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.
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?
@ur momisugly 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!