Friday, May 04, 2012

Billboards are just repeats of garbage on Heartland's website

They've done this before:

July 2006 column by Heartland President and CEO Joseph Bast:

The Inconvenient Truth About Al Gore 
....I have difficulty taking Gore seriously on environmental issues ever since it was reported that Ted Kaczynski, the murderous “Unabomber,” kept a heavily marked-up copy of Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance, in his tar-paper shack and liberally borrowed from it when writing his anti-humanity treatise. There’s even a Web site (http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html) that offers a quiz to see if you can tell Gore’s words from Kaczynski’s. I bet you can’t.

Was that a cheap shot? Maybe....

The Unabomber also was absolutely sincere in his belief that technological progress was an evil that had to be stopped, with violence if necessary. Fortunately, Kaczynski didn’t have access to the incredible powers of the Presidency of the United States. Unfortunately, Al Gore still aspires to that post.


I'm glad people are taking it seriously, but don't expect it not to happen again so long as this organization is given the time of day.  There's a lot at stake, so this repetition of history goes beyond a farce.

30 comments:

b5230294-91bd-11e0-a606-000bcdcb5194 said...

Looks like bin Laden had similar obsession with climate change papers are reporting this week. Maybe Heartland is on to something here.

carrot eater said...

Why should we take it seriously? Just ignore these guys.

J Bowers said...

Looks like bin Laden had a similar obsession with Obama that a number of Tea Partiers had.

J Bowers said...

"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.”"

Source

Arun said...

Stop breathing! Hitler inhaled oxygen too!

Albatross said...

Roger Pielke and I have been having a discussion, well of sorts. Roger took umbrage for Justin Gillis recently calling Lindzen on his bad science.

This exchange it is related to this HI nastiness in a way. The post that I submitted below still has not appeared on Roger's site [I have fixed some typos]:

"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 conversation.

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 condemning 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. Additionally, 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?”


Roger did read this, because he then (falsely) accused me of making up lies when I noted that he was a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute. But I did not say that, I referred to the fact that he is listed on page 10 of their list of experts.

Now Roger says, "I have absolutely no association with them, never have. Apparently, Heartland considers me an expert, so they are obviously not wrong about everything :)"

That may very well be true, but Roger still has not apologized to me for branding me a liar in public.

And Roger should be cautious about being flattered that HI consider him an expert, they also consider Tim Ball, Watts and Monckton as "experts".

I have now requested multiple times that Roger apologize for branding me a liar in public. So far he has refused to do that and has refused to acknowledge other inconvenient truths.

Anonymous said...

Remember all it is only allowed to associate crazies with deniers, whenever they are associated with alarmists it is an unacceptable outrage.


Kind of makes me smile that Brian and Eli are spending so much time on HI. HI could go away tomorrow and 99.5% of the population would not even know.



Celery Eater

Brian said...

Great point, JBowers. What an incredible hypocrite Bast is.

Of course the original video is dumber than a bag of hammers, but then Bast decides to go even further, with no pretense that what HI is doing is satire, even now.

dhogaza said...

Celery Eater:

"Remember all it is only allowed to associate crazies with deniers"

Well, after all, in your case it's a self-inflicted wound ...

Anonymous said...

Much of Heartland's discourse suggests its officers have driven spikes into their heads in an effort to deter chainsaw attacks by crazed Kaczinskiites.

J Bowers said...

Well, HI's response goes along the lines of...

"Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change, and $200 for a one-day digital billboard. In return, we’ve been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists. The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that."

Is propaganda generally classed as delusional and paranoid?

Anonymous said...

JB:
"Is propaganda generally classed as delusional and paranoid?"

Delusional if paid for by the word.

Paranoid if by the paragraph.

Anonymous said...

Roger Pielke and I have been having a discussion, well of sorts. Roger took umbrage for Justin Gillis recently calling Lindzen on his bad science.

This exchange it is related to this HI nastiness in a way. The post that I submitted below still has not appeared on Roger's site [I have fixed some typos]:

"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 conversation.

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 condemning 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. Additionally, 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?”


Roger did read this, because he then (falsely) accused me of making up lies when I noted that he was a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute. But I did not say that, I referred to the fact that he is listed on page 10 of their list of experts.

Now Roger says, "I have absolutely no association with them, never have. Apparently, Heartland considers me an expert, so they are obviously not wrong about everything :)"

That may very well be true, but Roger still has not apologized to me for branding me a liar in public.

