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.
hi ivan.
i got censored, too, at climate audit. my comment was polite, germane and conflicted with the narrative. it’s become a personality cult over there, i fear.
i also got snipped here – but there is a distinction between moderation and censorship. i’ve always been allowed to make my point when i thought i had one at wuwt. the mods are able to discriminate between a legitimately provocative comment and trolling. also, i love that they usually put a brief explanation along with the redaction in case the reason for it was not totally self evident. they are truly outstanding.
Though I don’t have a problem with the billboard I can understand how some people do. Now Heartland has to be careful to not offend both sides. Good luck with that.
—
Jan P. Perlwitz
I had more to say about James Hansen but moderators want that topic ended. So I’ll have to hope there will be another opportunity when cosmic tumblers may bring the topic up again with both you and I present.
It was crass and stupid, and an apology is due to decent people like Donna Laframboise, if not a refund for her ticket to attend the conference. Shame on Heartland.
My last comment at CA censored as well.
I am gobsmacked that this is blown out of proportion. Geez people let it go.
It was put up in a single city on a few billboards. I only learned about it when I saw it here posted by a skeptic, otherwise I doubt I would have ever known about it.
It has been taken down and still the howling goes on. I am going to stay out of it and not bring it up at my forum because it is not worth it.
As a former (and burnt-ou!t) cog in the advertising world, I have a few thoughts on this.
First, yes, this is a dumb ad even if it was an experiment. There is no logic to it. As someone here said, had they linked the Breivik-skeptics slander and used the Kaczynsky example to make a point about poor logic, then the ad might have been effective.
Secondly, as stupid as this ad may be, it isn’t the end of the world. Skeptics protested loudly and the ad was quickly removed. I hope all those who decided to boycott the Heartland conference would reconsider. Come now, people, chill; the point has been made and going “nuclear” on an ally who made a mistake is unnecessary and counter-productive.
Thirdly, if I were Heartland, I would make an ad, obviously on a different forum, about the pulled ad, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Alarmists and how the skeptic’s side is far more principled in willing to criticise a friend over an unacceptable position.
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Someone asks:
“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”.
Cooling of the stratosphere
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Eli, of course you know that stratospheric cooling, if present?
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
[h/t steve s says:
May 1, 2012 at 7:39 pm ]
is not an event uniquely attributable to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and therefore cannot itself come anywhere close to proving mainstream Climate Science’s contention that atmospheric CO2 concentrations “drive” temperatures or the climate. For example, anything decreasing stratospheric Ozone concentration can apparently cause or at least act toward producing stratospheric cooling, including a decrease in its production or a change in the O2/O3 physics effected by the Sun.
In other words in this case, A implies B certainly does not mean that B implies A. Therefore, although the occurrence of stratospheric cooling would be called “consistent with” CO2 = CAGW, a finding of stratospheric cooling is not the kind of “prediction success” critical to proving mainstream Climate Science’s CO2 = GW atmospheric warming hypothesis.
But I’m sure you also knew that!
Oops, REP, sorry about my last post, apparently getting too far off topic, I think.
I’m just trying to turn off e-mails. I apparently have to submit a reply in order to deselect follow-ups.
[Reply: try WordPress preferences in one of the email alerts you’re getting. Turn off emails. ~dbs, mod.]
J. Watson,
Donna Laframboise was the invited guest of Heartland. They paid her conference expenses [including her ‘ticket’], therefore they do not owe her any reimbursement, as you assert. They also owe no apologies for telling the truth about the Unabomber’s global warming views.
Donna publicly threw the entire organization under the bus, for what can [at most] be described as a simple mistake. A ‘mistake’ that was promptly rectified. The holier-than-thou reaction of Donna L was akin to demanding capital punishment for jaywalking. I would never treat a host, ally and friend that way. But that’s just me, I guess.
