Climate Wars Reach New Low
UPDATE: 5/7: Climatewire reports that Heartland “faces a mutiny” from donors and its Washington staff over the Institute’s billboard campaign, which it abruptly cancelled one day after it was unveiled. The billboards triggered massive outrage and scorn from across the political spectrum.
[UPDATE: 5/5: Widespread condemnation of the Heartland billboard campaign (including from Republican politicians and well-known climate science critics) prompted Heartland to discontinue the billboard ads. In a statement, Heartland President Joe Bast called the billboards an “experiment” and intentionally provocative. He also did not express contrition:
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.
Will this staunch the bad publicity and the erase the stain on Heartland’s name? Unlikely. Bast’s unrepentant response and obvious spin is well short of the damage control a PR expert would advise.]
****
Remember when I had fun pointing out the classy way Anthony Watts noted that “Charles Manson is an advocate for global warming”? And remember when Watts, in typically disingenuous fashion, associated climate activists with Osama Bin Laden? I mentioned that bit of ugliness here.
Well, that’s all minor league stuff compared to the new Heartland Institute billboard campaign that Leo Hickman discusses in this Guardian piece. Hickman strikes exactly the right tone:
It really is hard to know where to begin with this one. But let’s start with: “What on earth were they thinking?
This is what saner heads in the climate concerned community were asking when Peter Gleick did what he did earlier this year. The thing about the climate wars is that each side can always count on their opponent to shoot itself in the foot. That’s on striking display again, today.
UPDATE: I’m keeping tabs on responses/posts/stories as they come in.
5/4, 2:15pm EST. Andrew Sullivan says the billboard campaign illustrates what has become of the Right wing: “A refusal to acknowledge scientific reality; and a brutalist style of public propaganda that focuses entirely on guilt by the most extreme association.”
Little Green Footballs strikes a similar note: “The Right discovers an all new level of nutso creepiness.”
Wonkette has some fun playing along with the Heartland game. Ben German at the Hill tallies reaction from environmentalists, who mouth what you would expect. Same for Joe Romm, but he raises the stakes for climate skeptics: “These ads are so extremist that failing to denounce them is an implicit endorsement of the worst kind of hate speech.”
Charles Pierce at Esquire suggests the Heartland ad campaign is beyond the pale and unmatched on the political spectrum. “This is not the ‘mainstream.’ Both sides do not do this. There is no ‘other side’ to this argument.”
Stephanie Pappas at Live Science has reaction from climate scientists. Anthony Watts at WUWT calls the Heartland billboards a “huge misstep,” but (surprise, surprise) focuses all his outrage on his opponents, for their “hypocrisy.” Watts’ post is a texbook case of classic misdirection. It reaffirms his partisan bent. ***Check back in a few hours for more reax.
430pm EST: Heartland President Joe Bast emails Anthony Watts to say that the billboards will be discontinued today. In the comment thread of that post, it is notable that WUWT readers overwhelmingly disapprove of the billboard campaign, citing its offensiveness.
Fox News runs story that leads off: “The Heartland Institute has released a shocking new billboard ad campaign that equates global warming belief with some of the most notorious killers in modern history.”
The Huffington Post playfully mocks the billboard tagline. Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones reminds us of the not so long ago time when the Heartland Institute was asking for everyone to be civil and respectful.
8:30Pm EST: The strongest condemnation from someone often associated with the climate skeptic sphere has been issued by Ross McKitrick at Climate Audit. It came in the form of a letter addressed to Heartland President Joe Bast. Here’s an excerpt:
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…You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers. Once you have done such a thing you have lost the moral high ground and you can never again object if someone uses that kind of rhetoric on you.
Andy Revkin has a post at Dot Earth titled, “The Short Hot Life of Heartland’s Climate Billboard.” It includes an email exchange between Andy, Tom Yulsman (who says some very smart things), and myself.
5/5, 1145am EST: In the Washington Post, Anthony Watts says the Heartland Institute “is suffering battle fatigue.When you’re suffering battle fatigue, sometimes you make mistakes.” In the LA Times opinion section, Dan Turner writes that Heartland “has decided to stop even trying to be credible in order to attract publicity.” Wendy Koch of USA Today writes:
So much for reasoned debate! The Heartland Institute, a controversial group known for trying to discredit climate science, unveiled — and then 24 hours later withdrew — billboards that compared people concerned about global warming to mass murderers.
5/6, 9:30am EST: At his blog, Andrew Montford says the “reverberations are going to be felt for quite a while.” Then he proceeds, Anthony Watts style, to demonstrate his partisan tendencies by devoting the rest of his post to similar guilt-by-association tactics by climate advocacy blogs. As Leo Hickman lamented on Twitter [shorthand cleaned up] to Montford, “very sad that you, too, like Watts, couldn’t resist a ‘comparison’ drive-by rather than simply condemn.” After I seconded this, Montford tweeted: “I’m trying to understand why Heartland’s actions [are] considered so much worse than the others.”
I’m trying to understand how he can’t see the difference. Heartland’s posters were part of a public advertising campaign that included a detailed explanation for why Heartland believed they were appropriate. While Heartland has discontinued the billboards, it should be noted that they have not apologized or renounced the message they conveyed.
Wow, that is low.
And I will add that when that 10:10 campaign did the deplorable video about blowing up skeptics I condemned that everywhere as well.
And this is a tax-exempt “research institute”?I wonder if the NATO delegates will see it on their way in from O’Hare.
Did anybody like that 10:10 video? How fast did that one get taken down? Let’s see how long that billboard sits above the city of Chicago and how many more go up before we start the difference-splitting crap.
Both sides can faithfully claim that the fools in town are on their side. Different towns, of course. If Heartland has any sense they’ll pull the billboard quickly and quietly and wait for Joe Romm’s latest salvo to help them turn the page.
Insanely stupid by HI … apparently trying to steal the title of worst ad campaign on climate from the “no pressure” folks … The extremes on both sides of this debate are well into the land of farce. Best ignored as part of the scenery IMO.
“Best ignored as part of the scenery IMO.”
Yeah, well you did a blog post on the 10:10 video.
I love how everyone makes hay out 10:10 and as soon as Heartland scores an own goal (and kills their goalie, and puts there team in the penalty box), all of a sudden, it’s like “just forget about that stuff!” The gooey center gets more gooey.
You can’t ignore it until it’s gone, so we’ll see.
A bit late for “quietly”. I suspect even more funding will disappear after this misguided stunt. Who in their right mind would want to see their donations spent on that kind of deluded and expensive nonsense?
Whatever happened to climate skepticism ? This campaign divides everybody into those that ‘believe’ and by implication those that don’t. I know a lot of climate skeptics find it hard to see climate denialism – well here it is straight from the Heartland Institute.
-6-grypoThanks, yes a fair point. Key difference is that 10:10 was in part gov’t funded and supported by the Guardian. But see my twitter feed for my comments on HI. We should all be happy — Heartland like 10:10, Gleick, Limbaugh, Romm etc. those on the fringe are one-by-one picking themselves off and delegitimizing their arguments via excess. Own goal is exactly right.
As Stoat and others on twitter are noting, Hitler was a vegetarian.
Grypo – “I love how everyone makes hay out 10:10”
The 10:10 campaign video depicted climate change activists as murderers, but was produced by climate change activists. In other words, the 10:10 campaign embarrassed itself. Critics said, ‘yeah, that’s how you look to us’. The reaction to it came from the campaign’s own supporters
The Heartland campaign, if it is an ‘own goal’, isn’t an own goal of the same order, i.e. actually shooting yourself in the foot. You may argue that it’s in poor taste, or doesn’t raise the quality of the debate…
But then, it’s not as if the debate could be characterised as sophisticated. Personally, I think that there are better ways of making the point, but I don’t see why it should provoke outrage. Kaczynski’s manifesto reflects a great deal of eco-centric ideology. And moreover, the point many critics of environmentalism make is that ill-conceived global policies on climate change may be dangerous… Far more dangerous than a lone bomb-maker.
One of the saddest things about this kind of story is that it distracts from more serious stuff. The biggest story in everybody’s inbox certainly ought to be this one: http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagina.php?id_mailing=272&toegang=7a614fd06c325499f1680b9896beedeb&id=3681This is really, really big. Morano linked to it but doesn’t seem to understand the implications. Everybody else either missed it or ignored it.This is the CEO of one of the largest manufacturers of wind farms essentially saying that they’ve put up too much wind and solar in Germany and that they should stretch out renewable investments over the rest of the century because climate scientists calculated the rate of temperature rise incorrectly.Billboards don’t matter so much. I wonder how much real news got obscured by the No Pressure video?
Heartland Institute: The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.Seems to be a heavy dose projection, at least with “radical fringe” and “aren’t scientists” part.I was going to say cue the “b-but they do it too” but I see several are already engaging in the usual false equivalences.
Keith Kloor: “As Stoat and others on twitter are noting, Hitler was a vegetarian.”
There are much better quotes from the Nazis. ‘National Socialism is nothing but applied biology’ – Rudolf Hess.
It’s in the manifestos that we learn why the comparison holds.
That’s not to say environmental activists are like Nazis or Kaczynski, but that anti-human and violent ideologies don’t form in a vacuum.
The manifesto in question opens with these words:
1. (fr) The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the Iife-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulï¬lling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being
to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries
These ideas don’t seem to be so far away from mainstream thinking on the environment. What appear to be different are the means. However, suggestions from seemingly respectable environmentalists routinely speak in favour of shutting people out of discussion, of ‘treating’ dissent as an illness, of putting dissenters on trial, and of suspending democracy to ‘save the planet’. Even if they don’t go as far as killing people, the anti-human character of these ideas is what is at issue.
@ Ben Pile
Good grief. We can argue about the ultimate PR value of the 10:10 video, but first let’s first be clear about what it actually was. It was a parody about the stereotypes that some climate skeptics project onto climate activists (i.e. climate activists = fascist lunatics that are indoctrinating our children). I for one thought it was funny and found the crocodile tears and faux indignation that spewed forth from certain corners predictable and revealing.
From http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/ “Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants. But…”
TF attempts a distraction. I’ll take a bite.
http://skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html
Not to mention this is a rather dubious description:
the CEO of one of the largest manufacturers of wind farms
Their portfolio may have changed since 2007, but…
RWE produced in 2007 electricity from the following sources: 32.9% hard coal, 35.2% lignite, 1.1% pumped storage, 2.4% renewables, 13.6% gas and 14.9% Nuclear power.
Marlowe, – “It was aparody about the stereotypes that some climate skeptics project onto climate activists”.
It makes no difference whether or not it was intended or unwitting act of self-parody, it reflected badly on those who made it, with or without the comments from sceptics. Even the 10:10 campaign admitted that it had been ill-judged.
I’m guessing that the Heartland folks got their inspiration from the guys down in Iowa.
I find it strange that folks are just now realizing that one of the tried and true tactics of the conservative movement is to portray their opponents as deranged lunatics/communists/fascists. This is not just a climate change thing. It’s as if the whole McArthy thing never happened!
No idea what Pile’s point is.
I’m with Randy Olson on the whole 10:10 episode:
Marlowe, you need to understand that it was those who were would-be supporters of the 10:10 campaign who were offended by it. The sceptics couldn’t come up with anything as damaging, had they tried and had equivalent funds and the favour of so many luvvies that produced it.
No Pressure was not a parody. It was pathetic. That doesn’t excuse Heartland, which made a huge error.
It’s what Tom Lehrer would call escalatio, and it’s poorly thought through. Demonization is not going to make any policy–alarmist, warmist, skeptic or worse–any easier to adopt. Eventually these people will have to come to an agreement and it will be easier if they haven’t called each other names. That’s my job, dammit! Watch:
NewYorkJ, please think quantitatively. RWE makes a lot of energy. Renewables are a small part of their mix. This small amount is a sizeable total of all renewables produced.
This is a really big story, IMO.
No Ben. Some humorless supporters were offended by it. All humorless skeptics were offended by it.
Really? This latest salvo by HI isn’t as damaging? I assume you’re not omniscient, so I’m curious how you presume to know such a thing.
What is very worrisome about this, not to mention in insanity of it, is that many prominent “skeptics” openly endorse and support Heartland, or attend their annual climate conference or act as expert advisors for Heartland (e.g., Roger Pielke Jr., Lindzen, Loehle, Michaels, Spencer, Singer, Christy, Landsea, McKitrick, Patterson, Douglass, Landsea, Legates, Carter, Baliunas, Boehmer-Christiansen (editor of E&E), Watts, Chylek, de Freitas, D’Aleo, Dyson, Bill Gray, Idso, Plimer). If I recall the mainstream climate science community were united in openly condemning the “no pressure” ad. Additonally, 10:10 pulled the ad and apologized.
I wonder if Heartland consulted their scientific advisors on the merits of this campaign? I wonder if they will pull the billboards and apologize? Perhaps they will do so under pressure from their expert scientific Heartland advisors?Roger Pielke Jr. has now no longer allowing my replies to appear on his site here, but has elected instead to publicly accuse me of making up lies about Heartland and his association with Heartland– he is listed on page 10 of their list of experts. So that is a false accusation by Roger and I politely request an apology from him for publicly slandering me as a liar.
oh and Tom, this one’s for you 🙂
“Hi Roger,
Thanks, but I don’t need to take advice about from blogue etiquette from you after reading some of your posts, like when you were incredibly confrontational and rude (and IMHO unprofessioal)to Rahmstorf and Coumou, for example.
You asked a question, I and others answered. We also offered some critique of your position. That did not seem to sit well and in the end you dismissed the evidence presented to you by Dan and me, and tried to shut down the coversation.
Given that it was relevant to the discussion, I also asked you whether or not you would condemn the actions at the National Post. You have simply ignored that– that is not very polite.
It is incredibly troubling (and telling of your bias and one-sided skepticism) that you still cannot bring yourself to condemn the actions of the National Post. That is your choice, but I would argue it was not a wise one.
I’m relieved that you too disapprove of Heartland’s disgraceful campaign, but you had to try and water that down by speaking about the 10:10 campaign. But this inanity by Heartland stands on its own, and requires prominent bloggers like you write a post condeming it. You did after all feel compelled write a post on your blog featuring the “no pressure” ad.
What is very worrisome is many prominent “skeptics” openly endorse and support Heartland, or attend their annual climate conference or act as expert advisors for Heartland (Roger Pielke Jr., Lindzen, Loehle, Michaels, Spencer, Singer, Christy, Landsea, McKitrick, Patterson, Douglass, Landsea, Legates, Carter, Baliunas, Boehmer-Christiansen (editor of E&E), Watts, Chylek, de Freitas, D’Aleo, Dyson, Bill Gray, Idso, Plimer). If I recall the mainstream climate science community were united in openly condemning the “no pressure” ad. Additonally, 10:10 pulled the ad and apologized.
