Brad Johnson’s (formerly of Climate Progress, now of “Forecast the Facts”) “Rally Against Corporate Climate Deniers” was a great bit of entertainment for many at the Heartland conference yesterday. I was in session, and couldn’t attend, but I heard about the guy wearing a rubber boot on his head with the bullhorn (Vermin Supreme who ran for president and campaigned in 2012 on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness and time travel research and he promises a free pony for every American.). I heard about this guy from Lucia, who was there and promises has an update on her blog. I hear she has some video of the cops intervening.
It may be the “boot” was parodying the fact that Brad Johnson seems to have “gotten the boot” from the Center for American Progress/Think Progress, as he no longer seems to be associated or publishing his rants there. Maybe it was the repeated suggestions that tornadoes were retributions for a conservative voting record that did it.
This “protest” he staged is hilarious on so many levels for the sheer FAIL on display. He couldn’t even pull off a decent protest. Kid’s today are nothing like their radical parents of the 60’s. Pictures follow.
From Tom Nelson:
From Brad Johnson’s “Rally Against Corporate Climate Deniers” photos here:
Although the “boot on the head” guy was arguably the most prominent figure at the protest, Johnson didn’t publish any individual shots of him. I wonder why? Note that the boot is visible at left in the group picture above.
Today’s (yesterday’s) sparsely-attended climate hoax activist protest in Chicago
One of the loudest protesters was the guy who wore a rubber boot on his head for some unexplained reason. His bullhorn was labeled “Vermin Supreme”.
A banner was evidently supposed to be dramatically unfurled, but I don’t think anyone could read it:
This woman was pedaling around a planet-saving sign, with planet-killing bottled water within easy reach:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What have Pfizer got to do with Global Warming? You may ask. Well, it’s all about “hiding the decline”!
Michael J Alexander says:
May 23, 2012 at 8:24 am
I love Vermin Supreme! If elected, he promises “A pony in every garage”!!!! Come On! Who WOULDN’T vote for that!!!! 🙂
_______________________________________
ME! I now have a full two dozen.
Perhaps Vermin Supreme would like to buy a few. I have about a half dozen I want to sell. How does a $100,000 a pony sound Vermin? They are girls and you can breed them so you will have plenty for when you become president. I am sure you can get some Obama grant funding to buy them.
“there was exactly ONE (1) protester. ”
The old-style leftists and ex-Marxists and fellow travelers thought the “One percenter” kids would follow the oldsters ideal of marching on the climate conference.
Their thinking is faulty. The One Percenters do not buy into the climate change product. The only kids who do are the few 350.org-sters, who are outliers from the mainstream because they won’t jump on the cap and trade train.
Oh yeah … the ‘boot’ guy was around the NATO protests Saturday and Sunday in Chicago; I recognize him from the live streaming videos a couple of the protesters had going during the protests there in Chicago.
.
Jason Calley says:
May 23, 2012 at 12:26 pm
“There is no reason in the world why anarchists could not form a Union of Anarchists, just as long as membership was voluntary and the union did not instigate violence against anyone.”
——–
Now that’s a hoot. I’m not sure the two could co-exist. Non-violence and unions. Nah. No way.
One of the protesters giving a speech scores an own-goal:
“Hello everyone hows it going?” *cheers* “Uh I’m going to start off with a story first about how the soviet union. the soviet union uhh had science programs, they also had jails and they used these jails, oops, they used these jails in order to regulate their science programs. Here in the united states we don’t need jails, we have money, so what we do is we funnel money into the programs that are saying what we want to.” etc.
ROFL.
Isn’t Pfizer of the companies hoping to profit from medicating us out of our scepticism?
DaveE.
Gail Combs says:
May 23, 2012 at 3:27 pm”
“Perhaps Vermin Supreme would like to buy a few. I have about a half dozen I want to sell. How does a $100,000 a pony sound Vermin? They are girls and you can breed them so you will have plenty for when you become president.”
Even if he does wear a boot on his head, that was entirely uncalled for. Besides, it seems he is married. I just wonder where the other boot goes.
Don’t know about the Heartland “protest”, but the with the NATO meeting just ending in Chicago, it might not be the best of times to provoke a tired police force.