Check out the Gleick thread. You will see that Heartland was extremely polite and deferential to Peter Gleick throughout their correspondence, inviting him to speak, and agreeing to his demands for reimbursement of his expenses. Instead, Gleick refused to attend, and then committed identity fraud to steal their property.
The only difference I can see between Peter and Donna is that Donna gave Heartland a public slap in the face for their kind offer of hospitality, instead of defrauding them and stealing their property like Gleick did. I don’t know which is more reprehensible. Donna never contacted them privately to discuss the matter. Instead, she wrote an open letter, publicly thrashing them without giving them any chance to respond, or pull the ad — which she could have then taken credit for. But she didn’t even think that far ahead, she just jumped on the tar and feather bandwagon. Despicable, IMHO.
Have you never made a mistake? Do you think Prima Donna has never made a mistake? [I personaly don’t even view it as a mistake; the ad was factual, and it served its purpose of generating awareness of the issue and of the upcoming conference].
Heartland has been treated with total, uncompromising intolerance by you and many others. Any kind of forgiveness seems to be out of the question. Why is that? I really don’t understand. Maybe you or someone else can explain to me why Donna’s was not a total, self-serving over-reaction; publicly backstabbing a friend by throwing red meat to the circus crowd, rather than reasoning with Heartland in private. Tell me: which would be the stand-up thing to do? Which would have been the right way to handle it?
Is there anything I’ve said here that you disagree with? If so, tell me. I want to understand why your reaction [or Donna’s] is any better than what Heartland did.
. . .
Peter Kovachev,
Thanks, you said it better than I.
Ken Harvey says: May 6, 2012 at 12:29 pm
The consensus here is that Heartland were winning.
No, I and other commentors have suggested that “we”, i.e. climate skeptics, are winning. Heartland is a valuable ally, but we will succeed with or without them.
When the chips are down, one has no option but to be near as beastly as the enemy if one,and one’s family, are to survive. One can argue in favour of gentlemanly debate only if one has never been in a firefight.
We are in the middle of a firefight and we are metaphorically outgunned by billions of dollars. Fighting this fight on their turf, i.e. mudslinging alley, isn’t going to work. We need to select tactics that negate our opponents strengths and play to our own. Have you noticed that that none of the multitude of Warmists on this thread have been able to challenge any of the facts I’ve presented? The truth is the Warmists’ kryptonite, they can spin all they want, but they can’t make Earth get warmer. We should build ourselves credible platforms to educate the opinion leaders, the scientific community, the politicians and the main stream media, the facts should take care of the rest…
What a horrifically bad idea. As others have pointed out, there went the Gleick sympathy/goodwill in a puff of digital billboard pixels.
geo,
“Horrifically”???
The Holocaust was horrific. Atomic bombing Hiroshima was horrific. This was, at best, a minor mistake. Try to get a grip. Hyperbole like that doesn’t solve anything.
Complement Heartland for doing what you wanted. It works better. While you’re at it, give them a pat on the back for inviting climate alarmists like Gleick. You will notice that the alarmist side never invites scientific skeptics like Lord Monckton.
Stop attacking friends. They accommodated you. Ingratitude shows lack of character.
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Someone asks:
“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”.
Cooling of the stratosphere
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
====================================================
Eli, didn’t you see that your graph contradicts your assertion? As others have shown, your stratospheric cooling ended in 1994……. nearly twenty years ago. At what point do you people finally throw your hands up and admit the Uni-bomber was wrong?
suyts- don’t you think it is grossly unfair to tar mr kaczynski with the eli brush?
gnomish says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm
suyts- don’t you think it is grossly unfair to tar mr kaczynski with the eli brush?
======================================================
Lol, well, it may be a bit….. …… assuming kaczynski can, at least, read a graph.
All jesting aside, I’m sure Eli is really a nice person. I assume he’s so inadequate that he doesn’t realize his advocacy, the same as countless others, has resulted, in not just murders, (as my links show above), but also the deaths of countless others. The Unabomber has done far less damage…… as despicable as he is.