I wonder if Heartland consulted their scientific advisors on the merits of this campaign? I wonder if they will pull the billboards and apologize? Perhaps they will do so under pressure from you and your fellow expert scientific Heartland advisors?”
Marlowe – the 10:10 video wasn’t a parody, that’s just a ridiculous defense. It was a nasty, dark, angry, piece of crap. The billboard is disgusting. Heartland really took the low road! Hard to believe it’s real, not in defense of Heartland, but because it’s so in your face stupid and crass and self humiliating.
Poor Kloor attempts to make a point against HI (well deserved) and all he gets in the comments is defenders of 10:10. In other words, when our side puts up a ‘Kaczynski billboard,’ that’s different. Apparently, the point – the true point – just can’t be made.
If we are thinking quantitatively, Tom, then “coal energy CEO” would be a more than 10X more accurate description, and qualitatively (SkS link) “some known denier dupe”. It’s the daily reallybigstory on ClimateDepot and in the minds of Morano’s minions.
It wasn’t my brand of humor, but No Pressure was obvious parody (#14). I was not strategically a good idea, because there would be many people who wouldn’t get it, and other people who would, but would be eager to take advantage of the first group.
Perhaps that can be the Heartland defense. It was meant to poke fun at the way people falsely view them as willing to make the most absurd guilty-by-association caricatures, portraying those who support the science on global warming as deranged lunatics, which Heartland clearly doesn’t do…or not. That’s where the inane false equivalence breaks down.
Gleick just Tweeted about it today. Among the public, he just moved up another small notch on the hero scale.
I agree the 10:10 video wasn’t a parody, it was a nasty, dark, angry, piece of crap. But what we’re all forgetting here is that the 10:10 video didn’t make it completely through the creative process. It was previewed on the Guardian webpage via YouTube and withdrawn within a few hours. Only those of us that really follow the climate story became aware of it. By contrast the good folk of Illinois are having to stare down the Unabomber on their way home tonight. And they have the Heartland Institute’s climate denial programme to thank for that.
@27 and TF,
if the 10:10 video wasn’t parody then what was it? Again, I’m not arguing about the effectiveness of the video. If you don’t get the joke so be it — a British sense of humor isn’t mandatory — but don’t try and tell me that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck it isn’t a duck.
People need to get over themselves. Anyone remember the Alar fraud perpetrated by the same PR folks who host RealClimate’s website? Their alar fraud hurt a lot of people badly. But they were happy with their hoax because it led to a lot of money being contributed to their client, an environmental non-profit. Heartland hasn’t done anything nearly as bad in its effort to increase fundraising.Has Heartland hurt itself with these ads? Perhaps, but I doubt it. It may see a drop in funding . I think it more likely that Heartland will succeed greatly in raising it’s public profile with these ads. Any contributors it loses will probably be more than made up by the new funding it attracts. And that is the most significant aspect from their perspective.As for the broader question of whether Heartland has hurt its reputation with people interested in science — one has to ask: compared to whom? Lots of alarmist scientists have made stupid and ridiculous personal attacks which seek to slander, slime and smear people who disagree with them. It happens so often, we don’t even raise an eyebrow anymore when we hear another one.Heartland surely understands that the climate wars are a vile, nasty sewer. To get noticed by the wider public, they have chosen to fling some of the same nasty excrement back at the alarmists that alarmists have been flinging for years. Those of us who don’t like excrement flinging aren’t too happy to see more of it being flung. But only fool can pretend to be surprised. This isn’t any different than employment of the “denier” label used religiously by all manner of alarmists. It isn’t as bad as Michael Mann and company smearing skeptics as funded by fossil fuel interests when the charge is known to be false. Note that Heartland isn’t slandering any particular individual. It simply raises the same question that political campaigns do all the time — “do you want to be on the same side as these terrible people?” If anyone has paid attention to a Democrat’s campaign for president in the last several decades, he’s seen a bunch of similar questions. Chill out people. Get a grip.
Regulars here will know that I have a warm, fuzzy feeling about HI. This is wonderful news, and I am going to have a beer.
<p>Marlowe – I don’t mean this insultingly but do you realize what a parody is? What exactly is the 10:10 video intended to “mock, comment on, or trivialise”? </p>It’s not AGW believers spoofing themselves because it’s not lighthearted and they present themselves as the protagonists not the antagonists.
If the target of the parody is deniers, then it has to be imitative of an original work by ‘deniers’. Did I miss the original?
To put it another way you don’t parody yourself by sliming others.
Marlowe
You know when you are ‘joking’ with someone and an underlying animus seeps through, souring the ‘humour’? I’m sure we’ve all done it. Well, in hindsight, that’s my take on 10:10. And I’m British, and (contra one commenter here) I do have a sense of humour. 10:10 was painful to watch.
Marlowe Johnson – Really? This latest salvo by HI isn’t as damaging? I assume you’re not omniscient, so I’m curious how you presume to know such a thing.
My point, Marlowe, was that the sceptics couldn’t have hoped to damage the climate change cause. Perhaps my point was ambiguously worded, but my point was not that climate sceptics could not damage their own cause.
And I can know such a thing because the climate change campaigns — in the UK at least — are able to mobilse more resources than their critics. They’ve got more money. Everyone backed the 10:10 campaign, the government, big papers like the Guardian, and huge corporations. So when this putative ‘self-parody’ failed, it was spectacular beyond anything that the sceptics could have organised. In short: environmental activists are their own worst enemy.
Heartland is a tiny organisation. It’s income would barely register against even many campaigns organised by governments and NGOs. The UK’s equally ridiculous ‘Act on CO2’ advertising campaign (Bedtime Stories – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dOfBEm5DZU ) cost over £6 million, for instance. And had they had to pay for its production, the Splattergate video might well cost more than the Heartland’s entire budget. They’ve stuck a poster up, and the entire climate twitterverse, in its anger, has done more to bring it to the public’s attention than the posters, by themselves, could have.
Well done!
You see, when you invent an enemy — or at least invent its size, power and reach — you must first consider whether you really want what you’re wishing for. Who knew that a couple of billboards in the USA could reach a global audience?
Suckers!
27No Ben. Some humorless supporters were offended by it. All humorless skeptics were offended by it. As far as I can recall the only well trafficked supporter site which did not denounce the 10:10 video was Deltoid. And speaking as a humourless “sceptic” I find the HI billboard to be total trash.
Stu, it makes no difference what the sceptics’ reaction — humourless or not — to the 10:10 video was; the video itself embarrassed its makers in the eyes of the general public, the campaign’s supporters, and amongst the climate change movement. You’re over-stating the ability of sceptics to mobilise opinion. I find it odd that I’m being lectured about what it means to have a ‘sense of humour’ by people who seem to be so easily offended by a billboard.
What exactly is the 10:10 video intended to “mock, comment on, or trivialise”?
One more time.
The video is mocking a common skeptic stereotype that climate activists are fascist lunatics that will stop at nothing to indoctrinate children about the need to reduce carbon emissions.
If I had to guess at the origins of the video, I’d suggest that Richard Curtis probably stumbled across some of the more extreme comments over at WUWT or Bishop Hill and decided to run with it.
Ben
Are you saying the billboard isn’t offensive?
They should have got Adam Curtis to make it 🙂
Hi Ben- sorry, I was replying to a comment by Marlowe in reply to you- the formatting is bad, apologies for the mix up. PS, my actual comment begins “as far as I can recall…”
@34
BBD,
You’re not such a bad guy after all 🙂 .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/
Watts appears to be upset with Brad Johnson (or Romm?) for doing the exact same thing that he has several times.
He also denounces it.
Marlowe – So the video was mocking skeptics, by blowing up their heads into a bloody pile of goo.
It seems to me that if the video was intended to make the skeptics look bad, by graphically blowing up their heads that is, then the producers would have to be some of the stupidest people on earth. However as an AGW activist rallying cry, at least it makes sense.
I think that’s a poor defense of it but thanks for better explaining your point.
laursaurus @ 42
It’s the drink (# 32)
😉
You have to admit, Marlowe’s interpretation at 38 rings truer when put in context with the HI billboard.
@37
Well your ignorance certainly interesting. the 10:10 clip was a parody written by a comedy writer. The HI billboard clearly isn’t a parody. Its part of a long running conservative tactic to tar their opponents using ridiculous guilt by association tactics. see the link I provided @ 18 for further evidence.
@BBD
we’ll be fine as long as you admit that some people’s sense of humour is better than others –in the same way that nobody is perfect but some are closer than others.
BBD. I think people take offence too easily — and climate change activists perhaps even more easily. Perhaps this is owed to the fact that the influence they have achieved has been so without the scrutiny that most political ideas usually have to endure. There is no culture of debate within the environmental movement, and no emphasis on public engagement as a means to achieve its objectives. Indeed, environmentalism has, in spite of the influence it has achieved, completely failed to build a mass political movement. This is interesting in two respects. First, the 10:10 campaign was an explicit attempt to form a mass movement, principally to get the public behind the UK government’s climate policies. Second, it was an abject failure. Even as an act of ‘self-parody’, it only served to epitomise the intolerant and self-regarding character of environmentalism. The ‘self-parody’ fooled nobody: the environmentalists behind it really were intolerant and self-regarding. The attempt to build a popular movement only served to demonstrate that those behind the movement wanted to make instrumental use of the public, the Climate Change Act and other of the Labour government’s policies suffering from a growing problem of illegitimacy, there being a huge democratic deficit over the climate issue. I called it at the time ‘doing politics backwards’: designing and implementing your policies first, and then going out and looking for support for them by — cynically — engineering a mass movement to get behind them. If environmentalists were better equipped to cope with debate and criticism, perhaps the mass movement would come before the policies, and environmentalists would be less sensitive to ‘offensive’ billboards. And perhaps they wouldn’t be so daft as to alert the entire world to the existence of these billboards.
Marlowe, you’re drinking too early. You’re just making stuff up about the No Pressure video. It wasn’t parodying anything. It was just a call to action. Especially legitimizing children bullying other children.This Heartland thing will just get them labeled Heartless–they screwed up. But not as badly as the completely separate No Pressure garbage. See how quickly it disappeared once they realized how badly they had shot themselves in the foot?
Heartland doesn’t defame anyone. Calling people deniers is uglier. Lots of political rhetoric we see every day is uglier. It was far, far uglier when Obama lied about doctors cutting off limbs for no reason just to get paid extra. THAT was nasty slander. After everyone stops hyperventilating and gets their panties unbunched, someone might try to explain just what they find so offensive. No slander, no name-calling, no character assassination, no lies, nothing untruthful at all. Yes, it gets attention. Sure it points out that unsavory characters believe in global warming. I hope no one wants to try to argue that we’ve never seen that before in climate wars.
Tom I get it. You don’t have a sense of humour. Don’t worry though. I won’t hold it against you.
Well, the goings on with Roger Pielke Jr. have seem to ahve taken a turn for the worse. Given that my comments no longer seem to be making onto his site (but that could very well just be a Blogger glitch), I’ll post them here.”Hi Roger,
My comments do not seem to be making it through. I submitted a post asking you to please quote me verbatim where I said that you were a “policy advisor” for The Heartland Institute. That has, at the time of submitting this, gone unanswered.
“If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work — seems that they need it.”
You seem to be suggesting that you are not an “expert” for The Heartland Institute. What then is your affiliation/association with them, if any at all? Any idea how your photo got on their site? If you are not affiliated with them as an “expert”, it seems then that The Heartland Institute are the ones lying, not me. Seems that you guys need to talk.
Is the above quote form you as close as I can come to you admitting that I was not telling lies about you or Heartland? Your knee-jerk reaction seems over the top now does it not? I was still hoping that you would have the decency and integrity to apologise for calling me a liar in public.
Yes, Heartland do need help, but I’m afraid that they may be well beyond help.”
Well, the goings on with Roger Pielke Jr. have seem to ahve taken a turn for the worse. Given that my comments no longer seem to be making onto his site (but that could very well just be a Blogger glitch), I’ll post them here.”Hi Roger,
My comments do not seem to be making it through. I submitted a post asking you to please quote me verbatim where I said that you were a “policy advisor” for The Heartland Institute. That has, at the time of submitting this, gone unanswered.
“If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work — seems that they need it.”
You seem to be suggesting that you are not an “expert” for The Heartland Institute. What then is your affiliation/association with them, if any at all? Any idea how your photo got on their site? If you are not affiliated with them as an “expert”, it seems then that The Heartland Institute are the ones lying, not me. Seems that you guys need to talk.
Is the above quote form you as close as I can come to you admitting that I was not telling lies about you or Heartland? Your knee-jerk reaction seems over the top now does it not? I was still hoping that you would have the decency and integrity to apologise for calling me a liar in public.
Yes, Heartland do need help, but I’m afraid that they may be well beyond help.”
Well, the goings on with Roger Pielke Jr. have seem to ahve taken a turn for the worse. Given that my comments no longer seem to be making onto his site (but that could very well just be a Blogger glitch), I’ll post them here.”Hi Roger,
My comments do not seem to be making it through. I submitted a post asking you to please quote me verbatim where I said that you were a “policy advisor” for The Heartland Institute. That has, at the time of submitting this, gone unanswered.
“If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work — seems that they need it.”
You seem to be suggesting that you are not an “expert” for The Heartland Institute. What then is your affiliation/association with them, if any at all? Any idea how your photo got on their site? If you are not affiliated with them as an “expert”, it seems then that The Heartland Institute are the ones lying, not me. Seems that you guys need to talk.
Is the above quote form you as close as I can come to you admitting that I was not telling lies about you or Heartland? Your knee-jerk reaction seems over the top now does it not? I was still hoping that you would have the decency and integrity to apologise for calling me a liar in public.
Yes, Heartland do need help, but I’m afraid that they may be well beyond help.”
Marlowe – Guilt by association tactics run rampant on both sides of this debate. Not once in his career should Mike Mann have had any reason to utter the phrase ‘big tobacco’.
Sorry Keith something weird is going on here, somehow multiple copies of my post appeared. I have no idea how that happened.
Bummer.
#38. Not bummer, just sad.
Marlowe is right. Absofrigginglootly right. HI proves again they are not yet potty-trained. Watts defends by pointing out that others are still diapers, so soiling oneself is AOKAY in his book. TF pinches off a diversionary loaf and runs away. The chickenhawk teabaggers and their suckups have taken over the right. I’m sure Eisenhower and Goldwater are walking around heaven in mufti.
@57
Huh? Are you drinking with BBD now?
@54
Unless of course he was pointing out how many of the same people who deny climate change also denied the link between cancer and smoking and were employed by ‘big tobacco’ right? Say for example, Fred Singer or Dick Lindzen perhaps?
