The Heartland Institute has begun a new ad campaign. I’ll put the billboard below the fold, but first you have to try and guess what direction they’ve taken. Facts to consider: it’s a right-wing think-tank committed to climate change denial. They’re pro-corporate and anti-science, and apparently they don’t know much about logic, either. And a final hint: it’s a place full of sleazy Republicans, and this campaign aims to outsleaze their presidential campaigning.
Before you read the rest, try to imagine what kind of wretched ratfuckery they could be up to.
TA-DAAAA!
Warms the heart, it does, to see how low they can sink with good old-fashioned, old-school slime tactics. And this isn’t the worst: they also have signs featuring Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden.
They do have a rationale for this approach, but knowing the Heartland as we all do, you just knew it would be dishonest.
Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards? 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. The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.
The majority of climate scientists accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming; very smart, very well educated people actually do believe those things, while it’s mainly conspiracy theorists and corporate tools who argue otherwise. But then, as we all know, all scientists have the crazy scraggly beard and wild staring eyes and murder people for fun.
“If you believe in global warming, you’re a terrorist!”
!!!??
I…
I quit…
Clearly there is a god*, since it’s obvious he’s fucking with my mind.
I assume the next wave of billboards will feature Hitler and Stalin as well?
*And that god is Loki. Avengers movie rocked!
This is just like the “Hitler and Stalin were atheists” line. Is there any evidence Osama bin Laden believed in global warming? or Charles Manson? Or that they cared?
Of course, if they do, what it shows is that sometimes the craziest, most insane people can be right about something.
I guess, at some point in their lives, those criminals also said something like “I’m going to take a crap, where’s the toilet”.
Will the Heartland organization start to campaign against sewers and sanitation, too?
Should we ban their most favourite food, because “I really like a hamburger with extra-cheese” uttered by a murderer discredits the whole item.
And, since this is about the exact opposite of an argument from authority, how do you call that?
I just wonder if it’ll backfire, as I figure many will pause and reflect on the ridiculously mild winter we just had and be like, “well, actually…”
FTFY.
You know, this started as quite a good day… Then I lost all my hope for humanity again. Fuck.
Ted Kaczynski has two eyes.
I have two eyes.
Therefore I am exactly like Ted Kaczynski.
Heartland doesn’t like “leftists”.
Ted Kaczynski doesn’t like “leftists”.
Therefore Heartland is exactly like Ted Kaczynski.
These people realize that Godwin’s Law is a warning, not a goal to strive towards right? Hitler believed the earth orbited the sun! Do you!?
Of course point out that Hitler was a conservative, anti-abortion, christian and those same people would be crying fowl.
How about a picture of Osamma bush Forgotten with the caption, “I believed in Creationism”?
You know who also believes in Global Warming.
The Pope.
Now.. I think Benedikt is vile human being who’s more happy to be around Anti-semites than to support the American nuns who are actually carrying out those “good works” that are, you know, supposed to be at the core of their beliefs…
.. but I do think it would be AWESOME as a response to put counter billboards up putting Benedikt up there with the exact same message.
It would really confuse their message terribly… (or at least drive a huge wedge between the catholics and the fundy nitwits who will probably believe this..)
So they are saying ‘even these people are smarter than us’.
Perhaps we can put up a billboard with a picture of Hitler and the text, “What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.” (That is an actual quote, from Mein Kampf.)
Or is it too soon to invoke Godwin?
Y’know, if someone wrote ‘You know who else believed in Global Warming? Hitler, that’s who!’ in a comments thread, I’d assume they were trolling. And with the right setup, it might actually be funny, and I might well bless them with appreciative lulz.
… when someone spends money on a billboard campaign, I guess this assumption just isn’t gonna work.
So Heartland Institute, you’re gonna have to come downtown with me now. You are as of this moment, I regret to inform you, a person of interest in our investigation.
(/Yes, I’m afraid satire is dead. And we’re going to need to know just where you were when this happened.)
Picture of Pol Pot: “I still believe in mathematics.
Do you?”
Yes, you can’t be evil unless you are completely opposed to everything that is correct. You must believe that rose petals are fatal to your enemies, and that nerve gas simply makes you stronger.
Glen Davidson
Oh look, we have crazy people = bad people again.
I’m going to start drinking now. Don’t expect even a faint attempt at coherence.
To paraphrase Charlie Harper from Two and a Half
MisogynistsMen:If alcohol is poison, why do I drink? Because I have things inside me I need killed.
Louis
What would be the outcry, if we were to post similar shining examples of good Christians?
“I still believe I’m going to Heaven. Do you want to spend Eternity with me?”
Wow. The depths to which they’ll sink keep getting lower.
Caine,
There is no bottom. There is no nadir. We as a species can always go one lower. Not enough bodies on the pyre? Here, have a dead baby! Woot! Hey, we can always blame the dead baby for being dead or messing up a neat pyre…
Sorry, I’m in a mood. I think, like Bill Hicks once said, it’s this haircut.
Louis
Here’s the next billboard that an atheist group should put up:
(Pictures of the 9/11 hijackers)
“We believed in an afterlife. Do you?”
On the reverse to this bullshitboard put: Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Louis:
Yeah, me too. This hasn’t improved it, either.
cswella:
I can hear the screams of furious outrage now.
Well two out of three ain’t too bad.
Hitler Ate Sugar
I don’t recall that Charles Manson ever used global warming to justify immoral and frightening behavior.
He did, however, make extensive use of the bible.
NPR did a good job recently with a Fresh Air podcast that, among other things, detailed Exxon Mobile’s campaign against global warming science.
Excerpt:
Quote is from author, Steve Coll, who was a managing editor at The Washington Post and a staff writer for The New Yorker. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1990 for reporting about the Securities and Exchange Commission and in 2004 for his book Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.
Respin: even someone as evil and mad as Charles Manso knows global warming is real and is concerned about it! Are you worse than Charles Manson?
I’m very afraid that Louis might be right. Otherwise, words are failing me.
Billboards need to have a catching message. This is why trolling works. It engages the urge to point out how wrong it is but I think we would be better off playing this game and trolling back. Time for us to put up a billboard with a picture of Jesus and the same message.
Picture of Osama BinLaden “id kill every infidel, but even I wouldn’t steep so low as to oppose Kyoto”
Are YOU worse than Bin Laden
*headdesk*
Better: Put it up without the picture of Hitler, and save the reveal until all the Fundies have publically agreed with the message.
