Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the tim-mcveigh-was-vegan-too dept.

Earth 735

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."

cancel ×

735 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

crazy (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39925947)

Shills for the oil industry.

Re:crazy (-1, Flamebait)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39925975)

Shills for the oil industry.

^^^^^^^

Shill for big government.

It works both ways. If you are going to call someone a "shill" for the people paying the bills, then you have to be fair and apply the same standard for both side.

Re:crazy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926113)

and it seems that common sense started to prevail

Of course, "common sense" means "you agree with me".

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.

I've seen some crazy Linux advocates, real rabid foaming-at-the-mouth types who think you're just a stupid piece of shit if you disagree with them in any way. Does that mean I should never use Linux? Or should I realize these were a tiny vocal minority of Linux users and still evaluate Linux on its merits?

It's one thing to laugh at this group and their ineffective methods, but AGW proponents need something more convincing than "see we found a group of crazies who don't agree with us" if they want to be persuasive. Yeah, I see how you are trying to imply that one group of nutters disagrees therefore the only sane thing to do is to agree, but that's hardly scientific. Save the propaganda techniques for advertising mmkay?

Besides if you want to troll billboards in America, how about a nice big billboard on a high-traffic road that reads "LOSE WEIGHT YOU DISGUSTING FATBODIES!" That would definitely get some attention. Like every person with a deviant and unhealthy lifestyle (e.g. alcoholics, smokers) fatties who eat too much have a lot of denial and get really very upset when you suggest that they could stop eating so much more calories than they burn.

Re:crazy (-1, Offtopic)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926275)

^^^^^Heartland Institute member.....

Re:crazy (2, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926115)

crazy

Shills for the oil industry.

Strictly speaking shills for the oil industry are not crazy, just immoral and money-grabbing.

No Worries! Slashdot is READY! (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926401)

Luckily Slashdot is prepared for anti-global warming trollers with a whole army of anti-anti-global warming trollers! And we can throw in a few anti-DMCA freedom fighters too.

oh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39925959)

oh.

They Never Even Said Those Things (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39925961)

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)

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926003)

Since you've already Godwin'd the thread, I might as well mention that the Nazis liked to equate Jews to rats. Great demagogues think alike. (Do you see what I'm doing here?)

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926417)

Since you've already Godwin'd the thread

I don't see where he compared anybody to Hitler or Nazi's. Godwin's does not say you can't mention Hitler, and in this case all he said was that they were holding up pictures of Hitler. And metaphorically speaking, that's exactly what they were doing.

(Do you see what I'm doing here?)

Yes, I do- you're being a clueless Troll.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (2)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926055)

"... and when this Earth is fucked the free market will build us a better one."

Thing is, I can genuinely imagine them thinking this is worth a try.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (-1, Troll)

slashbart (316113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926085)

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....

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926153)

Do you even suspect that you're completely bonkers? You've come to some very odd, completely unsupported conclusions.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926157)

"Denier" has no more association with "holocaust denier" than "consumer" has with "consumer of human flesh." But don't tell that to your raging persecution complex.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926407)

False.

Write the word 'denier' at the top of a page. Get people to list their connotations. 'Holocaust denier' will be high up there.

Write the word 'consumer' at the top of a page. Get people to list their connotations. 'Consumer of human flesh' will not be high up there.

"Denier" hence has a stronger association with "holocaust denier" than "consumer" has with "consumer of human flesh".

The people who came up with the term aren't too stupid to know this. "Denier" constructs a far more favourable frame to them than "Disagreer" or "Skeptic".

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926463)

Skeptic is a complete misnomer. Disagreer I guess isn't wrong, but it's quite vague. And personally moon landing denier or vaccine denier are right on the same level as holocaust denier in my familiarity, and scientifically they do all belong in the same category.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926477)

No, Disagreer and Skeptic suggest well reasoned differences of opinion. Denier is simply clearer, these people deny facts. Would you call some who claimed the earth was flat a skeptic?

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926163)

How do you people find and then decide to start posting on Slashdot?