Despite the claims of an enthusiastic commenter named Albatross here (#24) and elsewhere that I am an “expert advisor for Heartland” — I have absolutely no association with them, never have.Apparently, Heartland considers me an expert, so they are obviously not wrong about everything 😉 Maybe they’ll consider my expert advice on the billboards then …
Marlowe – “Unless of course he was pointing out how many of the same people who deny climate change also denied the link between cancer and smoking and were employed by “˜big tobacco’ right? Say for example, Fred Singer or Dick Lindzen perhaps?”
Hmm. Right, so there are fewer ‘deniers’ who were ’employed by big tobacco’ than there are mass-muderering climate change activists…
I can’t tell… Are you shooting yourself in the foot, or is it an act of self-parody?
FYI: I’m keeping tabs on reax to this story. See Update at end of my post.
Joe Romm should be responded to exactly like this. “Heartland’s billboard is wrong–just as wrong as 10:10’s No Pressure video. Just as wrong as commercials showing polar bears falling from the sky. Just as wrong as commercials repeating the tragedy of 9/11. What they all have in common is a tone deafness to civility–even humanity in their rush to make a political point. The fact that there are more instances of this behaviour on the part of climate activists should not in any way excuse Heartland’s actions. But neither should climate activists ignore the fact that they have been just as guilty as Heartland.”
Re: #60 Nope Marlowe, no drinking tonight unfortunately. Marathon to run this weekend.
IMO, the 10:10 video shouldn’t be considered parody but a call to action, and the side of the AGW debate that employs guilt by association tactics more often, and more loudly, starts with an A not a D.
The billboard is sludge any way you look at it.
And Tom Fuller wins (#66). Good job! Everything else is window dressing.
Marlowe, do you have any links to what Lindzen and (who was it–Spencer?) actually said or wrote about tobacco? Anything like… a reference? (If so, I hope it isn’t to one of the climate committed sites… I’d like to see quotes.)
Now I realize Keith is probably going to be pissed at me for this, but I simply can’t resist.
Gaahh! The hypocrisy! It burns! It burns!Please, I’d rather take an arrow in the knee than listen to Tom talk lecture us on civility. This is the same guy who uses this sort of language when he gets blogghorrea:
– vile
– scurrilous
– mean-spirited
– slime
– tawdry
– reprehensible
– climate dittohead
– coven
– bozos
– consensus preachers
– goon squads
– gutless
– fool
– idiot
– Potemkin
– stupid pills
– dirty little book
– fact free fear frenzy
– skinheads
– troll
– STFU
– fundie
– bigot
and my personal favorites:
– pinhead morons
– two bit dirt bag
Look up top, drinker–I already said that was my job, not theirs. And since what I said was true, so what? But have a drink–while looking for references to your quote about Lindzen and Spencer.
And I’m happy to supply the arrow if you’re able to expose your knee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#SmokingRomm also denounced the No Pressure video, despite it being a parody. Tom is reaching hard. Amazed how desperate deniers are to change the subject. Media is starting to cover it though (USAToday, WaPost, TheHill, Guardian). You can’t hide from this.
It’s Singer not Spencer Tom. Off to have a drink, so I can’t help you with the links. you’ve heard of ‘Google’ right?
#74, oh, so there is no evidence about Lindzen and whomever? I guess that shouldn’t be surprising.
#71,
Wasn’t it Lindzen who once said: “Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve dug in it. I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”?
🙂
Seriously, Lindzen is quoted here on the subject.
Marlowe – Dr. Lindzen says that the smoking thing is a smear from Hansen:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/05/lindzen-dismisses-hansens-defamations/
Unless somebody can find some kind of evidence to support Marlowe & Hansen here?
The real issue is why did HI do this? The place must be ready to close down or in total despair. Any HI experts with some insight??
HI’s billboards are totally, totally stupid and should be at least somewhat offensive to anyone, skeptic or AGW proponent. Further, their press release is even stupider because it paints a whole lot people including many such as Lindzen, Pielke Sr., and Pielke Jr., all of whom believe in man-made climate change, as part of the radical fringe. Their press release fails to distinguish betweenbelieving that Man is affecting the climate and believing that it an impending catastrophe. Just because 10:10 was stupid or whoever it was that initially called the Norway massacre was the first denier mass murder was really stupid, doesn’t excuse HI of its stupidity with these billboards.
The people calling themselves “lukewarmers” have jumped the shark in defense of HI. The Mann witchhunt and “you-guys-do-it-too” moral equivalence going on over at the Blackboard is disgusting. Who knew that people showing their true colors produce such a pungent stench.
Seriously, here’s what Dr. Richard Lindzen, climate scientist, says in the article cited in #76:
Seems that people just can’t wait before having verifiable evidence to seek dogma.
More updates in the post.
Willard The money quote in the article is Hansen’s claim that:
Lindzen had testified on behalf of the tobacco companies.
If that were true, it would be traceable. If it’s not, then there are a whole lot of AGW writers and websites that owe him an apology, and my point about guilt by association being an AGW mainstay is proven.
Oh, so… “I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order. I think that the precedent of establishing a complex statistical finding as dogma is a bad one. Among other things, it has led to the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke also being treated as dogma. Similarly, in the case of alleged dangerous anthropogenic warming, the status of dogma is being sought without any verifiable evidence.”… makes Lindzen a tobacco/cancer (d-word)? Or is it this? “In his book, Hansen goes so far as to claim that I testified on behalf of the tobacco industry. This claim is absurd.”
If you’re not drunk, Marlowe, perhaps you can respond? You see, what you did above was pretty much what Heartland did. Linking a belief to an unpopular concept. Gee. That’s pretty much what all of you alarmists do to anybody who doesn’t agree with you. So Lindzen isn’t really being singled out–you lie about all of us!
I really wish Heartland hadn’t adopted your tactics. I really hope nobody else does. Maybe when you quite accusing Lindzen of stuff you can call attention to your reformed behaviour. Or will climate fundamentalism prove too strong an imperative?
willard at #80, so publishing partial quotes to mislead–that’s the way you work?
I for one enjoy the billboards and feel they make an incisive comment on contemporary environmental politics.
Perhaps what matters more is the rebuttals to Lindzen in the literature vs those to Hansen. We could tot them up and evaluate credibility on that basis.
Wow, you guys are really, really outsliming yourselves. I didn’t think it was possible to go lower… “According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[49] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[50] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it “junk science”. Singer told CBC‘s The Fifth Estate in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had “cooked the data” to show that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer’s research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. “They don’t carry a note on a dollar bill saying ‘This comes from the tobacco industry,'” he said. “In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn’t ask APCO where they get their money. That’s not my business.”[10] In December 2010 he wrote in American Thinker that he is nonsmoker who finds second-hand smoke an unpleasant irritant that cannot be healthy; he also wrote that his father, a heavy smoker, died of emphysema when relatively young. According to Singer, he serves on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization, and has never been paid by Philip Morris or the tobacco lobby, or joined any of their front organizations.”
D. Robinson,
The post reports Lindzen’s position on the relationship between smoking and cancer.
Here’s Lindzen’s position:
I’d like to know of a scientific case so strong as to rule out any question whatsoever.
Yes, but dogma.
Dogma, dogma, dogma.
Do you believe that Lindzen’s position is that smoking causes cancer?
And to return to your money quote, here’s Dick’s argument in full:
Dick’s curiosity and suspicion deserve due diligence: do we have any evidence about the “millions”?
You guys are pretty low down:”According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[49] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[50] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it “junk science”. Singer told CBC’s The Fifth Estate in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had “cooked the data” to show that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer’s research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. “They don’t carry a note on a dollar bill saying ‘This comes from the tobacco industry,'” he said. “In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn’t ask APCO where they get their money. That’s not my business.”[10] In December 2010 he wrote in American Thinker that he is nonsmoker who finds second-hand smoke an unpleasant irritant that cannot be healthy; he also wrote that his father, a heavy smoker, died of emphysema when relatively young. According to Singer, he serves on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization, and has never been paid by Philip Morris or the tobacco lobby, or joined any of their front organizations.”
If I saw that billboard on my way home I can tell you what I would think, I’d think “My stars, is that Theodore Kaczinsky? The Unabomber? Wasn’t he the fellow that hurt all those people and in fact killed some? He believes in global warming? Well I think that’s just awful and must really re-evaluate my views”
Show me the word ‘passive’ in any of the attacks on Singer above. Marlowe, just pick any ten terms off your drinking list and insert them here. If you can still read them.
Tom,
Just for you, here’s the whole paragraph:
Now, please tell us how quoting Dick’s sentence was misleading.
In fact, please tell us how that quote can make any sense.
In case anyone is wondering, the difference between the hard science showing clear connection between smoking and cancer is very good, not controversial and accepted worldwide.
The link between passive smoking and cancer is tenuous, quite possibly a statistical artifact and of a much lower quality in terms of data.
Very much like the difference between the greenhouse gas theory and CO2’s potential to raise temperatures by 1C and the imaginative, if not robust, stories about high sensitivity.
For Tom, it’s “hard science showing clear connection between smoking and cancer is very good, not controversial and accepted worldwide”.
For Dick, it’s “reasonable”.
Are you trying to tell us now that you climate fundamentalists did not intentionally twist what both Lindzen and Singer wrote, said and believe?
Tom
Very much like the difference between the greenhouse gas theory and CO2″²s potential to raise temperatures by 1C and the imaginative, if not
robust, stories about high sensitivity.
You can get a sense of the relationship between CO2 and T from the Cenozoic. See Hansen & Sato (2012):
In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from about 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic (Beerling and Royer, 2011) to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages (Luthi et al., 2008). The resulting climate forcing, which can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m2. CO2 was clearly the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic.
Willard, do you happen to know where I can find Linzen’s actual quote. I’ve been looking for it.
What would be more painful. Another HI billboard or another another BBD “3C, 3C, 3C”.
It’s not ‘BBD’. It’s the scientific consensus. Is that more painful?
🙂
Dogma! Weak Case! says Lindzen and Fuller. As for everyone else
There is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful.[5] The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organisation, including:
The World Health Organization[4]: The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that “Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.”[1]The U.S. National Institutes of Health[95]The Centers for Disease Control[96]The United States Surgeon General[2]The U.S. National Cancer Institute[97]The United States Environmental Protection Agency[98]The California Environmental Protection Agency[3]The American Heart Association,[99] American Lung Association,[100] and American Cancer Society[101]The American Medical Association[102]The American Academy of Pediatrics[103]The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council[104]The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health[105]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Opinion_of_public_health_authorities
As for active smoking, well the case is merely “reasonable”, but not really very strong, and the costs of quitting are just too much for him.
Dessler: “Before the lecture, he (Prof. Lindzen) was smoking. That’s a risk. He’s decided that’s a risk he’s willing to take. But not everybody would take that risk, so when he says there’s no cause for concern, he’s giving you his value judgment.”
On active smoking, the case is only “reasonable” now. Regardless of whether or not that’s an upgrade from his views in the early 1990’s, Joe Bast might agree.
kdk33, see Nullius’ #76.
***
Tom,
The onus is on you to prove that my quote was misleading. Saying:
> Are you trying to tell us now that you climate fundamentalists did not intentionally twist what both Lindzen and Singer wrote, said and believe?
could make me wonder when you stopped eating your wife (H/T to kim).
More update for you, Keith:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/04/mckitrick-letter-to-heartland/
So why did HI do it? HI doesn’t have any money of its own, so presumably someone paid for this. Who, I wonder, and what could they have been thinking of?
#100,
Argument from authority ad populum, again.
Surely everyone knows that when scientific organisations make a statement on something, this is generally not the result of careful scientific testing and examination by a majority of its members, but something voted on by a small and generally self-selected committee, and usually done for PR reasons. It’s a way to show everybody how much you care, to show how respectable and responsible your are, and it doesn’t cost any money.
You can tell the difference because they don’t actually discuss or describe the evidence. They instead cite the consensus, the literature, the experts, etc.
It constitutes a dogma when it becomes socially unacceptable to question it. Scientists ought to oppose that on principle, but having to live with the consequences of speaking heresy is understandably too much for some people.
Blowback of the worst kind for deniers…Amanda Infield, a spokeswoman for Jim Sensenbrenner, emails: ” Congressman Sensenbrenner said [he] is not going to participate in the upcoming Climate Change Conference if the Heartland Institute decides to continue this ad campaign. It now sounds like they are going to take the ads down.”http://www.businessinsider.com/heartland-institute-billboards-global-warming-arguments-with-osama-bin-laden-unabomber-2012-5
NIVSurely everyone knows that when scientific organisations make a statement on something, this is generally not the result of careful scientific testing and examination by a majority of its members, but something voted on by a small and generally self-selected committee, and
usually done for PR reasons.
Gosh. I thought it was because all those remorselessly competitive scientists were unable to falsify something or other in a specific field, so they were obliged to agree.
HI says:””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).”Classy… These people are certainly prominent, but prominent advocates of global warming? Hardly. I bet most of those names would trace back to one or two sentences on global warming each.
Classic NewJackJ trollism. I know that smoking is harmful in many ways and may cause cancer. So does Richard Lindzen. But Lindzen wasn’t talking in this case about passive smoking. Singer was.Passive smoking is harmful in many ways. I know that. So does Singer. What Singer disputes–correctly–is the link between passive smoking and cancer.
And again, NewYorkJ pulls the same bait and switch on smoking that he does on global warming. Everybody agrees that smoking causes cancer in about 16% of smokers. Everybody agrees that a doubling of CO2 concentrations lifts temperatures by 1C.
Some postulate that passive smoking, which is undeniably a harmful irritant, may also contribute to cancer–but the link is so tenuous as to be considered unproven. Some postulate that the sensitivity of the atmosphere to additional CO2 is so high as to warrant catastrophe. But the evidence is so weak that it is essentially unproven.
But the glory of the fundamentalist is to say that if you point out the weaknesses of the second postulate, it means you are a denier of the first.
Eyebrow-raising stuff from The Blackboard:
[Lucia:] “That billboard doesn’t compare anyone to a mass-murderer or terrorist.”[dhogaza:] On the other hand their official press release says the following:
“The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”
[Lucia:] dhogaza”” which is to say the official press release communicates the idea the scientists and “˜murderers, tyrants and madmen’ are in two distinct groups. In other words: the scientist are not “murderers, tyrants or madmen.”
Similarily…and deniers are upset about drawing the smoking comparison?Similarily, we have deniers claiming the consensus on smoking is the work of a few elites who engage in “dogma”.Similarily, we have deniers vastly exaggerating the level of uncertainty on the key conclusions and downlplaying the risks.Similarily, we have hordes of people trusting a few clowns associated with the Heartland Institute because they don’t want to believe there’s a problem.http://mcrucifix.blogspot.com/2012/04/cancer-science-under-attack.html
There is a legitimate point to be made, although Heartland failed miserably at it and should not be let off the hook. Lucia almost got it.
