John Whitman reminded me of the upcoming “The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago from May 21 – May 23.” conference. Skeptical pointed me to the convenient media registration page:
http://climateconference.heartland.org/media-registration/
Seems we can get in free, but food is on us. That seems fair enough. Plus, if I pay for my own food, I won’t have people suggesting my views were distorted because I ate a sandwich or drank a glass of red wine.
I filled out the form and got an instant response by email.
Especially because food is not free, the conference presents us with the opportunity to organize bloggers lunches or after conference drinks. Maybe we could look at the schedule and find some time on Sunday (pre-conference) or Monday or Tuesday climate blog addicts’ get together.
Is anyone in the Chicago area interested in meeting up? How about people flying in? Let’s discuss this, and see if we can schedule a convenient time and place to meet. While we are at it, maybe some people could even commute together either by Metra or driving.
Heck, if we get a big enough group and maybe, we can persuade someone from Heartland to stop by. That said, based on last time, the Heartland staff are all busier than one armed paper hangers during these things. But who knows? Maybe we can get someone.
Lucy,
Great idea to socialize a little.
I will arrive at my hotel in downtown Chicago well before 3 pm on Sunday May 20. My hotel is about a 1.5 mi walk from the Chicago Hilton where the ICCC-7 is located.
Currently I am open on Sunday evening for drinks and/or snacks and/or dinner as long as it is within a reasonable walking distance from the conference area.
I am also currently available for drinks after the ICCC-7 dinners on Monday May 21 and Tuesday May 22.
John
John–
My preference is to take the Metra. That way I can have a drink. I prefer not to drive after having a beer or wine.
I would take the Metra in and then either walk or find a bus:
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Hilton+Chicago+Hotel,+720+South+Michigan+Avenue&fb=1&gl=us&hq=Hilton+Chicago+Hotel,+720+South+Michigan+Avenue&cid=0,0,21924076017277857&ei=ctyaT-71FYKk9ATHtZ2kDw&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ_BIwAA
It’s a 1.9 mile walk according to google– but it wouldn’t let me create a map that let me walk “wrong” direction down one way streets.
When taking the Metra, it’s nice to have limit things to day time or early evening. This is mostly due to the train schedule — there are long waits between trains at late hours. So drinks after the ICCC-7 dinners which end at 8pm won’t be convenient for me. But Sunday afternoon is good.
On the tentative schedule, “http://climateconference.heartland.org/schedule/” they show book signing cash bar at 4-5:30 pm on Monday and Tuesday. That might actually be the time and place to collect together– and we could gather at the Hilton and just have drinks there. Last time this was a crowd though– so we need to plan ahead. Maybe we all need to wear buttons or hats.
The conference lunch is over at 1:30 om on Wed. ( I guess I got the full dates wrong.) If people don’t fly out in a hurry, that makes Wed. afternoon possible for some people to meet for a drink. (Obviously, people who ate the conference lunch aren’t going to want to eat!)
The Hilton this is near all the museums and the parks, if the weather is nice we might even plan something outdoors. There is all kinds of stuff very nearby.
Maybe I need to find some sort of “schedule” software that will let different people put their time preferences. (Or exclude times they can’t come.) It would be nice to get at least 6! 😉
lucia, I’m not sure if you realize it, but the response you posted contains an address and phone number. You might want to consider blacking those out.
Brandon– I didn’t really think about it. With a relatively rare last name and a listing a white pages listing I usually don’t worry about that. But I blotted it out. Thanks.
No problem. I figured it might not be something you’d worry about posting, but I’d rather bring up a concern and be told it isn’t an issue than remain silent and risk having problems arise.
Lucia et al,
I had not thought about the period immediately after ICCC-7 adjourns on Wed May 23 @ about 1:30 pm. That is also currently a good time for me since my flight back to New York does not leave until ~8 pm.
If socializing interest does develop further by others then I will go with whatever decision on day/time/place.
John
Lucia – bit of a typo in the Headline.
I wonder if any consensus types are going to show up at the conference this year. HI should allot a significant amount of speaking time to the prominent purveyors of doom and with fanfare invite Gore, Mann, Jones, Gleicky, et al to drop in and regale/chastise the attendees. Those who do not show up to speak should be represented in their time slot at the speakers podium by a cardboard cutout. It would also be interesting to have a debate, between prominent skeptics and the cardboard cutouts.