Michael J Alexander says:
May 23, 2012 at 8:24 am
I love Vermin Supreme! If elected, he promises “A pony in every garage”!!!! Come On! Who WOULDN’T vote for that!!!! 🙂
_______________________________________
ME! I now have a full two dozen.
Perhaps Vermin Supreme would like to buy a few. I have about a half dozen I want to sell. How does a $100,000 a pony sound Vermin? They are girls and you can breed them
Maybe he should just buy a male horse to do the breeding
Protester head-count from photo supplied: 33
Wow. It is worse than having no protest at all – it’s just embarrassing.
‘The national campaign calling on corporations to end their support of the climate change-denying Heartland Institute has galvanized more than 150,000 people’
http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20120521164146570
Looks like a case of if the boot fits, wear it, please at every opportunity..
Truly priceless..
Smokey wrote:
when I left the hotel today there was exactly ONE (1) protester. He looked very lonely. IMHO, one protester was worse than none. He reminded everyone how pathetic his feeble ‘protest’ was. Add insult to injury: no one was taking his flyers. Everyone ignored him.
Everyone ignored him. Just like the entire scientific community from the NAS on down treats the “science” from the Heartland Institute. You focus on the protesters; the worlds’ scientific community focuses on the science. Here’s a direct question for you and Anthony Watts: Why do you think this is?
Just wondering, what are the laws in the US like regarding appropriation of logos for such purposes? Don’t they need the relevant companies’ permission?
“Forecast the Facts” really should be called “Broadcast the Lies”.
Among their porkies:
““Given that the Heartland Institute’s conference is the preeminent gathering to promote conspiracy theories aboutclimate science, it’s amazing that major corporations, many of which profess to care about climate change, continue to support their efforts,” said Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts.”
Right. The CAGW tribe are the only ones talking about “conspiracy theories”, so that’s a straw man.
And:
“The Heartland conference is one of the most brazen examples of how the fossil fuel industry funds climate change denialism for its own profit, at the expense of the millions of people around the world already suffering from massive climate disruptions — floods, droughts, and more. Do Pfizer, Microsoft, and Comcast really want to be complicit in this human tragedy by continuing to fund Heartland?”
Wow. Two big lies they are fond of telling. I suppose they can’t be blamed, though, since they don’t have any actual facts on their side.
65. Dave said (May 24, 2012 at 6:53 am)
“…Just wondering, what are the laws in the US like regarding appropriation of logos for such purposes? Don’t they need the relevant companies’ permission?…”
According to Clear Channel Communications in Chicago, they did:
“…The Times also reports another group was vying for the position. Forecast the Facts came up with its own billboard, which Clear Channel decided it would not post for trademark reasons. This billboard said “We still support Climate Deniers. Do you?” and featured the pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s logo along with the amount of its donation to Heartland. Spokesperson for Clear Channel Jim Cullinan told the Times there are legal reasons regarding the use of the Pfizer logo that prevented that billboard from going up…”
So they went from an electroninc billboard concept (which uses a LOT of electricity) to protesters on bikes pulling banners.
“…A new study concludes that there are environmental reasons to avoid digital billboards as well. Digital billboards, which are made of LED lights, consume lots of energy and are made of components that will turn into e-waste once the billboard’s life has ended…”
and
“…But wait, you ask, isn’t LED lighting quite energy-efficient? True, notes the report’s author, Gregory Young, a Philadelphia-based architectural designer and urban planner. But traditional billboards are lit by only two or three lamps, albeit inefficient ones, and only at night. By contrast, digital billboards have hundreds if not thousands of LEDs, which are illuminated day and night. And LEDs function poorly at high temperatures, so the signs need a cooling system…”
They say that a digital billboard can consume up to 30 times the energy that an average American home uses.
So Al Gore and Forecast the Facts, in an effort to save the earth, decided to use a wasteful medium to do it. Typical.
64.Phil C said (May 24, 2012 at 5:26 am)
“…Everyone ignored him. Just like the entire scientific community from the NAS on down treats the “science” from the Heartland Institute. You focus on the protesters; the worlds’ scientific community focuses on the science. Here’s a direct question for you and Anthony Watts: Why do you think this is?…”
It’s amazing how the use of quotes shows the true thoughts of the poster.