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926413)

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.

BS. I call bogus, especially the "part of". Scientific discussion has always been tolerated. The only way to get the "denier" label is to oppose whatever socialist fascist corporate-kleptocracy solution that has been proposed as the only or final solution to the problem.

"Your paper on changes in non-rural airflow patterns seems to have ignored the recent changing surface albedo due to stylistic changes in suburban mcmansion development" "Yes Dr VLM good point and with further grant money I'd also like to research changing albedo trends WRT deindustrialization of the environmentally regulated US and industrialization without any environmental regulation in China" and they have a beer together at the bar to talk and debate it and eventually become best friends.

"I'm not so sure that going Pol Pot on the worlds population, especially the 3rd worlds population, is the most ethical and moral solution to a sea level change that is pretty minor in the grand scheme of past geological evidence, especially from a guy whos not willing to put his own families head on the chopping block with the rest of the world." "Denier! Evil! Burn him at the stake! Dissent is forbidden! All that is not compulsory is forbidden and all that is not forbidden is compulsory! I sentence you to the two minutes hate!" and they, uh, don't exactly turn into best friends.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (2)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926103)

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?

Actually it is called "guilt by association" also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum [wikipedia.org] :). People come up with dog Latin phrases all the time.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926155)

And before the 2nd war in Iraq, Bush would always talk about terrorism etc. in the same sentence as Saddam Hussein even though there was no link. He would talk about Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence even though they were enemies. He wanted to portray Saddam Hussein as the evil so he creates an image - we call this propaganda. Get used to it, it has been around for a long time. If people hear it often enough they will start to believe it. I often meet people that honestly believe that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist even though he was our ally.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926251)

Funny (and sad) thing is that this advertising campaign will be very, very effective. It's not too childish or ridiculous for the target audience. It's what many are already thinking.

Hitler! (2)

wytcld (179112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926277)

As Jon Stewart pointed out last night: Hitler believed an international banking conspiracy threatened to destroy Europe. Today there's an internal banking conspiracy threatening to destroy Europe ... and it's led by the Germans!

Heartland believes there's a conspiracy to falsify science threatening to destroy civilisation as we know it. Today Heartland's conspiracy to falsify science is threatening to destroy civilisation as we know it.

Oh the irony?!

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926333)

Kaczynski, of all those on the list, seems the most likely to have an opinion on the subject.

His methods were sufficiently notorious to largely drown out his message; but his motivation was, quite explicitly, violent opposition to the perceived consequences of large-scale technological society.

Politically, though, he isn't really a fit with any remotely mainstream philosophy. His explicit opposition to 'liberalism' and state intervention look vaguely conservative; but his equally strong distaste for private-sector control and his total technological pessimism would make him few friends among economic 'conservatives', and the secular, quasi-evolutionary-psychology, flavor of his antiliberal social views would make him an outlier at best among either contemporary secularists as a whole or among any of the flavors of theistic conservatives. Really a very odd duck(albeit a brilliant one).

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926365)

Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?

reductio ad absurdum is what you're looking for.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926385)

"you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents"

I seem to recall environmentalists doing the same to Bush.
And no, I don't support heartland. I just don't support hypocrisy.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926485)

with the institute planning Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden

They were planning those historical figures, or duplicates there of. The institute has clearly expanded into the field of human cloning.

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,"

In other words, the institute claims the spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say nothing about global warming. I guess that claim would be shown incorrect quite easily.

Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39925967)

I've got a nutjob pastor down the street who has his flock sending kids to kindergarten wearing T-shirts saying "Islam is of the Devil," and burning, or threatening to burn Korans at every drop of a hat. The mainstream media made the mistake of giving him a lot of attention once, they're getting wise now, he's starting to shout into a vacuum.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926181)

That fucker in Florida? He has a lot of blood on his hands, make his life miserable for me wouldya?

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners (2)

qbast (1265706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926231)

Who did he kill?

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners (2, Insightful)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926285)

Indeed. How many planes has he flown into buildings? How many schoolbuses full of kids has he bombed?

