your debate devolves into ‘good’ versus ‘evil’ delusion is occurring. The polarization itself is the problem, it shuts down critical thought, and diverts the debate from the facts into ‘Us vs Them’.
It’s hard to find middle ground when you’re using area denial weapons, and it’s hard to find the truth when you’re engaging in the things that make both the opposition and your own side shut down their critical thinking.
Sadly, too often when we start creating our own imaginary hobgoblins to guard against, we become worse than they ever were. I’ve heard the ‘warmist’ side propose that CAGW will cause famine, plague, and war, and hence to stop it, we must cause… famine, plague and war to reduce the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola#Ideas
I would have to posit that the current politicization has more to do with power and belief, than with science or fact. One thing I’ve learned in my study of history is that any time that either side of a conflict says ‘you may not question, you may not investigate’ that there are much deeper problems.
It would seem to be a self-defeating strategy in the marketplace of ideas to poison the land over which you’re fighting.
I don’t think the billboards are a blunder. First of all, is the information factual? Is it true that Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson and Fidel Castro believe in human-caused global warming and that humans are a plague on the Earth? In addition, this battle is not to convert the believers–they will never change their stance. The battle is for the minds of the uneducated and the undecided–the mass expected to pay the bills in taxes and higher energy costs in the green utopia dreamed up by activists.
In fact, I’d love to see another billboard, this one with Al Gore’s face on it. He still believes in human-caused global warning. Do you?
Attempts at excuse, by labeling such stupidity as an “experiment” makes me even more disgusted (if that’s possible). Time for a good housecleaning. The end does not justify the means, and anyone who thinks otherwise should be fired and expelled. GK
If anyone ever claims WUWT? to be an “echo chamber”, I would suggest that you point them to this thread.
Mike Mangan says: “Keep the billboards up. If the usual suspects cry foul, give ‘em the bird and keep firing. Make your point to the average voter. “You believe in global warming? What are you, some kind of nut?” Again and again without fear.” and I agree.
When the warmists only objection is to “tone”, or “timing” etc, you know they have no real defense. I also agree that when the warmists get hysterical, you know you have struck a nerve.
How much resource needed to feed the hungry and cure the sick has to be wasted by the warmists before people treat this as a serious life and death political struggle, and not some debate at a gentlemans club?
It’s arguably a tactical error, but it should be pointed out that the warmists do much worse almost daily. What is the term “denier” all about. Maybe the billboard flap will be the impetus for the warmists to clean up their act… yeah riiight.
Jan Perlwitz says:
“…the claim that NASA GISS or NOAA were ideological institutions is just baseless nonsense. The work of the scientists at GISS isn’t based on any political or ideological agenda by which they were driven.”
Perlwitz is either crazy, or he is desperately trying to defend his pseudo-science GISS make-work job. I suspect the latter.
Despite Perlwitz’ ridiculous denials, it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that GISS is a completely ideological organization run by a crazed lunatic [James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen]. GISS covers its bogus “adjustments” of the temperature record [always in the most alarming direction possible] with a thin veneer of science. “Baseless nonsense”? That is what a lap dog would say. No doubt Perlwitz will get a pat on the head from the head lunatic.
Perlwitz has his snout firmly planted in the public trough. He has NO credible evidence showing that human emissions = rising temperatures, because emissions are rising but temperatures are not. All he has are always-inaccurate computer models, and an “adjusted” temperature record, which the real world is clearly falsifying.
It is digusting reading the lies and misinformation that Perlwitz emits in an effort to justify his feeding at the public trough. As a GISS employee his comments are self-serving pablum. Folks here can see that he has no credible science, so he promotes GISS pseudo-science P.R. instead.
Perlwitz is not fooling anyone here. He needs to get a real job, and stop trying to con the public. That doesn’t work here. WUWT readers know better.
I DO think all Heartland had to do is put up a billboard that says,” Co2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING”. This flies in the face of EVERYTHING the mainstream media is telling the public. This would have prompted a ton of internet searches. Many would discover that the debate is the furthest thing from over. And then,…..
One thing we DID learn in this escapade is that the skeptics ‘police’ their leading institutes in a more public way. Anthony’s & Ross’s leadership in this regard are to be commended.
I wonder if the mirror to hipocracy re: ‘denier’ will have any effect over there……
Actually I think Heartland’s experiment may have been successful. It was an attention getter for sure, but the really interesting point was the reaction of those who are “Deniers” compared to “Warmists” in similar situations.
When Gleick pulled his nasty stunt, the warmists including the media jumped on the bandwagon. Very Very few have even acknowledged the fact he was unethical or that the damning memo was a forgery. They all just piled on very gleefully
Now look at the response of the “Deniers” to a true but tasteless billboard by Heartland. The difference in the types of people on each side of the fence could not be better spotlighted.
I suppose I’m in a minority here, but when I saw the billboard posted by a climate alarmist (and general DP talking point person) I was amused. I didn’t know the Unibomber was a CAGW true believer and, although it is irrelevant to the debate, I thought it a good poke at the Alarmists and the bright red colour was obviously designed to provoke as much ire as possible. Why HI felt they needed to do this, I don’t know, but I learned something.
I suppose the ‘experiment’ was a blunder. If HI didn’t have a replacement billboard handy, preferably one more humorous, then they clearly did not plan ahead very well. But as one who has to listen to constant negative and nasty comments about anyone skeptical of CAGW, and most of these are canards, I rather enjoyed seeing someone fight back with some inconvenient truth. Well, I enjoyed the outrage of the always outraged Alarmists, but perhaps I am being puerile.
Johanna says:
“…what you don’t seem to understand is that Heartland is not a ‘natural ally’ of everyone who reads WUWT, let alone of the wider community.”
I think the lack of understanding is on your part. Seems to me that Heartland has the same questioning skepticism of CAGW that most all of us have. That certainly makes them a natural ally. So why do your comments border on demonizing someone on the same side? You should be even half as critical of the purveyors of pseudo-science, like the GISS P.R. flack posting his anti-science nonsense here.
If you disagree with Heartland, send them a contribution, and explain why you believe telling the truth is wrong. They will listen much more closely to a financial supporter. I contribute to Heartland, and I will continue. They are one of the good guys, and they accomplish a lot on a shoestring budget. Endless criticism of a 24-hour event is over the top and counter productive. Heartland told the truth. Or do you disagree? Was there anything untruthful in their ad? Or are you just worried that it might hurt the alarmist crowd’s feelings?
The Obama Administration forced Government Motors [GM] to cease it’s annual upport of Heartland before this billboard ever appeared. If you would help fill the gap you would be listened to much more closely. I wonder how many critics of Heartland provide financial support. Do you?
It is a major tactical error to loudly and repeatedly criticize an ally for simply pointing out the truth of the matter. The other side will do that. They don’t need any help from us.
RobRoy says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:51 am
We “Climate Realists” need only science based on empirical evidence,
and the passage of time.
In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, that is a denial of the political reality, which is that CAGW “science” became emebedded into governmental and non-governmental entities, and pushed by the lamestream media, all with their own agendas. Once the science became corrupted, it had a self-reinforcing effect, enabling it to continually ignore any countervailing evidence, and to keep pushing lies dressed up as science. People, unfortunately, have a tendency to believe a lie if it is big enough.
– – – – – – –
John West,
Thanks for your considerable comment. Appreciate the opportunity for dialog. This is meaningful.
I think you are incorrect to make your presumption that the ‘public’ lacks the basic reasoning capability to know quite well the main issues of the climate science discourses; your presumption about the public’s incapability has been shown to prima fascia not true. It is an intellectual conceit to condescend to the ‘public’ like that.
Also you are incorrect to imply the ‘public’ lacks the interest, ability and resources to find out what the HI billboard means and the message of HI.
The public is not naïve nor are they incapable of figuring out what’s going on with alarmism in climate ‘science’. I think it is the alarmists who are profoundly naïve to think the public must be manipulated by fear and I think that is why alarmists are losing. I think HI has shown us they know it as well as seen in their billboard usage. WUWT commenters are, here on this thread, having a significant open discourse about how best to approach highlighting the public figures who are alarmist. Keep the discourse alive!!
John
I think the billboard will make people think about it, something most people have not been doing.
I am not sure that science and politeness has been winning this argument, as most people here think. I suspect that the global recession, 10% unemployment and recent cold weather has done it – and that’s nothing to do with the science of why cAGW is wrong.
Much of opposition to carbon CO2 mitigation is that ‘we can’t afford’. That is wrong. The real reason is that it is scientifically unnecessary; if the world was about to fry, we would have to mitigate regardless.
After watching this debate develop over the last 24 hours, I have to say my view has shifted from possibly a big mistake to probably not a mistake.
I think @Bart says:May 5, 2012 at 12:08 am , pretty well nails the essential points. We have pretty well shown that the so called climate science is nonsense but we have to recognize this is a multi-front war, and on the propaganda side, it is a knock down brass knuckle back ally fight. They have been pulling every cheap shot in the book for years.
We also have to recognize that just like in a political campaign, you have different factions (markets) you are trying to sell your message to. The proper tactic to sell high fashion jeans to a 14 year old girl is not going to get the job done if you want to sell those same high fashion jeans to a 30 something slightly over weight woman or convince a grandmother to buy them as a gift for the grand daughter. Each market will need a different advertising method and targeted message.
This bill board was clearly not targeted at the hard core AGW crowd, they will be the last to convert from their perverted quasi religion. It obviously was not aimed at the fair minded skeptics who (most of the readers here) have already recognized the deficiencies of the AGW message and are actively seeking answers.
It was aimed at one of the middle ground groups in between those extremes. It was a cold splash of water in the face of the soccer mom or pre-occupied office worker on their way to work. They nominally agree with the AGW message, not because they understand the science but because they think most “right thinking people” do. The just want to go along to get along, not make waves with their friends and co-workers and are not inclined to invest much effort into the analysis of the AGW message when they have more important things to do like figure out draft choices for fantasy foot ball, figure out how to get invited to an important party, plan what dress to wear to the meeting, or how to pay for Jenny’s braces, or cut their gasoline expenses.
They need something to focus their attention on the AGW debate and make them realize that maybe they should spend a few moments evaluating if they want to just go along to get along if the group they are going along with includes the certifiably deranged? Just maybe, they want to reconsider how they view this topic.
All major advertising campaigns that fundamentally shift public opinion have some point where they first get the attention of the normally complacent public. Sometimes it is an iconic super bowl add that only lasts 30 seconds, sometimes it is some other attention grabbing event that makes people shift their gaze from their daily routine to a simple message like “where’s the beef”.
The saying “The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results” pretty much applies here. The thought full deliberate process of persuasion has already reached most of the folks it is ever likely to reach, now it is time to shift the market to the others who are preoccupied by other considerations and are not inclined to dig into the science of logic behind the AGW message. They are people that need an emotional hook to catch their interest. These are the people those obnoxious TV used car ads or specialty product ads are aimed at. The folks that respond to the “slap chop” ads. This is the mass market not the niche market. Different rules apply here. Do not judge the campaign on what would appeal to you, but by what would work for that select targeted market.
Larry
Bruce Cobb says:
Thanks. Upon further reflection, I was emphasizing myself, my personal needs. You are correct. The court of public opinion is ruled by the MSM which ,in turn, is ruled by the Alarmists.
That billboard should have shown two simplified (smoothed) graphs. One showing the rise in atmospheric CO2, the other showing the Satellite temperature data. Captioned.”Hey , where’s the warming”
I still disagree with this particular ad, but I’m all for getting the word out. We sensible skeptics should take the high road.
Name calling is a sign of shallow thinking. Plus, we don’t want to offend any fence sitters.
“Are you as mad as the Unibomber?”
To convince, humor and facts work best. IMHO 🙂
I’m pretty much an average american, prick me do I not bleed sort. I had a very smart friend who used to tell me I had a knack for stating the obvious, the problem being what was obvious to him wasn’t obvious to everyone else. As the average john i appreciate the HI ad and got a good laugh out of it. Now that they have everyones attention I’m looking for what they have to say next.
= = = = =
Smokey,
I have never contributed to HI. However, after I attend my first ICCC this May in Chicago, it is likely that I will start contributing based on that experience. This billboard usage by HI has caused my intellectual support of HI to peak, contrary to the majority of WUWT commenters.
I support efforts to increase emphasize publically on the alarmism of public figures by using their very public record of alarming claims against them. HI has done this with their billboard usage. I think with more public emphasis on the alarmist nature of public figures they will be publically pushed farther into their absurd radical irrational stances. Therefore I think the public will increasingly shake their heads and turn away.
John
The end does not justify the means, as soon as you forget that you are no better than those you have been fighting.
I’ve changed my mind after considering other talking points here, the Heartland Institute is taking the position where they can now ‘kick ass’ using their own oppositions tactics, it’s allowed in politics and there is no such thing as a moral high ground within this context.
The fact remains that the majority of misanthropists (those who hate people and would in fact inflict harm on them) have publicly aligned them selves with another destructive misanthropic force, regardless of this moral illusion (that some of the politically correct brigade have) the Heartland Institute are pointing out the facts and knowing these facts they have considered the right course of action is to inform the public, What are the dangers of an uninformed public?. I believe people come first. Moral High ground? don’t make me laugh sarcastically
The propaganda war has never been nice and clean…is the “ad” good or bad ? It will get attention.
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 3:17 am
More shennanigans….
Did RC agree to serve/be listed in this way?? If not a curious pattern emerges.
Curiouser yet, why don’t the Wabbit and his mainstream Climate Scientist buddies care about their “science’s” 100% prediction failure rate? Hmmmm…”What would Ted Kaczynski say?”…?
Fighting fire with fire. I thought it was a great billboard.
Smokey says:
May 5, 2012 at 7:56 am
Johanna says:
“…what you don’t seem to understand is that Heartland is not a ‘natural ally’ of everyone who reads WUWT, let alone of the wider community.”
I think the lack of understanding is on your part. Seems to me that Heartland has the same questioning skepticism of CAGW that most all of us have. That certainly makes them a natural ally. So why do your comments border on demonizing someone on the same side? You should be even half as critical of the purveyors of pseudo-science, like the GISS P.R. flack posting his anti-science nonsense here.
If you disagree with Heartland, send them a contribution, and explain why you believe telling the truth is wrong. They will listen much more closely to a financial supporter. I contribute to Heartland, and I will continue. They are one of the good guys, and they accomplish a lot on a shoestring budget. Endless criticism of a 24-hour event is over the top and counter productive. Heartland told the truth. Or do you disagree? Was there anything untruthful in their ad? Or are you just worried that it might hurt the alarmist crowd’s feelings?
————————————————————————–
Smokey, I have frequently admired your posts on this site. But, I wonder whether you have had your morning cup of coffee when you say that the way to influence people I don’t agree with is to give them money, and then complain. On that basis, should we all be donating to DeSmogBlog and hoping for a result? Oh, dear.
Please explain where my comments “border on demonizing someone on the same side?” Apart from ‘bordering’ being a very fluid concept, I don’t agree that just because X and I agree about one thing, that we are on the same side. I don’t cover for X if they are a sleazebag or a nutter just because we agree about something. And, as I said in the post you referred to, if denouncing this stupid and dishonest ploy by Heartland puts me in the same class as bedwetters (???) like Anthony and Ross McKitrick, I am happy to snuggle down and enjoy the warmth.*
*Sorry, an obscure allusion that only Dolly Parton fans might get.
Mr Blade Sir. Personally, When I’ve wet my bed, I wring my sheets not my hands. yuk yuk.
Donna has pulled out of the Conference. I don’t blame her at all. I voted blunder; quite honestly, the Ad Hom is out of control. As sceptics we cannot have it both ways. Much as there is a temptation to call out the ‘warmist’ side with jibes and snotty comebacks, it is simply pointless to do so.
Johanna,
Two points:
First, if you are a contributor to Heartland they will give you more credence. It’s human nature. And second, you say: “…denouncing this stupid and dishonest ploy by Heartland…”
“Stupid” and “ploy” are opinions. But “dishonest”? How, exactly?
James Sexton says: May 4, 2012 at 8:35 pm
But we are winning;
winning? gas prices went from under 2$ to 4$ in the past few years. energy prices, when they complete the plan to tax co2, must necessarily skyrocket.
we are in a depression. unemployment is very high.
you call that winning? did you think this was a science debate and the ‘scientists’ just randomly happen to be socialist, malthusian, power trippers?
you have any of their money? how is that winning? they got yours. who’s laughing? you lose, dude. you are a loser.
oh, but you have the moral high ground? tell it to the heaps of corpes and buckets of ashes. victimhood is powerfull! martyrdom is exalted!
losers lose. there is no moral high ground when you can’t even define morality you pretentious fool.
Two words “Exploding Children” Can anyone top the 10/10 campaign? so stop your whining about how one factually accurate billboard advert for the Heartland Institutes website makes you look bad.
While I like the idea of being more agressive I would rather see an attack on the propagandists. For example, a billboard with an Al Gore quote about sea levels rising AND a picture of his new mansion at sea level. Stick to the high profile alarmists and show where they appear to be hypocrites. Show James Hansen collections millions of dollars in awards. Show Gleick commiting fraud. Etc, etc.