There are many who hide psychopathology by easy adoption of popular causes. The criminals listed did come out in favor of global warming. But that’s because it was the cause du jour, not because of real belief or even relevance to their root obsessions. They would have been just as happy to trumpet belief in the tooth fairy, if that had been the current cause of the day.
In other words, it is trivially true that these criminals spoke out in support of climate activisim. But it has no bearing on a) the truth about climate change or b) the goodness or evil of those on either side.
Wow! Thanks for that, BBD. I’m not even sure Lucia would make a good lawyer.Confused Fuller needs to stop mixing up Lindzen, Singer, and Spencer.
NewYorkJ, examples of either? Please provide the name of one person in each category who denies the science and claims the consensus is the work of elites who engage in dogma. We’ve already eliminated Lindzen and Singer from the pool, which should make your search easier.
Pretty obvious who’s confused here. NYJ.
So Marlowe @62: Your statement “Unless of course he was pointing out how many of the same people who deny climate change also denied the link between cancer and smoking and were employed by “˜big tobacco’ right? Say for example, Fred Singer or Dick Lindzen perhaps?” appears to be total bs. Retract, reboot, apologize?
I didn’t read the whole comment thread so apologies if someone else already pointed to this but I think this is the correct response. It highlights the absurdity and makes people laugh
Tom,
Please substantiate your accusation that I was “publishing partial quotes to mislead”, pretty please with some sugar on it.
This is funny. They didn’t really mean it. It was just a trolling experiment of sorts. Way to apologize.
In announcing that it was suspending the campaign, Heartland said that “this provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment.”
“And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people’s attention,” it said.
The billboard was “an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message,” it said.
Passive smoke is a lot like climate alarm. It is mildly irritating and clearly bad for you, but nothing to be taken to seriously. Besides, social pressure will soon extinguish it,
So passive smoke is bad, but not serious. Unserious stuff can still be bad, then. Like smell, or fallacies, perhaps.
And since we had Dr. Richard Lindzen’s on record comment, here’s the Hansen quote, with the Sourcewatch blurb, to make sure I do not pull a partial quote:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#On_Tobacco
So why did HI do it?… what could they have been thinking of?
I don’t know, BBD, what were you thinking when you claimed negative feedbacks would make it colder and colder and colder.
Perhaps they… made a mistake.
kdk33’s answer does not seem to pass the Chicken Test:
Why the chicken crossed the road?
Because it… made a mistake.
Following the links, we have Fred Guterl, recalling his meeting with Dick:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/07/22/the-truth-about-global-warming.html
Lindzen has denied that he was paid by tobacco companies to testify. He has asked Hansen to retract. Hansen never retracted, but never repeated, never substantiated–kind of like ‘the science has moved on’ kind of argument.
I’m glad that Heartland is pulling the ads. Their explanation is very weak but their belated action is correct. Still waiting for something similar from Hansen re his statement about Lindzen. Or for that matter, apologies from the maker of No Pressure.
We all make mistakes. It’s what we do afterwards that can show something of our character.
> We all make mistakes. It’s what we do afterwards that can show something of our character.
Is that a tacit admission that you have nothing to substantiate your claim that my quote was misleading, Tom?
This is what climate fundamentalists call denial: “Lindzen is not a complete skeptic. He acknowledges that the earth is getting warmer, and that human activity might have something to do with it. Over the past century, cars and factories have released carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air, trapping the sun’s energy and warming the atmosphere. The key question is, how warm will it get? Lindzen doesn’t think scientists have a very good handle at all on how the earth’s atmosphere will respond to increased levels of carbon dioxide.”This is what fundamentalists call denying a link between smoking and cancer: “I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order.”
No, willard, it was not. I ignored your request. I’m too busy eating my wife.
> Lindzen has denied that he was paid by tobacco companies to testify.
A direct quote from Hansen sayong so would be nice.
77gt; I ignored your request.
Thank you for your candid answer, Tom.
What were you saying about character, again?
Another empty netter!
http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
Just an experiment folks, relax. Bwahahahahahahaha!
‘My bad’?
🙂
Heartland, completely unprovoked you have just cashiered the credibility you had………maybe this time you really should have written a strategy memo! But there is a silver lining! Any Kaczinsky reference is reason to revive the Great Limerick Contest of 2006:
The Washington Post runs a weekly contest in
its Style section called the “Style Invitational.” The requirements
this week were to use the two words Lewinsky (The Intern) and Kaczynski
(the Unabomber) in the same limerick. Remember, the following winning
entries were printed in the newspaper.
Third place:
There once was a girl named Lewinsky,
Who played on a flute like Stravinsky.
‘Twas “Hail to the Chief”
On this flute made of beef
That stole the front page from Kaczynski.
Another real question, did what Peter Gleick did lead to what Heartland did today? What does this say about who did what to whom with which effect?
And an answer, Singer used the wrong statistic to claim that it had not been proven that side stream/environmental tobacco smoke causes harm. There was a discussion of this about 1-2 years ago. Basically he assumed that the distribution of effects was symmetric, e.g. that environmental smoke could have positive effects. Even with that false assumption, the evidence then was strong, just not 2 sigma.
Tastes goo, less filling.
Gee, willard, trying to make this thread about me, so you can accuse me again of making every thread about me?The partial quote you used is on this thread. A fuller version of the quote is on this thread. Bestir youself, young fundie. Bring them both down here into a fresh new comment and prove your case.
[…] discourse, the basics were broken by Leo Hickman of The Guardian early today and then aggregated by Keith Kloor, Joe Romm, Anthony Watts, Jason Samenow and others. The episode provided a real-time teachable […]
‘young fundie’
?
> Prove your case.
Argumentation does not work with the Napoleon code or the Patriot Act, Tom: this is youraccusation.
The onus is on you to state your case.
A suggestion: tell us how the whole paragraph can help us make sense of the sentence.
You’re the only one disputing it, willard. It’s here on this thread and everybody has read or can read it–and you’re the only one making any noise. I stated my case. You used part of a quote to mislead.
A suggestion: Bring both quotes into a comment and show why I’m wrong.
So you say I used a partial quote to mislead.
And your sole argument is to say: look at both quotes.
Pretty powerful argument you got there, Tom.
To see how, let’s put both quotes:
Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.
Still sounds nonsensical to me.
Still sounds like you’re trying to mislead with a partial quote to me.
Tom,
Tell me how adducing verifiable evidence can justify dogma.
This is nonsensical.
This is nonsensical in any context.
Did Lindzen mention adducing verifiable evidence? Looking for that…
That the the status of dogma is being sought without any verifiable evidence presupposes that the status of dogma could be sought with verifiable evidence, Tom.
That’s your claim, not Lindzen’s. Defining dogma as an undisputable tenet core to a belief system, Lindzen is certainly correct to note that treating the result of complex statistical procedures as dogma is less preferable to establishing a simpler and more concrete link.
But Lindzen nowhere says that he obverse is true or even desirable.
I will be out for a while in case you wish to continue this. But perhaps it is best to return the thread to other participants in any event.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get away from the dogma.
Tom: you are the one making the thread about you… and your chickenhawk gaybashing teabagger comrades. Heartland is like one of those not-so-smart suiside bombers who does a pre-mature pull of the cord and blows himself up. What was the name of that guy who forged the memos?? I forgot.
> Defining dogma as an undisputable tenet core to a belief system, Lindzen is certainly correct to note that treating the result of complex statistical procedures as dogma is less preferable to establishing a simpler and more concrete link.
Treating anything as dogma is rarely a good thing in science.
Treating something as dogma when you have verifiable evidence makes no sense.
Yes, but Dogma is pure red meat.
In this case, this is meaningless red mean.
Yeah, who did forge that memo. Anyone still willing to believe that climate memo was too cynical for someone from Heartland? Whether or this really was…(snicker)…an “experiment”.
http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
It was a terrible mistake for HI to join Romm, 10:10, Gleick, etc. etc. etc. in bad behavior.Skeptics forced HI to pull back. Immediately.
Hello, they are not “pulling back” or apologizing. It was a 24 hour experiment that cost $200.
> Skeptics forced HI to pull back. Immediately.
Yes, and without being a team.
What was Team WUWT’s reaction to HI’s campaign?
Howard, don’t look now, but I think your chicken is getting away.
Willard, would you please give Howard back his chicken.
Now, if I were a dogmatic alarmist without a chicken. I wouldn’t gloat too much. Until my chickens hatched, that is. Remember: every dogma has it’s day.
OMG…turn your head for a moment and a new climate drama whizzes right by. It is incredible how stupid people at HI can be. Nobody at the organization had enough of a clue to see how this was going to play out? I never had a lot of respect for the HI’s credibility to start with, and this sent it to near zero.At least Peter Gleick finally has something to smile about. These two are a match made in heaven for those betting on climate stasis.
kdk33,
How about this for a chicken: 2. Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?
One possible answer, from its own beak:
Is it a trimmed beaked?
Howard – somehow you completely missed the boat. Nobody is defending HI in this. There is unanimous condemnation for the billboard, or darn close to unanimous. The 10:10 video was brought up as a comparison not a defense.NYJ, Willard etc – look, it’s pretty clear to me that Hansen conflated Lindzen with Singer when he said, actually wrote, that Lindzen testified on behalf of the tobacco companies. All AGW’ers now use that as an example of ‘Lindzen’s idiocy, or his propensity for denial of science or simply as a reason to throw out anything he says. If you realize that he did not in fact testify in defense of tobacco, and that he is just espousing an opinion outside his field of expertise, and that he’s a smoker to boot, you realize that it’s not the crime that all Hansen disciples make it out to be. His opinion on smoking doesn’t matter to me, and the fact that he didn’t testify about it as Hansen accused him of doing, blows the whole issue up in your faces. You all swallowed a false narrative about a man you dislike. It’s a sideshow, who cares? He is an atmospheric scientist at MIT, he did much to improve the knowledge of climate scientists, his iris and subsequent theories could be wrong. Why, do we care more about his opinion of smoking than Hansen slandering him for something he didn’t do?
Input your comments here…
10:10 – It was a parody
HI – It was an experiment
Two dishonest responses to two dishonest PR stunts. Two dishonest organizations.
Let the hypocricy Olympics continue! I think we may have to award a double gold here. I wish people on “my side” weren’t capable of doing stuff like this, but this has rarely been the case, no matter what side I was on for any highly contested subject. Freedom of speech is a little messy sometimes.
Willard, That’s not a chicken. That’s crow. You’re not much of a birder.
Willard, so far what I’m taking away from this thread is:
Heartland did something both stupid and wrong. Just as their opponents have done repeatedly.
Lindzen and Singer have been unjustly accused of being paid by the tobacco lobby and denying that tobacco use is linked to cancer.
People who don’t like skeptics are happy about Heartland and will continue to lie about Lindzen and Singer.
Sketpics are unhappy about what happened with Heartland and will defend Lindzen and Singer.
So after the music stops and another climate crisis of the week looms ahead of us, nothing has changed.
However, I continue to be happy that I am neither a skeptic nor remotely close to your position.
I must say I’m amused at the sight of Tom Fuller, of all people, making these statements with a negative connotation:”so publishing partial quotes to mislead”“that’s the way you work?”and”Are you trying to tell us now that you climate fundamentalists did not
intentionally twist what both Lindzen and Singer wrote, said and believe”Oh, and in relation to the OP, I humbly submit this for consideration:http://theidiottracker.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/breaking-yes-anders-behring-breivik-is.html
Actually, Heartland listed Roger Jr. as a <a href=”http://heartland.org/roger-pielke”>Heartland Expert</a>, which Roger denies volunteering for. Eli takes it letters and non-FOIA able emails are already flying and wonders how many of those Heartland Experts really are Heartland Experts.
Clearly, Heartland’s Freddy Kruegar Poster Campaign is simply a logical extension of Kloor’s recent environmentalism are really Luddites who are going to kill us all kick. Thanks Keith.
Heartland actually stated on their website that the majority of scientists do not accept that AGW is a problem.
I’d like a source for this garbage.
@Tom Fuller # 112The point being made there is that lay belief in AGW or otherwise is irrelevant, no matter who the believer is. Which is true – reality cares not a jot for belief. Rather, we rely on science to formulate the best interpretation of the available evidence we can and act upon that. Given that the *vast* majority of people are not capable of being scientists, we rely on those that are for their assessment. Essentially, you just argued that your own opinion of the scientific case is irrelevant, which it is. Perhaps you could start supporting the best assessment we have – the IPCC one, overly conservative though it is – rather than formulating your own?
Dave HYou say we must rely on IPCC for their best assessment but then offer your own ‘more correct’ interpretation of the evidence – ‘IPCC is overly conservative’. Why bother even writing the above paragraph?
#164,
It is true to say that because most people are not trained in the scientific method, they are forced to use unscientific methods to come to their opinions. It is true that argumentum ad verecundiam is one such method, and people may choose to put their trust in authority figures; but it is not the only such method, nor are these the only authorities. Someone who puts their trust in scientists like Dick Lindzen or Roy Spencer is using exactly the same method, and with just as much justification.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. People should be free to trust their selected experts if they want, but they shouldn’t be making any special claims to greater certainty having done so. It’s still unscientific.
@StuGood catch, I retract “overly” – I wasn’t going for a subjective point when I say “conservative”, but to remind that the process is designed to compromise in order to reach as uncontroversial a consensus as possible. For example, policy makers were expected to take into account the assessment of sea-level rise in AR4 absent potential impacts of ice-sheet melt due to large uncertainties. Should these potentially huge impacts be accounted for when making policy? I am not equipped to judge, but I have to accept that a conservative assessment that excludes these effects is the best scientific basis for proceeding at the present time.
Tom,
You forgot the most important lessons
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Policy impacts:
Perry A. Gerakines, an assistant professor in the department of physics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explains: We have extensive evidence that Earth has already been hit by asteroids many times
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-chance-of-an
Dave,
I hereby free your mind. You are now allowed to think for yourself (Yes, I have this special power, among others). Don’t abuse the priveledge.
This idea that people have to rely on scientists because they are incapable of evaluating the science is just stupid. Juries evaluate the competing claims of ‘experts’ all the time. And when experts have been exposed as incompetent, fraudulent, careless or incapable of quality, juries have no difficulty concluding that they should be ignored.You don’t have to be a scientist to know that Monnett’s polar bear study is a ridiclous joke. And you don’t have to be a scientist to know that any scientists who relied upon it are incompetent fools. Same for scientists who refuse transparency, use fraudulent data, pervert peer review, slander opponents, or refuse to debate. Those who refuse to be accountable or refuse to behave like scientists or refuse to incorporate normal quality measures in their work are not worthy of trust or credibility. And you don’t have to be a scientist to understand that.