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926375)

By your "logic" Bin Laden is completely innocent as well. He didn't directly do any of those things either.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926427)

Also Charles Manson and most famous mass-murdering dictators.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926323)

Non sequitur (5, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39925973)

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?

Re:Non sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926025)

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?

Only when you are doing it.

Come on all you "First Posters" & AC's (0)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39925977)

For the first time trolling is NOT off-topic!

Send in your nonsense right away! :-)

Re:Come on all you "First Posters" & AC's (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926371)

To be fair, if this is Heartland's attempt at trolling, they need to visit 4chan or Mumsnet to see how it's done. Making billboards that could conceivably be attributed to the mentally handicapped is not trolling. In answer to the Futurama image macro (seriously, not been oblig'd yet?) they are not trolling, they're just dumb.

And here you are... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39925983)

...giving them free publicity, meaning their "crazy pill" strategy to garner attention worked.

Well done, Slashdot!

Re:And here you are... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926381)

I'm fine with it. If everyone knows that the biggest voices against the AGW consensus are so out of arguments that this is what some of them are having to resort to, I think both the Heartland Institute and those who've reported on them are doing the world a favor.

Last I knew (0)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39925989)

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). 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). Not to say that these nutjobs aren't nutjobs, just that they're comment about "man-made" global warming bares some semblance to reality.

Re:Last I knew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926031)

Is it really important if all the effects is man made?
Imagine this:
You are slowly sliding down on a slippery slope towards a pit.
What do you do?
1 Claw your way up at your best,
2 don't move and let you slip,
3 or even start to climb down.

Re:Last I knew (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926049)

Only people with a vested interest in selling fossil fuels argue that there is even a debate. Volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas humans emit 30,000 million tons of CO2 per year. The arguers are very loud, so I don't expect most people to know about this urban legend.

Re:Last I knew (3)

slashbart (316113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926325)

Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience [nature.com] One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Re:Last I knew (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926475)

Anyone who disagrees must be vanquished, heathen!

No one ever suspects.... Anthropogenic Global Warming!

Re:Last I knew (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926053)

Last I knew, it was still heavily debated

The debate was over by the time a report on global warming landed on President Johnson's desk. I'm not exagerating. There was a report on that subject that was submitted to the President some years after climate scientists observed a trend, had a pile of conferences on the subject and agreed that it was a problem.
For the last decade there have just been self serving idiots like Monckton (call those Jewish kids Nazis) and Plimer (pretend climate science is a religeon and mock religeon - thus including climate science) pretending there is a debate. It's been almost entirely noise for hire. Compare the amount Monckton makes on his travelling roadshow to the most highly paid Nobel prize winner in any science on the planet and you'll see why.

Re:Last I knew (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926057)

You should probably check more often, that debate has been over at least a decade [skepticalscience.com] . Not that it was ever in much of a debate. While it's true that the natural cycle is larger than human contributions, the natural cycle operates in an equilibrium state. It's kind of like having two big tanks of water with water rushing back and forth between them. If you start pouring additional water into the tanks they will eventually both fill up regardless of how much water flows between the two tanks.

If you want a better understanding of the state of climate change science you should read this big picture overview [skepticalscience.com] .

Re:Last I knew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926161)

Skeptical science is a propaganda website run by a cartoonist. If you are using them as your reference point for scientific arguments, I wouldnt be surprised if you are still accessing the internet via a dial up modem.

Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926067)

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 [usgs.gov] 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 [ucsusa.org] , the burden of proof is now on you to refute their findings. Not vice versa. Not "probably" or "maybe."

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty (2)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926281)

Hey, didn't you notice his confident, no-nonsense, businesslike tone? "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" ... What's a paltry scientific consensus to first-class truthiness?

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926343)

It doesn't matter. The mere fact that we're having this debate, on this article, demonstrates that we're screwed. Is the global warming trend theoretically reversible, or even mitigatable? Maybe, I don't know; ask a scientist. Are people going to actually work to reverse it? Ha! We couldn't get that kind of global, coordinated response if space aliens were invading; for something subtle like climate change, we're fucked.

