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."
Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden
Wow, I never knew that Ted Kaczynski and the above crew were quoted on Global Warming. So, upon reading the article I found that:
How did Heartland justify the comparison between murderers and tyrants and anyone who believed in global warming? "Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say about global warming," according to the press release that announced the ads. It went on to claim that "[t]he people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society."
Wait, so you're telling me that you're putting pictures of some of recent history's most hated and feared men next to quotes about believing in Global Warming?
Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents. Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?
So they won't mind if I put up a billboard that reads
"... and when this Earth is fucked
the free market will build us a better one."
(read more at www.heartland.org)
My work here is dung.
I dare bet the unabomber, Castro, Manson and Bin Laden all believe(d) in breathing air as well.
Does that make breathing air wrong all of a sudden?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).
Well, according to the USGS man made CO2 levels for 2010 were 35 billion metric tons while all volcanic activity was estimated at 0.26 billion metric tons. So keep spreading your lies and uncertainty about climate science. Your cheap rhetoric designed to protect your lifestyle is surprisingly effective against individuals who spend their lives studying this stuff and publishing in peer reviewed journals, NASA, etc.
Does it have an effect? Sure. Does it have a noticeable effect? Probably. Does it have a significant effect? Maybe. There's way too many variables to really be sure if humans are speeding up natural global warming by a significant amount (IE: accelerating it from millennia to centuries or centuries to decades).
All that bullshit peppered with weasel words like "probably" and "maybe" without a single citation. Well done. The concensus from the scientific community has been made, the burden of proof is now on you to refute their findings. Not vice versa. Not "probably" or "maybe."
My work here is dung.
AGW proponents don't need to prove deniers are crazy to prove their point... that's what science is for.
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda. To be sure, both sides are engaged in some degree of each, but at the end of the day it does make a difference whether the scientists seek out the politicians or the politicians seek out the scientists.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
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".
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 science. I don't mean conservatives are (although the fact most of the ones I know insist that AGW is a hoax is a problem), I mean that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled into groups like The Heartland Institute and Cato specifically because however non-partisan they claim to be, they do, ultimately, aim their messages at the Republican party and conservatives in general.
We've seen this on AGW, on tobacco's links to cancer, on asbestos, to a certain extent on evolution (though that's explainable from the conservative church groups), and I'm beginning to wonder if the minor flare up we've seen recently about vaccines isn't going to grow into another example, though there's no evidence they're targeting any political group yet.
So here's what I want to know:
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.)
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?
What gives?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It was also once consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe.
But it wasn't published in peer reviewed journals. I dare say at the time there was no "scientific community" and that nationality determined which intellectual circles you could run in. Although I do agree that, to compare the state of where we are today, you would need to go back to pre-Renaissance times.
A consensus of people in some places think it's okay to stone adulterers.
Yeah, a consensus of people who were not scientists. Who were not using statistics or science at all ... who were basically calling themselves judge, jury and executioner. Again, what these strange archaic Puritanical concepts have to do with modern scientific consensus is well beyond me. I link you 18 scientific associations' assertions on global warming and you refute it with some ancient lynching. Apples to oranges.
Just because a majority of people believe something is true doesn't mean that it is.
It's really weird that when the top minds of physics postulate that black holes exist, we're not adverse to it. But when the top minds of climate science agree on something, suddenly we are the armchair scientists who are better than those who have studied this most of their lives and have compiled samples from decades past from around the world. And the key difference seems to be that you don't want to face the consequences. You're okay with no longer using CFCs, you're okay with trying to wrap our minds around the existence of black holes and could you tell me why now you choose to shove your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
You can point out factual errors in another's post without going down the road of "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit" in your own.
This befuddles me the most. The original post I replied to said:
Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).
So I provide a citation and hard numbers on man-made CO2 versus volcanoes. And you label that "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit"?
The Cherry Blossom festival happened sooner than ever in its history this year in DC and NASA says it's not just cherry blossoms but all plants (published in Nature's May 2nd issue, a peer-reviewed journal). Of course, this natural basic indicator of the state of the climate doesn't have an immediate perceived threat to mankind's existence so you're free to keep your fingers in your ears. At some point though, it's going to become annoying, then problematic for third world countries, then it will slowly climb the chain up to the protected Americans. And then, and only then, will we be willing to do something about it. When it's too late.