I was first shocked and needed to understand where they come from, but I think it is the wrong way lowering oneself to the same level..
I find Josh’s way so much better.
Pay 200 $ for the billboard with Josh’s cartoons on it (and his due) and you are much better with it HI.
A couple of weeks ago Monckton wrote on this blog about the fallacies used in “critiques” of global warming skeptics by the alarmists. And so now Heartland comes out and does basically the same thing? The unabomber believes in global warming. The unabomber is insane. OK so what? It does not follow that global warming is false or that Al Gore or even Joe Romm is insane because they share one opinion with the unabomber.
A far more effective billboard would have said “Still believe in global warming?” while showing images from last winters deep freeze in Europe and a comment that say MSU shows a decade long decline in global temperatures.
This really was a bad move, in my opinion.
Another comment is that Heartland should change their name. It makes them sound like a Republican think tank. Obviously a lot of politics are involved in this issue, but if people really want the truth to go mainstream and stop the IPCC nonsense the focus should be on scientific facts, alternative explanations about “climate change”, and getting the word out to the public that there are a lot of credible scientists that don’t believe in alarmism.
JPeden at May 5, 2012 at 1:17 am wrote:
What does this prove? This proves that Jim Hansen isn’t just a scientist, he is also a private person with a political opinion, which he, as far as I can see, has developed as a consequence from his research. He uses his rights under the US constitution to freely express his political views as a private person. He has every right to do that, doesn’t he?
Using this for the claim that the scientific research institution NASA GISS or the work of the scientists there was subordinated under some political or ideological agenda, the scientists there would follow, is pure conjecture.
I have never experienced or heard that anyone working at GISS or with Jim Hansen was asked or requested by him or anyone else to share Jim Hansen’s private political views or follow them, if she/he wants to work at GISS or with him.
Anyone who makes a claim to the contrary regarding the requirements for working at GISS as a scientist has the burden of proof for such an outrageous assertion.
On the other hand, Heartland Institute, who are not a scientific research institution are the ones who openly promote specific political views as an institution. They are the one whose actions are governed by a clear political and ideological agenda.
Mike Bromley says:
“Donna has pulled out of the Conference.”
Donna has all the intolerance of an Islamic mullah. Heartland quickly acceded to the wishes of those who, like her, didn’t like one billboard in one city. So within 24 hours it was taken down. Contrast that with the alarmist crowd, which never, ever admits to a mistake, and which never corrects its constant errors. Even they don’t get Donna’s treatment of Heartland. Of course, Donna needs to sell books, so she mingles with the IPCC folks and others of their ilk, who get better treatment than she accords Heartland. But I understand: that’s business.
I suppose Donna has never made a mistake, and has never made anyone upset. I suppose that unlike me, Donna is perfect in every way. [Or, she might just be jumping on the popularity bandwagon. Gotta sell those books, right? It’s just business, I understand.]
I know what I think about Donna’s intolerant and unreasonable over-reaction to a truly minor incident in the overall scheme of things. It’s red meat to the ‘consensus’, which buys her books. IMHO, Donna should have just thanked them for changing, and doing things her way, and applauded them for promptly correcting what she saw as a mistake.
But, No-o-o! Donna must demonize Heartland. Now she will have nothing whatever to do with them. She is taking all her marbles and going home — over a 24 hour incident, which will be largely forgotten in the next rush of headlines over some other issue.
Go Donna! Keep on living that perfect, error-free life. I wish I could be as flawless as you. Obviously you have never made a mistake, therefore Heartland deserves getting publicly kicked in the shins by you. Because they’re not perfect, and you are [/sarc]. And of course, you have books to sell. It’s business, I understand.
And thus, a really great organizations that doesn’t take any taxpayer funds, and squeaks by on a tiny annual budget, gets attacked by folks who have lost sight of the goal. Now Heartland is the enemy. Heartland’s new worst friends are justified, of course, because critics like Donna have never made a mistake, and so never need forgiveness. [And there are books to be sold. But that’s business.]
So go all out, Donna! Sever your relations with Heartland over a 24 hour incident, which was corrected. Have nothing more to do with them! They deserve it, because they did something you didn’t agree with. It doesn’t matter that they promptly fixed it. There’s a bandwagon to ride, and folks won’t notice unless you up the ante like you did.
And just out of curiosity, how much of your book sale money have you donated to Heartland? Anything? Or, like Peter Gleick, are you turning up your nose at their generous hospitality to you? I’m serious: have you reached in your pocket to help them out? Or is it all about Donna?
I realize that the billboard campaign has been panned here, CA, and elsewhere.
Why not put the HI billboard campaign into the Climate Craziness of the Week spot to show the both sides how unbiased WUWT is?
This is an incredibly foolish and disappointing move by Heartland. Adopting the ad hominem attack methods of the warmistas is unacceptable. The skeptical side has been gaining ground because it has focused on the substance of the question. Now great damage has been done by Heartland. It doesn’t matter that Joe Romm does the same thing, because the mainstream media are in the tank for the warmistas. Heartland should apologize and fire those responsible.
“While I like the idea of being more agressive I would rather see an attack on the propagandists. For example, a billboard with an Al Gore quote about sea levels rising AND a picture of his new mansion at sea level.”
That’s a bad idea too. The hypocrisy is notable, but not that relevant. People should be sticking to the science and what the data says. Whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite says nothing about whether or not alarmism is reality.
Perlwitz says:
“I have never experienced or heard that anyone working at GISS or with Jim Hansen was asked or requested by him or anyone else to share Jim Hansen’s private political views or follow them, if she/he wants to work at GISS or with him.”
Do you think we’re stupid?? Try telling your boss, James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen the truth: that nothing unusual is happening with the climate; that the null hypothesis has never been falsified. And that every bit of empirical evidence shows that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. Like Hansen, have a few press conferences telling the truth of the matter.
Then you can wonder why you didn’t get that promotion, and why the pay raise your co-workers got didn’t show up in your pay packet. And wonder why when the layoffs come, you are surplus and redundant. Hansen’s pet puppies get the raises and promotions, and you know it. So you keep quiet, and never tell the truth.
You wouldn’t dare to conter the bogus CO2=CAGW propaganda that GISS emits. You won’t dare to question GISS’s constant “adjustments” of the temperature record — which are always in the most alarming direction.
Tool.
dmmcmah says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:04 am
“While I like the idea of being more agressive I would rather see an attack on the propagandists. For example, a billboard with an Al Gore quote about sea levels rising AND a picture of his new mansion at sea level.”
That’s a bad idea too. The hypocrisy is notable, but not that relevant. People should be sticking to the science and what the data says. Whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite says nothing about whether or not alarmism is reality.
You have to realize that “reality” is not the issue. We aren’t fighting reality, we are fighting propaganda. The best way to do that is to expose the propagandists.
johanna says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:41 am
“Blade, what you don’t seem to understand is that Heartland is not a ‘natural ally’ of everyone who reads WUWT, let alone of the wider community.”
Neither was the Soviet Union in WWII. We had to confront the Big Enemy first.
Gail Combs says:
May 5, 2012 at 7:39 am
“The difference in the types of people on each side of the fence could not be better spotlighted.”
Ain’t that the truth! I do not have any antipathy toward those on our side who think the billboard was out of bounds. It’s great that we have diversity of opinion.Those of you who have seen the South Park episode about “having our cake and eating it, too” will know why. I just want to persuade as many as I can that an aggressive approach is, in fact, the way to go.
And, on this topic, here is another great quote from General Patton:
After reading these posts and mulling over the different reactions and perceptions of target market, I think that intentionally or not the primary might be the high minded oh so moral warmists who have no objections to the deceitful, violent and crass propaganda coming from their side against the ‘deniers’ – Heartland should consider polishing up the mirror some more..
..this could be the first time they’ve seen themselves as others see them.
A stunningly poor ad that in one stroke destroys the creditability of Heartland. As a skeptic I find it impossible now to use Heartland as a source.
[Snip.]
Definitely a mistake. Does this not remind anyone of the supposed intellectual debate between William Buckley and Gore Vidal?
“”Stupid” and “ploy” are opinions. But “dishonest”? How, exactly?”
Go see if you can find any evidence Ted Kaczynski actually “believes in global warming”. I think many of us believe that humans affect the environment though pollution, agriculture etc but he didn’t specifically mention global warming only humans affecting the environment. So it’s dishonest.
Blade says:
May 5, 2012 at 4:43 am
Thanks for the praise. I very much liked Mike Mangan’s comment. Watch the video. Be Breitbart.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. Advertising people can be such idiots.
That the opposition does such is not relevant, unless one wishes to be as trashy.
And calling it an “experiment” paints themselves as irresponsible experimenters, just like many alarmists (who are effectively wanting to experiment with human life).
Certainly the mindset of some alarmists is as bad as the Unabomber, and certainly alarmists usually want to force people using a “velvet glove”, but Heartland has botched big time. Their botch will reinforce the inaccurate impression created by alarmists in the Gleick case.
@Blue Sky
What are you skeptical about? free speech? freedom of expression? liberty? hope? happiness? information? WHAT?
freaking idiots are coming out of the wood work.
Wow. What a bad move.
Mark
Attacking Donna Laframboise for deciding not to attend a conference is symptomatic of hard-line Party boss tactics. She is not a pawn in somebody’s Great Game.
I respect her for her work, and if she chooses not to follow the path that some feel is pre-ordained for her, fine by me. She is nobody’s fool, has earned her stripes, and has made a decision. That’s it. End of.
People who are attacking her should take a deep breath, turn 180 degrees, and start shooting at Al Gore and other large and worthy targets.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:33 am
“I do not see why I would have the burden of “falsifying” some hypothesis you have made up for yourself.”
Because you are the one demanding that we revert to a pre-industrial society based on nothing more than your cherry picked “evidence” that we might be influencing the climate, when there is more than enough counter-evidence which demonstrates that your models and understanding are severely constrained to the point of irrelevance.
The Earth’s climate is a vast feedback system. It got where it is because that is where powerful feedbacks drove it. The hallmark of feedback systems is a resistance to externally applied disturbances, manifesting itself in dramatically reduced sensitivity to them. Our entire scientific-industrial society is founded on this principle, and none of our high-tech devices would work without it.
GISS does not understand feedback. Your models are jejune.
“People who follow paranoid conspiracy fantasies explain everything in a way that it is made fit for their paranoid world.”
And, the mentally imbalanced always think it is everyone else who has the problem. This sword has two edges.
John Whitman says:
”I think you are incorrect to make your presumption that the ‘public’ lacks the basic reasoning capability to know quite well the main issues of the climate science discourses; your presumption about the public’s incapability has been shown to prima fascia not true. It is an intellectual conceit to condescend to the ‘public’ like that.
Also you are incorrect to imply the ‘public’ lacks the interest, ability and resources to find out what the HI billboard means and the message of HI.”
I’m not presuming the public lacks the ability but rather the will to give Heartland a chance to explain once they’ve been insulted. Look, those of us “engaged” in the issue can’t ASSUME the average person who may have only heard the MSM side of the story wouldn’t look at that billboard and just think “those crazy skeptics”. Why would they take the time to look up what Heartland’s message is after just being “associated” with the criminally insane by Heartland?
Let’s look at it like this, you’re an average Joe driving to work and a billboard has a picture of Timothy McVeigh and the words “I Support Gun Ownership”. Unless Joe already agrees with the stance that gun ownership is at least a little crazy he’s probably either going to write off the “authors” as nuts or get pissed off. It’s not likely going to get him to go home and research the 2nd Amendment.
(Before everybody goes off on me, I’m a gun owner and consider the 2nd Amendment the protector of all other rights.)
Likewise, an average Joe driving to work who’s only heard the MSM perspective that CAGW is scientific fact and the few “skeptics” are Flat Earther types, sees one of these billboards, it’s probably not going to inspire research but merely reinforce the perception the MSM and alarmist’s have been trying to chain us with for decades. You just can’t expect everyone to react to something that they may perceive as an insult with “maybe I should investigate” instead of just the opposite. The 10:10 video creators ASSUMED no one would identify with being skeptical. The billboard ASSUMES everyone will identify with being skeptical. Similar mistakes.
We cannot afford to lose Joe Public. It’s public opinion that will drive for or against the actions Hansen et al are pushing for. If those kinds of regulations get passed it doesn’t matter what happens to climate, if it gets warm they’ll say it would have gotten warmer; if it gets cold they’ll say “we did it”.
There must be absolutely tons of positive or humorous messages that would be more likely to inspire Joe public to “look into it” for him/her self, which invariably results in more skeptics because you’re right we (I’m about as Joe public as you can get) do have the capability. The question is whether we have the will after working all day, taking care of the kids, house, whatever else; to take the time out of our busy schedules to look into the issue.
Honey or Vinegar?
I voted No. It is not a blunder. bull sh!t, I understand the idea of choosing your own battles, I understand that they have the right to express their views. where’s the blunder?
LOL… It looks like Climate Progress deleted their story about the Norway Terrorist… classic dishonesty at its finest.
I voted with the “No” minority Friday afternoon without having a clear argument why I liked the billboard ad. Now I’m clear why I did, thanks to comments already posted.
The ad makes no attempt to argue climate science or to argue anything at all in the exacting way one would do before the Supreme Court.
Instead the ad uses principles drawn from human psychology science to suggest that much of the familiar Warmist advocacy comes from people of dodgy emotional stability and asks the billboard reader to [1] wonder if he/she is being led by such people, and [2] visit Heartland’s website if unsettled by the first question.
You may wonder, what principles of psychology? Try Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” as summarized by Dr Thomas Sowell in a brief tribute on the 20th anniversary of Hoffer’s death. It’s online via a quick search. This “people science” also is regularly tied to public policy issues in psychologist Dr. Sanity’s blog.
Too many WUWT commenters seem to assume that genteel climate science presentation is all that’s needed to resolve the AGW controversy, when it’s primarily a host of factors within human nature that are decisive. H.I. recognizes this and has newly countered the opposition in that vein.
Blue Sky says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:30 am
A stunningly poor ad that in one stroke destroys the creditability of Heartland. As a skeptic I find it impossible now to use Heartland as a source.
No problem, because as skeptics we can certainly agree that relying upon Heartland as a source has already been rendered unnecessary, simply by virtue of the ongoing application of the principles of real science to reality by skeptics. As a result, the established empirical fact is that mainstream Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW hypotheses have been shown to have had a 100% prediction failure rate and are thus effectively falsified, regardless of what Heartland says.
Does anyone know if the long list at Heartland of Heartland experts is one where all the people have agreed to be listed? It is indeed curious.
[REPLY: Eli, this is an example of “innuendo”. Why don’t you just contact Heartland and ask? -REP]
It was a mistake because it constitutes one of Moncktons logical fallacies: Because A believes in Z and A is a BAD person, then Z must be false. It is just so childish, I am astounded that a seemingly intelligent person such as Joe Bast would have ever considered running such an ad.
It must be that those running the HI have been provoked beyond endurance, until they lash out blindly. Really, once that happens, they have lost the battle, if not the war.
I agree 100%.
JPeden says “No problem, because as skeptics we can certainly agree that relying upon Heartland as a source has already been rendered unnecessary, simply by virtue of the ongoing application of the principles of real science to reality by skeptics. As a result, the established empirical fact is that mainstream Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW hypotheses have been shown to have had a 100% prediction failure rate and are thus effectively falsified, regardless of what Heartland says.”
Yes. I think as a AGW skeptic, we win if we keep it science based.
Bart at May 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm wrote:
That’s what I’m demanding? This is pure invention by you. Or please show the quote by me where I made such a demand. Why would I want such a nonsense? Or if you really believe this w/o any evidence you are just a crazy person. It’s not even a statement that had anything to do with the science of the climate system. It’s just a political statement. But user “Smokey” demands that I “falsify” a hypothesis regarding the science, a hypothesis he has made up by himself. My question is why would I have to “falsify” some nonsense hypothesis he has invented?
So, if I understand you right here there isn’t any significant externally forced climate change ever, when the boundary conditions change, according to your understanding, since “powerful” negative feedbacks drive the system always back to basically one and the same equilibrium state. No significant response to changes in the atmospheric composition, like an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, no significant response to solar activity changes, to any changes in the Earth orbital parameters, and then, consequently also no significant response to galactic ray changes. Ever.
Well, I’m not the one who believes in crazy conspiracy fantasies, unlike the ones with a mindset I have described in the other thread in the comment at May 4, 2012 at 9:02 am:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/nasahathaways-updated-solar-cycle-prediction-smallest-in-100-years/
User “Smokey” is obviously one of those. And he is certainly not alone here.
JPeden at May 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm wrote:
What are you talking about? To what specific hypotheses stated by whom and when in what scientific papers do you refer when you make this assertion about the “100% prediction failure rate”? And how do you get to this assertion?