It's time to start thinking about how to deal with the inevitable changes when they happen, rather than continue to push that boulder up the hill while everyone around you pretends that it doesn't exist.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty (-1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926377)

It was also once consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe. A consensus of people in some places think it's okay to stone adulterers.

Just because a majority of people believe something is true doesn't mean that it is.Bringing that up also doesn't do anything to convince people otherwise anyway. Providing facts and exposing myths without being confrontational is what will do it. You can point out factual errors in another's post without going down the road of "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit" in your own. Try it sometime.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926421)

Mod. Parent. Up.
A Google search for "volcano eruption co2" gives you enough info to recognise the GP for either someone too lazy to even google before complaining about being ignorant, or a dumb shill.
You don't even have to click a link, you can just see governments, research institutes etc all in the top links. Sources that are reputable by most people's estimation. The moment you bother to google.

The climate "debate" only exists in the minds of climate deniers, those they managed to infect, and those that refuse to think for themselves.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty (1)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926473)

Yes, all that is true, but the fact is, it doesn't matter. There's no point in reducing CO2 levels. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 completely, NOW, down to 0%, no combustion of fuel AT ALL, it would still be thousands of years before CO2 levels reached pre-industrial levels. We've made our bed, now we have to sleep in it. Just get used to a radically altered ecosystem. It's too late now to fix it. We'll adapt, maybe live underground breathing taxable air. For billions of years, this is the way it has been. Hey, if the pre-Cambrian biota hadn't irrevocably polluted the atmosphere with oxygen, we wouldn't even have evolved. Tough luck for them, but we're on top now. Oh, the "conservatives" want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to preserve the status quo. Good luck with that, conservatives. It's very expensive and produces no profit that you can use to redecorate your huge Central Park West apartment.

Re:Last I knew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926209)

Wrong. And, your check from the oil lobby is in the mail. Thanks for helping.

Re:Last I knew (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926241)

Apparently, 1985 or something was "last you knew" anything.

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Doesn't prevent that particular duck being drawn out again and again, no matter how many times it's been pointed out.

NO Warming for last DECADE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926261)

article with references to NASA and NOAA data

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/global_warming_melts_away.html

Re:Last I knew (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926303)

Not according to scientists. Those are the people I pay attention to...nuts jobs like, not so much.....

Re:Last I knew (1)

lucian1900 (1698922) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926305)

Seeing as how global warming is a fact and it's quite possible that it is largely human-caused, wouldn't it be prudent to take steps to reduce activity that might have caused it?

Re:Last I knew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926489)

Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes

Among scientists, yes there is still debate.

Among the general public, however, the debate seems to be about whether or not a Naked, Bearded Man who lives in the Sky would allow such a thing to happen.

You love cancer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39925993)

... Fidel Castro hates cancer, so you must love it, or you'll be agreeing with him. Ergo you love cancer.

The reason the backers backed away is because it shows they had no rational argument to the science of climate change. If this was the best argument they could do, then they have nothing.

And? (1, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926001)

The word "denier" implies the debate is over. So why not do what the Heartland Institute is doing? Smear the shit out of the AGW believers. It's how campaigns are won, and this one is being won.

How can you even argue that they should be doing anything different, if you assume that they actually believe in what they believe in. The other side is working off of false premises and has been admitting it - not quite openly, but admitting it - for 30 years. All that talk about the emergency not allowing for proper proof. Why not go hardball in the other direction? It's the only thing that's worked so far to move the needle. Otherwise, every time there's a snowstorm or a heat wave, it's AGW causing it.

Did you really think that politicians, an expression of the will of people, were going to let what amounts to a bunch of geeks tell them what to do? Think about it for a moment and realize how ludicrous that sounds. Of course there are Climategates and OBL billboards going up, tarring the AGW believers. This is standard politics, how it's been done since the beginning of time.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926117)

"So why not do what the Heartland Institute is doing? Smear the shit out of the AGW believers."

