====================================
Received via email:
Dr. Curry,
Thanks for reproducing in your recent post my account of the left’s attacks on our scientists and donors. It’s a story that isn’t getting nearly enough attention in the blogosphere. I’m disappointed, though, that you also reproduced, at length and even endorsed, the lies and distortions written about us by Suzanne Goldenberg. A simple call or email to me or Jim Lakely would have given us a chance to correct her many misstatements.
I won’t ask for a correction or apology, but please understand that …
(a) Concerning ICCC-7, we set a record for the number of cosponsors (60), 12 speakers asked to speak after only 2 withdrew, and the mood was decidedly upbeat. Opponents (including “Forecast the Facts” and Occupy Wall Street) promised to disrupt the conference and failed utterly – fewer than 50 people showed up for their rallies. Those who did show up wore boots on their heads and refused Christopher Monckton’s invitation to debate.
(b) You didn’t see many new faces on the program because 50 warmists invited to speak refused to show up, and we had set aside space on the program for them. I’ve said after nearly every conference since the 3rd one that “this is probably our last conference,” and I’ve made a fundraising pitch, because the ICCCs are expensive and I suspect they are subject to the law of diminishing returns, but we keep doing them due to popular demand. Stay tuned for news about ICCC-8.
(c) Concerning Heartland’s financial health, we’ve raised more money since the Fakegate incident than in the previous 11 months, and are on track to double our income this year. We’ve doubled the number of current donors since February. With only one exception so far, the donors we’ve lost either didn’t give in 2011 (or even in 2010) or have agreed to fund spin-off organizations we are creating, such as the R Street Institute, so the result is no net loss of our effectiveness, and actually an increase.
(d) The campaign against our directors and donors being conducted by “Forecast the Facts,” 350.org, and Greenpeace – not by “anonymous individuals” as you strangely suggest – in fact is unprecedented because it could not have occurred had not Peter Gleick stolen and revealed our donor list. But we are obviously well on our way to building a new and much larger donor base that is “Greenpeace proof.”
(e) Our PR response to Fakegate has been called “brilliant” even by the folks at DesmogBlog. History will record it as another major scandal that helped bring down the man-made global warming movement. But the MSM and environmental groups doubled down on their strategic mistake, understanding that the only way to prevent Fakegate from “becoming another Climategate” is to take down Heartland and its network of scientists and donors. Their tactics compelled us to match their intensity.
(f) I am not surprised or disappointed that you and other bloggers disapprove of our tactics. It is simply not your role in the controversy to be aggressive or controversial. But it is ours.
(g) The billboard, which cost $200, generated more than $5 million in earned media so far, and that figure doesn’t include television, radio, and tens of millions of page visits and online commentaries. Was the MSM coverage overwhelmingly negative? Of course. How could it be otherwise? There has been no positive coverage of skeptics since Fakegate broke, none at all, and reporters have made it clear that they will not report the debate fairly, so there is no longer any point in trying to appeal to their ethics or honesty. Thanks to the billboard, 37 million Americans now know that the debate over climate change continues.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me or Jim Lakely if you have questions or suggestions.
Joe
Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
Web site http://www.heartland.org
Support The Heartland Institute today!
=============================================================
FYI, I can back up point (b) from personal experience, he said the same thing last year. Also I’ve seen the list of people invited who declined to join the debate. You’d think that if we were as wrong and as stupid as they claim, it would be easy to just show up and slaughter us intellectually, but for some reason they don’t want to even try. – Anthony
James Sexton says:
May 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of AGW. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of AGW advocacy. This really isn’t a surprise. They told us they would do such atrocities and their feelings toward their fellow mankind. ”
I don’t know who you mean by “they”, but substitute AGW for X:
“There have been numerous documented atrocities committed in the name of X. Murder, rape, forced sterilizations, land confiscation…… you name it, it’s been done in the name of X advocacy.”
Replace X with most any ideology or belief and you get the same result.
I doubt you are able to get a hint, but not all AGW believers have murdered, raped, sterilized or confiscated land, nor condon those behaviors.
By the way, what are you basing your claims on? Specifically, who has “murdered”, “raped”, and “sterilized” in the “name of AGW”??? Or are you taking liberties with the meanings of those words?