Heartland, with the hindsight of their own reaction and abhorence and fear of the No Pressure video, create a billboard campaign which does not even attempt to contain any humour whatsoever and is just as offensive. Not only that, they continue to excuse their behaviour by claiming it was only an experiment, like a five year old claims to have only been borrowing the sweeties from the jar and they were going to put them back. Compare to 10:10, who not only pulled the video, but apologised unreservedly with no lame excuses.If people really wish to make these comparisons, I suggest they ask themselves why Heartland did not stop themselves based on their public outrage at the 10:10 video. What reasons could there be for them to feel that they can demand others do as they say, but then behave in exactly the same way that they claim offended them and sceptics so much? Can you, at all, find a genuine excuse given their advantage of hindsight?For example:Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast told the Business &
Media Institute he is concerned about potential attacks on skeptics –
including those within his organization – stemming from this film. “I
was shocked when I saw this video, and immediately sent an email to
all of Heartland’s staff warning them that it could encourage
environmental extremists to physically attack us,” Bast said. “This
overt call for violent action against global warming realists has
absolutely no place in civilized dialogue on climate change, or any
other public policy issue. Calling on others to consider using violence
to silence those who disagree with you is itself an act of violence.” Bast
also said that the makers of the video are responsible for whatever
“eco-terrorist acts” occur in the coming months. “We can only pray that
no one gets hurt, and that similar acts of violence do not occur in the
future.”
DaveH, for the last year I have been defending the IPCC (WG1 at least) (and while vigorously attacking its leadership) not from skeptics but from the climate brigade. Most of whom, like you almost did, think their findings far too conservative.
I’m amazed that given the handicaps (some self-imposed) they work under they do as well as they do. As a non-scientist I respect the work that goes into their reports and refer to AR4 frequently. It’s very good ammunition against the climate brigade, which is one reason they’ve begun to criticize it (except when they refer to it, too–they like to have it both ways on a number of issues).
I don’t rely on Lindzen and Singer–I just don’t condemn them, either. I think they have a part to play in the science, just as does Hansen. I think they have a part to play in the circus that has become climate change–as does Hansen.
This is what happens when everybody knows that the one datum that would settle all of this–atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 concentrations–will in all likelihood not be known for another 30 to 50 years. We get restless. We want our answers now.
Anyone who has driven distances with children in the back seat will recognize the climate conversation.
The HI billboard campaign is over the top. Given all the other scientific work coming out that refutes “global warming” theory in all its trappings why put forth such a weak and offensive argument? Much better to spend the money to produce a video on, say, Svensmark’s new and exciting work detailing solar influences on climate.
This thread is no different from the others. A Cacophony of Yentas. Hey, kdk33… I’m still a big-time denier. I just don’t like charlie uniform november tangos. bwaak bwaak bwaak
Howard, back to the space time continuum from whence you came.
Howard, that’s not nice. I like Tom. His liberalsm is just a phase, and, as soon as he is ready, I will lead him back from the dark side (another of my super powers). :-).
kdk33, good luck with that–I hope to make a liberal of you yet!
On the other hand, I don’t think Howard actually realizes that yentas are matchmakers–something I see little evidence of here in the climate debate…
Not good enough says
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
Donna Laframboise:”Why I Won’t Be Speaking at the Heartland Conference”http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
At the very bottom of the page Grypo flags up above you will find a link. It is entitled: Keeping the ‘No Pressure’ Video Alive.
🙂
Good for Donna. I recommend her book, by the way. And I’m glad she’s consistent–equally repulsed by the Heartland poster and the No Pressure video.
I wonder if she’ll add a Keep the Heartland Billboard Fiasco Alive! link?
I doubt if she’ll need to.
Donna is worried about her reputation. How ironic. She wrote a book that tried to soil the reputation of others.
Let’s see how many other scheduled Heartland propaganda conference speakers are “consistent”. Bastardi, Carter, Watts, Eschenbach, Loehle, Singer…these event are usually good PR…or are they? And for who?
Deniers are about image over substance. Above all, they want to look good, and there’s no way to spin out of Friday’s disgraceful event. It was certainly no parody, and the “experiment” claim looks like a pathetic way to avoid apologizing.
For IRS purposes, they don’t look good either.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/05/heartland-seppuku.html
I’m guessing there will be another round of pressure put on their corporate donors.
Lots of good material over at David Appell’s blog too.
NewJackJ once again proves he’s a fool. Tell us which parts of Donna’s book you have read–or had read to you.As for your hate speech categorizing those who disagree with you, please provide references or STFU. Cite where those you demean choose image over substance. Be specific or be quiet.Tell us how you feel about Jewish people while you’re at it. Or, happy Cinco de Mayo! How do you feel about Hispanics?
Chris Mooney and Jonathan Haidt appeared on msnbc this morning to discuss the psychology of science denialism. http://righteousmind.com/talking-with-chris-hayes-and-chris-mooney-about-denial-of-science/
John Whitman found the Heartland Institute’s ad “gutsy”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-976251
Well put. Gutsy. Respectable.
There are apparently many skeptics who agree with both the message and the presentation. They may have been influenced by their perception of themselves as a persecuted minority.In any event, I believe they are very wrong. A quick look around the blogosphere, from McIntyre to McKitrick to LaFramboise to Watts shows a fairly consistent rejection of Heartland’s actions. Happy to be a part of that consensus.
Ross McKitrick letter deserves due diligence.
McKitrick disagreed about the tone of the advertisements and justified his belief about why he thought that the ad was self-defeating:
He then goes on to criticize that “lenghty webpage”:
And yet, McKitrick imposes his minimal condition:
No mention of being associated with Heartland’s justification of its blitz campaign.
Compare and contrast with Donna LaFramboise’s memo:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
Fairly consistent indeed.
Have a drink, Tommy (see #70 for reference).
On the psychology of denialism, “institutional narcissism” is a phrase I recently saw someone apply to HI, not unlike the individual variety displayed by TF.
Heartland speakers are trying to walk the fine line between promoting themselves and their noble cause through venues such as the Heartland Institute, and trying to protect their personal reputations.
There are always actual scientific conferences they can attend, such AGU and EGU events, but media presence is sparse, despite large attendance and a large variety of topics presented and discussed. There aren’t too many people screaming global warming is a hoax or climate scientists are liars…not interesting enough I guess. The events that help advance science don’t promote the denier cause.
Won’t hold my breath, but I hope media will collectively give this year’s HI conference the attention it deserves: none.
RM has not equated anyone to terrorists and mass murderers. His false attacks are more high-brow, but that’s relative.http://deepclimate.org/2011/11/28/mckitrick-hides-the-context/
There goes willard again with his partial quotes attempting to mislead the reader. From McKitrick’s letter: “I am absolutely dismayed. 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.”On the psychology of hate speech, we need only observe its practitioners, e.g., NewYorkJ. How do you feel about black people, NewYorkJ?
# 186 Jews. #194 Black people.
Steady on, Tom.
> [A]gain with his partial quotes attempting to mislead the reader.
This presumes that the previous case has been settled in Tom’s favor. Perhaps he should respond to the last comment before taking for granted a position for which he has yet to show any argument whatsoever.
To return to our actual case, I believe that “McKitrick disagreed about the tone of the advertisements” describes quite well what Tom thinks I have omitted. And if that’s not enough, I provided McKitrick’s two lines of arguments, stating that reasons why the first two quotes fully address the “juvenile rhetoric” Tom claims I have omitted.
To see that, and to wake up kdk33 sleeping in the back, let’s try the Chicken Test:
Why does McKitrick disagree about the Heartland’s Institute blitz campaign?
Because if you need a webpage to justify your smear campaign, it sucks, for your audience will only take the objectionable message.
Because this smear campaign makes you lose the moral high ground.
Because this smear campaign can easily backfire.
Paraphrasing, of course.
Perhaps Tom can show me what essential part I am missing from McKitrick’s letter?
Finally, this has nothing to do with the discreptancy between McKitrick’s reaction and LaFramboise’s.
Can we all agree now that the No Pressure folks were on to something with their caricature of some climate skeptics beliefs? Isn’t that the real story here?
Willard. What a parrot.McK’s approach is to change behavior. Donna seeks to make a point. McK has it right, but requires maturity. Donna not so much, though it feels good (which, I suspect is more or less what led to stupid billboard in the first place).
Willard. What a parrot.
McK’s approach is to change behavior. Donna seeks to make a point. McK has it right, but requires maturity. Donna not so much, though it feels good (which, I suspect is more or less what led to stupid billboard in the first place).
Marlowe. What a goose.
BBD, using the term denier to me is hate speech. I intend to make that point every time I see it used. It is not on the same scale or level of venom as racist, ethnic or religious slurs. It is nonetheless in the same vein.
I would surmise that people willing to use it on one group would be willing to use other slurs for other groups. If NewYorkJ, without evidence, citation or reference chooses to call one person or one group of people ‘deniers’, I find it quite reasonable to assume that he will use another slur about another group.
Get used to it, BBD. I doubt if the pinheads will quit using the term. I will not quit objecting to it until Keith throws me off the blog.
Tom if it makes you feel better I’ll use ‘blowhard gasbag’ instead of denier/denial/denialist/denialism. Sound good?
kdk33,
I appreciate your thematic answer(s):
> What a parrot.
Do you know if McKitrick will go at the HI Conference?
> What a parrot.
Do you know if McKitrick will present anything at Heartland International Conference, now that the smear campaign “experiment” has been concluded?
Have a drink, Marlowe.
Tom
I would surmise that people willing to use it [denier] on one group would be willing to use other slurs for other groups.
Surmise away. I will give NYJ the benefit of the doubt.
I will not.
Please, NYJ, no labeling nor spychology, or else Tom will rip off his shirt, yet again. See for instance:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/dilemmas-in-science-communication/#comment-16207
Tom
Well, you frequently say that ‘we don’t know’ what CS is. This is denial. Everything known suggests that ECS is about 3C.
You like linking to stuff, willard–true or not, complete or misleading, outright malicious lies–doesn’t matter to you. You link away and hide behind what other people write. Which is why you shouldn’t try and pretend to be civil with me. I think you’re about as low as electrons can sink on the internet and you evidently feel the same way about me.
So BBD, do you think Mormons should be treated as Christians?
Anyone who makes BBD sy 3C or IPCC or consensus. Buys beer. All month.
Willard,I assuem McK will go since they took the billboard down – changing behavior, get it. Donna ain’t going, so why should HI do anything.As I said. It requires maturity.
BBD, everything known about sensitivity suggests it falls within a range of 1.5C to 4.5C. Some scientists have staked a lot (their reputations, even their careers) on it being 3C. But observed temperatures strongly suggest otherwise. If agreeing with the IPCC makes me a ‘denier’, then it is clear you are using it to class me politically, not scientifically. In that sense you are no different from Republican presidential primary candidates suggesting that Romney cannot be president because Mormons are cultists, not Christians. Despite what Mormons say about themselves, even to each other, the religious fundies say different. Climate fundies stoop to the same level.
Tom again assumes what he has yet to substantiate his two accusations against me in that thread.
Tom’s shirts budget is becoming luxurious.
I don’t need to make any assumptions about you repeatedly linking to lies about me, do I willard?
kdk33,
I believe I get your point. Now try to get mine:
McKitrick will go at a conference organized by the Heartland Institute that still has a full webpage about which he objects:
More behavior needs to be changed to circumvent this objection.
TomSome scientists have staked a lot (their reputations, even their
careers) on it being 3C. But observed temperatures strongly suggest
otherwise. TCR is not ECS. You need to get your head around this.
> I don’t need to make any assumptions about you repeatedly linking to lies about me, do I willard?
The accusations relate my quotes of Lindzen and McKitrick. I claimboth accusations hold no ground, and I believe that I provided enough arguments for that claim.
Let the readers notice Tom’s equivocation.
***
While we’re waiting for Tom to substantiate his accusation that my quotes were misleading, I believe Tom refers to when I link to this thread:
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2010/11/infra-digging-michael-tobis.html
I don’t recall any other link I use that makes Tom rips off his shirt.
Interestingly, in that thread, there was this quote:
Now, to which place does the “forum” refer?
Promises, promises.
Can’t leave it alone, can you? Without linking to libel you have nothing at all to say.
Let’s try with Tom’s words:
Let’s hope I’m not linking to any libel.
218.
That does not substantiate:
> Without linking to libel you have nothing at all to say.
That link will help readers understand Tom’s elusive accusations in #209 and #215.
Readers will note that this link refers to another thread where Tom rips off his shirt.
Let’s hope Tom has some grease left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9_jIa2WADc
Marlowe,Should we add “pinheads” to the list in #70, or does the current inclusion of “pinhead morons” render it redundant?
NewJackJ, as your picture appears in the dictionary as an example, you can surely choose.
BBD, okay, I’ll play. Define equilibrium climate sensitivity precisely, including how equilibrium is defined, what forcings are included, what sinks for both heat and CO2 are measured as part of the process and how, what term is considered adequate for measurement and why, etc.
Link to those scientific assessments that you like.
Then we can discuss.
Compare and contrast what is happening here and The Wanderer‘s comment on a previously linked thread:
Recalling how it started in this thread will have to wait until tomorrow.
Best bring proof, willard. I’m already talking to a lawyer about Rabett’s thread. Don’t get Keith involved in your little hate game.
> Best bring proof[.]
Proof for what?
Perhaps it means proof about the misdirection in the to-be-litigated thread.
I point to MT’s comment:
I point to Tom’s response:
Look, squirrel.
Let’s hope Tom’s lawyer will read the thread at Eli’s before offering his advice.
Let’s also bear in mind Tom’s allusions in #209 and #215.
Willard, You’re point is not difficult, nor does it conflict with mine. So what was your point.
Tom, please don’t encourage BBD to choke that 3C chicken again. It isn’t pretty.
Willard and Tom, you guys are cackling like old hens. Stop.
kdk33,
My point is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The goose is Heartland Institute’s advertized smear campaign experiment. The gander is Heartland Institute’s webpage where they are justifying their advertized smear campaign experiment.
kdk33,
Tom made two accusations in this thread which he did not substantiate.
Tom attempted many misdirections in this thread, and now rips off his shirt because I paid due diligence to the one where he made yet another baseless accusation.
Tom has no honor.
Willard, we have come to a parting of the ways, and none too soon. I will not be responding to any more of your comments. kdk33, I’ve seen BBD go on about this, but I want to see if he can pull it all into one thread and make a coherent story line out of it. I notice he never really mentions how 3C was first arrived at… way back in the day.
Willard, you’re #231 abuses the analogy.