What would the response be if an atheist group used the picture of a mass murderer on one of its billboards to illustrate their Christianity? The outcry would be deafening. Their hypocrisy knows no limits…
And climatologists and murderers both like apples… and?
Forgot to post a link with my comment @ #26:
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/02/151842205/exxonmobil-a-private-empire-on-the-world-stage
Ratfuckery is right. These guys seem to me to be no different that the tobacco companies; using a combination of lying, irrationality and relying on ignorance for short-term gain. They know they are being dishonest ratfucks but seek to keep the status quo so that the energy companies they rely on for their income can keep doing what they’re doing. I suspect they also know, like the tobacco companies did, that there is a half-life to this strategy.
Although a majority of Americans believe in global warming, 26% are whistling past the graveyard.
The only good thing about the climate-change-denial-for-hire business is that when things get REALLY bad, we can identify and label them and the starving mobs can eat THEM first.
re: #32;
Even a fundy should get just a little bit suspicious when they see the word “fatherland”, though.
Or maybe that’s just the last vestige of my youthful naïveté speaking….
Sili@32,
Wouldn’t work: “fatherland” gives the game away. Speaking of which, I’m currently reading Fatherland by Robert Harris – a brilliant picture of Nazi Germany 20 years after its vctory over the Soviet Union and Britain (war with the USA having ended in a nuclear-armed stalemate in 1946). President Kennedy* is running for re-election in 1964, and about to visit Germany and meet Hitler, in the cause of detente.
*Joseph P., that is.
Citation needed.
Well, substitute “nation” then. (Or “Homeland” for the Bushites.)
Gregory, #13: If they’re already resorting to using mass murderers in their “arguments,” I wouldn’t worry too much about invoking Godwin.
Hekuni Cat, #28:
Louis is right.
Sili, #32: This is an awesome strategy.
Amphiox and KG: Your assumption is that the fundies know jack or shit about history. They know what their pastors feed them, and their pastors get all their “history” from the likes of David Barton and Glenn Beck. Some of their sharper leaders might catch the “Fatherland” reference. The rank and file? I’d bet against it.
@6:
It’s not even the genetic fallacy. Kaczinsky and Charles Manson didn’t come up with the idea of global warming. They’re not even noteworthy advocates on the subject. In fact, I’d be surprised if Manson or Bin Laden ever said anything about it at all, aside from a few throw-away lines.
It’s just a random guilt-by-association minus the association. I’m not sure there’s a logical fallacy name for this, because it’s not even a misapplication of logic. It’s just shit-slinging.
The good news is, this is an obvious sign that they’re seriously desperate.
@36:
You’re more right than you realize:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Smoking
It’s not just that climate change denial and smoking-is-bad-for-you denial have a lot in common. They are/were both pushed by the same people.
Area Man. I am not in the least surprised, but thanks. It is important to know as much as possible about our enemies and I learned something here.
Exceeded my imagination.
Only killers believe in gravity.
Where are the Libertarians?
Isn’t it about time a couple showed up here to defend Heartland and do a little denying?
*read intro*
*click mouse*
NO.
FUCKING.
WAY.
Just when you thought you couldn’t be surprised by anything.
Even the Pope accepts the fact of climate change. So nice that the Koch’s and the Republican party they own have just told all Catholics that they follow someone on par with mass murderers.
Never mind that the Koch’s financed a study which concluded that climate change is real so that means the Kochs are murderers and being that they finance the Heartland Institute that makes all of that staff a bunch of hired assassins.
Sheesh, can conservatives get any more moronic? Actually, they’d see that as a challenge.
crazy scraggly beard – check
wild staring eyes – check
likes to murder people for fun – NOT (unless they’re Heartland wingers, maybe…. nah – wouldn’t be that fun.)
That’s it – I’m moving to Equestria. If only because it would be less surreal.
I’d take the bet: Nazi rhetorical tropes are part of popular culture. In any case, it would be obvious to them that no American would use “fatherland”, even if they misidentified the source as Stalin rather than Hitler. I think Sili’s suggestion of “homeland” is good, though.
If they are, it’s not obvious why. Obama has done fuck-all about climate change, and will almost certainly do a lot more fuck-all if he’s re-elected. If Romney’s elected, the wingnuts will probably start up mass-scale CFC production again just because they can.
I am surprised that they are actually allowed to use the image of Ted Kaczynski, or any other living person, without permission.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if they got sued by Kaczynski or Manson?
Despite them being sleazy, pro-corporate, and anti-science, I never would have guessed that they’d stoop to this.
This is so unbelievably dumb that it seems like a parody of a right wing talking point: it’s as if they asked Stephen Colbert to make them a billboard.
Kristjan Wager, mug shots are free game. They’re considered public.
The sign is pretty easy to photoshop.
Killers believe in gravity
Stalin I think would probably have used “motherland”, but yeah, the distinction between the two would easily be lost of the fundies.
The irony is that the similarity between “fatherland”, “motherland”, and “homeland” was completely lost of these people back when Bush named the Homeland Security department.
They are desperate because they are thinking much longer term than that. These are people like the CEO of Exxon who has said that he sees governments rise and fall, come and go, all the time, so his company cares very little about the specifics of individual administrations. They are more than happy to wait out unfriendly politicians.
The truth is, they KNOW the truth of AGW. These are not stupid individuals. They KNOW their gravy-train has turned the corner is soon to run out of track. They want to milk the current system for as much as they can personally gain from it for as long as possible, and then ride off to some protected enclave somewhere where they, personally, will be shielded from the consequences of their actions, for the remainder of their natural lives. Future generations can go hang.
But they know that every little bit of true information seeping out will bring their day of reckoning that much closer, whether it is 4 years, 10 years, or 20 years, and so they want to stamp out all of it, as soon as they see it.
You don’t become a billionaire by being stupid. The Kochs (and most Republicans I believe) know full well that climate change is happening. They just choose to ignore this fact, and to keep pursuing short term profits and exploit natural resources for as long as possible.
This campaign is just a distraction in my view, a cheap propaganda trick that may sway the odd tea partier, but it’s really only a diversion.
No where in the “Manifesto” do the words “carbon,” “dioxide,” “CO2” or “warming” appear, so far as I can tell.
He does rail on a bit about “leftists” and “feminists,” though.
Let me guess: If I were to call these people sleazy dishonest ratfuckers, they would scream ad hominem.