Reg Nelson says:
May 25, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Glenn says:
May 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Hitler, the Unabomber, Manson are all criminals that committed criminal acts. Belief in AGW is not. Ian is right on target. It was idiotic and infantile, no matter the reason.
“Gleick admitted to (some of) his criminal acts in the name of CAGW. Why is he not in jail?”
Maybe because “pretexting” via email isn’t specifically outlined as a crime yet in the US.
“Unabomber and Gleick, both crazy and both criminals. I think the billboard.
Also what billboards used Hitler and Manson, BTW? I missed that part.”
You missed it because I didn’t claim it. And Gleick isn’t the only AGW supporter in the world, nor does he represent all the AGW supporters in the world.
“Those who did show up wore boots on their heads and refused Christopher Monckton’s invitation to debate.”
As I understand, Mr. Bast, only one person wore a boot on his head. Was that an unintentional mistatement or? You see, I’m getting a little tired of one side doing the same thing as the other side, and claiming victory.
Maybe so, but the question before us is, Should Heartland do it? The answer is No, because it has given its enemies an effective stick to beat it with, just like Hansen’s “death trains” has been an effective one for us. These “fringe” accusations, true or not, play poorly in Peoria; and guilt-by-association tactics are frowned upon by educated persons. Such tactics hurt Heartland, which is a would-be player in the mainstream. How can its representatives now be invited to testify before a congressional committee, with this embarrassment tied to their tail, giving the media and Democrats an excuse to mock and disregard whatever they say?
If an electronic billboard costs $200 a day, an ad hoc coalition of people here could rent it out and put up some hard-hitting, challenging, stick-it-to-the-man material. It’s self-defeating for Heartland to do so.
PS to the above. Heartland’s billboard was worse than a crime, it was a blunder. It has given its opponents what they’ve always wanted–an easy means to marginalize whatever it does or says or publishes, and to bludgeon its donors with. Most MSM reportage on its doings and sayings will now include an obligatory passing reference to this event, especially in conjunction with Heartland’s crusade against Gleick, under the pretext of being balanced.
It’s surrendered the high ground. If people here think a down and dirty approach is needed, it should have been taken by a brawler like Moreno. Not Heartland.
Re: Heartland Institute’s billboards.
They were exactly to the point, and very effective. (Kurt from Switzerland and other milk-toasts just don’t get it. They still think it is about “scientific debate.” It’s an armed robbery, Kurt, and supporting AGW in any way or form is not an “opinion” — it is as criminal as supporting any totalitarian ideology.)
Russians have an ancient proverb that could be loosely translated this way:
“An honest fool causes more grief than a clever thief.”
Re: Judith Curry.
I told you so. Most likely, her boss called her with a simple message: if she wouldn’t do it, her professional career is over. Result: wet pants, full compliance.
As “climate change” mantra loses power, and as voodoo climatology loses its funding, the elbow space available around that unsavory feeding trough is going to be more and more congested. Wait for other false friends to throw their masks off.
Nobody is “entitled” to respect. Respect must be earned. It is precious and fragile. Once you lose it, it’s gone forever.
[snip. ~dbs, mod.]
With all the economic and political problems, and preparations for war, going on in the world, this (CAGW ) isn’t even on the radar.
re: Gail Combs says:
May 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm
I do not like Mud Slinging but it has been around in political fights for eons.
=========================================================================
oh yes it goes right back to the beginning days of our republic:
Mud-slinging against Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson
Even before 1800 Callender was here smearing Alexander Hamilton with a mixture of fact and falsehood (yes Hamilton did have an affair, but no Hamilton was not guilty of financial corruption).
Thomas Callender was alternately useful to the Jeffersonians and then to anti-Jeffersonians, but he certainly knew how to smear (he would weave some possibly factual but unproved claims intermixed with falsehoods).
re: the Heartland billboards, they use a factual statement in a context which seemed to suggest a fallacious piece of reasoning with guilt by association: some highly unsavory characters believe in CAGW to one extent or another, therefore….. ?? what follows?
As a piece of guerilla theater turning the tables on all the smears from the CAGWarmists, the billboards were entertaining and possibly effective. Certainly satisfying!! I still don’t think they bolstered Heartland’s reputation or role in the battles over CAGW and policy. If you want to be credible in a wonky sort of way on the scientific and policy issues, I simply don’t see how it helps to engage in the tit-for-tat of guerilla theater…. no matter how much the CAGWarmists deserve it, and no matter how great the prior provocations and temptations.