Lookit, McK said he wouldn’t talk unless the billboard campaign was suspended. They took it down, I assume that meets his demands. McK may see it differently (he has not called for his weekly advice, so I’m somewhat in the dark as to his exact thoughts). He may further require they change their website, or not, that’s up to him. But, by placing requirements on his participation, he is helping to change behavior.
Donna, OTOH, just quit. She’s making a point, but leaving no incentive for HI to change behavior.
Why is this difficult for you?.
The faux outrage of the true believers is revealing. HI screwed up and changed under wide condemnation by skeptics. The IPCC screws up and refuses to change. And few believers condemn them at all. HI, while incorrect, did not fabricate quotes or documents. How many true believers here and elsewhere defended Gleick and other AGW leaders for deceit and hiding things? And then the final foolishness of the true believers: In their desperation, they imply (or assert flat out) that since HI posted tacky bill boards, AGW is correct and skeptics are wicked.Good luck to the AGW community in pushing this one down the road. That you guys have to grasp at this one day mistake by HI shows how little you actually have.
kdk33,
Nothing in your comment justifies your first claim in #234.
You simply reiterated your point, which I said I understood, and which does not bear on my point, one you have yet to acknowledge.
Anyway, would you consider McKitrick’s response fairly consistent with Laframboise’s regarding the Heartland Institute’s smear campaign experiment?
hunter, on another bat channel, had this other revelation:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/04/week-in-review-5412/#comment-197580
Perhaps it was not the job of anyone to explain why, but we still had an explanation:
I suppose “the point” indicates that what follows in the paragraph can be described as the point of the Heartland’s Institute smear campaign experiment.
Just catching up to this thread. Some of you best settle down. Willard, Tom, et al: I’ve asked you numerous times not to use my blog to wage your personal battles, using links from other blogs.
All you do with this pettiness is demonstrate how the ugliness of the climate debate filters down into comment threads, thus sullying the forum for everyone.
Willard, whatever
It’s all just a sign of the end of the war. It’s always the case when a war nears it’s end that those most invested in the ‘war itself’ become shrill and unreasonable.<br><br>10 years of temperature data that shows that the more ‘alarmist’ predictions are unlikely and 10 years of dropping productivity in the global coal industry and resulting increases in prices have changed the question.The global oil and coal industries have imposed a ‘price on carbon’.
shale gas
Keith – Professor Richard Betts, seems to be able to see that there is NOT any difference, why can’t you.. Richard at Bishop Hill…. “I was disgusted with ThinkProgress’s stupid article about Breivik being a “denier” and said so in a comment on Grist who had re-posted it. As noted above , the original article seems to have gone, but my comment can be seen in Autonomous Mind’s post here.Well done Donna Laframboise for pulling out of the Heartland conference. You can’t say you want a debate and then use this kind of tactic.” …
willard,Great job of parsing my post to avoid the point.AGW belief offers one a great deal of practice at avoiding points and being obtuse. You are clearly expert.
Keith, Ross and I unequivocally objected to Heartland’s conduct. That thinkprogress, desmog and others had also written contemptible articles linking Breivik to skeptics was no justification for Heartland’s billboard. There was nothing half-hearted about Ross’ letter nor my endorsement of his letter.Having made that statement as unequivocally as we did, it seems entirely reasonable to me that Montford and others now turn attention to the hypocrisy of those who failed to also condemn the Breivik articles.
#242,
Part of the problem with the response is that in trying to explain why Heartland might do such a thing – i.e. that these tactics are in common use against sceptics in the climate debate and Heartland probably figured that after all the attacks on them they had no reputation left to lose – it comes across as ‘tu quoque’.
We learnt from the widespread use of these tactics by the other side that they’re ultimately self defeating. We also learnt that trying to defend it or excuse it only makes it worse, and prolongs the pain. It was a bad argument, a bad move, ‘tu quoque’ is not an excuse, and the majority of the better-known sceptics have said so. Sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and take the hit, and learn the lesson.
It’s interesting to see how much moral high ground Heartland actually had by means of the visible contrast when they fall off it. It becomes apparent that in the past they didn’t use such tactics, they did try to debate in a civilised manner, they did seek to use arguments with some intellectual integrity. And they got hounded and harassed for it; their donors hunted down, their documents stolen, their reputation trashed by forgery and outright lies. You can see why they’d want to hit back, and why they’d be unapologetic. Nobody ever apologises to them for the many things said about them.
It is the same, but that’s not an excuse for it. It’s not fair, but that’s not an excuse for it. You have to stick to the moral high ground, no matter what the other side do, and you cannot use their actions against you as an excuse for doing the same. That stuff is on their consciences, what you do is on yours.
“failed to also condemn”Whilst we’re talking of failure to condemn, how about condemning…“SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION?”Still online. Still “a work in progress”. Still linked to by WUWT. Still begging the question with the libelous title. Still with the libelous leading summary point:“Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century”. Still no apology for the libelous accusation by Watts and D’Aleo that scientists at NOAA removed station records to deliberately induce a false warming trend, which has been sent to the memory hole.
Eli’s tongue-in-cheek speculation possible?Is the diabolical Peter Gleick behind these billboards?
[…] for instance, the words of Keith Kloor, who seems to be offering running commentary on the affair, as though it were an unfolding event […]
NiV: And they got hounded and harassed for it; their donors hunted down, their documents stolen, their reputation trashed by forgery and outright lies. You can see why they’d want to hit back, and why they’d be unapologetic. Nobody ever apologises to them for the many things said about them.
Good stuff. This is pretty close to what climate scientists have had to deal with, emails stolen and twisted, scientists sent threatening harassing emails, organizations like HI engaged in smear campaigns against them, lying about their work or distorting it for political purposes.
The notion that somehow HI’s disgraceful behavior is something new is laughable.http://rabett.blogspot.com/
as is the notion that HI has engaged in anything representing intellectual integrity and civility. That’s done at real scientific conferences, in the journals, not at propaganda events specifically designed to push a political view.
Some here could also heed the advice of Yulsman
But they are also undermining their moral stance as they claim that climate activists do the same thing. Did their mothers not tell them that claims of “Johnny did it too!!” just don’t wash?
Tom @ 225 and 233
Define equilibrium climate sensitivity precisely [etc].
Stop obfuscating. The problem here is your misleading statement that ‘we don’t know’ what ECS is when in fact we have a pretty good idea. That could be construed as a tactical smokescreen, ignorance of the literature or even ‘denial’. Whatever the cause, it is your argument, and it requires that we ignore decades of investigation and dismiss the most likely value for ECS as weightless. This would be irrational, would it not?
I notice he never really mentions how 3C was first arrived at”¦ way back in the day.
The methodology of Charney et al (1979) isn’t relevant to more recent results. More misdirection.
*****************
AR4 WG1 Ch 8.6 and 10.5.1 Box 2
Annan & Hargreaves (2006)
Hansen & Sato, Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change (2011)
Knutti & Hegerl (2008)
Olsen et al. (2012)
One must wonder why McIntyre would compare the Breivik article by Brad Johnson to the billboards when the Johnson article is much more like what Watts has done several times, pointed out by Keith’s links in the original post. It’s like damage control misdirection on misdirection, upon earlier misdirection damage control. Revealing episode to say the least.
On a more topical note, it is interesting that all contrarian arguments depend on misdirection, ignorance or denial. The HI poster campaign was misdirection.
grypo
We crossed. Apparently we are thinking alike…
Birds of a feather flock together…
It seems that when a bird of one flock sings off-key, the disharmony is most disharmonious to the opposite flock. But this is to be expected, I suppose.
Once the squawking dies down we’re left with these: climate alarm is going the way of the dodo, and the argument that we should ‘do something’ won’t fly. It will take the ostriches a while to figure this out. .
#248,
There are two ends to this debate – the end that talks linear algebra and statistics and adiabatic lapse rates, and the end that endlessly trash-talks the other side.
Do you really want to spend all your time up at the same end as Heartland?
kdk33 is a fine example of the contrarian. His arguments include all three defining characteristics of misdirection (‘we don’t know’), ignorance and denial (see # 253 for the latter two).
NiV
Can’t see how NYJ’s # 248 constitutes ‘trash talking the other side’.
File under ‘misdirection’.
HI has done this before. Watts has done this before, as have others. So why is it a big deal now? The difference is the audience. Watts can get away with it on his blog. HI can get away with it on their website, as readers of both tend to be a small portion of the public with shared ideological views. The billboard, however, is shoved in the faces of the general public, reaching more normal people and some journalists who don’t pay regular attention to the denial world. Politics is like this. Politicians need to walk the fine line between appealing to their base during the primaries without potentially crossing lines that offends a wider audience. HI crossed that line in spectacular fashion. Their attempted message was to equate those who believe the science on global warming with terrorists, but in the process they revealed themselves to be as fringe as ever.
Hmm. Apparently you do.
#250. grypo, I agree with your criticisms of Anthony’s articles on Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden. I hadn’t read those articles previously and, upon reading them, find them distasteful. I will make one distinction however between those articles and the Breivik articles. No one was named personally in Anthony’s articles, whereas I was named personally in the thinkprogess and desmog articles. So you will perhaps understand why I take offence to the thinkprogress and desmog articles and why I am disappointed that Keith and others consider taking offence at these articles to be merely “partisan”.Again, note that Ross and I did not make this a condition of our condemnation of Heartland’s conduct. We did so unequivocally.
Tom,
I acknowledge your promise in #233:
In return, I will never mention your name again.
Farewell and keep the chin up,
w
BBD, I’ve read Knutti, Hegerl more than once. I’m not a scientist but I believe I understand that paper. My understanding is that the error bars for ECS are larger than you would accept if, for example, I brought them to you.
I can understand why you want to gloss over the origins of the 3C estimate. It was not scientific. I just want to call to your attention the lesson of Moore’s Law. Gordon Moore laid out his observation of growth trends in microprocessor density for the world to see. He then said, ‘If this goes on…’ and it became an industry goal to insure that this indeed would go on. Do you not think it possible that splitting the difference between Hansen and Manabe created a 3C goal or benchmark for scientists to calibrate against or achieve? I wonder if Charney would do it again the same way if he had the chance?
NiV
It’s interesting that you defend the HI. Does it have links with the GWPF?
Tom, I repeat:
The methodology of Charney et al (1979) isn’t relevant to more recent results. More misdirection.
You can’t help yourself, can you?
Once more Keith does the slow walk on Eli’s comments. Why you might actually think the fellow thinks himself clever.
Tom
Have a look at this.
#262,
I wasn’t defending the HI.
I was saying that attacking the HI (and others less deserving) is part of the same game that the HI was playing. Your behaviour doesn’t excuse the HI’s, but HI’s behaviour doesn’t excuse yours, and the more everybody plays it, the worse things get. HI did this because that’s the standard people have set in this debate. That’s the inevitable consequence of treating the other side with contempt.
It’s not just you. Both sides do it. I’ve played the game myself, where it seemed appropriate. But I much prefer it civilised.
NIVI’ve played the game myself, where it seemed appropriate. But I much prefer it civilised.You are as much a street-fighter as anyone else. You just prefer the stiletto to nunchaku 🙂
BBD, could you give me your thoughts on this paper? http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/VIII/fossil/ClimRespUpdJGR%201.pdfIn another instance of synchronicity, Willis Eschenbach over at your favorite blog, WUWT, linked to it in a discussion of carbon sinks.
Tom
Everybody agrees that black carbon (BC) is contributing to warming. Nobody suggests that it is the principal driver and BC does not affect the results of paleoclimate studies like Hansen & Sato (2011) and Olsen et al. (2012). Uncertainty over the climatological effects of BC is not a get-out clause on CO2.
If you are simply saying look, there’s a really strong case for reducing global BC emissions, then yes, I would agree wholeheartedly.
#245We learnt from the widespread use of these tactics by the other side that they’re ultimately self defeatingThat’s the point…the war for all intents and purposes is over. The ‘world’ is going to ‘decarbonize’ because it makes ‘economic sense to do so’. Not because of any concern over climate.So what do the ‘combatants’ do now? Oh I know…they fan the last few flames.
hunter claims that I parsed his post to avoid his point.
In my opinion, the quote I provided is the only part of that comment that is relevant to this thread.
To make sure of that, just look at hunter’s #235 above, which expresses about the same revelation.
Since hunter has this revelation about six times before breakfast here or elsewhere, chances are that it will resurface when it will be more relevant to comment on it.
Meanwhile, impatient readers will observe that hunter has yet to respond to #245, which applies to his point.
A side note: from NIV @ 245:
It’s interesting to see how much moral high ground Heartland actually had by means of the visible contrast when they fall off it.
An interesting perspective.
Actually BBD, what I was hoping for your reaction on isn’t the black carbon. It’s this: “The overall lifetime of CO2 is updated to range from 30 to 95 years instead of 50 to 200 years.”…”In the work of Jacobson [2002, hereinafter referred to as J2002], it was assumed that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 against all loss processes combined was between 50 and 200 years. This range is commonly used in the literature. However, the upper lifetime does not appear to be physical, even within the range of reasonable uncertainty, and the lower lifetime appears to be too high to explain the rate of change of the observed mixing ratio of CO2.”Would this not seem to affect previous estimates of ECS? Asking, not trolling…
Tom
Asking, not trolling”¦
See # 268. Look at the full range of methodologies employed to estimate ECS. You have read Knutti & Hegerl, so you will be familiar with their Fig. 3 a.
Perhaps I should add this.
BBD, may I ask why you are so confident about this? I’m thinking of what Freeman Dyson wrote way back in 2007: ” I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. …”When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet….”The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. …”About a tenth of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is converted into biomass every summer and given back to the atmosphere every fall. That is why the effects of fossil-fuel burning cannot be separated from the effects of plant growth and decay. There are five reservoirs of carbon that are biologically accessible on a short time-scale, not counting the carbonate rocks and the deep ocean which are only accessible on a time-scale of thousands of years. The five accessible reservoirs are the atmosphere, the land plants, the topsoil in which land plants grow, the surface layer of the ocean in which ocean plants grow, and our proved reserves of fossil fuels. The atmosphere is the smallest reservoir and the fossil fuels are the largest, but all five reservoirs are of comparable size. They all interact strongly with one another. To understand any of them, it is necessary to understand all of them….”The biosphere is the most complicated of all the things we humans have to deal with. The science of planetary ecology is still young and undeveloped. It is not surprising that honest and well-informed experts can disagree about facts.”BBD, these quotes from Many Coloured Glass, his 2007 book (written before the climaterati declared him senile by virtue of heresy) seem to indicate that it would be very difficult to create an ECS with a level of accuracy that you seem to think exists. I am willing to be persuaded–Dyson may be the second smartest person on the planet, but he’s not perfect.But instead of sending me haling after links, walk me through this in your own words. Tell me why you’re right about something that is in my opinion extremely complex and deals with phenomena we don’t completely understand.