Lucia, you could take the Gleick cutout home on the Metra to ward off muggers.
Don–
I would be surprised if Gore,Mann, Jones or Gleick showed up.
lucia,
I am sure they wouldn’t show up. The cardboard cutouts are to emphasize their absence.
Something tells me that few if any prominent proponents of the “consensus” side are likely to show.
That doesn’t, of course, mean no advocates for that side are likely to show. But if it’s a big name, there is very little chance.
Can anyone figure out where they’ve archived the old conferences (ie the presentations and videos) now? It used to be you could find them pretty easily, but now I can’t.
BTW hi, yeah people I’m back.
BLAGH. I just saw the “Past Conferences” link. How did I miss that?
test
Read you load & clear – John
Test cookie requirement. 🙂
People who study and publish on actual global warming science aren’t welcome at Heartland.
Heartland has paid to put billboards up in Chicago comparing these scientists to mass-murderers and terrorists. The astonishing thing is that Lucia has condemned this kind of comparison by commenters at The Blackboard, yet she promotes an organization that carries out a systemic paid campaign of defamation using the same disgusting methods.
(submitted on Friday May 4th at 11:04 AM Chicago time)
Here is the link to the Heartland Institute announcement of their International Conference on Climate Change featuring the Unabomber.
“These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about how man-made global warming is a crisis and how mankind must take immediate and drastic actions to stop it.”
Seems completely reasonable to me.
Andrew
Paul K2–
They are welcome by the hosts though I’m sure they would find most lunch, dinner etc. companions would disagree with their views. That’s not always fun– but it’s not the same as being unwelcome.
With respect to your strange comment: That you would get upset about a decision I made in April because it was not affected by a billboard that appeared in May shows us either a) you think I am psychic or b) you have poor reasoning abilities. I lean toward ‘b’.
But now on to the billboard itself. Is it defamation? I think not. Should it change my mind about attending the upcoming meeting? No. For one thing, notwithstanding your use of the word “promoting”, attending is not the same as promoting. Your conflating the two is just another bit of evidence of your poor reasoning abilities.
Of the billboards you write:
That billboard doesn’t compare anyone to a mass-murderer or terrorist. What it does is show that a particular mass-murderer happened to believe in global warming. The latter is stupid, and distasteful but that doesn’t magically transform it into the former. These are two different things.
I think the fact the unibomber believed in global warming tells us nothing no more about the merits of believing in global warming than the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian tells us anything about being a vegetarian. But pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian is not comparing vegetarians to Hitler nor is it accusing vegetarians of committing genocide nor being Nazi’s.
On what I condemn: I do comment on Monckton’s directly calling people Nazi’s or Hitler youth. I think people should know he does so– and it seems he used to do so with some regularity. I comment on Hansen’s Nazi allusions too. But if Monckton or Hansen merely went around saying Hitler believed (or disbelieved) in global warming, I’d say “so? That’s a stupid argument.” It’s not the same as accusing those who happen to share this particular view with Hitler of being Nazis.
My opinion of the billboards which appeared yesterday and which I learned of today: They are really, really stupid. They may be one of the dumbest pr moves by Heartland ever. They are distasteful. But they don’t actually defame anyone. They don’t compare climate scientists to mass murders– at least not as far as I can see.
But even if they did do what you claim, that would be no reason for me to decide to not hop on the train and stop by to listen to what’s up at the meeting nor are they reason not to use it as an opportunity to meet up with others who are visiting Chicago as a result of that event.
I’m still going to hop on the train and attend the meeting– which I can do at no cost to me. I’ll do this even if you entertain the truly weird idea my merely attending — forking over $0 to Heartland– including telling people I am willing to pay $0 to attend– is “promoting” the meeting and that I shouldn’t be doing that because Heartland put up some distasteful billboards.
If I see Jim Lakely, which I have not prearranged but I suspect will happen, I’ll tell him I think they are distasteful. Just the same as I told Chris Horner that I thought Cucci acting as DA was wrong and just as I disagreed with the junk science guy. I see no reason why I cant do these things just because it bothers you to think my being at the meeting causes…. heaven knows what(!) to happen.
Oh– I’m going because want to see Donna too. I like Donna!
Geez…those Heartland billboards are just about as stupid as the exploding deniers video from a couple years ago.
lol Heartland.