Andy Warhole says: “There is NO SUCH THING as ‘bad publicity’..”
rogerknights;
You keep making these contrafactual assertions! “self-defeating” “surrendered the high ground” etc.
Funding and support has about doubled for HI in the short time since the billboards went up.
The boycotters and withdrawers were replaced many times over by new participants.
You sniffers-with-disdain who have thereby disjointed your own noses are just trying to hide from the reality of the seriousness of the fight. Or, in some cases, make the skeptics fight with both hands tied behind their (our) backs. Sorry not to accommodate.
The Unabomber billboard issue is just another tempest in a teapot. The false outrage of the global warmists is really rather amusing, given their propensity to use any vile lie to promote their cargo-cult Cause.
For decades, the global warming alarmist camp has been full of lies, deceit, scientific fraud, academic intimidation, threats of violence and real acts of violence against those “climate skeptics” who dared to oppose their repulsive brown-shirt behaviour and their voodoo science.
Anyone disputing these facts need only read the Climategate emails to fully confirm the validity of my previous sentence.
The actions of the global warmist cult betray their true colors: “Nothing is wrong , no act is too indecent, if it supports the global warming Cause”.
I say run a series of billboards highlighting the warmists’ repugnant attempts to stifle legitimate debate, threaten and intimidate their opponents, lie about the science, fabricate data to support their failed CAGW hypothesis and so on, and so on.
This long ago ceased being a scientific debate, if it ever was one. For decades, the climate skeptics have been bringing “Robert’s Rules of Order” to a street fight with vicious thugs, and have been brutalized again and again.
The only rule in this street fight should be: Are climate skeptics telling the truth? That rule alone will differentiate the climate skeptics from their opponents.
First, thank you Anthony and Joe Bast for this post. My compliments to Mr. Bast on the excellence of his response.
Second, the billboard was factually accurate. It may not be to an individual’s taste but it was truthful in its entirety. I regret that some my find the truth distasteful, but after the tactics exhibited by the CAGW, perhaps saying the simple truth may be necessary even though unpalatable. Folks, I am sorry that you may find the truth so…so…tawdry.
Third, negative advertising works. For those who find the referenced billboard “distasteful” (although truthful and accurate), the reason that it was used is: IT WORKS!
For example : Jack Ryan was winning the Illinois Senate race in 2004. Then “HE whose Middle Name cannot be Spoken” found a corrupt Democrat judge to open sealed documents from Mr. Ryan’s child custody battle. It destroyed Mr. Ryan. That piece of negative advertising was just downright evil but it worked. I know a woman who was on Jack Ryan’s campaign staff. It destroyed Jack Ryan’s campaign chances and destroyed him psychologically so that he could no longer continue to fight. That was the point. It’s the Chicago way. See here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/
(I cannot say HIS middle name as there are those who would stone me for being a racist. Just like the Olden Days. After all, “HE is the ONE we have been waiting for”. HE says so.)
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html
Anyway, thanks again Anthony.
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
How are your German neighbors doing with those windmills Kurt?
I suppose I could add to the argument…but instead, I will send $200 to Joe Bast so he can run the billboard again if he likes. I like the idea of using rules for radicals against despicable activist radicals.
Great. Brilliant. But … I suggest the following exercise. On every billboard you see, do a word count. Tabulate only how many 10.
Then consider how you would word and compose those fact-filled b-boards you propose. Good luck with that …
Oops, forgot the effect of carets. Here’s what got wiped out:
Tabulate only how many <=10, and how many >10.
“You didn’t see many new faces on the program because 50 warmists invited to speak refused to show up, and we had set aside space on the program for them.”
I would love to see that list who were invited and refused to show up. Why not publish it here on WUWT so everyone can see?
“Also I’ve seen the list of people invited who declined to join the debate. You’d think that if we were as wrong and as stupid as they claim, it would be easy to just show up and slaughter us intellectually, but for some reason they don’t want to even try. – Anthony”
I wonder why! Some ‘skeptics’ I have discussed with on this forum still refuse to accept that humans are the cause for the increase in CO2 while in the scientific community there is a general acceptance and agreement (even by Professor Lindzen and Dr. Spencer) that humans are causing the increase. Now I don’t know if amongst the speakers of Heartland there were any individuals who refuse to accept that simple fact. How does one debate with such a refusable person on stage?