@61 rorschach
Seems you are on to something here.
Problem is this sort of “advertising” really works. A person doesn’t even have to think about the ad. Just a glance is enough to form a feeling or even an opinion about the subject of the ad. Mucho sick society in the states and most of the Western world.
So, it’s finally happened. The new definition of terrorism/mass murder/any other emotively horrific behaviour = disagreeing with the religious Right.
It is why atheists are automatically defined as ‘militant’ if we stick so much as one toe outside the closet.
It is why homosexuals are accused of having some ridiculous agenda to ‘force’ homosexuality on children when they simply try to dispell the ignorance about them that breeds bigotry.
It is why feminists are railed against as embodying the doom of society when all they ask for is that women be treated as actual people rather than disposeable brood mares.
And now environmnetalists and climate scientists who seek to raise awareness of the severitry of the threat represented by AGW are being tarred with the same brush as terrorists and serial killers.
These idiots really did lose contact with reality a long time ago, and in and of itself that wouldn’t be so much of a problem. The world is full of people who believe stupid and unevidenced stuff, after all. Unfortunately, they are taken seriously by a terrifyingly large segment of society, and they are using that to garner political power, and such power in the hands of those who equate standing by the evidence and disagreeing with their denialist blather to violent terrorism is a recipe for diaster.
[Just in case anyone would like to share on FB and didn’t realize you’ll be spamming your friends.]
Fucking Guardian. Wanted to share the story on FB, and as it happens the Guardian redirects all links posted on FB to its FB app portal with a blue “Okay, Read Article”, which installs the fucking app and by fucking default fucking broadcasts your activity, and a gray “Cancel” button; instead of just linking to the fucking story.
If you click “Cancel”, it’s supposed to redirect you to the article as it says in the Guardian pages about the app, but no, it still redirects you to the main app portal, where you’re greeted with an even bigger green “Add app to continue button and an even smaller not-even-a-button-just-a-link “No thanks”.
Had to link to another site. This is not a FB thing, it’s the way The Guardian designed it. It seems they got lots (millions) of people tricked, and they’re proud of it.
Katherine Lorraine in #1 got it right.
I am sure the climate deniers will not object to billboards comparing them to the peasant mobs from the Frankenstein movies with pitch forks and torches.
From the NPR article Lynna linked:
You mean like getting in the way of oil profits? Those sick bastards!
Osama bin Laden did in fact talk about global warming once.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8487030.stm
“All industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming,” the latest tape says.
“This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that.”
“Bush the son, and the [US] Congress before him, rejected this [Kyoto Protocol] agreement only to satisfy the big companies.”
Whoosh!
This is just begging to be Photoshopped. I’ve turned the image into a template, which can be used by anybody whose computer has both Photoshop and the Arial Black font installed on it, and made said template available for downloading from [ http://cubist.on-rev.com/stuff/unabomber-baseline.psd ]. As well, I’ve created a parody on the original image — [ http://cubist.on-rev.com/stuff/unabomber-breathe-o2.jpg ].
… unless kelecable was responding to #3, in which case I’ll self-whoosh!
I can’t help but think this will blow up in their faces it’s way too ridiculous I know hat the denialist movement is powered by a high level of nutjobbery but putting this on a billboard is just gonna make them look laughable to the general public.
The worst atheist billboard is brilliant by comparison to this. In design, in message, in inoffensiveness. I don’t even get this, how can they expect this to turn anyone to their side? It’s like some Democrat became their executive director so they could run a false flag operation to destroy what’s left of their reputation…
I’m not sure; I think it’s just as likely an example of Orwell’s “doublethink”:
Let me throw in a no-true-scotsman fallacy…Dr. Kascynski was a mathematician, not a scientist. Math is a four letter word to us biochemists…
I wonder if the residents of Easter Island had a similar controversy over deforestation.
……………. /speechless
Guilt by association? Ad hominem fallacy personified?
Pascal’s wager applies to global warming, too: BUT WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG?
What if you did nothing to mitigate climate change and your retirement is lived in a perfect storm of weatherbombs, expensive structural and infrastructural damage, runaway food prices, famines, emerging diseases, and a new Dust Bowl?
They’re removing it already.
“We knew it was a bad idea and a malicious smear, but we figured people who don’t know any better would fall for it.”
I’m sure those people also believe “1 + 1 = 2”
The Oatmeal made a comic about it: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism
It’s a really bad sign when murderers and madmen are better at analyzing and accepting reality than Republicans are.
There’s not enough scotch in the world to fix this level of stupid.
Note to self – excessively repeated headdesking may result in Republican tendencies.
Photo of prisons. “x” of inmates believe in god. Do you?
@83;
This is true! Studies have shown that sufficient stress can make liberal individuals behave more conservatively!
How much you want to trust that behavioral research, of course, is up to you….
“If they are, it’s not obvious why. Obama has done fuck-all about climate change, and will almost certainly do a lot more fuck-all if he’s re-elected.”
That’s not quite true. He introduced a cap and trade bill that passed the House but died in the Senate. He’s taken a number of steps to support carbon-free energy through executive order and in the stimulus package. And the EPA is gearing up to regulate carbon, though what Obama has had to do with that is unclear (he at least has not stopped it).
Still, you are correct that very little has been done, and that inaction has a powerful advantage over action. I suspect that Heartland knows that it’s only through identity politics that they hold onto a highly committed, fanatical base of denialists that will keep steady pressure on the Republicans to block any attempts at carbon mitigation. If those guys lose interest or their numbers dwindle too far, Heartland’s agenda is sunk. This was red meat for the true believers.
You know what would be a really great idea to defend the interests of the “Secular Movement”?
Find someone who has relationships and experience from INSIDE this nest of ratfucks, and pay her a LOT (in “secularist” terms) to present the reasons, moral and scientific, that atheists and other non-believers have in opposing people like these!
I’m sure that, when the people leading campaigns such as this hear a familiar voice they will start to come round and stop being absolutely stupid, ignorant, insane AND evil!
[rim shot]
Kaczinsky and Charles Manson were crazy, not stupid.
Just to entertain, I guess, let’s see some classy ads from the other side:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/25/277564/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/?mobile=nc
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/04/keeping-the-no-pressure-video-alive/
On second thought, it looks like Heartland is not all that inventive. Just par for the course.
Since it appears the rat fuckers at Heartland have backed down on Unabomber and Manson billboards, is It time for a joke?