So show me your science and the empirical data that allegedly have falsified what has been stated by mainstream climate science.
dmmcmah says:
May 5, 2012 at 10:22 am
A couple of weeks ago Monckton wrote on this blog about the fallacies used in “critiques” of global warming skeptics by the alarmists. And so now Heartland comes out and does basically the same thing? The unabomber believes in global warming. The unabomber is insane. OK so what?
here’s what. you have reversed cause and effect. the insanity is common to those who share the identical philosophy, which they do. there is no distinction to be drawn between them, in principle; only a matter of degree – which is slight.
here’s also what: your inability to reason this out is precisely the reason he’ll line up to get on the cattle car.
the warmunists had no leg to stand on in criticizing heartland’s exposure of the valid equation: ‘a morality whose standard of value is the negation of human values is a morality of death’.
but look at all those cowards who offer to be a footstool for their enemies. they are your enemies because they mean to destroy your ability to survive as a man. how many times do they need to tell you outright before you get shaken out of your bliss and listen to them? they mean what they say.
(mods – i’ll try to moderate myself a bit better. thanks for your forbearance)
Bart at May 5, 2012 at 1:29 am wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
The temperature anomaly relative to the average of 1951 to 1980 was about 0.1 in 1940 and was about 0.5 in 2000. How is this just a cyclical behavior and nothing else, if the second “cycle” maximum is significantly higher than the first one? I see a trend there. And how do you know what’s behind this (“clearly cyclical behavior with an approximately 60 year period”), just from looking at the temperature time series and seeing some similarity between two slopes? That’s some clairvoyant insight.
More than three decades, since the 70ies to the present, with an upward temperature trend, which is statistically signficant with at least 95% probability. The temperature increase over the whole century is also statistically significant.
Amazing. The “scientist” Jan P. Perlwitz doesn’t seem to realize that regarding climate, the null hypothesis is, in fact, that humans have no discernible influence. It is up to the Alarmists to disprove that, a task that they have failed at miserably, despite all the hype and hoopla about it, and despite Trenberth’s desperate attempts to reverse the null hypothesis. His “proof”? The 2007 IPCC report which states that global warming is “unequivocal”, and is “very likely” due to human activities. The IPCC claim is nothing more than that – a claim based on zero evidence. That so-called “discernible human influence” claim can be traced back to Ben Santer, who, after reviewers for the 1995 “Summary For Policy Makers” had signed off inserted his own statement claiming “The body of statistical evidence…now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate”. Additionally, he deleted the already-approved statements to the effect that no clear evidence of a human influence on climate exists.
Brilliant ploy by HI, exposes the rampant hypocracy of our MSM and as Mike Mangan says.
The CAWG consensus has damaged us all fiscally, denied Africans cheap energy , indirectly killing many.See IMF& World bank carbon policies and when the public awakens to the cost of this international fraud does anyone think it will end well? I will do nothing rash but I remain enraged by the relevations of climategate 1&2 and can’t wait for the password for 3. Persons entrusted with positions of authority have responsibilities and must pay when they behave stupidly.
– A KNEE JERK OPINION IS RARELY A RATIONAL ONE. It takes me time to form an opinion & even then I am always open to new angles & ideas.
Maybe there were some positive effects :
– free publicity,
– DISARMS SkS & Greenpeace from using the same trick infuture
(It was on the cards that in the FUTURE people like SkS & Greenpeace would be highly like to use this type of advertising against “deniers”, so now they have loudly condemned Heartland doing this, they can’t).
johanna says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm
People who are attacking her should take a deep breath, turn 180 degrees, and start shooting at Al Gore and other large and worthy targets.
Johanna, perhaps it was Donna who should have taken a breath. It might have allowed her to see the big picture, instead of just going on her emotions, and jumping on the “let’s trash Heartland” bandwagon.
Jan P. Perlwitz:
On a previous thread I showed how your own words proved you are a pseudoscientist, and you failed to provide any other possible understanding of those (your) words despite repeated attempts to obtain such an alternative explanation from you.
Now, in your series of posts in this thread up to your post at May 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm you demonstrate your ignorance of basic scientific principles.
For example, in response to J Peden having written at May 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm:
“As a result, the established empirical fact is that mainstream Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW hypotheses have been shown to have had a 100% prediction failure rate and are thus effectively falsified”
Your reply is;
“What are you talking about? To what specific hypotheses stated by whom and when in what scientific papers do you refer when you make this assertion about the “100% prediction failure rate”? And how do you get to this assertion?
So show me your science and the empirical data that allegedly have falsified what has been stated by mainstream climate science.”
All you needed to do to prove J Peden was wrong was to provide one solitary example of a successful prediction based on the “CO2=warming hypothesis”.
And did you? Could you? NO! You did not because you cannot.
Instead you replied with a list of irrelevant questions together with a demand which reverses logic by claiming a conjecture must be accepted unless “others provide the empirical data that allegedly have falsified what has been stated”. A scientist would not do that.
A scientist
(a) would provide the disproving example (which you failed to do)
or
(b) would admit the conjecture is falsified by its failure of predictive ability.
So, I suggest that you stop trolling this thread and, instead, you return to GISS where your pseudoscience is valued.
Richard
The Debunker No 2 BS (@No2BS):
At May 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm you say;
“(It was on the cards that in the FUTURE people like SkS & Greenpeace would be highly like to use this type of advertising against “deniers”, so now they have loudly condemned Heartland doing this, they can’t).”
What!? “They can’t”? You think that?
Watch them. They will. And if anybody complains they will say, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.
The HI advert has invited them to post similar adverts. and has given them carte blanche to do it.
Richard
Any apocalyptic vision, with a prospect of an individual being able to avert catastrophe, will appeal to the deranged. But the vast majority who believe in CAGW are normal people, who accept that when everyone says the experts know what they are talking about, they follow. When those who disagree with the consensus equate them with with mass killers, then they will think that the intolerance shown by the climate bullies at “Skeptical Science”, “Open Mind” and Desmogblog is justified.
The first step, is always to get to know your enemy intimately. The second one, which you learn from bitter experience, is to get to know your allies equally well, which is why in this particular war, and it is a war, I choose to operate alone.
Pointman
Bruce Cobb at May 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm wrote:
Well, first you would have to explain where you draw your conclusion from what I allegedly realize or not. Are you clairvoyant?
And this is just an assertion.
If you make assertions about statements by others, in a real scientific publication this would have to be backed up with evidence and proof of source. But I know, this here is just an opinion blog, science is not conducted here. So everyone can just make any claims about anything and its opposite w/o being mandated to back it up.
Except that the status of science presented in the IPCC report 2007 is based on hundreds of scientific publications. But no fake skeptic will ever accept any evidence published in the peer reviewed scientific literature, when it contradicts their preconceived views. And so, because the thinking is governed by extreme cognitive bias, the scientific findings, which were provided by a whole body of research over several decades are being outright dismissed.
(It followed some assertions about something that allegedly happened in 1995.)
Interesting. I felt, in view of the total dishonesty and extremism of the alarmists, Heartland’s little exercise was totally justified. When dealing with crooks, the only option is to be a little bit crooked yourself.
But the majority of Heartland supporters think that this is totally wrong!
Maybe I need to re-examine my own ethics!
Jim Petrie
This has been a most interesting thread.
I voted in the poll before I read any of the comments. I was part of the “majority” – very rare for me. Now I’ve read the comments, I stick to my vote.
There seems to be a divide in the WUWT community between those who think things would be just fine with a different set of politicians in charge (in the US or elsewhere), and those who see deeper.
I, being among the latter, agree with Ross McKitrick and Anthony. The moral high ground should never be surrendered. And therefore, what Heartland have done is wrong.
Neil
richardscourtney at May 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm wrote:
Well, I guess that’s what you imagine about yourself and what you are asserting now.
I do not need to provide anything in this case. JPeden has made a very bold statement about alleged facts regarding hypotheses and predictions he hasn’t specified, which had allegedly been falsified and a “100% prediction failure rate”. He claims facts, therefore he has the burden of proof for his assertions. But I understand how you want it. In your fake skeptic parallel universe, I wouldn’t just have the burden of proof for my own factual statements or hypotheses, I even would have the burden to disprove the hypotheses and the assertions about alleged facts you and your comrades make. That’s how you would like to have it, Mr. Courtney, I know.
richardscourtney says:
May 5, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“The HI advert has invited them to post similar adverts. and has given them carte blanche to do it.
Richard”
Conclusions should come after research!
“Norway Terrorist Is A Global Warming Denier”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/question-2010249/
Note the date. (2011)
Further, ThinkProgress has removed their post on this.
http://thinkprogress.org/?p=277564
So, I guess Heartland scared them out of the water!.
If folk are going to come over all saintly and profess not to have anything to do with organisations that have done or said dumb questionable things then there are going to be a lot of very quiet places of worship and employment over the next few weeks. Howling in outrage seems to be the new communication paradigm…
Maybe this episode will prompt outraged warmists to play down “deniers” in future. It gives them a belated insight into the limitations of ad hominem argument.
Thank you! You have just demonstrated beyond doubt that you are not a scientist or at the very least a poorly educated one, as any competent scientist would fully understand that the null hypothesis was not something global warming sceptics “invented”.
As used in the discussion of global warming it is the assertion that nothing unusual is going on that is outside the normal demonstrated range of historical cyclic climate variation.
The AGW community simply dismisses the possibility and consistently fails to show in any way that they have rejected the null hypothesis. They have also consistently tampered with data so the obvious failure to reject the null hypothesis is not obvious to the uninformed.
The simple fact that the Roman Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period existed and had temperatures consistent with current temperatures which are “supposedly unprecedented” to many prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the research that the AGW view is based on is either dishonest or incompetent.
Until or unless you can document why those prior warm periods could exist at low CO2 concentrations and that the current warming can only be due to increased CO2 concentrations and only its warming effect you have failed to reject the very first issue you should have addressed when positing that current warming is due to CO2.
It is your responsibility to address the null hypothesis (using the global you for all AGW proponents) because you are asserting a new and novel idea that the recent warming is not a natural cyclic variation and is unique and of modern human origin:
a. Due the increased CO2 concentration (presumed to be entirely due to human activity)
b. Cannot be due to any other cause even though there are several historical precedents for comparable prior historical warming periods, and several historical occasions when CO2 was much higher and there was no significant global warming.
c. That the current warming is unprecedented (which on its face is ludicrous given prior historical warm periods)
etc. etc.
Larry
Jan P. Perlwitz: I don’t think you understand the null hypothesis and the onus it puts to anyone, before giving CAGW credibility. If you are a scientist, you would understand already, and would know who has to prove what. You have much homework to do… you should stop commenting and go do your homework. GK
And Watts, by bringing Joe Rohm into this, shows his own insecurities. Great job. You have successfully equated Rohm to Heartland. You have to think before you post.
Hats off to those on the Skeptic side who condem this horrible ad.
Heh! I remember back in the old days when Warble Gloaming really was the fringe position and was only embraced by the New Age Gaia crowd. Then, some guy from the EPA started going off about 20 foot sea-level rises at an engagement party, and we told him to buy flood insurance if he was so worried.
If the ad ran on the Ike at rush hour, it at least had entertainment value for the poor folks stuck in traffic. Educational, too! Many of them have probably never even heard of the Unabomber.
Too early to call if the ad was net positive or negative overall.
However, if Heartland got the MSM to say Heartland isn’t allowed to make use of guilt by association, even when it is merely stating the fact that homicidal maniacs bought into CAGW because it was consonant with their views, well, then, the alarmists have to play by that rulebook, too. No use of guilt by association for them, either. And since that is a major tactic of theirs, it’s a dead stymie for them. They will be obvious hypocrites otherwise.
OK, so now I’m pissed.
I originally voted that I thought the ad was over the top and a mistake. I thought that the tactics were ham-handed, and could hand an easy weapon the left could use to bludgeon us.
Now that I see almost all skeptics abandoning Heartland, dropping out of their upcoming conference, I have to ask, have skeptics lost their spine?
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
I’ve never contributed to Heartland, but am now motivated to do so.
I think this has been a mistake, I feel sure there will be a silent majority of people who do not believe in Man Made Global Warming, or in the behavior and wording of the people who do believe in it. To see Heartland go down the same road, is very saddening.
Smokey says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:05 am
………, James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen……..
Every time I hear of “Coal Trains” Hansen I can’t help but think of Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane on “The Dukes Of Hazzard”.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm
To what specific hypotheses stated by whom and when in what scientific papers do you refer when you make this assertion about the “100% prediction failure rate”?
Seriously, Jan, now it looks like perhaps you should first answer the question of why you are even here at WUWT and appearing to care if mainstream Climate Science’s apparent hypotheses have been falsified or not – that is, if in your own practice of mainstream Climate Science at GISS[?] it also appears that you don’t even know what they are!
And since, even more, you seem to be telling us in effect that mainstream Climate Science itself doesn’t even have any real scientific hypotheses to begin with, in other words, nothing that you are aware of along the lines of coherent science-driven predictions that are falsifiable!
So that you apparently agree with me that mainstream Climate Science is nothing more than a massive Propaganda Op.?
Mr. Jan Perlwitz says:
>The “truth” how it looks like in your conspiracy fantasy world. And why should anyone care about some stupid “null hypothesis” you have invented in your parallel universe? I do not see why I would have the burden of “falsifying” some hypothesis you have made up for yourself. Since when are scientists requested to test the hypotheses of other people?<
The Null Hypothesis is accepted in the world of science. It must be falsified if the Alternative Hypothesis of co2 causing globalo Dr. Kevin Trenberth wants the null hypothesis changed so it supports his global warming claims. That means Dr. Trenberth understands the null hypothesis.
It is not "some stupid 'null hypothesis' that a commenter "invented" and "made up." It is basic science.
I have serious doubts about Mr. Perlwitz's scientific qualifications. He looks like he doesn't understand the Scientific Method. He is lashing out at those who do, instead of trying to understand.
I'm not sure if I agree or not with the HI ad. But they rectified it. right away. That should count for something.
Can’t they just switch out the billlboards to Rosie O’Donnell, or Charlie Sheen ?
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:36 pm
“That’s what I’m demanding? This is pure invention by you.”
Gimme a break. We both know what we are talking about. You are the one whose hypothesis demands wrenching change. You therefore have to justify it. Without application of forceful reasoning, the body politic will stay in motion on its preappointed path. So far, you guys are applying logical femtodynes (and political gigaNewtons).
“So, if I understand you right here there isn’t any significant externally forced climate change ever… without a significant forcing or change in the physical configuration of the system. Fixed that for you. That is why you bear the onus of proof – because of the necessarily strong restoring forces, you have to prove that your disturbance is large enough to significantly overcome them. In that, your side has failed utterly.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm
So show me your science and the empirical data that allegedly have falsified what has been stated by mainstream climate science.”
It hasn’t warmed for at least 10 years when CO2 concentration has continued rising, and ought to be the controlling factor in temperature at this point according to your hypothesis. Done.
You guys think it’s all just a great big accident, just a wayward random walk which will drift one way, then another based on tiny additions of one key ingredient or another. So, you muck around with aerosol fudges and imagine that, when you turn the knob just right to get the result you want, you have somehow created a scientifically compelling case that you know what is going on. It’s bascially a convoluted exercise in curve fitting, but the curve fit has no predictive power outside the interval in which it is applied. As John von Neumann famously remarked, “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” Big deal.
You do not appreciate the power of the feedbacks. You do not appreciate the conditions which are necessary to have reached a quasi-equilibrium in the first place. And, as long as you treat the system as though it is unconstrained, you will continue to rack up embarrassing failures like the failure to anticipate early 21st century temperature doldrums.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm
“How is this just a cyclical behavior and nothing else, if the second “cycle” maximum is significantly higher than the first one?”
Look at the chart again, and pay attention. 1910-1940: +0.6 degC. 1970-2000: +0.6 degC. It shows up even more clearly in more reliable datasets than GISSTemp. The ~60 year harmonic comes out quite clearly in a power spectral density plot (another analysis tool with which the warmists have little familiarity). There are two full cycles in the data. This is no artifact. This is no accident.
There is a trend which has been in evidence since the end of the LIA (and therefore not of human origin), and a ~60 year cyclical component superimposed on top of it. And, it is all natural. The current lull in temperatures arrived right on time a few years after the millennium. We will now show a relative decline until 2030 or so, then rise again. All prefectly naturally.
“…which is statistically signficant with at least 95% probability.”
Bollocks. You are using inappropriate tools designed for analyzing deterministic trends in data sets with independent measurement noise. Mark statistics up as another area in which the “mainstream” climate science community is woefully inadequate.
Bart says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm
“The ~60 year harmonic comes out quite clearly in a power spectral density plot (another analysis tool with which the warmists have little familiarity). There are two full cycles in the data. This is no artifact. This is no accident.”
And, here is a plot where you can see the two cycles with the naked eye. It is so obvious and prominent that you have to not want to see it to miss it.
Jan P. Perlwitz
Can I take your failure to respond to the questions I posed above;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-976810
as an admission that you cannot cite any evidence that Earth is warming rapidly?
Furthermore, if you cannot demonstrate rapid warming, would you agree that GISS claims like “All three show particularly rapid warming in the last few decades.”,
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
are simply alarmist rhetoric?
So, if I understand you right here there isn’t any significant externally forced climate change ever, when the boundary conditions change, according to your understanding, since “powerful” negative feedbacks drive the system always back to basically one and the same equilibrium state. No significant response to changes in the atmospheric composition, like an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, no significant response to solar activity changes, to any changes in the Earth orbital parameters, and then, consequently also no significant response to galactic ray changes. Ever.