(Citation needed.) I doubt it. I suspect there’s been new cash and new participants since Fakegate, and that that’s what you have in mind. It’s implausible that withdrawers would have been replaced many times over within a week of the Billboard–that’s too fast.
Even if it’s true, it’s pennywise. HI needed to be spotless and respectable and high-minded to get mainstreamers to come aboard, to get itself invited to congressional hearings, etc.
I didn’t view the tactic primarily with disdain. I said it was a blunder for Heartland. I boldfaced the word to bring out my point. I said it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder–which implied my judgment was based on realpolitik. I said it should have been done–if someone felt it needed doing–by someone whose strategy isn’t compromised by not taking the high road, like Morano.
.
So Curry’s evidence that Heartland is ‘losing the battle’ is based on Guardian reports, eh? She’s obviously not British, otherwise she would know better – it a bit like her stating that because PRAVDA supported Stalin, he was a lovely person.
In fact, the comment is so farcical it highlights the complete naivety of her position. If she can be so deluded as to cite the Grauniad, then the rest of what she says just has to be taken with a wholesome pinch of skepticism.
.
Smokey
You appear to have significant issues with Donna L. Are there factual errors in her book that you can bring to light? Or is it that you did not like her calling out the IPCC for what it really is, a political cult. This is a serious question. I always want to be on the side of the facts (which is why I am a climate sceptic). Funny thing I was taught long ago that scepticism is at the very centre of science.
RobW,
My only ‘issue’ with Donna Laframbois is that she publicly trashed Heartland, when a private email would have been sufficient. It was entirely self-serving, at the expense of a great organization. I have no problem with Donna’s criticism of the UN/IPCC.
But I strongly disagree with Donna’s very public attack on Heartland, which has always been extremely polite and accommodating to her, offering to pay her expenses and giving her a forum to express her views. In return, she bit the hand that fed her, for her own self-aggrandizement. I don’t like people who treat their friends like that. I expect it from vermin like Gleick, but not from fair-weather ‘friends’ like Donna.
rogerknights: “HI needed to be spotless and respectable and high-minded to get mainstreamers to come aboard”
NASA Astronauts are mainstream people.
Why not a $200 billboard that says:
“We asked all these people to explain why they claim CO2 is a threat to mankind when there is no evidence there is, and they refused. …. Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick ……. Is there something they don’t want you to know?”
For $200 Heartland got the creative, innovative, compelling thinking they paid for. But as Bast says, his job isn’t to win opponents or the undecided over. It is to be combative and angry- making.
I think it’s mistaken to assume that the billboard compared AGW “believers” with the Unabomber. Rather, it effectively compared AGW “proponents” with the Unabomber, and there’s a league of difference between a believer and a proponent. For that matter, a proponent might not even believe, but just be a charlatan, which might not be far from the truth here also.
What the billboard accomplished, beyond achieving tremendous publicity, was to link the proponents of AGW with the likes of the Unabomber, and when you look at the morals of some of the strongest proponents (Gore, Hanson, Gleick, etc.,) the linkage is not all that misleading. The leaders of the AGW movement have already caused untold damage to the people of our planet and, if given their heads, would multiply those damages many times over. And, yes, people are even dying due to their efforts, as precious resources are diverted to further their cause. Were they simply honest scientists following their instincts, the situation would be different, but Climategate outed them as anything but honest scientists, at least when it comes to AGW advocacy.
So, if the effect of the billboard was to make people question their belief in AGW, given that its proponents can effectively be compared to the Unabomber, I’d call it successful. As for its effect on the proponents, who really cares? If it upset them, great. If it drove them to tears, fine. If it caused them to question their role in the cause, well, that’s unlikely, since it was aimed directly at them in very personal terms. But if it caused some believers to wonder about the motivation, methods, or achievements of their leaders, then that would be an accomplishment, particularly since the mainstream media typically portrays those leaders as being pure as the driven snow.
If the billboard caused even 1% of the people who “believe” in AGW, but otherwise take no interest in it, to wonder if their belief is misplaced, it was successful. The vast majority of the population does not, after all, even read WUWT, as popular as this site is. They do read billboards, however.