The things you have to resort to when the facts are against you.

Nothing scarier than ignorance in action.

The apparent retrenchment is moderately scary itself.

http://climateconference...land.org/our-billboards/

Castro...a tyrant? Bite your tongue Brad!

He is a hero, to me, and to his people and the subjugated peoples of the world. He deserves a Nobel Prize for fighting for the rights of the citizens of corporate controlled dictators in too many countries around the world.

I cancelled my State Farm policies last week, with a detailed letter about my objections to their funding of ALEC. It felt good.

I had previously asked them to stop funding the anti-American, anti-democratic org.. But they replied, " We are only affiliated with ALEC with regard to passing better laws that will enable us to give our customers cheaper rates"... or something close to that.

I also wrote a nasty letter to the "Fatherland Institute", today.

Btw, Castro is a good guy!

It's doubtful that the Heartland Institute would be savvy enough to recall the very real instances of murder in the name of carbon orthodoxy (the murders of indigenous people in Uganda and Honduras to clear land for carbon tax credits).
The Heartland Institute's ill advised campaign may be overshadowed these days by Peter Gleick, who could only find dirt on them through fraudulent means. Recent forensic analysis of the so-called Heartland Institute policy statement indicates it was fabricated. (Both sets of climate-gate emails, however, are real).

As a friend, I say beware of the carbon orthodoxy. They are perpetuating what may be one of the most widespread gross misconceptions of our day.

A fan of Henrick Svensmark (who has nothing to do with the oil industry).

seems normal. After all, the mainstream said, just last week, last month, and over the last years, that climate change, global warming, global cooling, weather extremesists, and other such people should be eliminated from society, implying what?
weather is weather, no better no worse, just weather. Prove its manmade. With that propose a solution, but the only solution proposed is tax the end user, you and me, how is a greenback supposed to change the rain patterns? By making manmade weather, then you changed the patterns, and someone else is drier, wetter. Changing the growing of the foodstuffs, from where it was. So which one is better, manmade or natural?

FTA:

The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee.

Oh, come on Heartland. You can do better than that on the mass murderer scale, can't you? Why not throw in Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin & Attila the Hun?

My friend J.T. Waldron said @ 5

The Heartland Institute's ill advised campaign may be overshadowed these days by Peter Gleick, who could only find dirt on them through fraudulent means.

Yes, he misrepresented himself and got some docs showing Heartland was up to some pretty sleazy stuff. But you're implying that the "dirt" is somehow less dirty, because of the way Gleick uncovered it? In other words, Heartland should be applauded because they did such a nice job of otherwise keeping their dirty secret from public eyes???

Recent forensic analysis of the so-called Heartland Institute policy statement indicates it was fabricated.

You mean, a "recent forensic analysis" commissioned by Heartland Institute themselves! That's what you point to in your link, of course.

So if, let's say, Pima County Board of Elections commissioned someone to do a forensic analysis of the 2006 RTA election ballots and found "no fraud", you would accept that as proof that all was well, right?

Obviously, you wouldn't. So why are you so quick to accept Heartland's supposed "forensic analysis" here? Especially since this pattern is precisely what Heartland's brethren at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were discovered to have been planning to do to folks like me and Glenn Greenwald - literally! Their plan had been to release documents to us, and then call them forgeries!

That's what happened here with Heartland, and you are ready to accept it? Surprisingly unskeptical of you, J.T. Why?

(Both sets of climate-gate emails, however, are real).

Yes, real and, as you say, only found "through fraudulent means". They were stolen, in otherwise. More importantly, though, some 5 different independent investigations all found that there is no wrong doing revealed in any of those emails by any of the scientists who wrote them.

So, yes, they are "real". But other than that, what's your point in mentioning the emails that prove absolutely nothing (even if folks like Heartland like to claim, falsely, they show some criminal conspiracy?)

As a friend, I say beware of the carbon orthodoxy. They are perpetuating what may be one of the most widespread gross misconceptions of our day.

As a friend, I say back, beware of RW/Fossil Fuel propaganda which you seem to have fallen hard for, rather than being your usual skeptical self. If it's "one of the most widespread gross misconceptions of our day," I'll look forward to the evidence for that. In the meantime, the evidence --- virtually all of it --- seems to suggest quite the contrary.

One could have some fun with this new misological genre; for example. The parodic opportunities are vast.

"With that propose a solution, but the only solution proposed is tax the end user, you and me, how is a greenback supposed to change the rain patterns?"

Huh? The "tax" you refer to is generally known as "cap and trade", was a GOP idea proposed to replace traditional "cap and control" schemes that imposed hard limits on source pollution. Note that no "tax" is involved in "cap and control", which merely prevents "cost externalization" by polluters. So why are you here pretending no non-tax solutions exist when the "tax" you criticize was specifically intended to replace a non-tax solution?