The Feedback Modulation Theory (a name I just invented) of climate change predicts that factors that affect feedbacks cause the climate to change. Which means aerosols (multiple affects), GCRs and perhaps ozone. The Forcings model recognizes that factors that affect feedbacks drive climate change, but ascribe small values to them or ignore them all together.
I’m skeptical that Jan P. Perlwitz is the Jan P. Perlwitz of GISS. Besides not immediately recognizing the null hypothesis reference as pointed out in an earlier post, the poster calling themselves Jan P. Perlwitz seemed to not have any knowledge surrounding Trenberth’s reversal suggestion.
Bruce Cobb wrote: “Trenberth’s desperate attempts to reverse the null hypothesis.”
Jan P. Perlwitz replies:
”If you make assertions about statements by others, in a real scientific publication this would have to be backed up with evidence and proof of source. But I know, this here is just an opinion blog, science is not conducted here. So everyone can just make any claims about anything and its opposite w/o being mandated to back it up.”
The Jan of GISS would surely know such “evidence” and “proof of source” is easily obtainable:
“Past attribution studies of climate change have assumed a null hypothesis of no role of human activities. The challenge, then, is to prove that there is an anthropogenic component. I argue that because global warming is “unequivocal” and ‘very likely’ caused by human activities, the reverse should now be the case.” — Kevin E. Trenberth
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.142/abstract
And extensively discussed:
http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2011/11/what_if_climatologists_reverse.php
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.pdf/Press-Final_NullHypothesis.pdf
John West said on May 5, 2012 at 7:14 pm:
John West makes a good point. In consideration, thereof I would like to withdraw my comment regarding Perlwitz.
Tom G(ologist) says:
May 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm
“What the skeptical community must recognize is that newspapers and radio and television are not in the entertainment or news business. They are in the business of providing an audience for their advertisers. PERIOD. Otherwise they will be OUT of business.”
Unless you are subsidized by the state!
“We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
Well done HI!!! With that one statement, you’ve advanced your status in my estimation, and I hold you in higher regard today than I did before. No surrender, no retreat, and above all else, no apologies.
Regarding Donna LaFramboise withdrawl from Heartland:
I appreciate the critical analysis of Donna LaFramboise. IPCC is a disease-riddled patient clearly in need of some serious doctoring. Ms. LaFrambois biopsied some of the worst bits with a surgeon’s skill and diagnosed the patient as being, among other things, “A Delinquent Teenager”, and “a pathalogical liar”. Her writing doesn’t mince words.
It is therefore ironic and surprising to see her forego her invitation to Heartland – she cancelled her invitation to participate in a debate about the IPCC at the forum – with the following comments:
It is strange and a bit disingenuous for Ms. Laframboise to link climate scientists of the IPCC to “delinquent teenager(s)”, and “pathalogical liar(s)”, and yet balk at the billboards’ hyperbole, which implies that some global warming advocates are deranged and more than a bit super-loony. Is her hyperbole any less vitriolic than Bast’s? Does she have better taste in vitriol?
She stops short of “crazy” in her diagnosis of warmers, but I would suggest that if it walks like a duck…
In any case, the billboards were a mistake. They’ve been removed. Now, let Laframboise reconsider her invitation to the Heartland conference. Go and participate. If anybody asks about the billboards, tell them that issue is so last week – like the exploding students in the classroom.
heartland should make bumper sticker of that billboard. it would sell.
i wonder if monbiots deck of cards idea he ripped off from iraqwar ever got any negative press?
The Heartland experiment also revealed something else: that some of our friends on the CAGW side may have sociopathic leanings. If they can compare skeptics to holocaust deniers and worse, and then scream bloody murder when the favor is returned, there’s a problem *somewhere* and it may not just be the science.
Someone asks:
“All you needed to do to prove J Peden was wrong was to provide one solitary example of a successful prediction based on the “CO2=warming hypothesis”.
Cooling of the stratosphere
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Jan P. Perlwitz:
At May 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm (above) I wrote to you saying;
“On a previous thread I showed how your own words proved you are a pseudoscientist, and you failed to provide any other possible understanding of those (your) words despite repeated attempts to obtain such an alternative explanation from you.”
At May 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm you have replied saying;
“Well, I guess that’s what you imagine about yourself and what you are asserting now.”
Oh ,dear, “imagine” about myself? You think that obscures reality.
The thread was
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
My pertinent post was as follows and anybody can check the link to see that my account of our subsequent conversation was as I said.
Richard
—————————————
Richard S Courtney says:
April 14, 2012 at 3:45 am
Jan P. Perlwitz:
Thankyou for your reply at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am to my comment to you at April 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm. However, it is an understatement to say that I am underwhelmed by your reply.
Taking your last point first, you say to me;
“…your singling out of my comments for your ad hominem indicates a certain bias in your perception and opinion.”
Say what!?
I made no ad hominem; none, zilch, nada. Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.
However, your unfounded suggestion that I have “bias” in my “perception and opinion” is an ad hominem. Indeed, it is an unjustified insult which tells much about its provider (i.e. you) and nothing about its target (i.e. me).
You babble about the difference between the words “show” and “explain”. This is semantic obfuscation because I quoted you accurately and in full. Importantly, your semantic quibble has no meaning in the context of what I wrote.
Then you assert;
“Scientific proof is not possible in a comment section of opinion blogs.”
Let us be clear. “Scientific proof” IS NOT POSSIBLE period.
There is scientific evidence, scientific argument and scientific conclusion but “proof” is a mathematical concept and is NOT a scientific possibility.
However, you assert;
“Scientific proof for scientific theories can only be found in the scientific literature”.
NO! It can not! Scientific “proof” does not exist and, therefore, cannot be “found” anywhere.
If “scientific proof” were possible then an existing scientific understanding could not be overthrown.
Your comments concerning “scientific proof” demonstrate that your understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience is severely lacking (n.b. this is a factual statement and not an ad hominem).
Science obtains as much evidence as possible and assesses it all in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’.
Pseudoscience assumes something is ‘true’ and seeks evidence to confirm (i.e. to prove) it.
And your assertions that “science” is not conducted here but only “opinions” are expressed are further evidence that you have little if any understanding of how science is conducted (n.b. again, this is not an ad hominem).
Science consists of assessing all available evidence in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’. Your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.
And you say;
“I do science somewhere else, not here.”
Yes, I noticed that. Please stop presenting pseudoscience here and present science instead.
Importantly, you were asked to “show” and you were not asked to “prove” your premise. And this distinction is NOT a semantic quibble. You were asked for an explanation and/or evidence (which is how something is shown scientifically) of your premise: you were NOT asked for “proof”.
And your reply to me does attempt to explain your premise saying;
“I certainly do believe that I understand how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works…” etc.
Sorry, but you have failed the assignment. Few doubt the radiative properties of dipole molecules or the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect. But that is not an answer to Babsy who wrote;
…”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”
It is a fact that CO2 is a GHG so – all other things being equal – an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative warming of the Earth’s surface. But so what? That is not what you were asked because all other things would NOT be equal if atmospheric CO2 were to increase. Indeed, you admit that all other things would not be equal when you write;
“In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties.”
The “mechanism” you were asked to show was how the entire climate system would respond such as to cause the atmosphere to warm up. You have not done that, and so it seems Babsy was right to claim “you cannot”.
Please note that the above three paragraphs are science and not merely opinion.
And you ask me;
“So please explain to me what are the supposed criteria, which are allegedly fulfilled, that makes this blog a “scientific blog”? There are no valid scientific standards here. Anyone can assert anything and its opposite, w/o being mandated to back up assertions, to bring proof of source, or, generally, follow the rules of a real scientific publication. Nothing of what is here produced is put under real scientific scrutiny by scientists. How can this be a “scientific blog” then? It can’t.”
The criteria are that evidence is presented, challenged, debated and evaluated with a view to obtaining better understandings (i.e. knowledge). Incidentally, this IS conducted by “scientists” (your claim otherwise merely demonstrates that you have not read the blog). Simply, much science is conducted here which falsifies your assertion that science “can’t” be conducted here.
And what “standards” are you asserting exist elsewhere. Do you want WUWT to devolve to the mendacious behaviour of ‘The Team’ as revealed by the ‘climategate’ emails? I and others would oppose the reduction of standards here to that level.
Your claim of “rules of real scientific publication” is baloney. I give a few examples which show it is baloney.
The Editor of Nature published two papers by third-rate patents clerk without putting those papers to peer review because he knew the reviews would be negative. But those papers (on what their author called relativity) revolutionised physics.
Two bicycle salesmen published their seminal paper on aviation in a journal on bee-keeping because the ‘rules of scientific publication’ made it impossible for them to publish in more appropriate journals. And the existence of the aviation industry shows the value of that paper: where it was published, its lack of pre-publication peer review, and the credentials of its authors do not alter its value in any way.
Similar examples are legion.
I repeat, your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.
The remainder of your reply to me is merely ad hominem and so is not worth the bother of a response.
Richard
I’m old enough to have lived and remember the Unabomber ; his letters his threats, his mystery.
It was clear he was very intelligent, very unhappy, and very unbalanced, at the time, but I could not help hoping he would discover the benefits of Lithium salts, and a doctor to confide in, and that he would surrender to the police on his own free will. The fact that it had to be his mother and his brother who gave him away, had me shattered for a long time.
So, for me, this billboard campaign is doubly despicable.
richardscourtney says:
May 6, 2012 at 1:26 am
@ Jan Perlwitz:
Say what!?
I made no ad hominem; none, zilch, nada. Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.
Don’t get too flustered — “That’s an ad hominem” is his standard rebuttal to any points you might raise, including those you might have about the reliability of computer simulations…
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm
ROTFLMAO!!
Yesterday I sent an email to Donna Laframboise with this message:
– – – – –
I have not received any response.
What happened to the fearless investigative journalist that I have morally and intellectually supported from well before her book can out?
John
The “scientist” Jan Perlwitz seems to believe in the Monty Python method of argument:
My thoughts on UPDATE 5.
Prima Donna.
Pointman
John West says:
May 5, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Since “R. Gates” hasn’t been around lately, at least that I have noted, I’m wondering if that person has returned using a different nom de plume and IP address? As I recall, R Gates was a big fan of Trenberth.
@Larry Ledwick (hotrod) at May 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm (and everyone else, like G. Karst, Bruce Houston, John West and who else who made similar statements about me not understanding “null hypothesis” and are as delusional to believe they are competent judges of my qualification as a scientist, only using the interpretation of some comments I make in an opinion blog as a basis)
Larry Ledwick, you wrote:
Well, firstly, I could say in reply to you, thank you, your comment by you here demonstrates “beyond doubt” your strongly distorted perception by showing a large deficiency regarding the ability to understand what you read, and you seem to share this with the other ones mentioned above who obviously followed a similar misinterpretation of what I said, since I didn’t make any statement like the one you ascribing to me here. My statement referred to a specific “null hypothesis” user “Smokey” has repeatedly tried to impose. I didn’t say anything like that the epistemological concept of “null hypothesis” was something “global warming sceptics” had invented. Do you really believe I didn’t know about “null hypothesis” as a concept? You are not reading, you are projecting and you jump to conclusions. What it is with you guys?
Secondly, from your insistence on “null hypothesis” that allegedly must be rejected everywhere in science, I conclude that you all seem to follow a strong positivist view on science, a dogmatic Popperism in your believe about how science would and should work. That indicates to me that none of you has ever worked in science and that none of you has much clue how the real scientific process works. Popper’s normative epistemology has been falsified and it is outdated. I would say, a more modern understanding of the scientific process based on the epistemological theories developed by Thomas Kuhn and, independently, Paul Feyerabend, is more common among the ones who work in the sciences, since these theories provide a more adequate explanation of the scientific process.
As for some of your other statements.
The statement that something unusual is going on due to anthropogenic activity in comparison to the range of natural variability relative to a specific time scale is indeed one made by mainstream climate science. And, of course, the scientists who make such statements are required to provide the scientific evidence. You can get informed about the scientific literature where such efforts have been made up to about the year 2005 by reading the IPCC Report 2007, Volume 1, The Physical Science Basis.
Is this a “simple fact”? How do you know? What is the evidence for this “simple fact”? Or is this alleged simple fact just an assertion postulated by you?
Who says that current temperatures are “unprecedented” w/o any further specification? I, for instance, do not says this. You are drawing strong generalized conclusions about a whole body of research from mere assertions you make about alleged “simple facts” and alleged statements by climate scientists.
Jan P. Perlwitz
You say HI is not the victim of attacks from global warming believers? For your part you may not be attacking them and other ‘skeptics’. But there is a lot of attacking of skeptics happening. There is a huge movement of unfair, unfounded, below-the belt, and even mindless attacks on skeptics. If you would take a few weeks and search things out you will find it just about everywhere you look.
Also, it shows bias on your part, and naïveté, to say GISS is not involved in politics.You have James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt working with you.
Here’s a little on James Hansen’s involvement in politics:
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 6, 2012 at 6:25 am
Yawn….. Oh! I’m sorry! Did someone say something? I just woke up.
richardscourtney at May 6, 2012 at 1:26 am:
Right, anyone can check. This doesn’t refute what I said, though. Now you are just copying and pasting your post from the previous thread w/o mentioning (hoping no one is really checking?) that I replied to the post you are copying, pretending you hadn’t got a rebuttal, to score some points here now. This is pathetic.
I can copy/paste too. This was my rebuttal:
**********
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 19, 2012 at 8:15 am
Richard S Courtney, at April 15, 2012 at 10:32 am, wrote:
“At April 14, 2012 at 3:45 am I replied to your post at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am and I then explained how your post clearly and unambiguously demonstrated you are a pseudoscientist.
You have not replied (which is not surprising).”
You are clearly overestimating the substance of your elaborations and the importance of your person. Replying to your palaver isn’t on the top of my priority list of the things I do in my life.
As for your alleged demonstration. What you really have done:
1. Applied straw man argumentation. You were babbling about how I didn’t understand that “mathematical proof” was not possible in science, and then you concluded, because I didn’t understand this, I did not know the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Yours is a strawman argumentation, since I didn’t say a word about “mathematical proof”. Again, you just misrepresented what I said. Your misrepresentation is based on redefining the word “proof” by postulating it means the same as “mathematical proof”.
The meaning of the word “proof”:
“Definition of PROOF
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2 obsolete : experience
3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 :
.
.
.
8 : […]”
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof)
Based on giving another meaning to the word “proof” you falsely equalize scientific proof and mathematical proof.
Mathematical proof is only a special case of proof. The word “proof” itself has a wider meaning. If both were just identical you didn’t need the adjective “mathematical” to specify it. “Mathematical proof” would be a pleonasm.
The theory of evolution is scientifically proven, i.e., there is an
overwhelming amount of evidence for that this theory is able to comprehensively explain a part of the real world. It is also proven that the moon is not made from green cheese. We have the data that prove this.
2. You invent statements I haven’t made:
“Your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.”
I haven’t made such a claim anywhere. You are a falsehood disseminator. Projecting a lot?
3. You resort to appeal to majority to reassure yourself of the validity of your “arguments”, which is a logical fallacy.
“Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.”
Sure, the majority here will “see” and applaud you. It’s the same majority that very likely will applaud to anything, no matter how illogical or contrary to the data and published finding of science it is, as long as it confirms the preconceived views of the fake skeptic crowd.
You certainly make a lot of noise with your straw man arguments, falsehoods about what I said, and other logical fallacies which you apply, but the intellectual substance of all of it is rather meager.
Also, you don’t seem to know what “ad hominem” means. You say,
“Your comments concerning “scientific proof” demonstrate that your understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience is severely lacking (n.b. this is a factual statement and not an ad hominem).”
Because it was a “factual statement” (allegedly) is couldn’t be an ad hominem?
“However, your unfounded suggestion that I have “bias” in my “perception and opinion” is an ad hominem. Indeed, it is an unjustified insult which tells much about its provider (i.e. you) and nothing about its target (i.e. me).”
Ad hominem means “unfounded suggestion” or “unjustified insult”?
An “ad hominem” argument is an argument “to the man”, about a person’s character, bias, beliefs, ideology, interest. The question whether an argument is “ad hominem” has nothing to do with whether it’s a factually true statement or not.
As for the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide.
You weren’t satisfied with my explanation about the basic principles of the greenhouse gas effect exerted by carbon dioxide. You objected:
“It is a fact that CO2 is a GHG so – all other things being equal – an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative warming of the Earth’s surface. But so what? That is not what you were asked because all other things would NOT be equal if atmospheric CO2 were to increase. Indeed, you admit that all other things would not be equal when you write;
“In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties.”
The “mechanism” you were asked to show was how the entire climate system would respond such as to cause the atmosphere to warm up. You have not done that, and so it seems Babsy was right to claim “you cannot”.”
Let’s be clear what you are asking me. You are asking me to write an essay here, in which I explain the working of the whole Earth system in it’s total complexity, taking into account all essential aspects of this system, all essential interactions between its components, all positive and negative feedback relationships, and name all the evidence from measurements and observations for that it really works like this, referencing all the scientific publications where this evidence has been presented, and then, taking into consideration all of this, to explain how an increase in carbon dioxide leads to a warming of the surface and troposphere, and again, present all the evidence needed to show that it really works like this and reference all the scientific publications where the evidence has been presented.
