Billboards Compare Climate Scientists with Unabomber and Charles Manson

Well that just seems crazy.

 

What a farce. They must be getting pretty desperate.

 

Heartland Institute (HI) is a quack libertarian thinktank/gun for hire that was in the news not too long ago when its internal email was exposed and published. Exposure embarrassed many a donor who I suspect severed connections. This play to the fringe may just be an attempt to replace lost money.

If Zimmerman received $200k in donations for bail, why not the HI ?

 

Climate change is based on falsifiable, reproducible, peer-reviewed, published objectively measured evidence, not belief. The Heartland Institute clearly does not have a clue other than bizarre ideology.

 

They know very well what they're doing. The main benefactors, the Koch brothers, are heavily invested in fossil fuel production, and are very active in sowing seeds of doubt wherever and whenever they can. Myopic and megalomaniacal, maybe, but they're only following the capitalist mantra of profit at any cost.

 

Yes, it's getting warmer. No, fossil fuels are not the cause.

"It's The Sun, Stupid!"

 

This is old news, reported back on Friday:

The Maddow Blog - The Heartland Institute has a message for you

Over the weekend, they pulled the advertising campaign, been criticized by conservative climate-change deniers, and had donors pull out because of it.

The Maddow Blog - Heartland facing 'mutiny' from donors, staff

 

When Gleick stole the Heartland memos,it was revealed that Koch only donated $25,000 and that was earmarked for the heatlhcare issue ,not global warming.
So to hype the meme ,Gleick (or someone with Gleicks writing style), forged a figure of $200,000 donated from Koch.
Even $200,000 is a piddling amount,even if it were true.
But its not true.
ITS A LIE made up by a Gleick like person.So you might want to recheck your facts.

 

Climate science is based on crude computer models which lack any understanding of how Earths climate system works.
GIGO
"Climate models are like using ancient astrology"
"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,"
Kanya Kusano,Director JAMSTEC

Of course you must have studied Heartlands presentations on climate to make such an informed statement.

 

I think the ad campaign is ridiculous.
But on the other hand ,referring to skeptics as "deniers",is in a similar vein.
Drawing a reference to NeoNazi Holocaust deniers is worse actually.
Because you are creating and implying a false connection between the two.

 

I agree that we would all be better served if Monckton (and whoever else has said it) would not refer to those with whom he disagrees as Nazis.

Whoever has said it. Either side. It is simply unhelpful.

No point either, in trying to discern whether such less bad, more bad, or about the same as UNabomber billboards. These are all distractions. There are serious matters that need to be scientifically understood and politically (by which I mean policy) debated.

 

I think we should understand it scientifically first.
Then when we realize its mostly propaganda,there wont need to be a political debate, or carbon tax, or IPCC world government carbon tax .

 

Funny when I Googled Monkton Nazi this quote came up.
"Last year he told a Canberra audience that proponents of climate change wanted to establish a "world government ... that would have shut down democracy worldwide".
This new government would have policing powers, impose taxes, and take control over all formerly free markets, he told the National Press Club."
Far fetched ?
Not quite ,its pretty much factual from IPCC publications.They want there own frigging army and a couple percent of annual gross world product as a tax.

 

The Heartland Institute has become the poster child for AGW denialism. It is a tough job, but they seem up to the task.

 

(Hijack) In other news, several climate-modeling groups appear to be making progress in realistic representations of clouds and aerosols in their models.

Climate forecasting: A break in the clouds : Nature News & Comment

Hope it's not behind a paywall in your internet access. But if so, as usual, we could probably find a way around that.

 

Then what ARE all the fossil fuel byproducts we are pumping into the air doing?

 

Feeding the plants. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, many of our forests have already disappeared.

 

Hi all--

I believe in climate change. I believe the climate naturally changes due to factors outside our control, such as the sun, ocean currents, and nature simply... changing over time. However, I do not believe that legislating "green" requirements, using onerous taxes, fines, or the threat of jail via governmental fiat is the way to solve the problem.

I'm all about caring for the environment. But I wish people would come to extol the virtues of saving the planet. Maybe cajole or encourage others to conserve resources. But the "scientific community" out there has engaged in a systematic attempt to falsify information, suppress conflicting evidence, and silence any opposition by immediately referring to "skeptics" as Holocaust deniers, among other things.

I do not trust anything these scientists say anymore. I would like to, but they have completely destroyed their credibility in my eyes. I have the leaked files from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit on my computer which detail an extensive scheme to further a narrow agenda.

Michael Mann, the famous author of the "hockey stick" graph (the one used by Al Gore to make millions on his movie), discusses ways to "hide past declines" in historical temperatures to inflate the effect of a recent warming trend. My favorite has to be from Kevin Trenberth, head researcher at the NCAR:

I'll continue to do my part to save the planet. But I do not believe these guys any more than I'd believe a three dollar bill. And I'll gladly share the leaked files and emails with anyone who would like to see for themselves.



:focus:
As egregious-sounding as these billboards may be, it's no worse than comparing "skeptics" to Holocaust deniers. Granted, we can get into the issues of our public discourse being poisoned by extremist rhetoric, but it first has to start with both sides admitting that they resort to name-calling too easily.

 

You are making a fundamental mistake here. It's the science you should be examining, not the scientists. This is because all the "news" about climate change focuses on the sensational, the gross errors, and the vocal personalities. Easy to do, but a waste of your time.

Much harder is to pick a specific area of interest and become knowledgable about it.....but it's worth it.