Kaczynski Heartland billboard wasn’t a blunder
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/05/kaczynski-heartland-billboard-wasnt.html
Like I pointed out earlier you guys were missing the point of the billboard.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-976625
It seems that Alexander Feht is the only one who gets it.I find that incredible
Thanks, Smokey, but this is thing gets convoluted and we’re all being thrown into a disarray and I’m all over the map with it. I agree with you that Donna Laframboise’s response was way over-the-top. She could have indeed contacted Heartland privately and explained that she cannot attend as long as this thing is running. Heartland is obviously sensitive to its supporters’ sensitivities. Her response, you rightly point out was inexplicably rude and extreme, but I don’t know if I can agree with you about her motives. I think that like a lot of us, she just over-reacted and didn’t think things through, a response which will now damage her reputation. In the context of the unfavourable and even angry response to Heartland’s ad, Alexander Feht’s charge also sticks, but Alexander being his hot-headed self, he too goes way over the top, just like Donna, but in the opposite direction, when he ascribes cowardice as the sole cause.
I almost never disagree with Pointman, as I share his view that this is an information war (one which he articulates much better than I)…with the proviso that while the science will not win it, it’s a crucial component, one which will insure that the victory will stick over the long term. But while I totally support his “strategic doctrine” of full-scale, gloves-off information warfare, the mistake I think Heartland made is not a strategic one, but one of piss-poor tactics. Heartland used the wrong display medium, poorly defined their point, caused divisions even among their friends and resorted to a fallacy, one of cherry-picking and associating an unsavoury character with a cause. True, even fallacies may get attention, sometimes by highlighting the weaknesses of the opponent, but most often they leave a bad taste, as the target audience senses something is wrong and feels it’s being manipulated, something they have just…after all these years…learned to associate with the Alarmist side. The proof is in the pudding, though, and the bottom line, as we can all see, is that Heartland didn’t get their point across successfully…they didn’t take their ridge…not even with the skeptics. That is what counts in the end; not how good an idea may have seemed,or how something really should have worked. A good general accept strategic or tactical failures, even when the plan may have been “good” and makes quick adjustments. On this I think that Heartland did admiringly well when they took the ad off. I don’t think that even associating Katzinsky with the Alarmists was a bad idea in and of itself; just that the execution bit flopped by losing the message, and I think they can still retain the core of the concept and develop it to more clearly show the hypocrycy of the Alarmists, either in the format of a print ad or a video. The vestigal ad-muppet in me can just see it: “We ran an ad our friends didn’t like and we pulled it. The point we were trying to make, obviously poorly, was that…etc., etc.” Now that would get some attention and respect as well. Nothing works as well as the truth when someone’s in the right.
I still think that we have to remember not to fly off the handle and go ape on each other with hyperbolae whenever we disagree, especially over piddly things like this. Promoting our position in this information war without a centralized “command” has advantages and disadvantages, and we just saw a disadvantage. I hope we’re smart and flexible enough to learn from this and to” adjust our fire”….for better effect, or at least away from our own foxholes.
Peter Kovachev,
Thanks for your very rational analysis. What disgusted me was the self-serving jockeying for position; the ‘triangulating’ of public positions by the ‘open letter’ writers in order to end up in the safest spot: the middle of the herd.
Heartland is David vs Goliath. The have been fighting successfully on behalf of the little guy for 25 years, on a shoestring budget. But some of their critics on the skeptic side went completely overboard, stomping them when they were down.
I was especialy saddened to see the self-serving ‘open letters’ from people like Donna, McKitrick and others, who would have had every bit as much influence if they had contacted Heartland privately. All those letters said was, “Look at me, I’m holier than thou!” As if the public critics never made a mistake in their perfect lives.
The vicious animosity expressed over what is, in the scheme of things, just a disagreement over a tactical issue is unacceptable, because public infighting is always very bad for the side that engages in it.