You mention the “science” of Heartland. We don’t question the science, we question the “climate scientists”.
See the difference?
Bruce Cobb writes:
May 24, 2012 at 7:02 am
“The CAGW tribe are the only ones talking about “conspiracy theories”, so that’s a straw man.”
And yet, every single time I talk with someone who disagrees with the scientific findings of the IPCC (which are endorsed by by the National Academies of Science, The American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Geophysical Union, and every other professional scientific organization I can find a statement from) and ask why when virtually every respected scientific organization representing virtually every practicing climate scientist in the world reaches the same fundamental conclusion about what the facts are about climate change (the Earth is warming and it is subsantially caused by greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels), the best response I get is that the world’s scientists are just pushing out these false ideas.
Please tell me then, if you disagree with all these scientists, all these scientific organizations, and all the scientific findings they so overwhelmingly endorse, and it’s not a conspiracy amongst them, then what is it? What do YOU know that thousands and thousands of professional scientists have missed?
We don’t question the science, we question the “climate scientists”. See the difference?
No. Please explain.
Phil C says:
May 24, 2012 at 9:21 am
Bruce Cobb writes:
May 24, 2012 at 7:02 am
“The CAGW tribe are the only ones talking about “conspiracy theories”, so that’s a straw man.”
And yet, every single time I talk with someone who disagrees with the scientific findings of the IPCC (which are endorsed by by the National Academies of Science, The American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Geophysical Union, and every other professional scientific organization I can find a statement from) and ask why when virtually every respected scientific organization representing virtually every practicing climate scientist in the world reaches the same fundamental conclusion about what the facts are about climate change (the Earth is warming and it is subsantially caused by greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels), the best response I get is that the world’s scientists are just pushing out these false ideas.
That’s the “best response” you get? Really Phil? Tell us the truth now (if that is indeed possible for you), you just made that up, didn’t you? Of course you did, because that is what Warmist Trolls do.
There is no need for any conspiracy. The Warmist industry is a self-supporting one, fueled by multi-billions of dollars, politics, personal egos, and other factors. Some of them may truly believe that they are doing science, when in fact they are not. Those like Hansen and Mann are in it for the fame, and because they have chosen to make a career not from science, but Alarmism.
The IPCC hasn’t done anything but make unsupported assertions with regard to CAGW, based on climate models which simply assume that C02 is a major climate driver; a classic case of GIGO. The Null Hypothesis, that climate change is primarily a natural phenomenon, and that any influence of man’s, other than on a local basis can not be identified stands.
which are endorsed by by the National Academies of Science, The American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Geophysical Union, and every other professional scientific organization I can find a statement from
Academies, Societies, Associations, and Unions. Those are conspiracies. The definition of conspiracy.
In Vancouver, rent-a-crowds require heroin, which gets pretty expensive. Especially for the taxpayer, when emergency services needs to get called to treat overdoes. Think I’m kidding? Look up Vancouver’s Occupy fiasco.
As for Bruce C – knowingly or not, you’re a cat’s paw for megawealthy global social engineers, just like those completely politicized (and therefore completely compromised) scientific organizations you mention. I wouldn’t trust them to tell me the time of day, and will continue to seek relevant data from non-compromised sources. That answer your question?
Beg your pardon Bruce – I meant PHIL C of course!
You know what’s funny about the alarmist cant that there is no conspiracy? Things like this – from Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren’s “Ecoscience”:
——————–
“Toward a Planetary Regime
…
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
———————-
You can’t make this stuff up! This is really how these people think, and they have long since begun to act on their beliefs and have them written into law. Eugenics in the form of enforced sterilization, fully funded by the British Government, is already taking place in India (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india), one of the reasons given being “the need to fight climate change”.
Some of them may truly believe that they are doing science, when in fact they are not.
Of the thousands of scientists doing climate research publishing thousands of papers supporting athroprogenic climate change, do you have stats showing which are doing science and which are not, and the evidence to back that up?
The IPCC hasn’t done anything but make unsupported assertions with regard to CAGW, based on climate models which simply assume that C02 is a major climate driver; a classic case of GIGO.
And on what page/citation of the IPCC technical report do you find that error? Show me.