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.
Amazing. The “scientist” Jan P. Perlwitz doesn’t seem to realize that regarding climate, the null hypothesis is, in fact, that humans have no discernible influence. It is up to the Alarmists to disprove that, a task that they have failed at miserably, despite all the hype and hoopla about it, and despite Trenberth’s desperate attempts to reverse the null hypothesis. His “proof”? The 2007 IPCC report which states that global warming is “unequivocal”, and is “very likely” due to human activities. The IPCC claim is nothing more than that – a claim based on zero evidence. That so-called “discernible human influence” claim can be traced back to Ben Santer, who, after reviewers for the 1995 “Summary For Policy Makers” had signed off inserted his own statement claiming “The body of statistical evidence…now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate”. Additionally, he deleted the already-approved statements to the effect that no clear evidence of a human influence on climate exists.
Brilliant ploy by HI, exposes the rampant hypocracy of our MSM and as Mike Mangan says.
The CAWG consensus has damaged us all fiscally, denied Africans cheap energy , indirectly killing many.See IMF& World bank carbon policies and when the public awakens to the cost of this international fraud does anyone think it will end well? I will do nothing rash but I remain enraged by the relevations of climategate 1&2 and can’t wait for the password for 3. Persons entrusted with positions of authority have responsibilities and must pay when they behave stupidly.
– A KNEE JERK OPINION IS RARELY A RATIONAL ONE. It takes me time to form an opinion & even then I am always open to new angles & ideas.
Maybe there were some positive effects :
– free publicity,
– DISARMS SkS & Greenpeace from using the same trick infuture
(It was on the cards that in the FUTURE people like SkS & Greenpeace would be highly like to use this type of advertising against “deniers”, so now they have loudly condemned Heartland doing this, they can’t).
johanna says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm
People who are attacking her should take a deep breath, turn 180 degrees, and start shooting at Al Gore and other large and worthy targets.
Johanna, perhaps it was Donna who should have taken a breath. It might have allowed her to see the big picture, instead of just going on her emotions, and jumping on the “let’s trash Heartland” bandwagon.
Jan P. Perlwitz:
On a previous thread I showed how your own words proved you are a pseudoscientist, and you failed to provide any other possible understanding of those (your) words despite repeated attempts to obtain such an alternative explanation from you.
Now, in your series of posts in this thread up to your post at May 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm you demonstrate your ignorance of basic scientific principles.
For example, in response to J Peden having written at May 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm:
“As a result, the established empirical fact is that mainstream Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW hypotheses have been shown to have had a 100% prediction failure rate and are thus effectively falsified”
Your reply is;
“What are you talking about? To what specific hypotheses stated by whom and when in what scientific papers do you refer when you make this assertion about the “100% prediction failure rate”? And how do you get to this assertion?
So show me your science and the empirical data that allegedly have falsified what has been stated by mainstream climate science.”
All you needed to do to prove J Peden was wrong was to provide one solitary example of a successful prediction based on the “CO2=warming hypothesis”.
And did you? Could you? NO! You did not because you cannot.
Instead you replied with a list of irrelevant questions together with a demand which reverses logic by claiming a conjecture must be accepted unless “others provide the empirical data that allegedly have falsified what has been stated”. A scientist would not do that.
A scientist
(a) would provide the disproving example (which you failed to do)
or
(b) would admit the conjecture is falsified by its failure of predictive ability.
So, I suggest that you stop trolling this thread and, instead, you return to GISS where your pseudoscience is valued.
Richard
The Debunker No 2 BS (@No2BS):
At May 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm you say;
“(It was on the cards that in the FUTURE people like SkS & Greenpeace would be highly like to use this type of advertising against “deniers”, so now they have loudly condemned Heartland doing this, they can’t).”
What!? “They can’t”? You think that?
Watch them. They will. And if anybody complains they will say, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.
The HI advert has invited them to post similar adverts. and has given them carte blanche to do it.
Richard
Any apocalyptic vision, with a prospect of an individual being able to avert catastrophe, will appeal to the deranged. But the vast majority who believe in CAGW are normal people, who accept that when everyone says the experts know what they are talking about, they follow. When those who disagree with the consensus equate them with with mass killers, then they will think that the intolerance shown by the climate bullies at “Skeptical Science”, “Open Mind” and Desmogblog is justified.