Sorry all–same post reformatted.
BBD, may I ask why you are so confident about this? I’m thinking of what Freeman Dyson wrote way back in 2007: ” I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
“¦”When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet”¦.
“The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading.
“¦”About a tenth of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is converted into biomass every summer and given back to the atmosphere every fall. That is why the effects of fossil-fuel burning cannot be separated from the effects of plant growth and decay. There are five reservoirs of carbon that are biologically accessible on a short time-scale, not counting the carbonate rocks and the deep ocean which are only accessible on a time-scale of thousands of years.
The five accessible reservoirs are the atmosphere, the land plants, the topsoil in which land plants grow, the surface layer of the ocean in which ocean plants grow, and our proved reserves of fossil fuels. The atmosphere is the smallest reservoir and the fossil fuels are the largest, but all five reservoirs are of comparable size. They all interact strongly with one another. To understand any of them, it is necessary to understand all of them”¦.
“The biosphere is the most complicated of all the things we humans have to deal with. The science of planetary ecology is still young and undeveloped. It is not surprising that honest and well-informed experts can disagree about facts.”
BBD, these quotes from Many Coloured Glass, his 2007 book (written before the climaterati declared him senile by virtue of heresy) seem to indicate that it would be very difficult to create an ECS with a level of accuracy that you seem to think exists.
I am willing to be persuaded”“Dyson may be the second smartest person on the planet, but he’s not perfect.But instead of sending me haling after links, walk me through this in your own words. Tell me why you’re right about something that is in my opinion extremely complex and deals with phenomena we don’t completely understand.
What leads intelligent people to be so wrong about certain areas of science? RC has some theories.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/the-starship-vs-spaceship-earth/
Dyson is not a climatologist. Climatologists generally agree on ~3C for ECS to 2xCO2. Who to trust?
🙂
Dyson:
About a tenth of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is converted into biomass every summer and given back to the atmosphere every fall.
That is why the effects of fossil-fuel burning cannot be separated from the effects of plant growth and decay.
Observation.
What’s going on then?
Tom, for the benefit of others whose patience might be wearing thin: there’s no evidence that the standard position is wrong. Naysayers are confined to misinformation, or denial. Ignorance is a let-out clause, but you are well-versed in the debate.
@279you’re right that it really comes down to ‘who to trust’. this is why i find it so puzzling that some people spend so much time trying to delegitimize the very institutions that we should trust in this instance, and then in the same breath claim to be concerned about climate change. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that fits the definition of a ‘concern troll’.
Tom,
BBD’s argument is this: IPCC says. If you don’t believe him, he will inundate you with links to where… the IPCC says (he likes magazine articles). He hasn’t provided you anything substantive on time constants, nor will he, I have asked him many times. He doesn’t understand how science works; so he appeals to ignorance by requiring evidence that his favorite hypothesis is wrong, then claims anyone who disagrees is ignorant (or a liar, or an idealogue, or misdirecting, obfuscating… he has pretty well worn the dictionary through with various name-calls). If you drill down on any particular point, you will find he actually understands very little about what he says. The concept of “we don’t know” is foreign to him… after all, the IPCC says.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you…
I now fly the coop from this particular thread.
Hi kdk33, I’m still curious.BBD, are you familiar with Dyson’s background? Why do you say he’s not a climate scientist? He’s certainly more of one than James Hansen, and James Hansen has done some very good work. But Dyson’s been doing it longer than Hansen–Dyson just also spent time on one or two other items.
Please don’t take that as a criticism of Hansen. It is a criticism of those who now try to raise a bar to entry into discussion.
Freeman J. Dyson, “Can we control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”, Energy, Volume 2, Issue 3, September 1977
Dyson, FJ, “The Greening of the Galaxy” in Disturbing the Universe, 1979
@ 282
thou doth protest too much. solipsism is the refuge of scoundrels.
@keith
if you feel the conversation is devolving, may i humbly suggest that for some of us, it’s a natural response to content-free, unsubstantiated bluster.
BBD, if you have a few moments to spare, can I direct your attention to a couple of YouTube videos?http://youtu.be/JTSxubKfTBUhttp://youtu.be/k69HUuyI5Mk
Why do you say he’s not a climate scientist? He’s certainly more of one than James Hansen,
Hansen’s climate papers are accessible here. They outnumber Dyson’s.
Quantity trumps all, eh? Again–are you at all familiar with Freeman Dyson?
Here are the URLs for those videos again. Durn formatting…
http://youtu.be/JTSxubKfTBU
http://youtu.be/k69HUuyI5Mk
Tom, why are you doing this?
kdk: BBD’s argument is this: IPCC says. If you don’t believe him, he will inundate you with links to where”¦ the IPCC says
That’s strange. I searched for “IPCC” through the comment here and I don’t see BBD referencing the IPCC. I do see references to the peer-reviewed literature, past to present, that confirms the climate sensitivity estimate, including a fine K&H review article. The big bad IPCC also agrees. What a surprise. One would expect them to represent the preponderance of evidence on the topic.
For the record, I once called BBD a ‘gasbag blowhard’. Maybe that’s what tipped the balance 🙂 ?
146 to 23.http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.htmlBut it’s not all about quantity. Has Dyson published any work that supports his core arguments that he’s been spewing? I know Hansen has. I’ll wait patiently.
Marlowe
For the record, I once called BBD a “˜gasbag blowhard’.
I’ll get you for that, one day 🙂
Well, I scribbled while note taking so I’m not sure, but it certainly appears that Hansen has published more papers than Freeman Dyson, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein–combined!
BBD@288, because I’m trying to learn.
I’m trying to learn about climate change, about ECS, about you–why are you doing this?
If you took the 10 minutes needed to watch those two videos you already know that Freeman Dyson takes this very seriously.
Why are so many so eager to trash one of the finest minds that has ever lived?
I’m actually quite curious at the moment about that last question, given recent threads I’ve been on.
kdk33
BBD’s argument is this: IPCC says.
It’s a review. Think.
BBC, in their fourth Review of the literature, the IPCC mentioned one factor as being the most important and perhaps the least understood element in climate. Do you, umm, happen to recall what that was?
Why are so many so eager to trash one of the finest minds that has ever lived?
Why are so many eager to dismiss decades of work by climatologists?
Who is arguing to dismiss their work? I haven’t seen anything to that effect in this entire thread. Not from kdk33, not from any of the other skeptics, not from myself, certainly not from those on your side. Who has even hinted at that?
If clouds were a game changer we’d see it in paleoclimate behaviour.
Umm, BBD, that’s not what I was referring to…
So if Dyson has far fewer climate-related peer-reviewed publications, and none of them support his views, such as
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/
then what (do tell) does TF believe qualifies Dyson as “more of a [climate scientist]” than Hansen? Ah…here it is…
But Dyson’s been doing it longer than Hansen Seems sort of ageist. Is TF a bigot?
That’s me doing what you are doing.
Tom’s busy doing the ‘gas bag blowhard’ bit. pay attention bbd.
Does this jog your memory, BBD? p. 860, AR4:
“Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper-tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary-layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness.A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.
Does this jog your memory, BBD? p. 860, AR4:
“Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper-tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary-layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness.
A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.
Tom
What were you referring to @ 295?
BBD–numbering issue. On my screen comment 295 is yours.
Disregard # 304 we crossed.
BBD, I have two comments in moderation due to a profusion of links, so my numbers are different to yours. I will have difficulty identifying comments you refer to by number alone.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2012/05/04/climate-wars-reach-new-low/comment-page-7/#comment-108475
BBD, just to highlight the money quote from the IPCC’s AR4,
“Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
Going for a walk, BBD. Back later and I hope to continue this. You really should look into Freeman Dyson a bit, if you haven’t had the opportunity.
Tom, see # 180
And pretty much everything that’s been published on ECS for the last three decades.
Sorry, BBD–my numbering is different to yours.Your link went to 280 for some reason.Back later.
I’m out the door, but I’ll shorten the money quote even more: “a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
It’s not just about the models Tom. Every avenue of investigation suggests an ECS of ~3C.
On re-reading the recent thread,there’s just this:
If clouds were a game changer we’d see it in paleoclimate behaviour.
coherence is the hobgoblin of little minds bbd…
Well, BBD, so far you’ve linked to a couple of papers that apparently didn’t sway the IPCC. Feel free to list the different avenues of investigation and what has been done with them.
But through all of this I note that you have a tendency to just put up a link without speaking to what’s behind it. I’m just about as time-starved as everyone else in the 21st Century–I’d like a bit more information.
I just noticed nearly ten comments marked as “pending.” My apologies for the delay, as I have mostly been offline the last 24 hours and for some reasons I wasn’t notified by email, the way I usually am when comments come in.
Anyway, no Eli, I was not “slow-walking” your valuable contributions to the conversation. Yours were among a bunch that got held up. Everyone’s comments have been now approved.
In the future, if you notice your comment doesn’t appear shortly after posting it, just email me.
I read anything by Dyson with great interest. He was a big name in quantum electrodynamics when I was a student (a long time ago). One of the great scientists.I doubt if he thinks of himself as a climate scientist. But he does explain some things with great clarity. But then there are odd gaps.
That’s true in #276. He makes this good observation:About a tenth of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is converted into biomass every summer and given back to the atmosphere every fall. That is why the effects of fossil-fuel burning cannot be separated from the effects of plant growth and decay. There are five reservoirs of carbon that are biologically accessible on a short time-scale, not counting the carbonate rocks and the deep ocean which are only accessible on a time-scale of thousands of years.
But then, in that extract, he goes on:The five accessible reservoirs are the atmosphere, the land plants, the topsoil in which land plants grow, the surface layer of the ocean in which ocean plants grow, and our proved reserves of fossil fuels. The atmosphere is the smallest reservoir and the fossil fuels are the largest, but all five reservoirs are of comparable size. They all interact strongly with one another.
What he doesn’t say is that fosil fuels are different. The others have been exchanging carbon for millions of years, with no clear nett effect. FF hasn’t, and only starts to interact when we dig it up. And then the interaction is one-way only. It doesn’t go back into the ground. It’s not clear what he means by FF are the largest. The amount that we have dug so far is not the largest, but the amount we could dig is overwhelming.
And thenThe warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading.
Well, yes, but no. The separation of effect is much more by altitude. But the last bit is really wrong. The effects of CO2 are slow – decades. Mixing of heat in the atmosphere is fast – days. It doesn’t matter if there are regions of high and low absorption – it’s rapidly smoothed, and what matters is the global total heat.
Nick Stokes, thank you for that. I was particularly interested in his description of the ocean as ‘inaccessible’. My own understanding, meager as that might turn out to be, is that the processes of heat mixing, storage and release mean that we can still be surprised by what comes out or goes into the deep blue sea. To me that seems to render current calculations of equilibrium sensitivity into something that should be written in pencil, not pen.
I was particularly struck by his statement that we cannot understand the atmosphere in isolation. That seems intuitively correct to a non-scientist–do you have an opinion?
Do you have any comments to add about the discussion of sensitivity? BBD claims that 3C is rock solid–I tend to think the IPCC has given clear indication that it’s harder to pin down.
BBD, in 329 you write, “If clouds were a game changer we’d see it in paleoclimate behaviour.”
I find that statement curious. As a non-scientist, it would seem to me that you are saying that a short-lived phenomenon we don’t understand fully in terms of current climate and sensitivity would have had a predictable effect on an era for which we lack precise measurements of any components of the atmosphere.
Could you expound on the reasoning behind that statement?
Tom,3
°C rock-solid? Well, I think BBD said ~3, so it depends on the meaning of ~. I think it has always been accepted that there is a range. The AR4 said “It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.” I think recent years might have caused people to down-rate the top end of the range a little. There has been some recent blog confusion with estimates of transient clinate sensitivity, which is lower.On “inaccessible” I presume you refer to “the deep ocean which are only accessible on a time-scale of thousands of years”. That’s a bit vague, but certainly diffusion time constants over kilometres would be very long. The top 100m or so equilibrates quickly, but then the downward flux of CO2 tapers, so deep ocean isn’t a useful sink on a century time frame.On “atmosphere in isolation” I take to refer to “To understand any of them, it is necessary to understand all of them”¦.”. Well, the atmosphere is unique, in that flux from the other reservoirs is exchanged through it. And with the ocean, the first issue is the interface. I’m not sure where he thinks understanding is inadequate of the biosphere. It’s true that it’s hard to account in complete detail for the movement of carbon. On the other hand, atmospheric data is good and the airborne fraction (observed fraction that remains in the atmosphere) is fairly stable.
“BBD, everything known about sensitivity suggests it falls within a range of 1.5C to 4.5C. Some scientists have staked a lot (their reputations, even their careers) on it being 3C. But observed temperatures strongly suggest otherwise. ” (#222)Blatant nonsense. So according to Tom Fuller everything known about sensitivity suggests it lies between 1.5C and 4.5C yet something known about sensitivity strongly suggests it is not 3C.”using the term denier to me is hate speech” (#210)Sure it is. Here is some “hate speech” in the public library of science.
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.co.uk/ has an interesting post “HYPOCRISY AUDIT“
Tom
But through all of this I note that you have a tendency to just put up a link without speaking to what’s behind it. I’m just about as time-starved as everyone else in the 21st Century”“I’d like a bit more information.
1/. I’ve provided adequate explanations along the way. Best re-read the comments
2/. Then read the abstract and discussion.
Do you have any comments to add about the discussion of sensitivity? BBD claims that 3C is rock solid”“I tend to think the IPCC has given clear
indication that it’s harder to pin down.
1/. Please stop misrepresenting me. I *always* indicate that 3C is approximate (eg: ‘~3C’).
2/. You claim to be familiar with WG1. So what about this do you find difficult to understand:
Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or “˜equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.
Tom, you are testing my patience now.
@ 335
it would seem to me that you are saying that a short-lived phenomenon we don’t understand fully in terms of current climate and sensitivity would have had a predictable effect on an era for which we lack precise measurements of any components of the atmosphere.
It is self-explanatory. Anything more than a weakly negative cloud feedback would flatten out paleoclimate variability. This is not what we see.
To me that seems to render current calculations of equilibrium sensitivity into something that should be written in pencil, not pen.
Tom, do me a favour. Make time to read Hansen & Sato (2011). Improve your understanding of ECS by getting your head around what they did in that paper. Note: it is an *empirical* approach, not modelled. It will help you understand why there is a scientific consensus that ECS is ~3C. Perhaps then we might get past this blind spot you have about why this is the *most likely value*.
Well, BBD, so far you’ve linked to a couple of papers that apparently didn’t sway the IPCC. Feel free to list the different avenues of
investigation and what has been done with them.