Maybe there will be a lesson learned by those on our side, because we still have a major job educating the public. Heartland has plugged away for a quarter century doing that educating. Their staff doesn’t get paid much, but they stick with it because they believe in their mission.
It would be a major credit to those who wrote letters excoriating Heartland to now write an open follow-up letter praising them for promptly removing the ad. Will McKitrick, Laframboise and others do the right thing now, and publicly praise Heartland for taking quick action? They should contrast Heartland with those on the alarmist side like Michael Mann, who never admits to making a mistake – and yet no one on the alarmist side ever calls him on his numerous blunders and dishonest tactics.
Those same ‘open letter’ individuals made the HI ad a character issue. Now, we will see if those same letter writers have one-tenth the character of the Heartland organization.
No one likes hypocrisy, and now that the dust has settled on the billboard issue the ball is in the critics’ court. Will they do the right thing now, and praise Heartland for admitting to a mis-step, and then immediately fixing it? Or, will they just smugly just MoveOn, satisfied that they threw a loyal friend under the bus, kicked them when they were down, and now feel no need whatever to acknowledge the immense good that Heartland has been doing, on our behalf, for 25 years?
We will see who has real character by their actions, or lack thereof.
sunsettommy says:
May 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Kaczynski Heartland billboard wasn’t a blunder
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/05/kaczynski-heartland-billboard-wasnt.html
Like I pointed out earlier you guys were missing the point of the billboard.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-976625
It seems that Alexander Feht is the only one who gets it.I find that incredible
====
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/05/kaczynski-heartland-billboard-wasnt.html
“And make no doubt about it, people are still afraid to freely express their opinions because they feel that the society is being controlled by the alarmists. The fact that the Unabomber is a climate alarmist may be inconvenient but it’s still a fact and if the society – including Ross – develops speech codes in which it’s not allowed to state such simple facts, there can only be one result: the people who know the truth about related issues will be buried in the soil and all the liars will be increasingly successful in drowning the society in the propaganda and lies, harming your business, and robbing your money.”
This is the most scary part of it – self-censorship by the victims..
“Ross: “You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.”
Firstly, they are exactly that – what they have been doing is deflecting attention from their own agenda of mass murder and terroism by a constant barrage against those objecting to their agenda by accusing us of these desires, sympathies with, as they do with accusations of ‘big oil funded sceptics’ when it is they who are so funded.
I fear that Ross in the perceived vanguard of ‘climate skeptics’ is doing us a disservice here. Reminds me of the reaction to Beria’s reasoning, the sceptics so browbeaten by having to defend themselves against accusations of ‘callous disregard for humanity’ that they’d rather not have it mentioned at all, arguing instead that the ‘science should be debated’ instead of pointing out the truth here, there’s no science to debate because it’s a deliberate twisting of science to promote a murderous agenda. AGW ‘science’ is a fiction on every level created by those psycho/sociopaths who are actually intent on mass murder and enslavement and this is supported by countless useful idiots who don’t understand this to the point of complete mental disassocation from its reality, how else could they find blowing up children funny?
At best they have gone insane. You can’t debate reasonably with the insane.
[Beria first proposed that those dissenting from the official version were insane – his reasoning that people wouldn’t want to be associated with the ideas against the ‘system’ for embarrassment of being thought insane. If instead of trying to ignore this and limiting the underground ‘debate’ to the pros and cons of Marxism with objections to the treatment for those dissenting, the horrors of camps and mass murder, they had turned the tables and pointed out the insanity was actually of those joining in the viscious repression of freedom on their neighbours and even family members, those decades may well have been very different.]
Holding up a mirror to this murderous insanity on personal and leadership level, the billboard campaign, is a good step in my view, because their plans for ‘deniers equated with terrorists’ is being drip fed to make it ‘the norm’, ‘the enemy of the people to be repressed’, while the truth is they are the terrorists. Also ridicule as MarkR mentions in that link, but here I think the ‘science’ is the best for ridicule; we should be building up strength of resistance to this insanity, not belittling to create fear of discussion.. . Perhaps something like the ridiculousness of the claims for the supermolecule carbon dioxide creating hurricanes and so on, and the fears about global warming when Chicago was buried under a mile of ice up until c12,000 years ago.