The first step, is always to get to know your enemy intimately. The second one, which you learn from bitter experience, is to get to know your allies equally well, which is why in this particular war, and it is a war, I choose to operate alone.
Pointman
Bruce Cobb at May 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm wrote:
Well, first you would have to explain where you draw your conclusion from what I allegedly realize or not. Are you clairvoyant?
And this is just an assertion.
If you make assertions about statements by others, in a real scientific publication this would have to be backed up with evidence and proof of source. But I know, this here is just an opinion blog, science is not conducted here. So everyone can just make any claims about anything and its opposite w/o being mandated to back it up.
Except that the status of science presented in the IPCC report 2007 is based on hundreds of scientific publications. But no fake skeptic will ever accept any evidence published in the peer reviewed scientific literature, when it contradicts their preconceived views. And so, because the thinking is governed by extreme cognitive bias, the scientific findings, which were provided by a whole body of research over several decades are being outright dismissed.
(It followed some assertions about something that allegedly happened in 1995.)
Interesting. I felt, in view of the total dishonesty and extremism of the alarmists, Heartland’s little exercise was totally justified. When dealing with crooks, the only option is to be a little bit crooked yourself.
But the majority of Heartland supporters think that this is totally wrong!
Maybe I need to re-examine my own ethics!
Jim Petrie
This has been a most interesting thread.
I voted in the poll before I read any of the comments. I was part of the “majority” – very rare for me. Now I’ve read the comments, I stick to my vote.
There seems to be a divide in the WUWT community between those who think things would be just fine with a different set of politicians in charge (in the US or elsewhere), and those who see deeper.
I, being among the latter, agree with Ross McKitrick and Anthony. The moral high ground should never be surrendered. And therefore, what Heartland have done is wrong.
Neil
richardscourtney at May 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm wrote:
Well, I guess that’s what you imagine about yourself and what you are asserting now.
I do not need to provide anything in this case. JPeden has made a very bold statement about alleged facts regarding hypotheses and predictions he hasn’t specified, which had allegedly been falsified and a “100% prediction failure rate”. He claims facts, therefore he has the burden of proof for his assertions. But I understand how you want it. In your fake skeptic parallel universe, I wouldn’t just have the burden of proof for my own factual statements or hypotheses, I even would have the burden to disprove the hypotheses and the assertions about alleged facts you and your comrades make. That’s how you would like to have it, Mr. Courtney, I know.
richardscourtney says:
May 5, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“The HI advert has invited them to post similar adverts. and has given them carte blanche to do it.
Richard”
Conclusions should come after research!
“Norway Terrorist Is A Global Warming Denier”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/question-2010249/
Note the date. (2011)
Further, ThinkProgress has removed their post on this.
http://thinkprogress.org/?p=277564
So, I guess Heartland scared them out of the water!.
If folk are going to come over all saintly and profess not to have anything to do with organisations that have done or said dumb questionable things then there are going to be a lot of very quiet places of worship and employment over the next few weeks. Howling in outrage seems to be the new communication paradigm…
Maybe this episode will prompt outraged warmists to play down “deniers” in future. It gives them a belated insight into the limitations of ad hominem argument.
Thank you! You have just demonstrated beyond doubt that you are not a scientist or at the very least a poorly educated one, as any competent scientist would fully understand that the null hypothesis was not something global warming sceptics “invented”.
As used in the discussion of global warming it is the assertion that nothing unusual is going on that is outside the normal demonstrated range of historical cyclic climate variation.
The AGW community simply dismisses the possibility and consistently fails to show in any way that they have rejected the null hypothesis. They have also consistently tampered with data so the obvious failure to reject the null hypothesis is not obvious to the uninformed.
The simple fact that the Roman Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period existed and had temperatures consistent with current temperatures which are “supposedly unprecedented” to many prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the research that the AGW view is based on is either dishonest or incompetent.
Until or unless you can document why those prior warm periods could exist at low CO2 concentrations and that the current warming can only be due to increased CO2 concentrations and only its warming effect you have failed to reject the very first issue you should have addressed when positing that current warming is due to CO2.