My work here is dung.
Really? So if I oppose the Heartland Institute for being primarily funded by the oil industry and its cohorts, then I must be supporting Big Government. Your new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)
Denial is not a river in Egypt. So-called "conservatives" are more gullible. They're also not conservatives. They actually favor regulation of business, but they want it regulated how THEY want it regulated, not how the liberals want it. They ALSO want to tell you what you can do in your bedroom. They're fascists.
Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves?
Because they're more gullible, and they think this shit is really clever.
A conservative is someone who wants government to regulate morality and to not regulate business. These people are vanishingly rare in the actual population. Most people are more centrist than they realize. But they are amazingly common in government. Moreover, they do not believe these regulations should apply to them. That means they're not really conservatives, either. They're what, oligarchists or something, I don't know what you'd really call it. But they don't believe what they're saying. The short form is "liars". Neither liberals nor conservatives are well-represented in government.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How do you keep getting modded up? I really don't get it.
Not a thing you've said makes sense. Governments don't benefit from AGW or even belief in it. Here's a hint for you: governments rule by fiat, by and large, and if they have a thing they feel they need or want to control, they can. You simply allege a conspiracy and motives and move on. How, exactly does a government benefit from climate change research? Be specific. If you just say "it lets government get bigger" you're only buying further into your own delusions rather than actually answer the question. Tell me who benefits from "bigger government" as a completely abstract concept.
Should the underlying motive for proving AGW exist, you've still alleged a monstrous conspiracy including every scientist who's worked on the subject in any meaningful way. Does it not give you pause to say "Not one of these scientists has enough ethical principles to publish their actual findings instead of made-up ones"? Think about the scope and scale of what you're talking about. I honestly can't get into your head where it's easier for everyone disagreeing with you on every forum on the planet is part of a massive conspiracy being easier to accept than the possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates.
How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?
How do you arrive at the notion that scientists are complicit?
How do you decide people agreeing with them are shills?
Those are not easy conclusions to arrive at, but you jump straight to them without any of the in-between parts.
It's one thing to laugh at this group and their ineffective methods
Crazy yes, ineffective hardly! They've been selling the best anti-science propoganda money can buy for almost 2 decades and more than a few Americans have sucked it down like it was chicken gravy. Science cannot compete with cheap and nasty PR, especially when a large chunk of the population is scientifically illiterate.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.
The problem is that this isn't true anymore. The science is pretty much settled, so it's all political now and scientists generally suck at that.
And yes, they do need to prove deniers crazy. Or at least convince the majority of people that this is the case. It's the only way to get anything done when there's this much money working in opposition.
You will note that his expertise was not aeronautics. What you're doing is a sort of a reverse appeal to authority. This is no different than Fred Hoyle's anti-evolution claims. Just because someone is an expert in one field does not make them an expert in others.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why wasn't the science good enough for him?
Institutionalised anti-science groups foisting policies the directly conflict with something as important and well researched as the pentagon's annual threat assesments upset most scientists and skeptics in the same way as shoplifting upsets shopkeepers. In my book deniers are intellectually dishonest people who cannot be swayed by reason and evidence, the exact opposite of what it means to be a skeptic or a scientist. Yes, it really is THAT simple, some people still live and die by their principles other's sell them for whatever they can get. No grand conspiracies, no scientists living the highlife on the taxpayer's dime, no NWO, no reputable journals playing the role of Pope Urban VIII. Just a loose group of 50-odd "think-tanks" all headquareted within a mile of K-street and all selling the same (surprisingly cheap) product - tailor made anti-science propoganda and face to face access to the likes of senator Inhofe.
I can understand why honest, descent people sacrafice things to try and shut these morally bankrupt institutions down, especially when 'the people' are supporting their FUD factories via a tax free charity status. What I can't understand is how easily their obvious propoganda convinces literally millions of otherwise intelligent people that someone like Lord Monckton is anything but batshit insane and/or a compulsive liar for hire.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The main selling point of HRI in particular and the Right Wing in general is this: You and your family don't have to ever change your lifestyle or even think about the devastating environmental, financial, or human rights effects of said lifestyle.
Even on a subconscious level, being absolved of ones' sins is very alluring. Praise Jesus and turn up the A/C!!