I guess they were feeling the heat from their dickish global warming billboards. You could call It Helter Swelter!
Bad-da-bing!
Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.
While the Heartland Institute’s new poster child famously aced W. V. Quine’s course in Modal Logic, the late philosopher remained philosophical when his former pupil morphed into the Unabomber,
It seems that despite, or perhaps on account of, Kaczynski’s obsession with mathematical logic, he never took Quine’s course in Moral Philosophy.
Ugh, the tvtropes hitler ate sugar page uses links to opinion articles reporting on the mistranslations, saying that Hitler hated Christians now. Augh.
TV Tropes has some horrendous misinformation and opinions solidified as tropes, and some pretty big liberal bashing.
You can all learn a lot more about the Heartland Institute here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax
and
http://desmogblog.com/science-article-recognizes-john-mashey
FIXED
Now all we need is someone with paint and a ladder….
Perhaps this would be an apropos time to bring up J. T. Ready?
I see the Heartland Institute using that word ‘believe’ in their billboard.
My pet peeve for years is –at least in the more public realms of discourse and rhetoric– a tendency for both camps to use the more casual words ‘believe’ or ‘belief’ when describing positions.
Let them use of the words ‘believe’ and ‘belief’ to the religionists, irrationalists, politicians, etc.
I say dump the use of those in favor of emphasizing and using phrases like…’accept the evidence’ for a principle, issue, scientific theory or fact, rather than merely using the more nebulous and loaded ‘believe’ or ‘don’t believe’.
(Example: Joe Doe believes (or believes in) evolutionary theory.
Stronger: Joe Doe accepts (or accepts the evidence of)
evolutionary theory.)
I don’t ‘believe’ in…. [evolution, global warming, etc.]; rather, I accept the evidence presented in defense of these things. I would hope stressing different terminology would help to subtly solidify and strengthen the hand of the rationalists in common discourse in refutation arguments. A little thing, but sometimes emphasizing details is important.
Correction to #98:
‘Let them use of the words….’ to ‘ Let the use of the words…’
UPI is reporting that Heartland’s Joe Bast has announced they are taking down the signs:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/05/Anti-climate-change-ad-features-killer/UPI-70211336192994/
This was just a test…what a joker.
We should copy the billboards exactly except substituting “God” for global “warming”.
Oops! Quote mark in the wrong place. S/B “global warming”.
Wow…. What a classic case of projection!
If I were to diagram that sentence, it would be a Venn.
And at the end of the day, Climate Change Denialists are hte ones who are attempting to shovel reality under a pile of bullshit, so your tu quoque rings rather false.
Wow…. What a classic case of projection!
ayup.
textbook.
Just to entertain, I guess, let’s see some classy ads from the other side:
I’ll take GROSSLY false equivalence for 500.00, Alex.
come back here and defend that idiocy, you fucking moron.
The Heartburn Institute never fails to live down to my expectations.
Math is a four letter word to us biochemists…
five bucks says you had to take physical chemistry to GET your biochem degree, though.
but yeah, even then, teh maths is a bitch. I hated relearning calculus for that course.
I think it’s just as likely an example of Orwell’s “doublethink”:
and you’d be right.
this is just pushing the envelope of simplifying the message to the authoritarian base to its most basic level.
They don’t GIVE A FLYING FUCK what you think about it; all they care about is if it pushes the right buttons for the authoritarian personality-types they’ve been manipulating for decades already.
btw, if you want to laugh, instead of cry, at the insanity of what pure greed is doing and has done to our planet, I would recommend reading this book, by Ben Elton:
Stark
it’s a joyride on the gravy-train to destruction, baby.
Area Man@87,
Yes, I admit “fuck-all” was an exaggeration. He’s done so little that the little he has done slipped my mind.
golemxiv,
Dishonest little shit, aren’t you? The “No pressure” video, while ill-judged, actually depicted those supporting measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as resorting to violence. The article on Breivik shows that his conspiracy theories about climate science are in fact common currency on the denialist right.
I have different opinion about the Billboard. it is pretty good. First of all, the statment is true in literary sense. The Unabomber still believes that global warming is a problem.
The statement is in my opinion also true in broader sense, that the most villains and bad regimes in the world has the same opinion. Only one man – terrorist, who I know is sceptic. it is Breivik. But Castro, Iran, North Korea, Manson and Osama, all of them made statements in favor of man made global warming. Please correct me, if I’m wrong in this.
The explanation is also correct in a sense, that it’s quite mainstream opinion in USA, that the reports on global warming are quite exagerated.
And finaly, also the man made warming alarmists use quite often very strong messages and claims. Just to remind you – comparisons to the Holocaust deniers, Nuremberg trials, exploding skeptical children under No Pressure, burning of skeptics’ houses, and dozens of other examples I may tell you but you probably know them.
The billboard is also quite good in geting attention, evidentely.
Simply, in my opinion, this campaign is good.
Slavek, are you really going to invoke “BUT FIDEL CASTRO ATE SUGAR” while we are actively mocking the vacuousness of the claim?
I don’t know if this is true, but it’s irrelevant. Mainstream US Opinion has nothing to do with whether or not the climate is changing, just as the US Mainstream’s opinion on evolution has nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
And finaly, also the man made warming alarmists use quite often very strong messages and claims. Just to remind you – comparisons to the Holocaust deniers, Nuremberg trials, exploding skeptical children under No Pressure, burning of skeptics’ houses, and dozens of other examples I may tell you but you probably know them.
no, actually, please detail this, so we can in detail dismiss your false notion that the two things are equivalent.
Simply, in my opinion, this campaign is good.
good in what way?
was it effective in reaching its target audience?
evidently not, since they are discontinuing it.
was it rational rhetoric intended to stimulate reasoned discussion?
obviously not.
so, in your opinion, what, exactly, makes this good?
I’m in the mood for a good laugh.
They do not deny Global Warming in the main. They know that would contradict too much common knowledge. They also know they run the risk of contradicting their own tangential displays of acceptance of the basic empirical facts. As pointed out above for instance re: Arctic drilling, they overtly capitalize on the warming trend.
So the Global Warming trend is a neutral political issue for them. It is what it is. To deny it (in the main) would be as obvious feigned stupidity and be counterproductive overall.