Good to see the Aye’s have it (that 3/4 of voters at the time of writing think it’s a mistake). However, I wonder how many of the “No” votes are genuine?
If I was on the CAGW side of the discussion, I would have voted “No” to the poll, after Napoleon’s advice: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
The big damage done to Heartland was in the skeptics response to it. Because of it the nasty alarmists are having a field day with it and the media is running with it in their typical one-sided hypocritical self.
Now Heartland is going to suffer and as the ONLY skeptical organization that sponsors large yearly conference for skeptics that has already lost at least one speaker and some traffic for the upcoming conference.
I fear that because skeptics overreacted Heartland will not sponsor any more conferences in the future because it. The alarmists groups are overjoyed over it.
Way to go skeptics!
Having been a frequenter of WUWT since Climategate 1.0 hit the ‘Net on 17 November 2009 (though I’m not a tyro when it comes to the preposterous bogosity of the AGW fraud, having followed it less intensively since I’d been alerted to it in 1981 by way of correspondence with the late Petr Beckmann), I’ve become somewhat familiar with the “regulars” commenting on this site.
In this thread, there have appeared a boatload of critters with whom I can’t recall previous encounters, including this Jan P. Perlwitz specimen, who claims to be that specific representative of the oldest profession laboring lucratively in Hansen’s whorehouse up at NASA GISS.
One or two Watermelons trolling a WUWT thread is the usual-and-customary, but a relative avalanche of nOObs mealy-mouthing about something like the entirely truthful observation that the ranks of las warmistas are replete with prominent sons of indiscriminate parentage spectacularly (even murderingly) hostile to the unalienable individual human rights of innocent people transcends the realm of coincidence and pretty obviously evinces concerted enemy action.
I think Mr. Watts’ Web site is being trolled en masse by concerted warmista design in order to exploit what is – to my merry way of thinking – an obvious and extremely effective tactic on the part of Heartland.
I’ve always held a sort of “Klotzen, nicht kleckern!” (expressed in colloquial American language as “Kick ’em in the crotch, don’t pee on ’em!”) approach to las warmistas, eschewing false politeness in favor of the explicit articulation of their hatefulness in motivation, method, and effects. A public relations campaign aimed at alerting the average citizen – the victim targeted by the AGW fraudsters for plunder – to the fact that these alarmists are one in spirit and intent with notable socialists and other murdering psychopaths seems to me an obvious and very useful line of action.
“Taking the high road” is certainly appropriate, but who the heck says that a convergent assault along “the low road” has to be eschewed?
As an example of the pure prissiness advocated by the overpolite wimps, at 10:10 PM on 4 May, Skiphil had commented:
Now, if anyone really knows such critters – the “very distinguished scientists” dependent for their livelihoods and professional advancement on government funding allocated by career politicians, for example, and “policy wonks at leading universities” (who have a massive and undeniable pecuniary incentive to suck up to politicians and their appointees in the public sector of our battered and bleeding economy, such “wonks” metaphorically living and dying on how cordial are their relations with those government goons) – you know that sweet and reasoned persuasion has no appeal for these perfumed and tailored bastiches, who will go on lying and leaping at other people’s money with the persistence of any other category of professional criminal.
So why the hell not “Kick ’em in the crotch” in addition to pursuing gentle persuasion?
I’m minded of a line attributed to Al Capone: “You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”
Ted Kaczynski – a fella “with above-average intelligence with connections to academia” and a (thankfully) unusual attitude toward the whole of humanity – is a warmista. So are Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Charlie Manson, and a whole bunch of similar beautiful people.
What the hell is supposed to be “inappropriate” about informing the general public of these plain and undeniable facts?