All this in a comment in a thread of this opinion blog.
And you are faulting me that I haven’t delivered.
You are asking me to write here in a comment an essay of book length with many hundred pages that reviews and assesses the current knowledge about Earth’s climate.
Oh, wait. There is such a book with a comprehensive review and assessment. It’s called IPCC Report 2007, Volume 1, “The Physical Science Basis”. The next IPCC report with an updated status about the knowledge of the workings of the climate system is going to be published in 2013.
You wrote at April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am,
“You are using the pre-climate-science view that science is about understanding the natural world.”
I’m still waiting for the evidence for your assertion according to which my view was science wasn’t about understanding the natural world. The only way to prove your assertion, if it was true instead of just being absurd nonsense for the purpose to discredit me, would be to present statements made by me where I expressed such a view.
You also wrote:
“Climate-science practitioners use the post-normal method of studying models which they construct from their opinions, beliefs and prejudices.”
And what is your supposed evidence for this assertion? Where have I chosen such an approach in my scientific work? I’m still waiting for the evidence that I have done so. You would have to provide the evidence on the basis of the scientific publications where I’m an author. But you won’t provide any, since you only have made this up. The question for me is whether you deliberately make these things up, then you are a deliberate falsehood disseminator. Or whether you believe what you say. Then your perception is highly distorted, looking for confirmation of your preconceived views making you see things how they are in your head, not how they are in reality.
Both of your assertions are ad hominem arguments. Both are to the man. It is telling that this was what you knew to come up with, after I had asked for the scientific evidence that a large part of the global scale warming over the recent decades is to be attributed to PDO. The scientific evidence for which I’m still waiting. The PDO claim doesn’t agree with the mainstream view in climate science. Asking for the scientific evidence is just legit. It looks like you felt the need to divert from a legit question.
John Whitman says: (in e-mail to Donna Laframboise )
“Did you consider showing up at ICCC-7 and using your talk as a vehicle for having an open discussion about the billboard usage by HI?”
While we disagree on whether the billboards were a mistake, I agree that the magnitude of the “incident” (whichever side of the fence you fall on) isn’t anywhere near the level that would justify “quarantine procedures”. Your suggestion is right on the money.
I think we should all try and keep a little perspective here. It’s not like HI broke any laws, committed fraud, or identity theft. HI didn’t call for warmists houses to be allowed to burn or for international trial for crimes against the economy. HI didn’t produce a video where warmists are exterminated RAID style ……. etc.. etc…..
IMO It’s a poorly conceived billboard, $200 poorly spent, and over. Hopefully with lessons learned. HI still has my full support and admiration for all the GOOD they do.
BTW: the same message delivered in slightly different context wouldn’t have aroused any controversy. For example if the billboard had merely stated something like: Norway mass murderer’s disbelief in global warming is no more relevant than Unabomber’s belief in global warming. (Ok so that’s a lot to read @ 70 mph, I’m just saying, a different context.)
Poor little trolls are working very hard on this one but there’s a sense of desperation about them nowadays. Enjoyable.
Pointman
Amino Acids in Meteorites wrote:
When politicians ask for the expertise of scientists based on the scientists’ research, then scientists can get involved in politics. But this wasn’t the claim. The actual claim was that the research done by scientists at GISS was based on a political and ideological agenda they would follow. This is a different claim than the first one.
Pointman says:
May 6, 2012 at 7:12 am
Indeed.
I get what Heartland was trying to do with its ad. When I was in grad school, one of my professors, a man so green he had roots growing out of his head, mentioned that a number of people had come up to him, after the Unabomber’s Manifesto had gone public, to tell him TK sounded exactly like him! So, no question, the Unabomber is a hard line green in many respects, which means the intellectual connection Heartland was trying to draw between the CAGW crowd and him is actually valid. I also understand the crocodile tears people like Joe Romm, as slippery a character as you are going to find, are going to try drowning us in. Nevertheless, there are problems with the ad, no matter how much the other side may do things like that. Throwing mud back and forth never solved any problems that I know of.
First problem: who in the world has read the Unabomber’s Manifesto? No one. So most folks who see the billboard will view it as some sort of ad hominem. They will not get the underlying message. Secondly, Heartland simply threw away the moral-intellectual high ground. Talk about unforced errors! In puttingt up this stupid billboard, Heartland, in one fell swoop, has given credence and legitimacy to the whackiest of its critics. Now we’re going to have the old moral equivalency thing going again. Just what we all need. I think Bast ought to fall on his sword. And judging from his defense, he sounds like he still doesn’t get the damage he’s done.
There they were in the Red Zone, Heartland. Then some goof QB needlessly, stupidly, threw the ball up for grabs and now the other team is marching up the field. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Mr. Perlwitz says:
“Based on giving another meaning to the word “proof” you falsely equalize scientific proof and mathematical proof.”
No, that is exactly what Mr. Perlwitz was doing. He contradicts his own statements so much I’m getting dizzy.
And here a comparison of model predicted trends of the temperature, ocean heat content, and Arctic sea ice with data from the real world, updated for the year 2011:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
100% prediction failure rate? I wouldn’t say so.
Bruce Houston, you wrote:
You asserting something about what I have been allegedly doing, but you are not providing any proof.
[SNIP: This is just pouring oil on troubled fires. Please don’t go this route. -REP]
– – – – –
John West,
I am enjoying our continuing dialog.
This discourse that HI has setup for us (thank you HI) is significant. I disagree most of your comments about the HI billboards but will withhold further return comments to you because I do not want to be diverted yet until Donna Laframboise has an opportunity to respond to my question to her.
I would like to see Donna Laframboise answer my question about why she doesn’t go to ICCC-7 and be the famous fearless investigative reporter that, up to yesterday, I thought she was. She was a reporter I had previously admired in public.
John
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm
“Cooling of the stratosphere”
The stratosphere has not cooled since 1995. Try again.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 6, 2012 at 6:55 am
“Based on giving another meaning to the word “proof” you falsely equalize scientific proof and mathematical proof.”
What a cop out. Proof is proof. The only question is how high a level of certainty one demands. When you are talking about the certitude of casting millions, even billions, into poverty, disease, and death, versus the vague possibility of minor disruption down the road, the standard is and should be very high.
From Eli Rabbet (Joshua Halpern) , http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-977596.
You posted a link that you claim supports your statement that the Stratosphere is cooling but the very first chart in the link shows the cooling stopped around 1995 and flat ever since.
The previous 20 years or so show cooling ONLY after a large volcano eruption occurred then flattens out.Whatever caused the cooling appears to have stopped back in the early 1970’s since the only time it cooled to a lower lever was right after those two eruptions of 1982 and 1991.
Since it appears that it stopped cooling way back in the early 1970’s CO2 can be safely exonerated.
[Moderator’s Note: Let’s get back to the topic of the thread. -REP]
courtenay – you are embarassing.
proof is a logical concept.
logic, not math and not science – logic.
logic is the art of non-contradictory identification – the labelling of identities.
it does not require numbers or labcoats.
now go back and learn to use words as words – they are distinguished from grunts by having definitions, without which you can not perform logic.
[Moderator’s Note: This discussion is off-topic for the thread and is starting to get nasty. Give it a rest. That means no Perlwitz-bashing, too. Stick to the topic. -REP]
[SNIP: This discussion is ended. -REP]
****
Babsy says:
May 5, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Every time I hear of “Coal Trains” Hansen I can’t help but think of Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane on “The Dukes Of Hazzard”.
*****
Now we finally gonna git them duke-boys, boss!! Kyug, kyug, kyug….
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
[SNIP: Sorry, but I said this discussion was done. Please address the topic of the thread. -REP]
Please hold the e-mails announcing each comment!
[REPLY: Hu, this is nothing we did and we can’t stop it. I think Anthony is working on it. When you comment on a new thread, just make sure the check box is cleared. If you are already receiving e-mails from a thread, clearing the box on a second comment does not stop them from coming. The best you can do, for the moment, is just set up a spam rule in your e-mail client and let them get sent to trash. -REP]
Please hold the e-mails announcing comments here!
(Thanks to Nick Stokes, I have deselected the newly-default notification option.)
Anders Breivick is a false friend. Just because he thinks CAGW is a scam does not mean that everyone who thinks CAGW is a scam is a neonazi. He might have good reasons to think that or he might be against it because the left is for it. It doesn’t matter because of his terrorist actions. That will always cut off any rational debate. The same goes for Ted Kaczynski and all the other extremists. Heartland was incredibly wrong to go this route.
Heartland is a false friend. Does Heartland oppose CAGW because the left is for it? We don’t need that kind of friend. Heartland’s efforts seem like a waste of money to me. The conference may be the exception, but any benefits of that conference are trashed by Heartland’s anti-CAGW advertising.
Jan P. Perlwitz:
Firstly, I owe you an apology. [SNIP: Richard, I’ve already requested that this discussion on this thread be ended. It is getting too personal and heated and adds nothing to the thread topic. There will undoubtedly be future opportunities. -REP]
REP:
I understand your decision to stop the discussion. However, my note was a polite, factual and logical rebuttal of accusations posted above by Perlwitz that
I “presented a straw man’,
I “invented statements that [Perlwitz] made”
I am “a falsehood disseminator”.
Natural justice says I should at very least have the right to show those accusations are lies. At present they stand on the blog and remain unrefuted.
Richard
anybody else had a message from wordpress asking:
First time I’ve seen that
Let’s see.
Many, with one notable exception (Dr. Curry, if I recall), have advocated:
The establishment of re-education camps
Nuclear war
Tracking, harassing, and (almost) killing “denialists”
The extinction of the human race
Fraud, both scientific and economic
Theft and libelous misrepresentation
What is, in effect, one world government complete with global taxing powers (carbon credits), as if the governments we have are not remote enough
and so on.
They control most of the media involved in the debate, the UN via the IPCC, a substantial number of educators, and have considerable influence over the relevant policies of powerful national governments (e.g. Australia, UK, US)
The Heartland institute ad was politically incorrect. It was, looking at things, also dead accurate.
Arguing scientific truth is all well and good, but there is an uncomfortable social truth as well that needs to be addressed, and perhaps not in whispers.
The consensus here is that Heartland were winning. The sad fact is that they were not. War is a deplorable and debasing business – being nice and forthright and honorable is strictly for Hollywood. When the chips are down, one has no option but to be near as beastly as the enemy if one,and one’s family, are to survive. One can argue in favour of gentlemanly debate only if one has never been in a firefight.
Steve McIntyre censored the following comments with a silly explanation that the word Nazi appears in them. As you can see I was not calling anyone a Nazi but poinnting out that James Hansesn did that
Comment 1:
John, the emphasis in my comment was not on “oversensitivity”, but on “selective oversensitivity”, i.e. the fact that McKitrick is extremely concerned about Heartland behaving badly, but apparently not in the least about Hansen or Greenpace behaving badly. The Heartland adds comparing the AGW to the terrorists are inexcusable, but Hansen’s constant comparing the skeptics to the Nazis and calling for their persecution for war crimes are of no great concern. If Hansen accepted the invitation to go to the Heartland conference McKitrick would not have any problems attending.
I think that this sentence from McKitrick’s letter to Heartland best describes the real reasons behind this puzzling asymmetry:
“I have just been cc’d on an email from someone who wrote to both my dean and university president, expressing his outrage that a UofG professor is party to such billboards.”
So I appeal to you and to all other McKitrick’s cheerleaders to have this in mind and to don’t play the “useful idiots” for the bad guys.
Comment 2:
I was not saying that McKitrick agrees with Heartland agenda. On the contrary; I was asking what is the source of a strange double standard that McKitrick is very upset about Heartland’s bad behavior, but not upset at all about say Hansen’s bad behavior. Let’s assume that James Hansen, a man who repeatedly compared the skeptics to the Nazis and called for their persecution as war criminals on a Nuremberg-style trial, offered to McKitrick to co-author a paper on climate science with him? Would have mr McKitrick refused that on the same grounds he refused to be associated with Heartland billboards:”I don’t want to associate with a guy who says such “fallacious, inflammatory and juvenile” things”. Any thoughts? I am on record doubting that.
And I am directing to your common sense this passage from Mckitrick’s letter to Heartland as an to explanation as to why:
“I have just been cc’d on an email from someone who wrote to both my dean and university president, expressing his outrage that a UofG professor is party to such billboards.”
P.S. Steve, since you deleted my previous comment you should have deleted the critiques of it by other readers as well. This way, it is not clear what they are reacting to.
Comment 3 (still “in moderation”)
Steve, I was not calling anyone a “Nazi” but rather emphasized a simple fact that Hansen compared the skeptics with the Nazis repeatedly!!! Is pointing this well known fact also “inflammatory, juvenile and fallacious”?
With all due respect Steve, I think that you just found an convenient excuse to prevent dissemination of inconvenient views on your blog. You are doing your best to emulate the Real Climate type of censorship.
Andre_ob:
Yes, all you say at May 6, 2012 at 11:52 am is true, but at issue is how to inform politicians and the public of the scientific, social, economic and political ‘truths’ of AGW.
As you say, many attacks have been made and orchestrated against those (including me) who have tried to assuage the AGW-scare. But so what?
Some AGW-skeptics acknowledge the attacks which you mention and say, Fight Fire With Fire. This is an understandable reaction, but we need to consider if its net effect would be beneficial in informing the politicians and public of the AGW-skeptic positions.
The mass media control the message which is most loudly put before the public, and they shout the AGW-scare (because ‘No scare is not news’). And governments fund the AGW-alarmists (to a total of over $5 billion p.a.) while AGW-skeptics mostly rely on their own time and money. In these circumstances AGW-skeptics need to be effective in what we do.
Please note that in the US – but nowhere else – AGW is a party-political issue. Therefore, we need to assess what is effective everywhere and to pay especial attention to the unique circumstance in the US.
The present debate is about the effects of the HI ‘Unanbomber ad.’.
One obvious effect of the ad. has been to divide AGW-skeptics. This division has been a gift to the AGW-alarmists because the skeptics are not opposing the scare when they are spending their time and effort to argue among themselves.
Finding unity among the skeptics has always been difficult (especially in the US) because the skeptics include people of all religious, political and theological adherences who are only united by their rejection of the AGW-scare. In particular, the AGW-skeptics are united in their rejection of the poor ‘science’ used as an excuse to promote the AGW-scare. (Moderators, please do NOT snip the remainder of this paragraph.) Promoters of the scare know this and some – notably Rabbet and Perlwitz – have ‘piled-in’ to this thread with clear attempts to exacerbate divisions. But that gave several on this thread an opportunity to address the poor so-called ‘science’ used to bolster the AGW-scare.
However, unity is not an end in itself. We AGW-skeptics need to be clear about what we need to be united to do. This thread exposes that we lack that clarity.
In my opinion our best tactic is to unite around exposing the so-called ‘science’. This has been working, and it ended political justification for the scare in Copenhagen some years ago. So, governments’ funding of the scare can be expected to dwindle as time goes by. Indeed, cuts in subsidies for ‘renewables’ are already resulting in bankruptcies of wind and solar companies.
And we need to avoid ‘crawling in the gutter’ with the alarmists. That will disunite us and cause our views to be discredited among the public. At present our views are not well known, but that is not as bad as having our views discredited because the ‘messengers’ decided to destroy each other.
We are winning. It would be a disaster if we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Richard
Regarding the email announcements, all you have to do is click on the link at the bottom of the email where it says: Want less email? Modify your Subscription Options. You can then uncheck the box for the auto email announcements.
hi ivan.
i got censored, too, at climate audit. my comment was polite, germane and conflicted with the narrative. it’s become a personality cult over there, i fear.
i also got snipped here – but there is a distinction between moderation and censorship. i’ve always been allowed to make my point when i thought i had one at wuwt. the mods are able to discriminate between a legitimately provocative comment and trolling. also, i love that they usually put a brief explanation along with the redaction in case the reason for it was not totally self evident. they are truly outstanding.
Though I don’t have a problem with the billboard I can understand how some people do. Now Heartland has to be careful to not offend both sides. Good luck with that.
—
Jan P. Perlwitz
I had more to say about James Hansen but moderators want that topic ended. So I’ll have to hope there will be another opportunity when cosmic tumblers may bring the topic up again with both you and I present.
It was crass and stupid, and an apology is due to decent people like Donna Laframboise, if not a refund for her ticket to attend the conference. Shame on Heartland.
My last comment at CA censored as well.
I am gobsmacked that this is blown out of proportion. Geez people let it go.
It was put up in a single city on a few billboards. I only learned about it when I saw it here posted by a skeptic, otherwise I doubt I would have ever known about it.
It has been taken down and still the howling goes on. I am going to stay out of it and not bring it up at my forum because it is not worth it.
As a former (and burnt-ou!t) cog in the advertising world, I have a few thoughts on this.
First, yes, this is a dumb ad even if it was an experiment. There is no logic to it. As someone here said, had they linked the Breivik-skeptics slander and used the Kaczynsky example to make a point about poor logic, then the ad might have been effective.