It is your responsibility to address the null hypothesis (using the global you for all AGW proponents) because you are asserting a new and novel idea that the recent warming is not a natural cyclic variation and is unique and of modern human origin:
a. Due the increased CO2 concentration (presumed to be entirely due to human activity)
b. Cannot be due to any other cause even though there are several historical precedents for comparable prior historical warming periods, and several historical occasions when CO2 was much higher and there was no significant global warming.
c. That the current warming is unprecedented (which on its face is ludicrous given prior historical warm periods)
etc. etc.
Larry
Jan P. Perlwitz: I don’t think you understand the null hypothesis and the onus it puts to anyone, before giving CAGW credibility. If you are a scientist, you would understand already, and would know who has to prove what. You have much homework to do… you should stop commenting and go do your homework. GK
And Watts, by bringing Joe Rohm into this, shows his own insecurities. Great job. You have successfully equated Rohm to Heartland. You have to think before you post.
Hats off to those on the Skeptic side who condem this horrible ad.
Heh! I remember back in the old days when Warble Gloaming really was the fringe position and was only embraced by the New Age Gaia crowd. Then, some guy from the EPA started going off about 20 foot sea-level rises at an engagement party, and we told him to buy flood insurance if he was so worried.
If the ad ran on the Ike at rush hour, it at least had entertainment value for the poor folks stuck in traffic. Educational, too! Many of them have probably never even heard of the Unabomber.
Too early to call if the ad was net positive or negative overall.
However, if Heartland got the MSM to say Heartland isn’t allowed to make use of guilt by association, even when it is merely stating the fact that homicidal maniacs bought into CAGW because it was consonant with their views, well, then, the alarmists have to play by that rulebook, too. No use of guilt by association for them, either. And since that is a major tactic of theirs, it’s a dead stymie for them. They will be obvious hypocrites otherwise.
OK, so now I’m pissed.
I originally voted that I thought the ad was over the top and a mistake. I thought that the tactics were ham-handed, and could hand an easy weapon the left could use to bludgeon us.
Now that I see almost all skeptics abandoning Heartland, dropping out of their upcoming conference, I have to ask, have skeptics lost their spine?
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
I’ve never contributed to Heartland, but am now motivated to do so.
I think this has been a mistake, I feel sure there will be a silent majority of people who do not believe in Man Made Global Warming, or in the behavior and wording of the people who do believe in it. To see Heartland go down the same road, is very saddening.
Smokey says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:05 am
………, James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen……..
Every time I hear of “Coal Trains” Hansen I can’t help but think of Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane on “The Dukes Of Hazzard”.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm
To what specific hypotheses stated by whom and when in what scientific papers do you refer when you make this assertion about the “100% prediction failure rate”?
Seriously, Jan, now it looks like perhaps you should first answer the question of why you are even here at WUWT and appearing to care if mainstream Climate Science’s apparent hypotheses have been falsified or not – that is, if in your own practice of mainstream Climate Science at GISS[?] it also appears that you don’t even know what they are!
And since, even more, you seem to be telling us in effect that mainstream Climate Science itself doesn’t even have any real scientific hypotheses to begin with, in other words, nothing that you are aware of along the lines of coherent science-driven predictions that are falsifiable!
So that you apparently agree with me that mainstream Climate Science is nothing more than a massive Propaganda Op.?
Mr. Jan Perlwitz says:
>The “truth” how it looks like in your conspiracy fantasy world. And why should anyone care about some stupid “null hypothesis” you have invented in your parallel universe? I do not see why I would have the burden of “falsifying” some hypothesis you have made up for yourself. Since when are scientists requested to test the hypotheses of other people?<
The Null Hypothesis is accepted in the world of science. It must be falsified if the Alternative Hypothesis of co2 causing globalo Dr. Kevin Trenberth wants the null hypothesis changed so it supports his global warming claims. That means Dr. Trenberth understands the null hypothesis.
It is not "some stupid 'null hypothesis' that a commenter "invented" and "made up." It is basic science.
I have serious doubts about Mr. Perlwitz's scientific qualifications. He looks like he doesn't understand the Scientific Method. He is lashing out at those who do, instead of trying to understand.
I'm not sure if I agree or not with the HI ad. But they rectified it. right away. That should count for something.
Can’t they just switch out the billlboards to Rosie O’Donnell, or Charlie Sheen ?