Dirty Tricks are not necessary when you have reality on your side, except perhaps in the form of satire.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926129)

The "debate" is a fabricated cover brought to you by the same PR slimeballs that were telling us about the "debate" surrounding smoking and cancer.

Don't demean yourself.

We know how that story goes (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926147)

Did you really think that politicians, an expression of the will of people, were going to let what amounts to a bunch of geeks tell them what to do?

If you have a society where the people with a clue are not in a position to tell those in power what to do you end up with basket cases like Maoist China, early USSR or Taliban run Afganistan. Your resident buddy horse judge or a Sentator's catamite is not going to do as good a job as somebody with a lifetime in emergency services for example, and if they refuse to listen to those that do you get disasters turning into catastropies that could have been bettter handled by under-resourced third world agencies.

Re:And? (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926151)

Eventually, I suspect the Heartland institute will be broken by global warming. They are becoming the face of opposition to global warming and when something really bad happens and people blame it on global warming. There's money and prestige in that, but also danger. Eventually, people will turn on them. The Heartland Institute will be dragged through the mud and destroyed. I know if they understand that they are going to be the fall guy on this one. When conservative voters wake up to the fact that global warming is real, the politicians will say "It's not my fault, Heartland lied to us all". Suddenly, they will be friendless and vulnerable.

This type of no holds barred lowest common denominator politics is going to make a lot of enemies, isn't going to win them many new friends.

Exxon is an example (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926183)

Exxon mobile, funded a lot of climate denial. They had to *PAY* to get the *DENIAL*, as a bought and paid service.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/revealed-exxon-secret-funding-of-global-warmi/blog/25605/

Even they gave up on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html

This is an oil company paying people to convince them to use more oil, even as it's creating CO2 that leads to global warming. Even they gave up this pseudo science. Even they stopped pretending it wasn't man made.

It's an indication of failure that they did the billboard. Because it was weak. When pseudo scientists were claiming the warming was the result of heat islands expanding to cover where the temperature measurements were taken, that had a ring of plausibilty about it (well until large area satellite analysis showed it was false anyway). But when they started with the "Bobo the clown thinks global warming is real, are you a clown too", which is the thrust of this advert, then it showed they'd accepted the basic science because they hadn't an answer to it.

I always think I've won and argument when the opposition is reduced to insults, and that's happened here.

Seriusly America (0)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926033)

WTF, just WTF. The extreme right are getting to be one of the major nutjob groups on the planet. They make the other nutjobs around the world seem almost sensible in comparison.

Re:Seriusly America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926089)

Have you read anything written by an average left-winger recently?

Invoking mass murder is nothing. It's the light touch.

Re:Seriusly America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926187)

I'm pretty sure that this average left-winger you imagine, only exists in any number in the fevered imaginations of the radical reactionaries that used to be ignorant conservatives. The Republicans made a concerted effort to drive those Americans with poor critical thinking skills insane with a delusion that civilized people are a threat to America. The reality is that this clueless, reactionary rabble is the real threat to America's future.

Re:Seriusly America (1)

clonehappy (655530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926331)

Yeah. Here's one stunning example of that, civilized, liberal love. [rense.com]

Re:Seriusly America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926171)

WTF, just WTF. The extreme right are getting to be one of the major nutjob groups on the planet. They make the other nutjobs around the world seem almost sensible in comparison.

It seems that way because unlike the extreme left, the extreme right does not own the mass media.

If I own the mass media, believe me, I can make *anything* look sensible. Anything at all. And I'm not as good at it as they are.

I mean, how do you sell consumerism on its merits? The welfare state? The nanny state? The EPA? You don't. You manipulate.

Re:Seriusly America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926271)

excellent point. saw this same thing on liberal owned Fox News the other day. those tards can't even get their talking points straight. luckily the republican party is there to tell me what to think and do. lol!!!!

Re:Seriusly America (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926315)

It seems that way because unlike the extreme left, the extreme right does not own the mass media.

