Slashdot Mirror
Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards
Fluffeh writes "The Heartland Institute is a lovely group of folks who take issue with mainstream climate science. They organize an annual get-together of like minded folk and talk trash about environmental change. 'The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society.' (That's from a press release!). Recently, when they were tricked by a researcher into sending him a lot of internal documents, they decided to go on the offensive and also get some more media attention. After all, any story is a good story, right? Launching a billboard with the Unabomber on it with the slogan 'I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?' was just the start, with the institute planning Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden. That's when even their stout backers threatened to walk away, backing started to dry up — and it seems that common sense started to prevail — but only so far as to stop them from making their message too public."
Every one of the people that do not buy all (or part of) the whole AGW religion have been labelled "deniers" for 10 years now. Are you too dumb to realize that with 'denier' they associate me with those who deny one of the most gruesome acts of state terror in the last century?
Its completely understandable, though maybe not too smart, that the heartland institute uses a similar tactic.
I'm starting to label AGW alarmists green-shirts from now on. You're probably to dumb to understand the historic reference....
Volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 per year
Every year? Like there is a UN coordinator on a budget?
Nope, that's an average. If you want a particular year you you can look it up if you want to.
It won't change the fact that you sound like a buffoon when you post stuff like that as an 'argument'. Is that really how you justify your position to yourself?
No sig today...
Today Heartland's conspiracy to falsify science is threatening to destroy civilisation as we know it.
How? Even if you grant fully the research supporting AGW (Heartland's primary target), there's no civilization-threatening problem out there. Even a rather large rise in sea level (on the order of many tens of meters of rise) doesn't end civilization. Slightly more acidic ocean doesn't end civilization. Even a significant shuffling of fertile areas doesn't. Farmers can move to where the food growing currently is. Sure, it's rather inconvenient for most people and lethal for a number of people and species, but these effects aren't that serious.
So where's the civilization-ending threat? Second-hand smoke?
Further, the only real way for a small, podunk organization like the Heartland Institute to have any sort of profound impact is to be right. They don't have a massive advertising budget and this latest fumble indicates that they don't really have the finesse to play the advertising game either.
So when I see overwrought hand wringing like the above, I have to ask. Do you have any perspective or sense of proportion at all?
Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".
George Soros.
One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of government
FTFY
When government pays studies that show that government needs more power, I'm skeptical. You SHOULD be too.
1. Why? Why target conservatives specifically with anti-science propaganda? Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)
Answered above.
2. Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves? How many conservatives actually want to (a) be subject to anti-science propaganda that will, inevitably, result - thanks to the wonder of echo chambers - in believing something that's wrong and (b) want to be in a group that will inevitably be considered anti-science?
Well, that's just it. You accuse conservatives of falling for "anti-science" propaganda. Conservatives will accuse you of falling for big government propaganda. Having standards is good. Having double standards is bad. You have to apply the same rules to both sides if you are truly understand the answers to you questions.
The way I see it, those that stand to gain the most from AGW (governments) are the ones funding the research. When governments fund the research, they usually get the answers they want. When they don't, they toss out the results and discredit the scientists responsible for them. The same can be said from those who have the most to lose from AGW legislation (oil and car companies). They pay for studies that say AGW is bunk and reject any studies that say otherwise. I believe the difference is that conservatives actually trust companies more than governments.
Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.
The problem is that there is no or little private, unbiased research in climate science because there is no money to be made from it. The groups that pay for climate research do so to back up their existing position, never to disprove it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
We can agree to disagree on the issue of man made climate change considering there are many scientists on both sides of the aisle. I for one don't believe the man made climate change myth. The one obvious issue aside from that is that the various scare mongering stories of floods and disappearing islands and massive sea level increases are all readily dis-proven. Furthermore, the proposed solutions of paying carbon taxes to the corporations and banks is laughable. Not only would this not result in a reduction of "carbon dioxide release", but it would all be passed down to the public in the form of increased costs for everything. Food, fuel, services. It would clearly result in the mass starvation of many people in third world countries who are on the edge right now. Man is adaptable by nature. If the sea level were to rise to the point of flooding some inland areas it would occur over the course of hundreds of years. I have no doubt that mankind would move out of the way. If one area had an increase in arid conditions making crops hard to grow, mankind would move his crops to other lands that become crop friendly. This whole issue is nothing more than an attempt by the powers that be to gain control over every facet of our lives from micromanaging our energy consumption to deciding what we can eat. You can be damn sure that the Al Gore's of the world won't face any such restrictions on their use of "carbon intensive" resources while the poor and the middle class will. I could care less if the climate changes. That's why I was born with two feet. So I can move where the climate suits me.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Most conservatives do cling very strongly to science, myself included. The wackos are just very loud
So.. where is this majority of conservatives to which you hint? They're too busy being the silent majority, I suppose.
Unfortunately for you, silence does imply approval.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
I started out thinking the alarmists owned "the heartland institute.. "The Heartland Institute is a lovely group of folks who take issue with mainstream climate science. "
Until I read to the end and realized the truth.
For those uninformed of the facts behind alarmism, read my blog of 2007 http://barvennon.com/ozdiary/ozdiary7071.html
The UN's IPCC and UK's Stern are shills for governments desperate to find new sources of revenue. And what tax could have a stronger moral backing than a
TAX TO SAVE THE WORLD??
You are such a stupid ignorant fuck.
It's not up to anyone to prove the earth is not warming. It's up to the Warmists to prove that it is. They also have to Prove that man is responsible. YOU CAN'T FUCKING PROVE A NEGATIVE. YOU HAVE TO PROVE A POSITIVE. Fuck, you are stupid.
They also have to provide a theory that is falsifiable. So far all we get is that anything that happens is caused by Global Warming.
The theory is not falsifiable, the data is questionable and the mechanism is naively simplistic.