Secondly, as stupid as this ad may be, it isn’t the end of the world. Skeptics protested loudly and the ad was quickly removed. I hope all those who decided to boycott the Heartland conference would reconsider. Come now, people, chill; the point has been made and going “nuclear” on an ally who made a mistake is unnecessary and counter-productive.
Thirdly, if I were Heartland, I would make an ad, obviously on a different forum, about the pulled ad, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Alarmists and how the skeptic’s side is far more principled in willing to criticise a friend over an unacceptable position.
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Someone asks:
“All you needed to do to prove J Peden was wrong was to provide one solitary example of a successful prediction based on the “CO2=warming hypothesis”.
Cooling of the stratosphere
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Eli, of course you know that stratospheric cooling, if present?
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
[h/t steve s says:
May 1, 2012 at 7:39 pm ]
is not an event uniquely attributable to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and therefore cannot itself come anywhere close to proving mainstream Climate Science’s contention that atmospheric CO2 concentrations “drive” temperatures or the climate. For example, anything decreasing stratospheric Ozone concentration can apparently cause or at least act toward producing stratospheric cooling, including a decrease in its production or a change in the O2/O3 physics effected by the Sun.
In other words in this case, A implies B certainly does not mean that B implies A. Therefore, although the occurrence of stratospheric cooling would be called “consistent with” CO2 = CAGW, a finding of stratospheric cooling is not the kind of “prediction success” critical to proving mainstream Climate Science’s CO2 = GW atmospheric warming hypothesis.
But I’m sure you also knew that!
Oops, REP, sorry about my last post, apparently getting too far off topic, I think.
I’m just trying to turn off e-mails. I apparently have to submit a reply in order to deselect follow-ups.
[Reply: try WordPress preferences in one of the email alerts you’re getting. Turn off emails. ~dbs, mod.]
J. Watson,
Donna Laframboise was the invited guest of Heartland. They paid her conference expenses [including her ‘ticket’], therefore they do not owe her any reimbursement, as you assert. They also owe no apologies for telling the truth about the Unabomber’s global warming views.
Donna publicly threw the entire organization under the bus, for what can [at most] be described as a simple mistake. A ‘mistake’ that was promptly rectified. The holier-than-thou reaction of Donna L was akin to demanding capital punishment for jaywalking. I would never treat a host, ally and friend that way. But that’s just me, I guess.
Check out the Gleick thread. You will see that Heartland was extremely polite and deferential to Peter Gleick throughout their correspondence, inviting him to speak, and agreeing to his demands for reimbursement of his expenses. Instead, Gleick refused to attend, and then committed identity fraud to steal their property.
The only difference I can see between Peter and Donna is that Donna gave Heartland a public slap in the face for their kind offer of hospitality, instead of defrauding them and stealing their property like Gleick did. I don’t know which is more reprehensible. Donna never contacted them privately to discuss the matter. Instead, she wrote an open letter, publicly thrashing them without giving them any chance to respond, or pull the ad — which she could have then taken credit for. But she didn’t even think that far ahead, she just jumped on the tar and feather bandwagon. Despicable, IMHO.
Have you never made a mistake? Do you think Prima Donna has never made a mistake? [I personaly don’t even view it as a mistake; the ad was factual, and it served its purpose of generating awareness of the issue and of the upcoming conference].
Heartland has been treated with total, uncompromising intolerance by you and many others. Any kind of forgiveness seems to be out of the question. Why is that? I really don’t understand. Maybe you or someone else can explain to me why Donna’s was not a total, self-serving over-reaction; publicly backstabbing a friend by throwing red meat to the circus crowd, rather than reasoning with Heartland in private. Tell me: which would be the stand-up thing to do? Which would have been the right way to handle it?
Is there anything I’ve said here that you disagree with? If so, tell me. I want to understand why your reaction [or Donna’s] is any better than what Heartland did.
. . .
Peter Kovachev,
Thanks, you said it better than I.
Ken Harvey says: May 6, 2012 at 12:29 pm
The consensus here is that Heartland were winning.
No, I and other commentors have suggested that “we”, i.e. climate skeptics, are winning. Heartland is a valuable ally, but we will succeed with or without them.
When the chips are down, one has no option but to be near as beastly as the enemy if one,and one’s family, are to survive. One can argue in favour of gentlemanly debate only if one has never been in a firefight.
We are in the middle of a firefight and we are metaphorically outgunned by billions of dollars. Fighting this fight on their turf, i.e. mudslinging alley, isn’t going to work. We need to select tactics that negate our opponents strengths and play to our own. Have you noticed that that none of the multitude of Warmists on this thread have been able to challenge any of the facts I’ve presented? The truth is the Warmists’ kryptonite, they can spin all they want, but they can’t make Earth get warmer. We should build ourselves credible platforms to educate the opinion leaders, the scientific community, the politicians and the main stream media, the facts should take care of the rest…
What a horrifically bad idea. As others have pointed out, there went the Gleick sympathy/goodwill in a puff of digital billboard pixels.
geo,
“Horrifically”???
The Holocaust was horrific. Atomic bombing Hiroshima was horrific. This was, at best, a minor mistake. Try to get a grip. Hyperbole like that doesn’t solve anything.
Complement Heartland for doing what you wanted. It works better. While you’re at it, give them a pat on the back for inviting climate alarmists like Gleick. You will notice that the alarmist side never invites scientific skeptics like Lord Monckton.
Stop attacking friends. They accommodated you. Ingratitude shows lack of character.
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Someone asks:
“All you needed to do to prove J Peden was wrong was to provide one solitary example of a successful prediction based on the “CO2=warming hypothesis”.
Cooling of the stratosphere
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
====================================================
Eli, didn’t you see that your graph contradicts your assertion? As others have shown, your stratospheric cooling ended in 1994……. nearly twenty years ago. At what point do you people finally throw your hands up and admit the Uni-bomber was wrong?
suyts- don’t you think it is grossly unfair to tar mr kaczynski with the eli brush?
gnomish says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm
suyts- don’t you think it is grossly unfair to tar mr kaczynski with the eli brush?
======================================================
Lol, well, it may be a bit….. …… assuming kaczynski can, at least, read a graph.
All jesting aside, I’m sure Eli is really a nice person. I assume he’s so inadequate that he doesn’t realize his advocacy, the same as countless others, has resulted, in not just murders, (as my links show above), but also the deaths of countless others. The Unabomber has done far less damage…… as despicable as he is.
Kaczynski Heartland billboard wasn’t a blunder
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/05/kaczynski-heartland-billboard-wasnt.html
Like I pointed out earlier you guys were missing the point of the billboard.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-976625
It seems that Alexander Feht is the only one who gets it.I find that incredible
Thanks, Smokey, but this is thing gets convoluted and we’re all being thrown into a disarray and I’m all over the map with it. I agree with you that Donna Laframboise’s response was way over-the-top. She could have indeed contacted Heartland privately and explained that she cannot attend as long as this thing is running. Heartland is obviously sensitive to its supporters’ sensitivities. Her response, you rightly point out was inexplicably rude and extreme, but I don’t know if I can agree with you about her motives. I think that like a lot of us, she just over-reacted and didn’t think things through, a response which will now damage her reputation. In the context of the unfavourable and even angry response to Heartland’s ad, Alexander Feht’s charge also sticks, but Alexander being his hot-headed self, he too goes way over the top, just like Donna, but in the opposite direction, when he ascribes cowardice as the sole cause.
I almost never disagree with Pointman, as I share his view that this is an information war (one which he articulates much better than I)…with the proviso that while the science will not win it, it’s a crucial component, one which will insure that the victory will stick over the long term. But while I totally support his “strategic doctrine” of full-scale, gloves-off information warfare, the mistake I think Heartland made is not a strategic one, but one of piss-poor tactics. Heartland used the wrong display medium, poorly defined their point, caused divisions even among their friends and resorted to a fallacy, one of cherry-picking and associating an unsavoury character with a cause. True, even fallacies may get attention, sometimes by highlighting the weaknesses of the opponent, but most often they leave a bad taste, as the target audience senses something is wrong and feels it’s being manipulated, something they have just…after all these years…learned to associate with the Alarmist side. The proof is in the pudding, though, and the bottom line, as we can all see, is that Heartland didn’t get their point across successfully…they didn’t take their ridge…not even with the skeptics. That is what counts in the end; not how good an idea may have seemed,or how something really should have worked. A good general accept strategic or tactical failures, even when the plan may have been “good” and makes quick adjustments. On this I think that Heartland did admiringly well when they took the ad off. I don’t think that even associating Katzinsky with the Alarmists was a bad idea in and of itself; just that the execution bit flopped by losing the message, and I think they can still retain the core of the concept and develop it to more clearly show the hypocrycy of the Alarmists, either in the format of a print ad or a video. The vestigal ad-muppet in me can just see it: “We ran an ad our friends didn’t like and we pulled it. The point we were trying to make, obviously poorly, was that…etc., etc.” Now that would get some attention and respect as well. Nothing works as well as the truth when someone’s in the right.
I still think that we have to remember not to fly off the handle and go ape on each other with hyperbolae whenever we disagree, especially over piddly things like this. Promoting our position in this information war without a centralized “command” has advantages and disadvantages, and we just saw a disadvantage. I hope we’re smart and flexible enough to learn from this and to” adjust our fire”….for better effect, or at least away from our own foxholes.
Peter Kovachev,
Thanks for your very rational analysis. What disgusted me was the self-serving jockeying for position; the ‘triangulating’ of public positions by the ‘open letter’ writers in order to end up in the safest spot: the middle of the herd.
Heartland is David vs Goliath. The have been fighting successfully on behalf of the little guy for 25 years, on a shoestring budget. But some of their critics on the skeptic side went completely overboard, stomping them when they were down.
I was especialy saddened to see the self-serving ‘open letters’ from people like Donna, McKitrick and others, who would have had every bit as much influence if they had contacted Heartland privately. All those letters said was, “Look at me, I’m holier than thou!” As if the public critics never made a mistake in their perfect lives.
The vicious animosity expressed over what is, in the scheme of things, just a disagreement over a tactical issue is unacceptable, because public infighting is always very bad for the side that engages in it.
Maybe there will be a lesson learned by those on our side, because we still have a major job educating the public. Heartland has plugged away for a quarter century doing that educating. Their staff doesn’t get paid much, but they stick with it because they believe in their mission.
It would be a major credit to those who wrote letters excoriating Heartland to now write an open follow-up letter praising them for promptly removing the ad. Will McKitrick, Laframboise and others do the right thing now, and publicly praise Heartland for taking quick action? They should contrast Heartland with those on the alarmist side like Michael Mann, who never admits to making a mistake – and yet no one on the alarmist side ever calls him on his numerous blunders and dishonest tactics.
Those same ‘open letter’ individuals made the HI ad a character issue. Now, we will see if those same letter writers have one-tenth the character of the Heartland organization.
No one likes hypocrisy, and now that the dust has settled on the billboard issue the ball is in the critics’ court. Will they do the right thing now, and praise Heartland for admitting to a mis-step, and then immediately fixing it? Or, will they just smugly just MoveOn, satisfied that they threw a loyal friend under the bus, kicked them when they were down, and now feel no need whatever to acknowledge the immense good that Heartland has been doing, on our behalf, for 25 years?
We will see who has real character by their actions, or lack thereof.
sunsettommy says:
May 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Kaczynski Heartland billboard wasn’t a blunder
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/05/kaczynski-heartland-billboard-wasnt.html
Like I pointed out earlier you guys were missing the point of the billboard.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-976625
It seems that Alexander Feht is the only one who gets it.I find that incredible
====
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/05/kaczynski-heartland-billboard-wasnt.html
“And make no doubt about it, people are still afraid to freely express their opinions because they feel that the society is being controlled by the alarmists. The fact that the Unabomber is a climate alarmist may be inconvenient but it’s still a fact and if the society – including Ross – develops speech codes in which it’s not allowed to state such simple facts, there can only be one result: the people who know the truth about related issues will be buried in the soil and all the liars will be increasingly successful in drowning the society in the propaganda and lies, harming your business, and robbing your money.”
This is the most scary part of it – self-censorship by the victims..
“Ross: “You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.”
Firstly, they are exactly that – what they have been doing is deflecting attention from their own agenda of mass murder and terroism by a constant barrage against those objecting to their agenda by accusing us of these desires, sympathies with, as they do with accusations of ‘big oil funded sceptics’ when it is they who are so funded.
I fear that Ross in the perceived vanguard of ‘climate skeptics’ is doing us a disservice here. Reminds me of the reaction to Beria’s reasoning, the sceptics so browbeaten by having to defend themselves against accusations of ‘callous disregard for humanity’ that they’d rather not have it mentioned at all, arguing instead that the ‘science should be debated’ instead of pointing out the truth here, there’s no science to debate because it’s a deliberate twisting of science to promote a murderous agenda. AGW ‘science’ is a fiction on every level created by those psycho/sociopaths who are actually intent on mass murder and enslavement and this is supported by countless useful idiots who don’t understand this to the point of complete mental disassocation from its reality, how else could they find blowing up children funny?
At best they have gone insane. You can’t debate reasonably with the insane.
[Beria first proposed that those dissenting from the official version were insane – his reasoning that people wouldn’t want to be associated with the ideas against the ‘system’ for embarrassment of being thought insane. If instead of trying to ignore this and limiting the underground ‘debate’ to the pros and cons of Marxism with objections to the treatment for those dissenting, the horrors of camps and mass murder, they had turned the tables and pointed out the insanity was actually of those joining in the viscious repression of freedom on their neighbours and even family members, those decades may well have been very different.]
Holding up a mirror to this murderous insanity on personal and leadership level, the billboard campaign, is a good step in my view, because their plans for ‘deniers equated with terrorists’ is being drip fed to make it ‘the norm’, ‘the enemy of the people to be repressed’, while the truth is they are the terrorists. Also ridicule as MarkR mentions in that link, but here I think the ‘science’ is the best for ridicule; we should be building up strength of resistance to this insanity, not belittling to create fear of discussion.. . Perhaps something like the ridiculousness of the claims for the supermolecule carbon dioxide creating hurricanes and so on, and the fears about global warming when Chicago was buried under a mile of ice up until c12,000 years ago.
Good to see the Aye’s have it (that 3/4 of voters at the time of writing think it’s a mistake). However, I wonder how many of the “No” votes are genuine?
If I was on the CAGW side of the discussion, I would have voted “No” to the poll, after Napoleon’s advice: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
The big damage done to Heartland was in the skeptics response to it. Because of it the nasty alarmists are having a field day with it and the media is running with it in their typical one-sided hypocritical self.
Now Heartland is going to suffer and as the ONLY skeptical organization that sponsors large yearly conference for skeptics that has already lost at least one speaker and some traffic for the upcoming conference.
I fear that because skeptics overreacted Heartland will not sponsor any more conferences in the future because it. The alarmists groups are overjoyed over it.
Way to go skeptics!
Having been a frequenter of WUWT since Climategate 1.0 hit the ‘Net on 17 November 2009 (though I’m not a tyro when it comes to the preposterous bogosity of the AGW fraud, having followed it less intensively since I’d been alerted to it in 1981 by way of correspondence with the late Petr Beckmann), I’ve become somewhat familiar with the “regulars” commenting on this site.
In this thread, there have appeared a boatload of critters with whom I can’t recall previous encounters, including this Jan P. Perlwitz specimen, who claims to be that specific representative of the oldest profession laboring lucratively in Hansen’s whorehouse up at NASA GISS.
One or two Watermelons trolling a WUWT thread is the usual-and-customary, but a relative avalanche of nOObs mealy-mouthing about something like the entirely truthful observation that the ranks of las warmistas are replete with prominent sons of indiscriminate parentage spectacularly (even murderingly) hostile to the unalienable individual human rights of innocent people transcends the realm of coincidence and pretty obviously evinces concerted enemy action.
I think Mr. Watts’ Web site is being trolled en masse by concerted warmista design in order to exploit what is – to my merry way of thinking – an obvious and extremely effective tactic on the part of Heartland.
I’ve always held a sort of “Klotzen, nicht kleckern!” (expressed in colloquial American language as “Kick ’em in the crotch, don’t pee on ’em!”) approach to las warmistas, eschewing false politeness in favor of the explicit articulation of their hatefulness in motivation, method, and effects. A public relations campaign aimed at alerting the average citizen – the victim targeted by the AGW fraudsters for plunder – to the fact that these alarmists are one in spirit and intent with notable socialists and other murdering psychopaths seems to me an obvious and very useful line of action.
“Taking the high road” is certainly appropriate, but who the heck says that a convergent assault along “the low road” has to be eschewed?
As an example of the pure prissiness advocated by the overpolite wimps, at 10:10 PM on 4 May, Skiphil had commented:
Now, if anyone really knows such critters – the “very distinguished scientists” dependent for their livelihoods and professional advancement on government funding allocated by career politicians, for example, and “policy wonks at leading universities” (who have a massive and undeniable pecuniary incentive to suck up to politicians and their appointees in the public sector of our battered and bleeding economy, such “wonks” metaphorically living and dying on how cordial are their relations with those government goons) – you know that sweet and reasoned persuasion has no appeal for these perfumed and tailored bastiches, who will go on lying and leaping at other people’s money with the persistence of any other category of professional criminal.