And Roger should be cautious about being flattered that HI consider him an expert, they also consider Tim Ball, Watts and Monckton to be "experts".

I have now requested multiple times that Roger apologize for branding me a liar in public. So far he has refused to do that and has refused to acknowledge other inconvenient truths.

Albatross

Anonymous said...

Roger Pielke and I have been having a discussion, well of sorts. Roger took umbrage for Justin Gillis recently calling Lindzen on his bad science.

This exchange it is related to this HI nastiness in a way. The post that I submitted below still has not appeared on Roger's site [I have fixed some typos]:

"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 conversation.

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 condemning 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. Additionally, 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?”


Roger did read this, because he then (falsely) accused me of making up lies when I noted that he was a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute. But I did not say that, I referred to the fact that he is listed on page 10 of their list of experts.

Now Roger says, "I have absolutely no association with them, never have. Apparently, Heartland considers me an expert, so they are obviously not wrong about everything :)"

That may very well be true, but Roger still has not apologized to me for branding me a liar in public.

And Roger should be cautious about being flattered that HI consider him an expert, they also consider Tim Ball, Watts and Monckton to be "experts".

I have now requested multiple times that Roger apologize for branding me a liar in public. So far he has refused to do that and has refused to acknowledge other inconvenient truths.

Albatross

John said...

Now the story has been picked up by The Daily Caller on Yahoo News

Anonymous said...

Well color me stoopid that is they call me stoopid.

How low can Joe Bast go.

Let me look back to the year 2010, about how the activities of a former college trustee Joe Bast caused the sacking of Thomas Lindsay.

link "Heartland Institute billboards remind Shimer community of "old friend" Joe Bast" : http://www.examiner.com/article/heartland-institute-billboards-remind-shimer-community-of-old-friend-joe-bast

I believe the words beneath contempt, ugly and outrage, are far too mild to describe this infamous not to be forgotten thanks to the Internet billboard. By sheer accident Heartless Institute and the mug of Joe Bast/Ted K., may have inadvertently created a new Internet Meme for complete crass stoopidity.

Ah, one could say, those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat the exact same mistakes in the future, in an endless loop, that keeps on giving.

Brian said...

Albatross - our good ol' Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin's blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment). So I'm interested when he makes incorrect accusations of others lying about him. I looked through that comment thread and didn't see the "policy advisor" comment - can you help out?

AFAICT you did everything well in that thread, with just one suggestion - leave his discredited father out of it, if Sr. isn't relevant to the conversation. Let's just say I'm sympathetic to people who have family members with unconventional beliefs.

Anonymous said...

What about Charles Manson?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/18/charles-manson-becomes-an-advocate-for-global-warming/

Anonymous said...

J Bowers, quoting Heartland:

The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that.

Well, at least they managed to string together two correct sentences at one point in their discourse...

Yes, real scientists aren't relying on a campaign of propaganda to communciate their message; and yes, Heartland's use of staggeringly purile logical fallacy does add proof to the the fact that consensus scientists are relying on objectivity rather than ideology - as Heartland demonstrates itself to be...

The broken clock scores a point.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Russell said...

in other news, Kaczynski's Montana cabin has been trucked to California for recycling :

Anonymous said...

Hi Brian @9:36 PM,

That is interesting Brian, I suspect that we are not the only ones.

"leave his discredited father out of it, if Sr. isn't relevant to the conversation"

I agree Brian, not sure if Roger is following this thread, but making references to his dad was over the line so I'm sorry for that.

Keeping track of everything is complicated by the fact that some of my posts were moved to another thread, that Roger (when I last looked) had not posted a critical post by me on his site, and that I also made some posts at Keith Kloor's place after Roger started moving my posts (on the HI billboard thread).

I can try and collate everything here, but I have to review a two-part journal paper today. Do you mind waiting until tomorrow?

Cheers,
Albatross

Brian said...

Take your time, Albatross.

John said...

As recently as the fall of 2009, the Heartland Institute's website featured a banner that flashed portraits of famous thinkers, including:

Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Locke
James Madison
Thomas Paine
Joseph L. Bast

Dear bunnies, which of these names doesn't belong in a list of famous thinkers?