I thank HI for its billboard usage which has provided the opportunity to see very clearly now the wide spectrum of world views (aka philosophies) of ‘skeptics’ here at WUWT and of Anthony himself. The disparate and sometimes mutually hostile philosophies held by WUWT skeptics are both an important asset and a tough challenge.
I think the scientific aspects of climate science are just one of the necessary intellectual vitamins needed for a healthy view of the IPCC centric CAGWism. The other necessary intellectual vitamins needed are within the other areas of philosophy. HI has exposed the importance of the missing vitamins; e.g. – this blog’s reaction.
All the intellectual vitamins essential to a healthy view of the IPCC centric CAGWism are most likely found on a blog that is explicitly focused on the fundamental concepts of philosophy. Historically that has not been, in my opinion, WUWT’s focus although we sometimes touch on them at WUWT.
HI may hold some of the other essential intellectual vitamins needed for a healthy view of the IPCC centric CAGWism. So I will go look for them while at HI’s ICCC-7. I may find some there but perhaps not all of them.
John
What Heartland did was not just a “mistake” but a conscious smearing of the targeted audience for the non-CAGW hypothesis as those the general public considers suitable for execution and assassination. It was an egregious ad hominem attack of the 10-10 No Pressure level decried by Heartland and everyone else on the skeptic side. What Heartland did immediately tarred those attending the conference: those you choose to hang with represent those you support overall. Attending the conference under this billboard became no different from attending a conference organized by an unrepentant white supremacist, something I’m sure we all understand to be dumb, dumb, dumb.
Donna LaF stood up and said she would not be associated with Heartland not strictly because of the ads, which most recognized were stupidly considered, but because they refused to say they were stupidly considered. There was no apology, indeed Heartland said they would continue with other provocative ads, indicating that the “execution” of this one was over-the-top, but the concept wasn’t. The execution was perfect, actually, but the concept is vicious.
Some commenters have suggested that in this “war” a good general uses whatever weapons or tactics at his disposal, for winning is what counts. CAGW, as shown by Climategate and Gleick, is not just a technical problem, but a political and social moral problem: when you lie, cheat, sabotage and conspire to manipulate the public, ruin people’s careers, smear their personal reputations, you destroy the foundations of democratic government and trust in public and powerful figures. When you use the same arrows as your enemy, as Heartland did, you demonstrate that you are not necessarily any more trustworthy or honourable than they. The proper response of your audience is to say: A plague on both your houses, or, better still, Lock them both up.
The climate wars are being fought with intellectual concepts. Free, honest expression, free honest statements, free, honest debate. That is what we both want and need to run a society the way you and I need it to be run to preserve our personal freedom and security. It is against our individual best interests to accept duplicity, meanness or lies being used by any side of an issue. The FOI and FOIA legislation of both Britain and the USA of designed purely to allow us to see behind the screen, to determine exactly why things were being done, to determine if subterfuge is going on. We want to know that everyone says what they mean, means what they say, has no private agenda. Heartland, BY NOT RETRACTING their intentions (that’s the apology) shows that they will modify what they tell us if it is achieves what they want better than telling us straight out.
There is a history of terrible mud-slinging in American politics that does not exist in Canada. Donna is a Canadian. There is one in Iran, also: America is the Great Satan, right? a hyperbole that outrageous American listeners while being recognized as hyperbole by most Iranians … by most Iranians. But all? No. By the leaders? We hope so, but maybe not. So it is with Heartland. Perhaps, using the historical way to win votes as an example, they went the Unabomber route. “Knowing” that we would recognize this as the Great Satan approach. Perhaps. Perhaps Heartland doesn’t actually believe that the warmists, who account for more than 1/3 of Americans, will be outraged by this, see the skeptics as fascists and beasts. But maybe some do. Maybe the ones at the top, just like the Iranian president, actually do believe this.
Doesn’t that make you pause?