I love how skewed the right has become that they actually still spout that bullshit about the "extreme left" owning the media.

If anything, the media is centrist (which explains why the idiocy of the tea party isn't immediately laughed off the air every time it comes up), it's just the extremely vocal minority of far-right whackjobs with a bullshit persecution complex keep screaming because the rest of the media doesn't echo their nonsense the way Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do. I mean, the very fact that Sarah Palin was treated as a serious candidate, despite what a complete and utter moron she is, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is mostly centrist. A "leftist" media would have laughed her stupid ass right off the airwaves after her first Katie Couric interview, when she asked hard-hitting questions like "What do you read?"

Re:Seriusly America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926227)

But comparing coal plant operators to Nazi death train operators does not represent a problem to you.

You reap what you sow.

Re:Seriusly America (3, Informative)

Psion (2244) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926319)

I'll just put this here. [googleusercontent.com] It was on the ThinkProgress site for months whereas the Heartland billboard ad was stopped within 24 hours. Heartland issued an apology. ThinkProgress dropped the post silently and pretended nothing had happened.

Happens when you call people "deniers" (0)

slashbart (316113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926041)

How is this in any way different from the continual use of the "denier" word by the green-shirts?
The owners of coal powered plants are similar to the operators of the death-trains of the Nazis (by James Hansen).
Some recent greenshirt columnist thought that those that disagree with his beliefs should have their house burnt down.


All in all you reap what you sow.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926139)

It's different to calling them deniers because that is an accurate description of their beliefs (they deny that AGW exists).

It's not different to comparing them to Nazis or that their houses should be burned down - that is simply not on.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (2)

slashbart (316113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926193)

No it's bullshit. There are many ways in which people might not believe all or some of the claims on AGW. Believe it or not, there are even climate scientists (Dr. Bas van Geel for instance) who think the current scientific majority belief (IPCC) is wrong. That does not make him a "denier", it makes him a scientist with a dissenting point of view.
Are you really so thick that you do not understand that labelling someone a 'denier' makes the angry !? Call me a skeptic, call me a maverick, call me an obstinate old fart, I don't care, but don't compare me with people that deliberately deny one of the most gruesome slaughters of all time.
So if you don't understand that using this specific label is offensive, then you are either very ignorant, or just an asshole.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (1)

moortak (1273582) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926191)

What word would you suggest in place of denial? Skeptic doesn't work, as you you don't actually react to the evidence.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (1)

slashbart (316113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926273)

Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience [nature.com] One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926457)

That doesn't seem to deny that humans are changing the environment, it just says that the sun affects the environment, and describes how. No fucking duh - I would never have guessed that the sun affects the environment. Find me some evidence that humans aren't having an impact on environment.

(It's dumb to say we have none - because EVERYTHING has an impact on environment). Even elephants have caused swathes of land to become deserts - and the middle east became a desert due to over farming. More recently (in the last 100 years), dust bowls were created in the US due to bad farming practices, causing dust storms over huge parts of the country.

Now, there are so many MORE people doing so many more things - there must be some kind of effect, it's just plain logic. Say for instance, I fired a bullet into a crowd of 20 million sheep, and one of them died. Statistically, you could say that my one bullet had no effect - but it obviously did have an effect. Now if I fired 1 bullet every second, they would be having still not much effect. But if each bullet hit a sheep, they would all be gone in 232 days.

You reap what you sow. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926061)

Left-wingers act like they are taking part in a justified war.

And a war is what they receive, by someone who considers themselves equally justified.

You don't speak for the right wingers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926419)

1. You don't speak for the right wing, only a fringe on the right wing is in denial about this. Fox New BTW has fewer viewers than the Daily Show, it's become such a niche.
2. You used the word 'war', they used the word 'warming'. Your attempt to exaggerate the rhetoric is misleading and pointless.

If you have coherent arguments that explain the warming trend and CO2 trends and the science linking the two please put forward your argument.