My comment got eaten.
“That billboard doesn’t compare anyone to a mass-murderer or terrorist.”
On the other hand their official press release says the following:
“The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”
dhogaza— which is to say the official press release communicates the idea the scientists and ‘murderers, tyrants and madmen’ are in two distinct groups. In other words: the scientist are not “murderers, tyrants or madmen.”
Boris–Yes. It is as stupid as the exploding people or the falling polar bears.
“They don’t compare climate scientists to mass murders– at least not as far as I can see. ”
If Lucia had read what the Heartland writes she would have seen:
“Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants.”
It’s really a new moral low, let’s not get involved in this hatefull campaign.
Achab–
Not to ask a rhetorical question, but… who’s “getting involved” with it? I’m not “involved” with it. It’s a silly distasteful campaign and I’ll happily tell Jim Lakely my opinion.
“The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen”
http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
Lucia , you can spin this anyway you like but it is what it is. You’re laying down with dogs and getting more and more fleas.
Boris,
“Geez…those Heartland billboards are just about as stupid as the exploding deniers video from a couple years ago.”
Well, both efforts are very stupid and both in very bad taste. And for sure both will end up being regretted by most involved. But I think a video that purports to show kids being blown up (and smattering their classmates with the disintegrated remains) is still the champion of stupid and tasteless. Groups of dedicated like minded people, working together towards a common goal, are incapable of critical (or even fully rational) thinking. Happens everywhere… group-think runs out of control and the results are consistently terrible. T’was always so…. t’will always be.
From Louise’s link “We don’t think you should “believe†anyone. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions.”
Clearly they’re the madmen!
(If you’re an advocate you have no choice about what you are to believe. What you are to parrot is written down for you.)
(And yes, that bit was over the top but not as silly as the button that blows up children who question CAGW.)
No pressure.
“We don’t think you should “believe†anyone. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions.”
That’s just what the Alti-medicine crowd says.
Lucia,
My comments seem to disappear for many hours. Am I in moderation? Whatever it was I didn’t do it and I won’t do it again. 😉
Lucia sorry to say that people going to their conference do not consider Heartland’s hateful methods as they should. I’m old enough to remember the debate on the academic boycott of South Africa which divided the academic community. I think this kind of actions need to be taken whenever a person, organization, nation or whatever fall so low.
People should refuse to have anything to do with them, unless they share the same feelings.
Boris:
Thanks for another example—not all mainstream medicine ideas are correct, indeed some of them are very far from being right, and the recommendations are based on ideas that have nothing to do with your personal best interests.
But if you like being a sheep Boris, baa back to you.
Of course this general concept of being critical and learning to think for yourself and making conclusions based on objective rather than anecdote, is just what I was taught in physics as an undergraduate too.
Achab, I lived through the SA boycott as an American, and my impression is it was a complete flop.
“We don’t think you should “believe†anyone. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions.â€
Ladies and Gentlemen: the tobacco lobby.
tobacco_papers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfVbBBmZJ9A
Carrick
maybe, but that’s not the point. One should do the right thing anyway.
“The Heartland Institute has pulled its global warming billboard”
Too late, I’d say.
First, let me say Heartland goofed big time with that ad.
It was both wrong and stupid.
Now, I wonder what one would find if one were to google the words: Breivik climate skeptic
If I had time, I’m sure I could read through all those hits and find the steaming outrage from Boris, Louise, dhogaza, Nick Stokes…
I’m sure I could.
Achab
Heartlands methods in general are no worse than the Jim Hansen’s and the billboards are no worse than the stupid “no pressure” video. If either were hosting events within a metra ride away and I could attend at no cost, I’d go. I know some of my readers might complain just as you are complaining, but I wouldn’t see anything wrong with going.
Of course. And there is nothing wrong with going to the Heartland conference.
the fact that the “exploding kids” video is still available on Youtube is a little disconcerting. Does this mean that the CAGW folk still stand by the message of this propaganda stunt?
On the other hand, Ross McKitrick has suggested to Heartland to take down the billboards…and (horror!), Steve McIntyre is on record to support him.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/04/mckitrick-letter-to-heartland/
Carrick–
Do you remember the grape boycott? My family didn’t eat grapes. On the other hand, we didn’t eat grapes before or after the boycott either. I suspect my mom doesn’t really like grapes.