So why the hell not “Kick ’em in the crotch” in addition to pursuing gentle persuasion?
I’m minded of a line attributed to Al Capone: “You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”
Ted Kaczynski – a fella “with above-average intelligence with connections to academia” and a (thankfully) unusual attitude toward the whole of humanity – is a warmista. So are Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Charlie Manson, and a whole bunch of similar beautiful people.
What the hell is supposed to be “inappropriate” about informing the general public of these plain and undeniable facts?
I thank HI for its billboard usage which has provided the opportunity to see very clearly now the wide spectrum of world views (aka philosophies) of ‘skeptics’ here at WUWT and of Anthony himself. The disparate and sometimes mutually hostile philosophies held by WUWT skeptics are both an important asset and a tough challenge.
I think the scientific aspects of climate science are just one of the necessary intellectual vitamins needed for a healthy view of the IPCC centric CAGWism. The other necessary intellectual vitamins needed are within the other areas of philosophy. HI has exposed the importance of the missing vitamins; e.g. – this blog’s reaction.
All the intellectual vitamins essential to a healthy view of the IPCC centric CAGWism are most likely found on a blog that is explicitly focused on the fundamental concepts of philosophy. Historically that has not been, in my opinion, WUWT’s focus although we sometimes touch on them at WUWT.
HI may hold some of the other essential intellectual vitamins needed for a healthy view of the IPCC centric CAGWism. So I will go look for them while at HI’s ICCC-7. I may find some there but perhaps not all of them.
John
What Heartland did was not just a “mistake” but a conscious smearing of the targeted audience for the non-CAGW hypothesis as those the general public considers suitable for execution and assassination. It was an egregious ad hominem attack of the 10-10 No Pressure level decried by Heartland and everyone else on the skeptic side. What Heartland did immediately tarred those attending the conference: those you choose to hang with represent those you support overall. Attending the conference under this billboard became no different from attending a conference organized by an unrepentant white supremacist, something I’m sure we all understand to be dumb, dumb, dumb.
Donna LaF stood up and said she would not be associated with Heartland not strictly because of the ads, which most recognized were stupidly considered, but because they refused to say they were stupidly considered. There was no apology, indeed Heartland said they would continue with other provocative ads, indicating that the “execution” of this one was over-the-top, but the concept wasn’t. The execution was perfect, actually, but the concept is vicious.
Some commenters have suggested that in this “war” a good general uses whatever weapons or tactics at his disposal, for winning is what counts. CAGW, as shown by Climategate and Gleick, is not just a technical problem, but a political and social moral problem: when you lie, cheat, sabotage and conspire to manipulate the public, ruin people’s careers, smear their personal reputations, you destroy the foundations of democratic government and trust in public and powerful figures. When you use the same arrows as your enemy, as Heartland did, you demonstrate that you are not necessarily any more trustworthy or honourable than they. The proper response of your audience is to say: A plague on both your houses, or, better still, Lock them both up.
The climate wars are being fought with intellectual concepts. Free, honest expression, free honest statements, free, honest debate. That is what we both want and need to run a society the way you and I need it to be run to preserve our personal freedom and security. It is against our individual best interests to accept duplicity, meanness or lies being used by any side of an issue. The FOI and FOIA legislation of both Britain and the USA of designed purely to allow us to see behind the screen, to determine exactly why things were being done, to determine if subterfuge is going on. We want to know that everyone says what they mean, means what they say, has no private agenda. Heartland, BY NOT RETRACTING their intentions (that’s the apology) shows that they will modify what they tell us if it is achieves what they want better than telling us straight out.
There is a history of terrible mud-slinging in American politics that does not exist in Canada. Donna is a Canadian. There is one in Iran, also: America is the Great Satan, right? a hyperbole that outrageous American listeners while being recognized as hyperbole by most Iranians … by most Iranians. But all? No. By the leaders? We hope so, but maybe not. So it is with Heartland. Perhaps, using the historical way to win votes as an example, they went the Unabomber route. “Knowing” that we would recognize this as the Great Satan approach. Perhaps. Perhaps Heartland doesn’t actually believe that the warmists, who account for more than 1/3 of Americans, will be outraged by this, see the skeptics as fascists and beasts. But maybe some do. Maybe the ones at the top, just like the Iranian president, actually do believe this.
Doesn’t that make you pause?
If you don’t believe something, don’t say it. If, in the passion of the fight, you speak badly, retract and apoligize. Explain what you mean. Heartland did the first, but not the second or third. They made me doubt their moral character. Can I trust them to represent me in statements later? Can I trust them to point out “inconvenient” facts against their position if, tactically, staying quiet or covering them up is better? Not any more.
Donna did what all of those going to the conference should be doing. Her host, as someone described Heartland, was offensive and unrepentant. Her going to Chicago is support for their message. But what message? That warmists are idiots, morally degraded and a danger to society?
I’m disappointed in Anthony Watts and the others. It is one thing to say, as he did, If they had asked my opinion, I would have said it was a bad idea. They didn’t. So now he has to deal with it. Where do you stand? Was it a “bad idea” or a bizarre idea that I want everyone to know I object strongly to any association you might think I have to such a concept. Warmists as psychopaths and mass murderers?
You can’t say that Gleick did a bad thing by lying to expose a corrupt group of people if, by the subsequent evidence, they are shown to be a corrupt group. That is the idea of legislation protecting the whistleblower. If subsequent evidence showed WMD in Iraq, when intel said there was none, the world would have applauded Bush’s risk-taking. However, there was no WMD in Iraq, and so Bush shows up as manipulative liar who dragged Britain into a war it wouldn’t have supported had it known the truth. This is where Gleick appeared to fail: the Heartland wasn’t the Bad Guy he believed them to be. The billboard ads Heartland just ran now suggest otherwise. What else is there at Heartland that we should be looking at?
Don’t get me wrong. I am a skeptic, nay, disbeliever in CAGW. But I don’t follow the Arab saying, An enemy of my enemy is my friend. Donna’s response to Heartland comes from that place. So should Watts et al.
This is the true lesson here: an enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Heartland needs to repudiate its billboard ads in principle, not just practice. They have undermined my confidence in them that they will counter lies with truth, manipulation with openness and honesty. They see the Great Satan as Mann, Hansen, Gore, Romm, McKibben, just as our Mid-East foes see Obama. Anything goes when you face the Walking Man.
Those who attend Heartland should know that every word, every appearance, every position claiming to be on a higher moral plane will be compromised by the refusal of Heartland to apologize and offer deep regrets.
CAGW, as we know, is not just any tale, but a morality tale. There are those who act to deceive us, and there are those who act to inform us correctly. Donna has demonstrated, at personal cost to herself, that we should decide in which group we are determined to stand, and make it clear. It is depressing that she is the only one at this point.
= = = = = =
Doug Proctor,
You are not in a position to tell me what I should know when attending ICCC-7. I will do my life my way by attending ICCC-7 and having a straight discourse with HI. It is likely I will know things as a result that you cannot know.
John
If the conference was sponsored by white supremists, or flat earthers, or those fundamental Christians who say that God would never harm His greatest creation, Man, you would feel that your appearance would fortify their other-than-climate views. This is no different. The Heartland equated various types of killers to warmists. And then they did not apologize or retract their statement, but indicated that they would do other, though perhaps less striking, ads in the future. Each time Romm or others speak of you, they can say “That Whitman, a speaker at Heartland, author of visiously noxious attacks on the average American believer in climate change.”
I do have a right to say what I think, even about appropriate actions of others. The Heartland ad compromises values that the skeptics claimed were violated by the UK No Pressure ads. Which were violated. Once you stand behind an organization that refuses to admit error, you are the same as the warmists who complained that skeptics were whiners without a sense of humour.
The CAGW “war” degenerates into a non-technical mudslinging by such antics. The skeptical side is that Mann et al say one thing and do another; it is up to the skeptics say and do consistently.
The Heartland ads were mean, unnecessary and unsupportable at any level. The Heartland has stood by them by not repudiating them and apologizing for the bad judgement. All those who lie down with dogs, it will be said, can be suspected of rising up with fleas. It may not be true, but it is certainly what we consider true of the friends of Peter Gleick.
At 9:20 AM on 7 May, Doug Proctor posted:
Bullpuckey and dreimal bullpuckey.
I’ve long noted the illiterate gormlessness of people who use the expression “ad hominem” inappropriately as a Latin tag to give the spurious impression of education when what they mean is simply “insulting.”
Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attacking a disputant’s position on the basis of personality (actual or alleged) instead of addressing said disputant’s claims. Simply put, it’s an evasion of the responsibility to hammer on the topic at hand, and it’s that evasion, not the inclusion of condemnation per se, which makes of argumentum ad hominem a fallacy rendering one’s line of attack invalid.
I do wish that people like Mr. Proctor would get a goddam grip on the concepts of formal logic and quit flashing their buttocks in public by using the expression “ad hominem” with such pretentious idiocy.
Yes, it’s insulting to observe before all the world that las warmistas include among their ranks prominent persons – notably religious whackjobs in full Islamic berserkergang, bomb-building “ecology” loons, murderous “Helter Skelter” types, cancerous “Bolivarian Revolution” socialists, et alia – whom honest men and women have every conceivable good and proper cause to loathe.
But in addition to the fact that the “crippled conjecture” of AGW is a ginormous blivet, there’s also the undeniable reality that the Unabomber is a heartfelt True Believer in this insanity, and had been impelled at least in part to murder people on the basis of his adherence thereunto.
As I’ve been asking, what’s wrong with telling people about it?
If such an observation, plainly voiced, makes las warmistas howl with agony, isn’t that a wonderful proof that – in addition to addressing the manifold ways in which their crap qualifies as purest Cargo Cult Science – we should be slamming them with further public acknowledgements of their association with egregiously vicious sociopaths as the exemplars of their cult’s peculiar invidious appeal?
Smokey,
I’m with you on most points. Donna and Ross are giants among us, but they, like you said, are also fallible and need to remember that. I’d like to see them calm down and perhaps follow up, as you say, with a letter commending Heartland for its attempt to repair a situation. I just happen to think that what motivated them was good intent, that they over-shot with their critique in the hope of underlining the fact, to a mercurial public, that unlike the Alarmists, we skeptics are free-thinkers, capable of introspection. Instead, as you say again, they seriously wounded a good friend all because of a disagreement over tactics on a minor publicity stunt.
What I would like to see is both Ross and Donna attending the Heartland Conference and along with the others, making room an informal discussion on ideas for public relations approaches and ways to promote our position(s). Never mind sessions in seminar rooms, do it over ribs and wings and keep the wine and beer flowing, I’m not keen on a centralized approach, and I think Pointman’s way of fighting his own battle has a lot of merit. to it We’re up gainst powerful forces wielding billions of dollars, commanding institutions, government departmentss and media, and the only way we can prevail against the Behemoth is with the “cell” or “guerrila” systems. At the same time, having easier access to information, data and issues and a way to communicate quickly, will require some centralization. In that, I think, WUWT ha grown into the position of such a “brokerage” and we need to prerhaps build on that. More on Anthony’s shoulders, but more of us need to step up to the plate. For example, with over two decades in high-end print and Web graphics, I have a few vague notions kicking around the back of my head, but I’m a lousy organizer, lack anything resembling leadership skills, and suck at the research and the science. But I do make good picture and pull together effective text once I know what needs to be done. To be able to access facts and ideas from an open forum and to seek advise and genuine peer review of my work would be incredible. And the beauty is that all of this can be out there in the open, for the Alarmists to gawk and attempt to concoct “counter-measures” and such useless bull, because the truth and honest tactics need not be hidden….and they can never work as fast as dedicated volunteers.
While we shouldn’t be trashing each other publicly, something we do way too often, maintaining a vigorous dialogue is our strength. I’m not big on the secrecy bit; that’s the Achilles’ heel of the Alarmists, who think they are little Machiavellis, and it will be their undoing. Education and public outreach are honourable aims to be developed in the open with as much input as possible and judging by Peter Gleick’s freaking, the Warmies are terrified of it. They imagine millions from Big Oil behind us, and their semi-competent, ageing old-school PR gurus who are losing ground to us can’t figure out why have convinced them that they need to double-down and spend millions more to get out The Message effectively. Let them waste their times on their 60s and 70s “ad-men” fantasies, their committees and studies. Anyhow, I tghink that it’s these kind of discussions we should be having, instead of jumping down each other throats.
doug said:
The climate wars are being fought with intellectual concepts.
so you think this war is about climate? for a self identified skeptic, that’s extraordinarily gullible.
while you were distracted , you lost control of your future as well. so you still want to argue about the weather? what can you possibly win? a vowel?
gorm free, untroubled by passion
a tabula rasa
palimpsest of drool.
crazy- cuz maybe god tazed you
you’re in the asylum now so better learn the rules.
gouging the coins from our pockets
our eyes from their sockets
so we can be
gorm freeeeeeeeee
Smokey says:
May 7, 2012 at 4:44 am
“It would be a major credit to those who wrote letters excoriating Heartland to now write an open follow-up letter praising them for promptly removing the ad.”
Shrug, they’d still just be fooling themselves. The ad was put up for a test. I think a very good one.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/alan_bullock_quote_35c9
Quote from Alan Bullock
“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
Bring it into the open..
Ignorance does not equate to stupidity – those who don’t know they’ve been manipulated by very clever and very well practised propaganda techniques will continue to be the means to repress the dissonant voice of truth.
@sunsettommy on May 7, 2012 at 6:25 am
If you are going to imitate what the shysters do, then you have lost and they have won. It is best if they do what they are doing. Admit their mistake (shysters never do), and move on.
ClimateProgress took down the article mentioned above. However, they cross-posted it to Grist which for now is still available here:
http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-07-25-norway-terrorist-is-a-climate-change-denier/
I created a pdf copy of the article if anyone needs it.
I hope Donna, Ross, and the rest are happy now.
@Smokey, It’s never your enemies you have to fear …
Pointman
Doug Proctor,
Get a grip, friend. Really. There’s no reason to polarize this issue and make it way bigger than it is. Donna will sort things out herself, ideologically, professionally and socially and she doesn’t need goading into extreme positions. We all have our reasons and personal goals and agendas and we act on them accordingly.
Reality check: This is a kerfaffle over an ad. An ad, not scripture. If you’ve ever worked in a large ad agency, you’d see dozens of ad concepts flop in the concept stage every week, and at least one that bombs every month. Sometimes you got all sorts of experts working on an idea and in the end, you still never know which way it’s going to go. Somethimes the concept sucks but the execution saves it, sometimes it’s the other way around. In this case the idea is not bad; the Alarmists have been ponderously developing and monopolizing the notion that skeptics are unsavoury types, associating us with Big Oil and even Anders Breivik. This may have been an attempt to fire a shot across their bow, to remind them that we can haul dirt too and that they are far more vulnerable with far more to lose. And there is plenty of dirt on them, without even bringing in the fascist and Nazi eco-nuttery connection from the last century; that one, for example, needs finicky handling with surgical gloves.
Unless I’m missing something, the ad didn’t work; upsetting our community and necessitating the ad’s withdrawal is the proof of that. Nothing else, nothing deeper, nothing profound. I’m speculating that the the ad didn’t work mainly because you can’t pop this sort of a concept out of the blue and this aggressively in this format. Not if you’re the Heartland Institute…you see, the ad’s source is another thing that makes a difference. Whether it was intended as an experiment or not doesn’t matter; it still yielded good data, and hundreds of us will draw helpful conclusions for future campaigns….which is why I downloaded this whole comments section. Marketing is not a science, a religion or an intellectual pursuit, it’s a rude, amoral witchery, no matter what the quazi-educated PR puffs try to tell you. The Kaczinsky thing may have worked had it been done differently within another chain of concepts but as it is, it simply came across as unsophisticated and slanderous to the more refined among us. But now we have another baseline for calibration. End of story, let’s move on.
philjourdan says:
May 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm
@sunsettommy on May 7, 2012 at 6:25 am
If you are going to imitate what the shysters do, then you have lost and they have won. It is best if they do what they are doing. Admit their mistake (shysters never do), and move on.
——————————–
Wrong, you out-shyster the shysters and when they whine and ask for mercy, you grind their face with your heel. That’s what you do with a superior force. That’s if you want to get anywhere, that is.
The only problem with the ad I see now is that Heartland ran it and it’s losing the support of the moderates, the mainstream and the faint of heart. Heartland needs to stay with the mainstream while others fling the dung. That was their mistake. Ads like these should be run by those on the fringes who can afford the fire and the abuse…someone like me! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Tucci78
Your rants are not worthy of discussion, but I will simply say that between fanatics of various stripes (you can include yourself in that reference) there are many thoughtful, reasonable people of good will. No serious person is going to pay attention to your kind of inflammatory diatribe. It may make you feel good but it has no chance at rational persuasion.
[SNIP: Tone it down. Personal attacks on other commenters is over the line, as is the K-Y reference. -REP]
Doug Proctor says:
“The Heartland equated various types of killers to warmists.”