What they need to do is distance themselves from and discredit otherwise any notion of “man-made global warming”. They nasty little hyphened word (“man-made”) or its more sophisticated form (“anthropogenic”) strikes negatively to their core business and profits.
Sort of like the tobacco industry did not deny burning things like their cigarettes produce by-products, just that no harm, no foul regarding the by-products of their products.
I suspect there is still real science that is still struggling with what causal factors are involved in the warming trend and the why and how and degree to which.
I find myself more convinced that there is a profound anthropogenic component and we should at least ameliorate what we can control best we can.
But I believe all the energy industry needs is a few some worthy scientists – who may not deny anthropogenic effects completely but do not feel their impact (or lack thereof) is a primary mover and shaker, to make a political point beyond the billboards. This they seem to continue to have – last I checked – but perhaps I am wrong to say now.
The billboard is just crap meant to keep fired-up and motivated the very RWA base (small but essential) that gives legs to the politicians favorable to their corporate interests even more than the Obamas of the world.
The billboard is just crap meant to keep fired-up and motivated the very RWA base (small but essential)
I agree 100%, up to the point where you use the word “small”.
I’m not so sure that the authoritarians are a tiny minority personality; in fact, they seem to be nearing a significant number in the last generation.
30 million evangelical fundies at last count, 90% of whom I’d bet would be classified by Altemeyer’s indexes as RWA.
Ichthyic #109
Please forgo the gendered insults.
No, not really. Billboard has very small space to make complicated statments. So this statement is short, provocative and true on the basic level. IMHO good ad.
On the deeper level, it suggest corellation between these terrible people and their belive in man made global warming. Through quick fact czech, the corellation is real, and it is interesting for me.
If all this people ate sugar, and eating of sugar in society is fifty fifty, than the corellation can be also interesting and I would like to know about it :-)
About the point, that mainstream opinion is irelevant for the reality of global warming. Yes, agreed.
Ichthyic, the movie “No pressure” show the people and children are blown to pieces, because they are not sufficiently entusiastic about the campaign for reducing CO2 emmisions.
Where is the difference in the skewed logic and strenght of message?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pressure_(film)
So this statement is short, provocative and true on the basic level.
depends on your definition of “true”.
yours must be very… lax.
On the deeper level, it suggest corellation between these terrible people and their belive in man made global warming.
are all terrible people accepting of the evidence for global warming?
are all good people rejecting of it?
because that is the message they want to impart.
do you really think that’s an interesting message?
how so?
Through quick fact czech
I see english is not your first language?
mainstream opinion is irelevant for the reality of global warming. Yes, agreed.
then why is the manipulation of public opinion of any relevance to the issue?
or are you really just interested in the psychology of manipulation?
Ichthyic, the movie “No pressure” show the people and children are blown to pieces, because they are not sufficiently entusiastic about the campaign for reducing CO2 emmisions.
not the point.
how is this the same logic as the message under discussion here?
it isn’t, hence your comparison is a false one.
This statement is literally true, in that (for example) there remains uncertainty about the net effect of clouds, which can sometimes increase and sometimes decrease warming. It is also grossly misleading, in that there is an overwhelming consensus among the relevant scientific experts that global warming is real, anthropogenic, and a matter requiring urgent action.
Why the billboard is good? It of course depends on their goals, but in my opinion:
It creates awarnes about the Heartland institute, which is good for them. It is discussed in many media outlets, and they can speak in mainstream media about their opinions. These atention is probably large in comparison of billboard cost.
Moreover, the billboard statement is true in lterary sense and in some broader sense it can be inerpreted along the line of their opinion about matter.
We can disagree, about this opinion, but if I have been in their shoes, I would thougt about this campaign, as success.
You’re evidently a complete idiot, or else completely dishonest. the “No pressure” film, while very ill-judged, showed the proponents of action to reduce greenhouse gases resorting to violence; it was intended as humerous exaggeration. It did not attempt to associate the opposite side in the argument with murderers and tyrants.
slavek,
The Heartland Institute does not, in general, seek publicity for itself: it prefers to influence the climate of opinion without drawing attention to the sources of its funding. They say themselves on their page about the campaign:
This vile campaign has already led to calls for a boycott of businesses that sponsor them. My guess is that they were told to pull the campaign, or lose funding.
Here’s my post from a year ago about the Templeton Foundation, via Atlas, being behind many of the sponsors of Heartland’s notorious 2009 climate conference. Because they’re so pro-science.
***
They frequently do. They jump around from denialist talking point to denialist talking point, not just across blogs but often on the same blog and in the same thread. They’ll say that they accept that it’s warming only in situations when they think that’s necessary to be taken seriously enough to make some other denialist claim, but you’ll see them the next day or week agreeing with some other denialist celebrity that warming isn’t happening at all (or even that the planet’s cooling). I’ve found it nearly impossible to pin them down on which aspects of AGW they accept, since they know they might need to turn around and deny those the next day. Because it’s all about denial, and not about science.
Ichthyic #118
I agree. My “few” was relative to the subset that is GW highly aroused.
Actually I have backed into some numbers I find prediction useful in non-local elections. It seems to work in my view .. that is all I am saying — no other authority claim save that it may be worthy of some consideration in general.
It seems that we have about 30% of population RWA in USA and in GB also where I’ve applied my test formula to elections.
Seems to me 21% are RWA Right leaning and 9% RWA Left leaning.
Of the remaining 70% (so called swing voters) 30% are “who did you hear last that fired you up” voters. They are not committed to ideology but are very visceral “thinkers”. The Republicans here sort of have them because their messages (false or not) especially toward the end are more easily absorbed and strike visceral cords.
Since RWA are duty bound sorts they vote. In 50% EVTO elections the Republicans have about a 42% to 18% advantage from the get go.
So the formula gives R’s about 54% to 46% D’s in 50% EVTO general elections. And at 60% EVTO it’s about 50/50.
Perturbations of course – a Nader or a dud etc. But still the formula remains reasonable and rational – that is close by itself with obvious explainable deltas.
I say this only to say it SEEMS TO ME about 30% are RWA types based on the way we vote.
And the R strategy of fostering voter apathy and the feeling that a vote does not count really coupled with playing to the fringe mostly, confirms my conclusion in a way.
They strive to maintain a low turnout via promoting apathy and hopelessness, and stifling of things like ACORN, then keeping red meat flowing to the RWA base, and keeping there messages visceral, and they win
For them it is not a bad strategy by the numbers.
depends on your definition of “true”. yours must be very… lax.
