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.
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.