I personally view that as absolutely legitimate, and I cannot understand why you don’t. The demonization of “carbon” and the misuse of food for fuel has unquestionably resulted in starvation among the one-third of the global population that subsists on less than $2 a day. You don’t remember the food riots in Mexico City, Egypt, and other countries? But that’s A-OK, isn’t it, because the same people who agree with Ted Kazynski are pushing those same starvation policies. Alarmists make the Unabomber look like a piker.
Why do you save your bile for a really good organization that simply did something you don’t agree with? I personally see no moral difference between Kazynski and the alarmist crowd. None at all. They are going ballistic over this for one reason: because the truth hurts.
The question is, why does that same truth cause folks like you to endlessly demonize a small organization that is doing so much good? And why are you so totally unforgiving? Makes me wonder where you’re coming from.
There is nothing for HI to ‘apologize’ for, and even if they did, people like you wouuldn’t let go, you would just alter your mode of attack. This was one billboard on one road. It was promptly taken down per request. But you are still ranting on about it three days later — while giving the alarmist crowd a free pass for doing much worse.
There are some people who want a scorched earth form of rhetoric to separate “true believers” (of whatever ilk) from all possible forms of “coalition building” (intellectually, politically, economically etc.). Let’s make the us-vs-them as harsh and catastrophic as possible, find the “real men” (and women) among the skeptics who will fight the One True War, etc.
What I have been trying to say is that if you take the rhetoric and name-calling to such extremes (even when the “other side” has done it more or sooner) then you immediately start to alienate many possible allies who might otherwise be receptive to your information and arguments. As for Heartland, considering all the vile names they have been called over the years, I completely sympathize with their desire to strike back. However, if they wanted to be respected as any purveyor of scientific information to the public, this billboard affair is probably a set-back to that effort. Given the double-standards in the media and politics, there is no latitude or forgiveness for this kind of thing unless you are one of the politically correct darlings. This is attention getting but does it earn them intellectual or scientific respect from anyone?
Skiphil,
So, I suppose you’ve never done anything that didn’t look so smart in retrospect?
How about some support for the folks on your side? They could use it, you know.
Smokey says to Skiphil,
May 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm: How about some support for the folks on your side? They could use it, you know.
You disagree with me, too, quite strongly. I don’t support the our side/their side situation, though I am a skeptic and the “others” are warmists. I have no “side”, I have my beliefs, in the case of CAGW, from technical considerations, and in the case of these Heartland ads, from philosophical, social and moral ones. Flinging mud is not acceptable in principle, while also not useful except for prolonging inter-tribal disputes or vendettas.
If you think that the Heartland ads were appropriate expressions of your position, then stand by them. If you think that no apology is needed because the message behind the ads reflects your opinion of the warmists, then that is your right. So say so. But if you think that the message behind the ads about the moral and intellectual positions of those you disagree with does not reflect your thoughts, then you should say that, too. Unless you like to associate with the Big Boys, whether they speak for you or not.
And three days later I am still speaking about it? A) this is a time-delayed discussion, and b) in my opinion the legitimacy of the skeptical position is hurt by such juvenile activity, and the push to CO2-control is a very, very important issue of these times. I want it stopped, not helped.
Smokey, I have expressed (at various places) sympathy for what tempted Heartland to do this, even agreement that there are plenty of people on the C-AGWarmist side who have earned the guilt-by-association in one way or another. But do i need to agree that the billboard was a good idea? No, I don’t agree with that. I’m neither agreeing with those who applaud the billboard nor with those who think that Heartland should be vilified for it. I simply think it was a tactical mistake, not the best way to proceed at this time, that’s all. I don’t actually think any less of people at Heartland for it. They might even be proved right in terms of “tactics” if it has benefits such as restraining the reckless rhetoric of the “other side”…. who knows at this point? I don’t think it helps to build public pressure against C-AGW, and I don’t think it helps the “skeptic” cause more generally, but it is merely one episode and it may fade away quickly.
Doug Proctor,
You made a point of exactly what I’m arguing against:
“Flinging mud is not acceptable … except for prolonging inter-tribal disputes or vendettas.”
Attacking your own side is not helpful. The other side will do that plenty. In fact, it is their job. Let them do it.
Then readers can see both sides and make up their minds. But monkey-piling on your own team is exactly what the other side loves. You’re their new hero. It’s exactly like a lawyer agreeing with the opponent’s lawyer in court. Maybe he can do it, but it throws his client under the bus.
Do not doubt that everything and more that you can say will be written by the alarmist crowd. There is nothing new you can add. So let them do it. Enough monkey-piling.
Smokey, fyi, we cross-posted since I had not seen your 4:18 when I posted my 4:25 (I was multi-tasking while getting around to finishing my little post of 4:25). I was more commenting upon someone up-thread who vilified me as “prissy” for urging more rational communications etc. I’m not vilifying Heartland and I don’t think they have any need to apologize. I just think the billboard was not helpful and I’m glad it was taken down. The hypocrisies of the C-AGW alarmists who say the same and worse about “us” every day are of course extensive and beyond account.
Responding to Phil Jourdan who wrote here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-978840
“If you are going to imitate what the shysters do, then you have lost and they have won. It is best if they do what they are doing. Admit their mistake (shysters never do), and move on.”
He he still people are not getting it. The “shysters” already won the PR battle because of their aggressive tactics. Skeptics go into meltdown over billboard and you admonish me over it.
Good grief!
It was only when I came here is when see this absurd overblown complaint about a few billboards that I even knew about the existence of the boards that were placed in a single city.
LOLOLOLOLOL……….
We are winning the SCIENCE battle but still may lose the war because we are a bunch of little girly girls who scream over a slightly tainted message. That is the big secret to the progressives success in taking over most of the media, the Universities, schools and global warming propaganda.
We have a few blogs, think tanks, forums and little else. But Heartland dared to push the envelope to make a point that apparently eluded many here and elsewhere. Then get the absurd overreaction and now they are hurt and will probably stop promoting conferences for climate skeptics.
So once again the alarmist propagandists wins again, courtesy of narrow minded skeptics who help shoot down a small think tank.
It is not a good idea to be mister prim and proper while the house is burning down around you.
Skiphil,
Thank you for making that clear.
At 4:43 PM on 7 May, Doug Proctor posts:
Okay, that’s just plain contemptible.
Not just the “I have my beliefs” bit (you believe, do you? Egad!), but also the wonderful weaseling about not having any “side” in this contention. Were I religious, I’d go all Revelation 3:16 on your sorry tochus (“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth”), but I’m a pretty well-settled atheist, so I guess I’ll just quote Heinlein:
…and leave you to the damnation for which your “beliefs” have fitted you.
You stay all polite and upstanding and sniff superciliously about “Flinging mud” while the other side destroys the industrial economy upon which you and all those dear to you depend upon for your survival.
Maybe you haven’t noticed it yet, but the “side” over there under the Watermelon-green banner is flinging a helluva lot more than “mud” at us men of good will and sound scientific principle.
REP obliterates my post at 5:32 PM and weasels:
Like las warmistas aren’t pounding away at plans to screw our children and succeeding generations by depriving them – as well as us – of the access to energy we require to maintain and grow our industrial civilization?
Or is it simply that they’re not even being kind enough to make use of a lubricant?
[REPLY: You go all Sicilian Vespers in a post and then complain when it gets snipped? This is a family blog. Think of the children. -REP]
Richard-
Please forgive the protracted absence/
“In my opinion our best tactic is to unite around exposing the so-called ‘science’. This has been working, and it ended political justification for the scare in Copenhagen some years ago. So, governments’ funding of the scare can be expected to dwindle as time goes by. Indeed, cuts in subsidies for ‘renewables’ are already resulting in bankruptcies of wind and solar companies.”
A valid point, and see you have read Charles Fair as well. Well done sir!
The difficulty of the position comes from the fact that arguing science alone works best with rational people. In that arena the anti-AGW crowd is winning, and calling people naughty names is, as you point out, ineffective at best.
The difficulty is with the non-rational, those involved in “faith-based” science. A PhD said it, it sounds plausible, and it scares the dickens out of all too many. It is the polar opposite of the group being addressed by scientific argument. This non-rational crew is large, committed, and not prone to cure by reason or evidence. It’s the reason I almost advised Anthony to make up a bug-out bag after some of the more recent revelations – assuming (being in CA with the possibility of earthquake) .he hasn’t already.
One obvious question is, “why bother?” If it is that off the wall, let the truth take care of itself.
I am not so sure. Mobs can be useful to those who control them.
Having talked all around the subject, it seems sensible to end by saying this is not as easy as it appears. Name-calling alienates one group, not pointing things out in an “in your face” style loses the other. If the problem of extremist camp is not addressed in some effective way, there is, in my opinion, the possibility winning the debate will be irrelevant or worse.
With Respect, Andre
REP writes:
You’re goddam right I do. When the Environmental Protection Racket (or is that “Agency”? You can’t tell the difference any more…) sends around armed goons to shut down productive enterprise on the orders of our Marxist Mystery Mulignane, they sure as hell aren’t playing politely or relying on sweet reason to get their thuggish way.
Dica se “ciciri,” ragazzo.
[REPLY: Ragazzo? Sheesh, I haven’t been called that in about fifty years! -REP]
Now I’ve seen it all. On what other climate site could one run into a reference to the Sicilian Vespers. Not on Real Climate, for sure. I think I’ll stick around.
Smokey @ May 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Skiphil,
So, I suppose you’ve never done anything that didn’t look so smart in retrospect?
How about some support for the folks on your side? They could use it, you know.
_____________________________
Smokey, to me all this shows is that Heartland is human and like the rest of us very frustrated.
Better if they could show the link between CAGW hysteria, bio-fuel, high fuel costs, food riots and starvation in 70 countries INCLUDING forcing many [Americans] to choose between keeping the pipes from freezing or putting food on the table in 2012, all the while Monsanto, Cargill, Arthur D Midland, Goldman Sachs and others make record profits. CAGW is all about making a profit off the misery of others while scarce tax payer money is used to line the pockets of the buddies of politicians leaving the landscape littered with failed windmills, solar panels and dead production facilities.
The warmists have the polar bear as their symbol we should have Friday Mukamperezida as our poster child.
It may well be more noble to bring a knife to a gunfight, but …
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Smokey @ May 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Skiphil,
So, I suppose you’ve never done anything that didn’t look so smart in retrospect?
How about some support for the folks on your side? They could use it, you know.
_____________________________
Smokey, to me all this shows is that Heartland is human and like the rest of us very frustrated.
Better if they could show the link between CAGW hysteria, bio-fuel, high fuel costs, food riots and starvation in 70 countries INCLUDING forcing many [Americans] to choose between keeping the pipes from freezing or putting food on the table in 2012, all the while Monsanto, Cargill, Arthur D Midland, Goldman Sachs and others make record profits. CAGW is all about making a profit off the misery of others while scarce tax payer money is used to line the pockets of the buddies of politicians leaving the landscape littered with failed windmills, solar panels and dead production facilities.
====
Waste of time, Gail. These are effects, not the cause. The cause is the insanity of believing in the faked science. This is what gives the justification for all these atrocities and for the agenda of world domination by the bwanking cartel, who created the faked science to further their agenda..
p.s. Gail – I don’t mean it’s a waste of time to inform about the effects – it’s imperative these are made known – but without clear focus on the cause, the hub on which these effects are spokes, we just get problem, and so the solution, dissipated in the telling of the story.
NB the cause, believing in the faked science, is a-political. People can make their own connections from that with the added info of the politics and bwankers scams as it affects their own lives and globally; people aren’t stupid, but most don’t have the time to explore this for themselves.
The one thing no one likes – to be the victim of a con..
Myrrh;
Disagree. The faked science is just a convenient tool, lever, vehicle. The “Cause” is Fabian, Progressive, Greenie, NWO style ambition. It wears a mask of idealism, but even that isn’t real. It’s not even the corruption resulting from Belief In A Theory. It’s pure power-addiction. Which, btw, has recently been shown to have literally brain-stimulant-addictive properties. Status, and the ability to brag, “I tell this one to go, and he goeth!” has been the organizing principle of herd and group life since long before chimpanzees evolved.
We have arrived at this point by the same process that’s crippling both sides we have let the PR jocks have free rein instead of staying on topic. Heartland have made a huge mistake which will undoubtedly come back and haunt them.
Andre_ob:
Thankyou for your message to me at May 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm which begins;
“Richard- Please forgive the protracted absence/”
Firstly, I appreciate that apology because recently the egregious Perlwitz used “protracted absence” as a method to post an answer supposedly to me that I failed to notice. Clearly, (and I point out to ensure others notice) such behaviour was not your intent. So, thankyou.
More substantively, I recognise that you agree merit in my view and I respond that I see merit in your point that says;
“Having talked all around the subject, it seems sensible to end by saying this is not as easy as it appears. Name-calling alienates one group, not pointing things out in an “in your face” style loses the other. If the problem of extremist camp is not addressed in some effective way, there is, in my opinion, the possibility winning the debate will be irrelevant or worse.”
I agree, but I fail to see a solution to that problem. Perhaps others who assess both our differing opinions can find a way to ‘cut the Gordion Knot’: I freely admit that I do not see a way to do it.
Richard
Smokey says:May 7, 2012 at 2:17 pm
I hope Donna, Ross, and the rest are happy now.
Good-oh, when I next drink my non-Diageo I will always remember that it was an individual [an animal not codified by colour, religion or ideology] that stated ‘phlaaah’.
When I next view a domestic violence video associated with divorce, and analyse homicide statistics, and the policies that have contributed little to a reduction in this, I will remember this media campaign:-
And when I will watch this
I will remember that young girls (and boys) will still be out working the pitiful metres of sub-soil plots and herds of cattle/goats while they receive little schooling and continue to contribute the majority of their young lives to these futile ventures, working in the early morning and evening to pound the grain for the large family, to cook and wash the babies, clothing and prepare meals, on solar power.
At least there are some in Australia that see the act of speaking out, the right to speak freely, is a right. And a responsibility. Heartland Institute did the right thing, and the voting on WUWT is not an indication of whether ‘scientists’ or ‘skeptics’ OR members of HI think one way or the other.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/death-threat-fictions
>>
Brian H says:
May 7, 2012 at 11:50 pm
It may well be more noble to bring a knife to a gunfight, but …
<<
This may be the best comment here. It’s brief and clearly illustrates what’s at stake.
Jim
Well, in the end maybe it was not such a blunder after all. Yes it was shocking for many of us, and yes it is difficult for HI to keep both a balanced and pro-science image and on the other hand engage in not so fine PR fight.
It was effective – maybe the most effective 200 $ investment in the history of PR – not sure if anybody could reach more audience with that amount of money.
How good or how bad it was only the time will really show.
We have some good results already – as we see a pro-CAGW site retiring the norvegian distorted murderer association with climate skeptics. And yes it forces the alarmist to reconsider their ad-hominem language.
On the other hand it created confusion and discordia in the sceptic camp.
While I do understand Donna Laframboise’s concerns here, with all due respect, dwelling on Heartland’s mistake really only gives AGW’ers the excuse to keep broadbrushing ALL skeptics as daffy and unworthy of consideration, which has been essentially their sole talking point to dissuade the public from listening to skeptics. We need to regain the high ground of the narrative and turn this from a defense position into an offense. “Heartland Institute ‘Unabomber billboard’ brings out Global Warming Alarmists’ One-Trick Pony” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/heartland_institute_unabomber_billboard_brings_out_global_warming_alarmists_one-trick_pony.html
My thoughts on this episode.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/what-im-going-to-say-will-upset-a-few-people/
Pointman
Bah. My thoughts on this issue run along the line that anything done to las warmistas short of having them publicly drawn and quartered is contemptibly pusillanimous.
Let’s not only keep folks mindful of their commonalities with Dr. Kaczynski; let’s get ’em on his mailing list.
– I see the Pointman has a post claiming this subject has been hijacked by the Warmest Activist PR machine.. claiming this actual blog posting has a lot of apologist comments from first time posters pretending to be skeptics. I kind of agree their vastly better funded PR campaign does this kind of trick all the time; instead of posting on Science they are constantly attacking in order to put us on the backfoot ..& we trying to keep t moral highground play along. We SHOULD NOT let them get away with it.
– When I saw the ad, I just saw it as asking “TRUE BELIEVERS are you caught up in a grand conspiracy theory, (CAGW) just like the Unibomber was ?”
– Since warmist blogs often say SKEPTICS are like supporters of mass murderers (deniers) there seems to be a double standard in crying foul play.
– If Greenpeace put out a billboard saying “Do you still believe the polar bears are safe like Anders Breivik does ?” do you think anyone would bat an eyelid ?
Doug Proctor,
Your response to me is a little paranoid and apparently you seem to be worried about me because I openly engage HI on an independent footing . . . . that is, you seem to be paranoid on my behalf!!
I am my own intellectual protector. So thanks for your worries about me wrt to HI, but I say no thanks to you for your attempted help. BUT IF I NEED YOU THEN I WILL CONTACT YOU. : )
Note: as a think tank, I have often respected HI. This billboard PR issue will be discussed by me with them at their ICCC-7 . . . face-to-face . . . mano a mano. I may learn something about the issue. I look forward to that discussion.
John
[snip. Labeling others here as “denialists” violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]