It is true, that Unabomber believe in Global warming. That is true in literal sense.
are all terrible people accepting of the evidence for global warming? are all good people rejecting of it?
No, but please name one other terrorist or state like Cuba, North Korea or Iran, which is on sceptic side of discussion. I did not foun one except of Breivik. At the same time, there is cca fifty percent of USA citizens (and probably more in abroad), that take sceptic side. This correlation seems to me interesting and billboard speaks about it in broader sense.
About the English: you are right. Maybe, this is first time, I discuss in English on the internet. My native language is Czech. I hope you understand the opinion and statements behind, probably far from perfect, English language.
About the manipulation: it is not my point. My point is, that if they have this opinion about global warming and they have right to say that opinion, than that billboard is quite good and probably fulfilled their expectation.
You can disagree about the matter and you can have good reasons to disagree with the bilboard message. That is not point of the article. point of this post is, that the billboard is crap.
In the literal sense is not the same as on the basic level, dishonest one. And several statements in their rationale are not close to true in any sense.
You’re evidently a complete idiot, or else completely dishonest. the “No pressure” film, while very ill-judged, showed the proponents of action to reduce greenhouse gases resorting to violence; it was intended as humerous exaggeration. It did not attempt to associate the opposite side in the argument with murderers and tyrants.
It is always nice to meet somebody, who treat people with other opinions like idiots and dishonest persons. It speaks more about you, than about me.
I have never said, that the alarmist used SAME message. It is nonsense. I said, that it is similar in strenght and in logic. I do not think, any of these campaigns are funny anyway. Maybe the artist behind this billboard meant it also as humorous exageration. The movie doesn’t associate the oposite side with murderers, but somehow suggest, that blowing oposite side to pieces is good for humanity. In my opinio these two mesages are pretty close in kind of logic used and strenght of messages. That is all.
They have a legal right to do so, and to use the kind of vile guilt by association you are so happy with. They do not have a moral right to lie, as they do repeatedly about climate science, nor to smear those who oppose their lies. But I am getting the strong impression that you think any lie is OK so long as it’s on the side you agree with.
and true on the basic level.
It is true, that Unabomber believe in Global warming. That is true in literal sense.
In the literal sense is not the same as on the basic level, dishonest one. And several statements in their rationale are not close to true in any sense.
If literal and basic are not close in English, then I’m sorry. I’ve used bad wording in second sentence, since I’m not very good in English.
It’s not a question of wording or language, but of intelligence and intellectual honesty.
slavek@133,
Thanks for confirming once again that you are either a complete idiot, or completely dishonest.
KG #124
I agree such literally true statements as I stated can be used to mislead. That was my point: all the traditional energy industry needs are some differences of true expert opinions as to the relative degree the “A” as in AGW counts against other casual factors in the current GW trend analysis to obfuscate the very real need to curb and change our use of fossil fuels and reduce their by-products.
For me it makes no difference – there are so many good reasons and ramifications in any perceivable long-run to becoming less dependent of non-renewable “dirty type” energy sources that we should just do it. It is a no-brainer regardless if the “A.
It is a no-brainer regardless if the “A” is 100% or 10% in my opinion.
I suspect it is over 50% so to speak BTW to declare my camp.
But again – any “controversy” as to degree they will dishonestly use to their advantage – and to our detriment delay our getting to a saner energy policy and practice. As you said “mislead”.
IRT No Pressure – “a funny and satirical tongue-in-cheek little film in the over-the-top style of Monty Python or South Park”
Citation needed, not that it matters, except as a point of your veracity.
AGW is a fact, facts don’t care about beliefs.
slavek,
Since English obviously isn’t your first language, let me put in terms even you can understand. Just because a bad person believes something, doesn’t make that thing wrong or incorrect. Is that simple enough for you? And since you are from eastern Europe, I’m going to assume you don’t like gay people very much. You know who else didn’t? Hitler, that’s who! Did I just blow your mind?
Ted, Charlie & Osama all believe(d) in God, too.
I can’t see the point in debating this issue with Slavek; he sees it in an entirely superficial light and refuses to even try to understand what the point is to even PZ’s post, let alone any of the responses.
It’s like talking to a wall.
If you actually bothered to educate yourself in the matter, you would discover that the expert consensus is that there are no significant “other causal factors”. In fact, greenhouse gases and the positive feedbacks they trigger are almost certainly responsible for more than 100% of the warming, because some of the warming they would cause has been offset by anthropogenic aerosols. The denialist campaign relies on conspiracy theories and bare-faced lies, nothing more.
Slavek, yes it is literally true that the people featured in the billboards believed in global warming.
Here’s the thing: it’s also completely irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing at all on any form of debate over global warming and there is no reason to bring it up. What the Heartland Institute is trying to do imply that because these bad men though global warming is real, thinking that global warming is real makes you like them and therefore you shouldn’t do it or that thinking global warming is real will cause you to be like them- if you believe that global warming is real then you will be compelled to murder people.
KG #143 “The denialist campaign relies on conspiracy theories and bare-faced lies, nothing more.”
I would say with confidence: “The denialist campaign relies on conspiracy theories and bare-faced lies
, nothing moreand the weaseling of any legitimate scientific discussion of competing explanations and other relevant discussions concerning details that they can make hay out of.”For instance there is some uncertainty in legitimate science as to how long it would take to quiesce so to speak all the things we put in motion. At this point in time the GW engine we started is somewhat (to some degree) running on its own. At least that is my understanding.
Their game is one where any fact or discussion is useful to their obstruction. And apathy is their bosom buddy.
Apathy can be generated in the minds of the base and others via denial there is a problem, of course, but also via “we’ll just bankrupt ourselves and get nowhere” so to speak.
For me it is a moot point. I long ago came to the same opinion of fact that you have “there is an overwhelming consensus among the relevant scientific experts that global warming is real, anthropogenic, and a matter requiring urgent action.” There isn’t a doubt in my mind that this is a serious problem with very profound ramifications for all living things.
I also putting aside GW reach the same conclusions regarding solutions and urgency by simply analyzing the other benefits of shifting our energy usage to something less “costly” to the planet.
I have no problem with tackling the things we can tackle HARD AND NOW. I just caution in the PR wars opponents do not need to solely rely on clinical lies to win hearts and minds. This is politics – and things like economics as well as science apply.