If you don’t believe something, don’t say it. If, in the passion of the fight, you speak badly, retract and apoligize. Explain what you mean. Heartland did the first, but not the second or third. They made me doubt their moral character. Can I trust them to represent me in statements later? Can I trust them to point out “inconvenient” facts against their position if, tactically, staying quiet or covering them up is better? Not any more.
Donna did what all of those going to the conference should be doing. Her host, as someone described Heartland, was offensive and unrepentant. Her going to Chicago is support for their message. But what message? That warmists are idiots, morally degraded and a danger to society?
I’m disappointed in Anthony Watts and the others. It is one thing to say, as he did, If they had asked my opinion, I would have said it was a bad idea. They didn’t. So now he has to deal with it. Where do you stand? Was it a “bad idea” or a bizarre idea that I want everyone to know I object strongly to any association you might think I have to such a concept. Warmists as psychopaths and mass murderers?
You can’t say that Gleick did a bad thing by lying to expose a corrupt group of people if, by the subsequent evidence, they are shown to be a corrupt group. That is the idea of legislation protecting the whistleblower. If subsequent evidence showed WMD in Iraq, when intel said there was none, the world would have applauded Bush’s risk-taking. However, there was no WMD in Iraq, and so Bush shows up as manipulative liar who dragged Britain into a war it wouldn’t have supported had it known the truth. This is where Gleick appeared to fail: the Heartland wasn’t the Bad Guy he believed them to be. The billboard ads Heartland just ran now suggest otherwise. What else is there at Heartland that we should be looking at?
Don’t get me wrong. I am a skeptic, nay, disbeliever in CAGW. But I don’t follow the Arab saying, An enemy of my enemy is my friend. Donna’s response to Heartland comes from that place. So should Watts et al.
This is the true lesson here: an enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Heartland needs to repudiate its billboard ads in principle, not just practice. They have undermined my confidence in them that they will counter lies with truth, manipulation with openness and honesty. They see the Great Satan as Mann, Hansen, Gore, Romm, McKibben, just as our Mid-East foes see Obama. Anything goes when you face the Walking Man.
Those who attend Heartland should know that every word, every appearance, every position claiming to be on a higher moral plane will be compromised by the refusal of Heartland to apologize and offer deep regrets.
CAGW, as we know, is not just any tale, but a morality tale. There are those who act to deceive us, and there are those who act to inform us correctly. Donna has demonstrated, at personal cost to herself, that we should decide in which group we are determined to stand, and make it clear. It is depressing that she is the only one at this point.
= = = = = =
Doug Proctor,
You are not in a position to tell me what I should know when attending ICCC-7. I will do my life my way by attending ICCC-7 and having a straight discourse with HI. It is likely I will know things as a result that you cannot know.
John
If the conference was sponsored by white supremists, or flat earthers, or those fundamental Christians who say that God would never harm His greatest creation, Man, you would feel that your appearance would fortify their other-than-climate views. This is no different. The Heartland equated various types of killers to warmists. And then they did not apologize or retract their statement, but indicated that they would do other, though perhaps less striking, ads in the future. Each time Romm or others speak of you, they can say “That Whitman, a speaker at Heartland, author of visiously noxious attacks on the average American believer in climate change.”
I do have a right to say what I think, even about appropriate actions of others. The Heartland ad compromises values that the skeptics claimed were violated by the UK No Pressure ads. Which were violated. Once you stand behind an organization that refuses to admit error, you are the same as the warmists who complained that skeptics were whiners without a sense of humour.
The CAGW “war” degenerates into a non-technical mudslinging by such antics. The skeptical side is that Mann et al say one thing and do another; it is up to the skeptics say and do consistently.
The Heartland ads were mean, unnecessary and unsupportable at any level. The Heartland has stood by them by not repudiating them and apologizing for the bad judgement. All those who lie down with dogs, it will be said, can be suspected of rising up with fleas. It may not be true, but it is certainly what we consider true of the friends of Peter Gleick.