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.
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.
@JeffWhitman 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.