Yes, that’s true, unlike what I understood you to imply about non-anthropogenic causes: the Earth is out of thermodynamic balance with its surroundings, and will continue to heat up until radiated heat outwards balances solar energy inwards.
Frankniddy,
I’m not sure about the gay issue here, since we had law of registered partnership for gays for long time and the leading gay iniciative here decided some 10 years ago to stop their activities, since all of their goals was fullfiled.
Regarding Hitler. I understand, that if one of particular kind of person has some characteristic, that does not mean, that persons with this characteristic has to be of that kind. It is basic logical fallacy.
On the other hand, if there is corellation between some characteristic and some kind of persons, that can be significant.In my opinion, this is the case.
KG@136,
thank you again for confirming, that you are not able to discuss with people of different opinion and all you are able are personal attacs without merit.
microraptor,
I’m not sure, if this is their goal. On the other hand, if I they are on the side of AGW proponents (or alarmists or call it as you like), if they are paid for promote this views by their members and supporters, than it is OK for them even to use provocative billboards. Billboard is not medium, where you can make long statements or discuss the matter in sufficient depth. It is OK for me to use some exagerations and strong statement as long as they are true. And the statement on the billoard is true. If they wanted to say, that there is correlation between these kinds of persons and the opinion on AGW, that it can be also true. Consider also the No Pressure ad ( http://youtu.be/rAz7jyG0qfw ). Than this billboard seems to me like apropriate answer.
All what I done was, that I wrote, I do not agree with PZ Myers on this issue, that this billboard is complete crap.
I dont know much about the Heartland institute and it is not interesting to me. I read this blog, because I’m atheist. I respect PZ Myers for interesting thoughts presented on this blog. It was surprise for me, that some 100+ comments were positive on this issue, since I have different opinion on billboard. So I tried to present my view and arguments. I do not discuss the isuue of alarmist vs. denialist (it is another debate and it have no sense for me to discuss it here).
Nobody of you chalenged my arguments (corellation between alarmist side and terrorists and tyrants, similarities of ads on the other side of argument and good expense/result ratio of this ad). Maybe it´s because of my poor English. So, I´m sorry, that I disturbed you here.
to all: My opinion of GW and AGW is probably very hard to put in some box of denialists or alarmist. I think the issue is still open. I belive, that the AGW exist, but I´m not sure about the scale. I do not know about any easy solution and I´m not sure, if the some extraordinary steps should be taken now.
For example, the EU took some measures in promoting ecologic fuels. We have to put some percentage of ethanol into the fuel. The result of this policy, which was supported by all green movements some 10 years ago, are very bad. But the policy is already in place.
I support all kinds of clean energy, but nowadays majority of solutions are very expensive. Why are they expensive? Because, they are intensive in use of energy and resources (bateries in cars, solar panels, wind turbines) These solutions are pretty OK in small scale, but once they are applied in larger scale, the impacts are maybe larger, than traditional sources of energy. Consider for example this paper: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html
Actualy, I am not much worried about the planet or the life. What I´m worried of are people, humanity and our civilisation. We have maybe some 100 or 200 years, till all resources like precious metals, oil, coal, uranium etc. will be depleted. Since than, there will be no AGW, no space program, no cars, and no civilsation to speak about. It will take maybe some few thousand years for planet to reach new local equilibrium, but it is very short time in global perspective.
In my opinion, no side is right or suggesting right steps to face these chalanges.
slavek | 6 May 2012 at 1:37 pm
There is overwhelming evidence. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
And way back in 2004, Oreskes randomly selected 928 papers from tens of thousands of climate science papers published, and showed that not one showed evidence that global warming was either not happening, not a problem, or not caused by humans. That research has survived eight years of attacks, and no serious flaws have been found in it. Thinking global warming is still an open issue is like thinking quantum mechanics is still an open issue.
Precious metals as a resource are fundamentally unlike oil, coal, and uranium. Precious metals can be recycled. Copper, gold, tantalum, platinum, and many other metals are regularly reclaimed from waste. There is a great deal of room for improvement in the safety of the recycling methods, in their efficiency, and so forth, but the fact is that it is possible. But we cannot usefully unburn fossil fuels, or re-fuse uranium. That’s not say depletion of metals is not a problem, but it’s a very different character of problem.
But more importantly, you are entirely wrong to claim that “there will be no AGW” after the fossil fuels run out. There is no quick and easy way to remove all that carbon from the atmosphere, and it will last for a long, long time after the fossil fuels have all been burned.
slavek,
That makes it very easy to put you in a box: you’re a denialist. The more sophisticated denialist line is precisely that “the issue is still open” – and of course, denialists universally repudiate the label of denialist, just as you do. The evidence is very clear, and the conclusion that AGW is real and demands urgent action, almost universally agreed by the relevant experts. Claiming otherwise means you are either lying, or deceiving yourself.
It is quite true that there are serious resource issues independent of AGW; it is quite false that we have reason to believe they are insoluble. It is obvious that you are using this unsupported claim, consciously or unconsciously, as an excuse for doing nothing about AGW.
llewelly,
since i think, that AGW is taking place, so I am not in oposition to that paper. It seems clear to me, that the greenhouse effect is real. It is basic science from elementary school . Each farmer knows about greenhouses :-) Human is using fossil fuels and is puting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So I am quite sure, that there is human conmponent in greenhouse effect.
The open questions for me are the questions, what is the human influence, what can be done with it, what will be social price of it and what measures and steps is inteligent to make, to prevent this greenhouse effect. And other similar questions. I am not sure, that measures, which are sugested by people like Gore are inteligent respons adequate to the problem.
The question of long, long time effect of AGW is relative. The article you sugested offers projections from thousand to 100.000 years. This time can be long from human (100.000 y) or civilisation (10.000 y) perspective, but from perspective of Earth (5 mld y) or life on earth (3 mld y), its neglibile time. AGW is more problem of humans, than nature itself.
KG,
if you put the label denialist for everbody who disagree with you, than I have no objection to your claim, that by your measures I´m denialist.
On the other hand, somebody who prefer discussion about propagandistic labels before meritory discussion belongs to the box of idiot. The more sophisticated idiots do not want to be labeled like this.
slavek:
Such ignorance!
(The mechanism by which warming occurs is quite different)
I see your cogency is as good as your science.
llewelly,
to the problem of precious metals. I agree with you, that it is different issue than the fosill fuels, so it was my mistake to put it into the same sentce.