Achab–By the way, I’m glad the pulled the billboards. They were stupid– just like the this
Does any one know which of these of these messages were pulled faster?
SteveF–
Your comments should have appeared now. They just got trapped in the spam bin. I don’t know why.
“Ladies and Gentlemen: the tobacco lobby.”
Baaaaa.
Achab:
That’s the rub. How do you know what is “the right thing”?
Is it the thing that makes you feel good in your tummy (to paraphrase Gregory House) or is it the thing that helps the most people?
Constructive engagement was far more successful than the unsuccessful isolationist policies that preceded it. Yes I know, it’s a favorite meme among certain groups (who had a lot riding that their previous failed policies hadn’t in fact failed) that it did not succeed, but I think these people are blind to history and to the reality of the social dynamics involved. On my reading list.
An example of an unethical practice is purchasing oil from a dictator with the full knowledge that the proceeds are going to prop this dictator up (plenty of examples of that!). US policy in South Africa prior to Carter was abysmal, and he did the “right thing” in recognizing that the economic relationship that existed at that time was in effect propping up the SA system of government. I just think his choice for how to change it was wrong.
Boris:
Actually that’s another great example. It raises the question of many people were actually fooled by the tobacco lobby? How many people who bought a pack of cigarettes with the surgeon general’s warning label on them really in their heart of hearts actually thought that warning label was nonsense?
The research was available to me as a teenager, and I was quite well aware of how dangerous that stuff is, and have never even experimented with that crap (nor that funny smelling tobacco, nor any home chemistry laboratory product, etc).
I don’t think you have an understanding of how denial campaigns work. You just have to get enough sciency sounding stuff so people believe what they already want to believe. It’s lawyering. All they have to do is create the appearance of reasonable doubt.
Like, somebody was mean in an email once, therefore CO2 won’t be a problem.
Boris, you actually think there is anybody now who still doesn’t believe that cigarettes do harm but still smokes? Well after the end of the tobacco disinformation campaign?
I’d say that kind of knocks a couple of giant holes in your social theory.
(I’d say the vast majority of people who were smoking during the campaign did so with full knowledge it was harming them.)
The problem for CAGW’ers is the science isn’t there yet, most of you guys at least admit to that truth. Even bugs admits to it.
The problem is the facts themselves don’t withstand anything more than a cursory examination, and anybody who does look critically at you guys spiels just “isn’t helping” or is a “shill for the oil industry funded disinformation campaign” or some other nonsense.
It couldn’t be the case just isn’t there (yet if ever).
Well, a lot of indignant little hypocrites have crawled out of the woodwork today. Got any Roach Motels, lucia?
RE Louise (Comment #95160)
May 4th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
“The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmenâ€
http://climateconference.heart…..illboards/
Louise, I didn’t see that one, but I did see following paragraph:
‘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.’
I hope the Heartland folks treat Lucia well even if they suspect she is “more than a little nutty” and also capable of “frightening behavior.”
dehogza, or should i say, don Baccus, nice of you to drop by
Steven,
Doghozer is one of their shock troops. Whoever monitors this blog for RC was quick to alert HQ to the opportunity to hang HI around lucia’s neck. They are pathetic little hypocrites.
“Don Monfort (Comment #95194)
May 4th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Steven,
Doghozer is one of their shock troops. Whoever monitors this blog for RC was quick to alert HQ to the opportunity to hang HI around lucia’s neck. They are pathetic little hypocrites.”
Are you really claiming RC was behind DHogoza post? Because you would be fool if you did.
Are you serious, bugsy? Everybody knows where you little warmista automatons get your marching orders. We all have read the books about Climategate, where it’s well documented that the leaked emails reveal how the cabal operates. Mosher knows who doghozer is. So do I:
http://www.pof.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=24245280
He has two roses left, and a car. I would suggest a haircut.
Thanks for the publicity, bugsy.
Lucia
Why are you justifying yourself to somebody who believes he has the right to tell you what you should do in your own time?Are you so cowed that you cannot tell him to mind his own business?I understand where Monckton is coming from when he calls certain people nazis.He is not accusing them of wanting to kill millions of people,he is accusing them of thinking they have the right to tell you what meetings you should attend.Who you should listen to,what car you should drive,what you can smoke,what you can say,what you can drink.how you should parent,where you take your holidays,what house you should build,actually did the Nazis do all that?On second thoughts Monckton needs to come up with a new comparison,maybe back centuries when the King of England ruled,and every citizen was his subject?
