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 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.