Actually it is not my intention to discuss global warming here, since it is complicated issue and I am no expert in the field. I have probably different opinion on the issue in some respect, but I have tried to avoid propaganda of both sides – denialist and alarmist till now (wich make me denialist here and alarmist on the other sites). In my opinion the propaganada of both sides is very comparable in many terms. I still have problem to understand how somebody can say about No Pressure movie, it is inteligent and humorous exageration and in the same sentence say, that this billboard is sleazy crap. Both of them have issues and both of them are good in other aspects.
slavek @156, science is neither denialist nor alarmist, but empirical.
(I see you like to indulge in the fallacy of the excluded middle)
slavek:
It’s pretty fucking obvious: the movie to which you refer is an exaggeration, the billboard however is a non sequitur.
(I see the fallacy of irrelevance is also beyond your grasp)
WTF.
slavek @ #113:
[Note the trick here. It’s true that this is mainstream opinion amongst the US public. That’s because this has been shaped by denialist propaganda to refuse to accept scientific evidence. It is the opposite of the consensus of scientists in relevant fields in the US or globally. But slavek can phrase it like this to imply that mainstream public opinion in the US on the subject is correct.]
slavek later:
[Note that presented with clear evidence about the scale, slavek will ignore it and proceed to suggestions about about other aspects and to raising separate issues….]
slavek just above:
And on and on. And he could well be arguing at the same time on another blog that AGW isn’t happening at all. That’s why it’s impossible to have a discussion with denialists. They are obscenely dishonest.
I would ask him to spell out in writing which specific aspects of, say, the IPCC report he accepts and which he challenges and to explain the basis for his questions or criticisms, but in past experience this has resulted in further evasiveness and dishonesty. I don’t know how these people live with themselves.
You don’t say.
John Morales,
1) Tha basic pinciple of greenhouses and Earth atmposphere greenhouse effect is the same. The heat is cumulated in given volume.
Greenhouses cumulate the heat by two procesess: preventing venting hot air and glass property of letting more visible light through than IR one.
Greenhouse effect is similar: the hot air is not going out to space (gravity) and the greenhouse gases prevent IR radiation to go out, but allow visible light to go in.
Sure, the ratio of these effect is different, because of different materials, scale and conditions. Earth is not the same as the greenhous in our garden.
2) Regarding science. Agreed.
3) It is very nice to blame me for excluded middle fallacy, if all of you here claim, that people can only agree with you or be stupid denialists. If sombody indulge this fallacy, than it is you. I am not sure about the name of this fallacy, when you project your own mistake to the others. Can you help me? You are very good in that respect.
4) Billboard itself is not “non sequitur”. It can be interpreted that way. It can be also interpreted other way, which is logicaly OK. Your argument is typical straw man fallacy (you probably understand it better than me).
Note that the human influence is addressed in llewelly’s first link.
I put the label of denialist on liars like you who, while admitting they are not experts, and getting the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming completely wrong (if you want to know how it actually works, look here), deny the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of relevant experts, even if they hedge this denial by pretending to be open-minded. Just as I would put the label of denialist on those who claim that it is still an open question whether smoking causes lung cancer, or whether HIV causes AIDS, or whether evolution by natural selection accounts for the diversity of life on earth.
I see Slavek the concern troll (first definition) is concerned. And can’t discuss the only thing that will change our minds, the peer reviewed scientific liteature complete with links and citations. Scientific evidence, what separates opinion from fact. And Slavek has only opinions.
So you’re an ignorant idiot as well as a liar: AGW stands for “anthropogenic global warming”. “Anthropogenic” means it is caused by human activities, shit-for-brains. And don’t make the excuse that English isn’t your first language: if you had the slightest interest in actually informing yourself on the issue, you would have found out what “AGW” means.
slavek @161:
1. The effect is indeed the same, but the principle is different.
2. By agreeing with this, you perforce have repudiated your earlier claim, since AGW is a scientific (i.e. empirical) claim, rather than an alarmist or a denialist one.
3. cf. #2. Either you accept the science, or you deny it.
(I expect you will imagine that is also a form of the excluded middle)
4. If it’s not a non sequitur, then the conclusion must be entailed by the (implicit) argument according to the rules of inference, no? ;)
Yes it is, liar. The fact that a vile person believes P has no relevance whatsoever to whether P is true.
bah. The “No Pressure” clip was roundly condemned by nearly every other anti greenhouse emissions organization. Has slavek provided a single example of someone who defended it?
Some good news from the Guardian: drinks firm Diageo has announced it will no longer fund Heartland, and Microsoft, while not saying it will stop supplying Heartland with free software (as it does all US non-profits), has issued the following statement:
whew
Cheapest tax deduction ev4r!
SC,
I have read that link and still it seems to me, that I am not denialist nor alarmist. If I should check my position about the questions on that site, it is sometimes “red”, sometimes “blue” and sometimes I dont know.
I think that both sides of argument can discuss all 150 fifty statements in depth and it can take ages only to read those arguments.
KG,
Is the asshole defending lumping climetologists in with mass murderers really complaining about being called a denialist?
Christ, what an asshole
llewelly,
I did not checked what was the alarmist response to that movie. I thought, that at least people who made it, thougt, it is good idea.
I dont even know if it was effective. But probably I am not target audience either.
FFS refer to scientists complaining about an issue as “alarmist” is fundamentally dishonest. Its dismissing them as “radicals” and is a very thinly hidden argument from consequences…which by default is denialism.
The whole term is spin to reframe it as two equal sides fighting over an issue…not experts versus commercial and religious bias.
Denialists like that are just like the Klan ;P
It’s not a survey, sparky. And, as John Morales has explained to you, science is not “alarmist.” It is fact-based. The facts in this case are cause for alarm.
Yes, they can – the sides being those who view empirical evidence honestly and reasonably vs. those who deny it. They can discuss all of these statements in the same sense that biologists can have “discussions” with creationists or HIV/AIDS denialists or historians can have “discussions” with Holocaust deniers. These are “discussions,” though, in which one position is backed by numerous lines of solid evidence and reasoned arguments and the other consists of ignorance,* lies, evasions, and logical fallacies. You are in the latter camp, and apparently uwilling to put the time in to engage with the evidence but with time to spare to post your ignorant opinions.
*Speaking of which, sampling on the dependent variable would be a useful issue for you to learn about.
Heartland faces a mutiny amid furor over billboard campaign