I referenced Knutti & Hegerl’s 2008 review paper at # 259. You present yourself as a knowledgeable veteran of the climate debate (and yes, I have a copy of your book). I assumed that you were familiar with K&H. My mistake.
Meanwhile, the family friendly Green Festival in Chicago had Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and his wife as headlining speakers on the main stage over the weekend.
http://www.nachicagonorth.com/CHI/April-2012/Navy-Pier-Welcomes-Sixth-Annual-Green-Festival/
It’s probably not optimal to get indignant about being compared to bomb makers while inviting bomb makers to speak at your festivals. Optics and all.
Hiya BBD: Talk about testing one’s patience… I’ve shown you this quote from the IPCC AR4 three times now and asked if you agreed, disagreed, had a reaction. Is this correct or not?”a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
“As a non-scientist, it would seem to me that you are saying that a short-lived phenomenon we don’t understand fully in terms of current climate and sensitivity would have had a predictable effect on an era for which we lack precise measurements of any components of the atmosphere.”Luke 19:22
And I have pointed out to you several times that models are but one aspect of the investigation into climate sensitivity. If you stopped wittering and read Hansen & Sato as I suggest you would find this:
Climate models, based on physical laws that describe the structure and dynamics of the atmosphere and ocean, as well as processes on land, have been developed to simulate climate. Models help us understand climate sensitivity, because we can change processes in the model one-by-one and study their interactions. But if models were our only tool, climate sensitivity would always have large uncertainty. Models are imperfect and we will never be sure that they include all important processes. Fortunately, Earth’s history provides a remarkably rich record of how our planet responded to climate forcings in the past. Paleoclimate records yield, by far, our most accurate assessment of climate sensitivity and climate feedbacks.
And this:
This empirical climate sensitivity incorporates all fast response feedbacks in the real-world climate system, including changes of water vapor, clouds, aerosols, aerosol effects on clouds, and sea ice. In contrast to climate models, which can only approximate the physical processes and may exclude important processes, the empirical result includes all processes that exist in the real world ““ and the physics is exact.
I’m getting fed up with this Tom.
Nobody’s making you do it, BBD. You comment enough as it is that you should not do it when you don’t feel like it.
Besides, readers who will skip to the end of the thread might recognize it as “more of the same”. So you have walked enough.
I also surmise that the discussion won’t get technical, to much chagrin to Nick, I’m sure. Nobody will ask him to define “very likely” or armwave some contrarian papers in his face.
“Playing nice” is not a choice. It’s the only way to keep one’s honor, and with honor comes INTEGRITY ™.
In an attempt to bring the conversation back to the OP, would anyone care to comment on what I said earlier?
what is your question tom? I’m sure its easily answered . I gather its about sensitivity. Finding it hard to get a straight answer? why would the central question be so hard to get a clear exposition on?
Hiya SteveMy question is basically this. BBD has maintained through hundreds of comments on dozens of threads here that climate sensitivity at equilibrium is about 3C. I am well aware of literature that supports that claim.
But it doesn’t come from models–see AR4. And although Hansen believes he sees it in paleoclimate observations, I frankly don’t trust paleoclimate data. From ice cores to tree rings to varves–as you and I both know, they are vulnerable to adjustments due to confirmation bias or just simple error. Steve McIntyre has yet another post up today illustrating this.
BBD is a passionate and tireless advocate. I respect that. I wish to move into a discussion very soon of the difference to humans living in 2012 between transient and equilibrium sensitivity. But first I want to nail down ECS. Is 3C a solid estimate of ECS? How wide are the error bands?
So, BBD, I guess you’re warned–in case you’re getting tired of this, feel free to back out now. After we finish discussing ECS, I am going to be asking you about your opinion of TCS, the time frame for transition between the two and how the two metrics should impact planning.
Marlowe, I think I agree with you. Climate denial has been adopted by the US teabaggers to flog democrats. HI uses a mix of professional scientists and charismatic amateurs to provide knuckle-dragging evangelical bigots sciency authority that support their preconceived notions. Who would have thought that the Gleick apparent forged memo actually under-represented the depraved depths to which HI would slither to.
@350It might surprise you to learn that not all paleoclimate studies focus on millenial timescales (e.g. what McIntyre has been going on about for the last ten 6 or so). If you were genuinely interested in climate science you would know this.
It looks like Heartland is becoming radioactive. Here are the latest developments.
Yes, Keith, but Yamal.
Remember Yamal, as your favorite bunny has been observed to say.
@353
Thanks for the link Keith. the two interesting bits in that article are that staff are rebelling and that Friends of the Earth and other ENGOs were working with Heartland. From a purely financial POV, the fact that its corporate sponsors are bailing is less significant given how much of its funding comes from a single anonymous donor (believed by some to be Barry Seid).
Tom
Since you have already demonstrated that you don’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS, I don’t have high hopes for this discussion – ‘warned’ by you or not.
Furthermore, you have basically ignored everything from # 339 onwards, presumably because it shows up just how partial and self-serving your take on ECS really is.
You are not being sceptical; you are being ‘sceptical’ – and it’s a pain in the arse.
Keith, I will shed no tears at any consequences Heartland experiences as a result of their actions. If they even go under as a result, the debate will not suffer. I find it mildly amusing that some look at this as an excuse for Peter Gleick to commit crimes that targeted them, or that their misdeeds somehow legitimizes his crimes.
Okay, BBD, no worries. I’ll find someone else to discuss the subject with. Have fun!
[…] once the Guardian in the U.K first reported the episode. Some examples are here, here, here, here, here, and here. Moreover, a Washington, D.C.-based newswire May 7 reported on what it […]
@357
I don’t think this latest episode from Heartland vindicates Peter Gleick. I do think it quite clearly vindicates Richard Curtis.
Nick Stokes, I don’t see you around here often–if you’re still observing, would you care to discuss the subject matter in my #357?
#354,
What, you mean the One Tree?
🙂
One tree to rule them all;
One tree to find them;
One tree to bring them all and in Kyoto bind them…
Nick ought to be sleeping.
Tom
You aren’t ‘discussing’. You are pushing your mistaken and partial view that the scientific mainstream is somehow wrong about CS.
Marlowe @ 348
IIRC the 10:10 video didn’t really flesh out (!) the characters – they weren’t given the profundity and detail of characterisation of a Tom Fuller. They were just shrugging, generic inactivists and then pink mist. Who knows, if they had but been allowed to speak…
BBD, let me get this straight. Are you actually defending the No Pressure video?
From Keith’s latest (and most encouraging) link:
[HI’s Joe Bast:] “We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
So that’s climate ‘realism’ is it? I can’t wait for the next experiment 🙂
No Tom, I’m having a laugh. If you want the considered view, you will find it at # 36.
BBD, I lived in the UK for six years and one of my biggest regrets about returning to the States is that I cannot get Have I Got News For You. I appreciate British humour. There was none of it in that video.
You seem taller today, BBD.
It’s the marmite on toast. Breakfast of champions. But your # 347 was duly noted.
We are left to wonder if that climate strategy memo was an HI “experiment” too (Bast was always on the short list of potential authors) and what other “experiments” they have in store.
To Marlowe’s #348, that is indeed an irony of comparing HI’s billboard with the No Pressure satire video. Another irony is that no one is pressing any buttons. HI is exploding/self-destructing on their own (and for the humorless people, I don’t mean that literally).
@366
I emphatically defend the No Pressure video.
One of the things that I find interesting is that criticism to the video is coming from people who routinely lament the lack of moderate voices in the climate debate. It seems apparent to me that the intent of the video was to appeal for less extremism in the climate debate. After all, isn’t one of the ways that you can do this is by ridiculing some of the more ridiculous stereotypes, as evidenced by the latest HI episode?
Love it or hate it, BBD.
Speaking of which, seems that some loved it:
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html
Good piece from Steve Zwick at Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/05/06/heartlands-unabomber-fiasco-is-par-for-the-course/
Marlowe
I can see why you read it like that, but I’m not convinced at all. You’d have to anchor your critical reading in the text much more closely to make that case. And there isn’t much text 🙂
Thanks for the TED link Willard! Very interesting. In keeping with the food theme, let me suggest that one good TED deserves another.
#373,
The intent of the ‘No Pressure’ video was to challenge the prevailing attitude in government and society of paying lip-service to encouraging green ideals but taking a relaxed attitude about people who don’t. The concern was that society was not putting enough social pressure on people to conform, and it was a way to get the issue back into the headlines in a joky way that made people laugh. Their hope was that kids would take it up (gory humour being particularly popular with children), and when people reacted negatively to youth green initiatives they would mime ‘pressing the button’ on them.
The joke was that having seen the importance and gone to the trouble of setting up a green activity, it was a ridiculous cop out to let people opt out without any pressure to join in. The aim was clearly not to say that sceptics needed blowing up. But it was to say that sceptics and others who aren’t trying hard enough are obstructive and putting at risk the chances of success of their schemes to save the planet, and shouldn’t be allowed to just get away with that.
At the time, a lot of people did find it funny, and did defend it at length. All the people writing it, acting in it, producing it, distributing it, funding and advertising it, all thought it was funny and acceptable. People genuinely saw nothing wrong with it. And while I’m just as glad it didn’t succeed in its intention of encouraging the bullying and pressurising of people to go along with their green schemes, I wasn’t actually the slightest bit bothered by the video itself. You need a thick skin to be a climate sceptic, and I’d already seen far scarier stuff being proposed where they weren’t joking. I just found it interesting for what it revealed about the mindset of the people who produced it, and liked it.
NIV
encouraging green ideals
youth green initiatives
a green activity
their schemes to save the planet
their green schemes
An interesting perspective.
(And I’d like to thank you again for your tip on formatting without which this comment would not have been possible 🙂
#361Tom,It’s not yet 7am here – but sorry, I don’t have any useful thoughts on #357 (assuming the numbering hasn’t changed).
#379,
Thank you. And you’re very welcome, BBD.
Some are fleeing HI. Others are staying. Among them is tobacco lobbyist Steven Milloy.
Steve Milloy “” the publisher of Junk Science, a website devoted to questioning climate science that is sponsoring the conference “” stood by the advertisements.
“Heartland’s ad campaign was fact-based and provocative,” Milloy said in an email, arguing there is no “backlash” against advertisements by groups like the American Lung Association that say GOP lawmakers are threatening public health by opposing Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/225859-some-groups-stand-by-heartland-institute-amid-firestorm-over-climate-billboard
How’s that for a false equivalence?
Yamal. Final clue
And let’s not forget woodpeckers.
Diageo found a cheap way to place its brands. It announced that it will stop funding Heartland, after having done so two years ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/06/diageo-end-funding-heartland-institute
But let’s not forget the ivory-billed woodpecker.
And while we’re not forgetting ivory-billed woodpeckers, I will remind Marlowe that Diageo owns the Guinness brand, while thanking him for the TED talk.
Speaking of which, the word “econol” made me think of ethanol (another concept dear to Marlowe), and after a bit of search, I came out with this other talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_an_ad_man.html
Is this woodpecker similar tohttp://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-reasons-we-know-your-are-not-a-scientific-genius/or the Boys Who Cried ‘Liar’?
State Farm is ending their support…http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/05/08/followup-heartland-institutes-billboards-are-costing-them-donors/ This “experiment” of theirs is having its costs…but maybe some more wealthy nutty anonymous donors can pick up the slack.
It’s all a liberal plot by the media to suppress free speech!!! Bast is a hero, I tell you. A hero. Hunter will be along in a minute with the full details…
http://metaclimate.org/2012/05/08/occams-razor/
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2011/09/08/fuckems-razor-and-the-solution-to-the-climate-question/
With the news that Chris Landsea, did indeed receive an invitation to be listed as a Heartland Expert Eli comes again to # 63 from Roger
the Bunnies call in Willard for parsing services. So many possibilities.
I’m late to the party on the RPJr meltdown. Fascinating to observe. When I initially read the comments Eli quotes in #392 (May 4th, which is not 48 hours before May 10th), my passing thought was why in the world would any normal person be comfortable with being listed as an HI expert on their website, unless he had agreed to it. As BigCityLib shows, many others are rather angry with HI for being included in their Experts list, as clearly an association is implied. Many others are furious with the billboard campaign as well and want no association with them whatsoever. But RPJr seems to live in some other galaxy. He’s instead gone bonkers over Joe Romm for pointing out HI listing him as one of their experts. With HI collapsing, one has to wonder: why the unusually bad mood?
You’re late and clueless besides. Lots of people get listed extraneously without being consulted. Check list of U.S. Trolls for your name. But it doesn’t get nasty until someone asserts you have a tie with the listing organization–like saying NewYorkJ is a founding member of Trolls United to Prevent Discussion.
Tom
I know what a troll is. And you are using the term far too loosely. Consider that this is a double-edged sword.
378# ref ‘No Pressure’ A FoE board memeber commented at the time, twice !http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7838007http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7838032In fact the people most upset might be said to be other environmentlists.Like Leo Hickman’s comment with respect to Heartland ‘What were they thinking’ the similarity of the billboard situation ‘No Pressure’ ie own goal that their ‘own side’ say OMG what were you thinking..
BBD, you didn’t provide a link… so here’s one for you in honor of the dishonorable NewYorkJ: http://evaelisabeth.blogspot.com/2011/12/troll-thoughts.html
Tom, you astonish me. And that is as nothing to what NYJ is going to think 🙂 . Your link is a declaration of lurve!
Trolls are fun, furry, lucky, cute, happy, tenacious, famous, long lasting & much needed. I could go on & on, but my point is this: I LOVE TROLLS!
Amor vincit omnia indeed.
@ BBD
Tom’s apparent lack of self-awareness and introspection is indeed astonishing. The interested reader might consider Tom’s behaviour over at Bart’s re delimma’s in science communication and consider who fits the description above.
I know it’s fun for some of you to flame each other, but all it really does is muck up the thread for everyone else. Can you guys take your grievances with one another to another sandbox?
Keith surely we’re allowed to have a little fun when the thread is running @ 400+ comments?
Keith, blaming Pielke for stuff that is essentially scraped off the web and put on a website under a title of Heartland (thinks this guy is an) Expert exposes all of us to guilt by one-sided association. As so much content gets scraped and republished in the climate sphere, I am sure that Pielke just succumbed to the overload and let it go. That’s what I did at Examiner.com when my articles were reposted without permission or even notification. Heartland and NewYorkJ are doing the same thing–trying to take political advantage of an unagreed association. It’s meta-trolling, it’s pretty sick and it’s typical of both parties. If it hasn’t happened to you yet it most certainly will. Do you respond to every out of context scrape from this site? Doubt it.
Sorry Keith – I was actually trying to lighten the tone a bit 🙂
DFTT (Don’t Feed The Tom)