Sometime in fall 2009, Heartland removed Bast as a famous thinker. Joseph L. Bast founded the Heartland Institute, with the help of Big Tobacco money. Bast's most noteworthy publication is Please Don't Poop In My Salad, which is a collection of essays about freedom. Needless to say, one of the most precious freedoms (according to Bast) is the freedom to smoke, at a low tax rate per pack.
Source: The Inquisition of Climate Science, James Lawrence Powell (Columbia University Press, 2011).

J Bowers said...

John, that's tantamount to the behaviour of a personality cult.

J Bowers said...

And speaking of John Locke, clean energy is looking more like the de facto battlefield for this year's election.

Conservative thinktanks step up attacks against Obama's clean energy strategy

Anonymous said...

Obama's Clean energy startegy is to spend taxpayer dollars on failed projects.

Good strategy, very effective.




Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

CE's been drinking the ATI Kool Aid.

Anonymous said...

Cross-posted from Roger Pielke Jr's site-- just in case my post fails to get posted on the appropriate thread or does not get posted at all.

"This is an excerpt from a post I just submitted at Think Progress:

"As I pointed out to Roger last week, he does not seem to undweerstand the correct meaning of “liar”. The only group that is likely guilty of lying is The Heartland Institute– specifically, listing people as their “experts” when they know that said expets have not agreed to be listed as such.

Finally, I find it troubling that Roger Pielke Jr. is very quick to falsely(!) accuse others of fabrication and being liars, but then goes and does the very same thing himself. In fact, he seems to be in the habit of falsely accusing/labelling people as liars (from this thread):

“Brian said…
Albatross – our good ol’ Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin’s blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment).”

Encouraging that I am not the only one Roger Pielke Jr. has falsely accused of lying, but at the same time worrying that someone of his academic standing would continue to do so in public without consequence."


Roger says @47, "I stopped trying to post responses at Romm's a long time ago after he simply deleted them."

Yet a critical post made by me here last week somehow disappeared into the ether of space, and we know for a fact that you read it because you (wrongly) chose to take strong exception to what I said and asccused me of fabrication and lying....just saying.

As for me allegedly being "abusive" Roger, that is very rich coming from you. Surely, you jest? Let me remind you that you are the one accusing me of fabrication and telling lies, in addtion to other people. Then when repeatedly asked to apologise you refuse. I would argue that you are the one being abusive and belligerent.

Moreover, I was not "demanding your correspondence" as you falsely alledge @40 above, now you are twisting and distorting my words Roger and I do not take kindly to that. For the record I said:

"It would be most helpful and clarify matters if Roger shared his correspondence on this matter with his readers."

Roger, you need to take a very long and hard look in the mirror. That you elect to play these rhetorical games and make serious false accusations reflects very poorly not only on you, but your your employer (CIRES) too; not to mention setting an incredibly bad example for your students.

Have a very nice day."


Albatross

Anonymous said...

Another cross post from Roger Pielke Jr's blog-- just in case it does not appear or gets "rejected".

"Roger,

You continue directing your vitriol and outrage at the wrong Joe, it should be directed at Joseph Bast from Heartland for listing you as an "expert" for Heartland without asking. I find the asymmetry of your ire very troubling.

"I have not asked HI to remove it, only to clearly state that if they want to list me as an expert, make sure that they also note that I have no affiliation."

I do not think you understand the purpose of their list. The "experts" that they have listed are clearly not a comprehensive list of experts in the field of climate science, for example. Their list does not include eminent scientists such as Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Held, Emanuel, Santer, Dessler, Thorne, Mears, Stott, Betts, Bradley, Manabe, Weaver, Solomon et cetera.

The Heartland list of experts is thus meant to give the impression (at least to the uninformed reader) that they have the support and/or can solicit advice from the "experts" listed. The purpose of that "expert" directory is thus clearly not to list the most respected, leading and eminent scientists in the field, at least for climate science, otherwise the aforementioned names would not have been excluded.

So you now asking them to say that you have no affiliation with them defeats the point of listing you entirely and that is why they probably removed your profile from the list.

They probably listed you because you come across as being a contrarian and give the distinct impression of having sympathy for "skeptics" and provide sound bites that "skeptics" like to propagate around the "skeptic" echo chamber. You just gave them another one with the title of this post.....oh well, it is your reputation that is going down the tubes.

Now before moving this to the "rejected" file without due consideration, please consider the merit of each individual post. Thanks."


Albatross

J Bowers said...

Heartland -$1,000,000
Gleick +1

BCL: No Charges Filed Against Gleick