Wrong Questions (4, Insightful)

georgenh16 (1531259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926063)

They're going about it the wrong way.
You don't want people asking themselves why they care whether the Unabomber believed in AGW.

You want them asking the right questions:
1. Is the planet warming?
2. If yes, by a significant amount?
3. If yes, is it human caused?
4. If yes, by a significant amount? (say >=30%)
5. If yes, can we reverse it?
6. If yes, should we reverse it?
7. If yes, do the risks of not reversing it outweigh:

- taxing your breath
- crippling the world economy
- billions of people poorer, governments richer
- any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result

8. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?

There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-6 (especially if you're a good scientist/engineer with healthy skepticism), enough that there's not good reason for any politician to even look at #7.
Only 1-5 are actually science/engineering. The rest are political questions.
Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-6, and even if there wasn't, the answer to #7 is most certainly "NO".
And for #8, here I cite the Aral Sea, the tire reef, solyndra, and the recent article about wind turbines causing warming as examples of wonderful government environmental "successes".

P.S. If you're taking 1-6 as truth with zero doubt, you've got a religion.

Re:Wrong Questions (2, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926213)

LOL plenty of wrong assumptions under number 7. And you don't exhale fossil-sourced CO2. At least I don't.

And the warming around turbines is very localized. They stir up the air around them.

Fallacies are fun! (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926081)

Incidentally, I've heard that the late Mr. Bin Laden was a big enthusiast of the right to keep and bear arms...

Editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926093)

This story needs some serious editing.

The only truth is that everybody lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926099)

I am lying ...

here we go again (2)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926107)

Another opportunity for Slashdotters to pity themselves for their victimization at the hands of a global scientific conspiracy. "We've been labeled deniers," the Slashdotters will lament, "it's ad hominem!"

"In our view, these billboards just return the favor. It's how politics, I mean science and peer review, works! It's hard ball, and climate-change-anistas are big bully crybabies!"

Indeed, it's reminiscent of how Copernicus, in his deep resentment of the Catholic church, formed the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun and then set about finding evidence of his pre-determined conclusion, labeling those who disagreed "deniers," and proceeded to build "scientific consensus" by using his position to deny grant money and publication to sensible, honest researchers!

the beauty of free speech (4, Insightful)

TheKnave (879982) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926119)

is that it makes the lunatic fringe much easier to locate.

So it's ok for the left to do it, not the right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926123)

I didn't see any of you people objecting when websites like Think Progress were linking Anders Breivik to climate denial.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/climate-progress-disappears-their-own-climate-ugliness/

Hypocrisy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926131)

Hypocrisy is rampant on both sides of the debate.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/climate-progress-disappears-their-own-climate-ugliness/

The best way to further climate science and undo the damage done by many with vested interests, is to make the data and methodology transparent. Any organisation who refuses to uphold transparency and cooperation should not be taken seriously in any scientific discussions.

Let the scientific method be the standard to use and not the smoke and mirrors methods employed by charlatans.

Great Post! (1)

ggraham412 (1492023) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926133)

And now I'm going over to the Daily Kos to get my morning tech news.

Re:Great Post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926225)

Thanks for the tip! I don't know why I came in this morning thinking slashdot would have tech news. Guess I need to find some coffee now, too.

Trolls just want attention (2)

CuriousGeorge113 (47122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39926311)

The only reason they're trolling is to get some widespread attention. Regardless of the ethics, it works. People are going to see this story, go to their website, read some posts and be influenced by their message.

Usually, trolls get down-voted to (-1 Troll). In this case, however, they made the front page. Not sure how that one worked out.....

I don't quite get the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926433)

Is it that even the crazy people accept global warming, so you should too? Or that you would have to be even more crazy than these people to reject it?

I hope they didn't pay a lot to the advertising agency that came up with this campaign.

This belongs on Slashdot because...? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39926481)

Whacking on "conservative" strawmen is a classic geek activity?
Slashdot loves a good conspiracy story?
Certain editors get a hardon typing "deniers"?
All of the above?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>