Your last question makes no sense at all, though perhaps you consider it very "deep." In any case, you are basically coming here playing the phony "I'm so ignorant, won't someone please explain things to me?" game. Rest assured that to the extent humans learn how weather patterns work, there will be an intervention that (a) can be measured in greenbacks and (b) have some level of measurable effectiveness. Cloud-seeding is just one example that should be at the top of your mind, and that of anyone else with more than a passing knowledge of weather modification science. Hence the conclusion your question was not intended in good faith.

"Yes, the sociopathic liars and serial propagandists at the rightwing Heartland Institute ..."

Finally someone is telling it like it is. Thanks Brad.

Yo, Brad. I still didn't get a response to our last exchange concerning CAGW. It speaks to why the climate-gate emails are so important. As stated before, I don't need anybody telling me what I should think about the two batches of Climate-gate emails. I'll would prefer to read them myself.

Also, it seems that you might be confused about what happened with "Fake-gate". Gleick admits to using fraudulent means to acquire the emails. When there wasn't enough dirt in the emails, somehow a "policy paper" appeared from nowhere. Gleick cannot admit that the paper is his work because he would be criminally liable. It's bad enough that he had to admit to lying to get the emails. The lack of authenticity of the "policy paper" was established from the beginning. That's the running joke. How pathetic that someone would have to fabricate a policy statement in an attempt to discredit an industry-funded nonprofit.

The forensic examination commissioned by the Heartland Institute gathered evidence in the hopes of identifying who fabricated the policy paper. They are closer to implicating Gleick, which was the purpose of the examination they had commissioned. An ancillary outcome of the examination is that it reaffirms that the paper was indeed a fabrication, but that part of it certainly wasn't needed. The recent examination is news, so I linked to it for what it obviously shows as an ancillary outcome of the examination.

That said, the Heartland Institute took a lovely swan dive from the high ground they recently occupied so they can dabble in ads with serial killers. Dumb.

Back to your analogy:

"So if, let's say, Pima County Board of Elections commissioned someone to do a forensic analysis of the 2006 RTA election ballots and found "no fraud", you would accept that as proof that all was well, right?"

I would be skeptical of what Pima County's vendor would conclude. Definitely. For example, Pima County had such a powerful influence over the I-Beta report, it's conclusions are suspect. It basically says that the software is extremely easy to manipulate and it looks like files were deleted in a manner that is consistent with fraud. However, because the software is so easy to manipulate, a knowledgeable computer operator that intends to cheat would cover his tracks.

In other words, the conclusion is that whomever cheated wouldn't be stupid enough not to cover his tracks. Knowing the circumstances and person involved, I would be suspicious of such a conclusion.

I would agree, however, with the ancillary points provided to arrive at such a stupid conclusion:

The software makes it easy to cheat.

Files were deleted in a manner consistent with fraud.

I would agree with those two points even if the county had a hand in the I-Beta report. See what I mean?

Now let's look at your last statement:

"As a friend, I say back, beware of RW/Fossil Fuel propaganda which you seem to have fallen hard for, rather than being your usual skeptical self. If it's "one of the most widespread gross misconceptions of our day," I'll look forward to the evidence for that. In the meantime, the evidence --- virtually all of it --- seems to suggest quite the contrary."

First, it's insulting to state that I would somehow fall victim to such a phony paradigm. I know damn well when some industry-funded non-profit with an axe to grind is bullshitting me. To clarify, I used to accept the idea that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, until I started asking questions. Guess which side comes up short?

Probably the side that never truly bothered to examine dissenting positions, the treatment of dissenting positions, the subversion of the peer review process, the objective of a carbon credit system, what the most accurate meteorologists observe for their predictions, the 'consensus' of meteorologists and their behavior once predictions go south.

For example, I mention Henrick Svenson, the CLOUD/CERN studies, a list of specific factors declared unknown by IPCC scientists, the refusal to provide data for peer review, and a number of other things that simply never get addressed.

Instead, I get a blanket declaration like, "In the meantime, the evidence ---virtually all of it --- seems to suggest quite the contrary."

That statement suggests something all by itself.

Hmm, yet another place where you'll probably want to disallow the use of HTML tags: the Name field! (Thanks for the heads-up, mememine69.)

The tactic of associating a belief with unpopular people has been done before by Rick Berman, of Berman and Associates, when his org Center for Union Facts has associated union leaders with Stalin and Mao Zhadong. Those ads were against the 'card check' procedure to authorize a union-creating election per Employee Free Choice Act. I wonder if Berman and Associates created those Heartland Institute billboards because the comparison tactic was the same.