I utterly disapprove of Monckton when he does calls people who are not Nazis Nazis. I think he is a piece of work.
Achab is trying to tell me what meetings to attend and I do not respond by calling him a Nazi. Responding by calling him a Nazi would be idiotic, nasty, and stupid on my part. Moreover, it would be unclear. It’s clearer to simply explain that it is not wrong to go to the meeting. I can perfectly well go to a meeting even if I do not entirely agree with everything everyone says at the meeting. I could go listen to Hansen who uses Nazi allusions too. I don’t think this would be wrong.
I do call Nazis Nazis. The Nazi party existed in Illinois in the 70s and may still exist. Membership was very very small. But I would call those people Nazis.
I’m sure there are some people who smoke and don’t think it will harm them. People believe all kinds of dumb things when it is convenient.
Probably not. Tobacco companies spent millions and millions on disinformation and they did for a (business) reason. I must say I didn’t expect you to defend the tobacco companies’ disinformation. You are full of surprises.
I’m not sure what “not there yet” means. Obviously, high climate sensitivities have not been proven or excluded.
No one cares if someone looks critically at climate science. And in fact the vast majority of scientists who have looked carefully agree with the consensus position. Digging through emails and harping on single papers and dendro series is not exactly “looking critically.” It’s looking for a weak spot to exploit rhetorically. This is done so people can wave their hands and say the science is “not there yet” without having to actually show their work.
Don-
I’d like to hear more about the cabal, please.
Boris:
If you think that’s what I was doing, then you are as dumb as those people who you think believe tobacco won’t harm them. Actually I think you aren’t being intellectually honest now, since being honest means “you lose”.
There are plenty of counter examples to that, which you can find for yourself. No doubt you are already aware of examples and are just being dishonest here, again because being honest means “you lose”.
What is this “consensus position” of which you speak? High sensitivity requiring immediate, draconian action? Or something else?
If it’s that the Earth is warming, and since 1970, a substantial portion of that warming has come from human activity, then “so what.”
Then you don’t even know what critical thinking means. Apparently anything that “doesn’t help” in Boris’s universe isn’t critical thinking.
All I’m going to say on this. Bye.
Lucia
I find it really discomforting seeing you quote the “no pressure” video. Then what? Should the Heartland feel free to use the same tactics? That was a horrible video too and we all (including many scientists and “CAGW” supporters) rigthly complained. Both videos are not just wrong or bad PR, they’re despicable. The same reasoning applies to your comparison between Heartland and Hansen, I refuse the logic that if my enemy does unacceptable things I’ll respond doing the same. There’s a lot of room between the extremists on the two sides, we’d better stay there.
Having said this, I think you’re being a bit naive in thinking that the participation at the conference doesn’t matter. The success of a conference is measured, among other things, by the number of people attending it and the prominence of the speakers. I don’t think that the Heartland deserves any support, not now at the very least.
Carrick
“How do you know what is “the right thingâ€?
No one knows but still taking no decision isn’t an option. We should try our best and be guided by ethics, it might be useless, as you pointed out, but seldom wrong.
Achab
You seemed to suggest that I should not go to the Heartland conference because they ran distasteful billboard. I am responding by telling you I would go to a conference by the 10:10 people or Hansen even though they did something equally bad– and reminding you of what it is they did.
No. Neither should use these tactics. But that both do is no reason to sit at home and remain uninformed refusing to listen to presentations or read what they write. You may like the fictional purity of being a cloistered monk, but I have no plans to join that sort of group.
I made no such suggestion and I am appalled that you would try the tactic of putting such a suggestion in my mouth and then counter arguing it. This sort of behavior on your part should surely be below someone who claims the level of purity you seem to be insisting on.
Once could claim the success of the 10:10 video is measured, among other things by the number of people who dowloaded. And yet I linked it. And I don’t think it is wrong to do so.
Likewise, I do not think there is anything wrong in taking the train the the conference, attending and listening to presentations.
The difficulty is you have odd notions about what is and is not ethical. Maybe if you had a broader grasp of the world and got out of the cloistered nunnery you could develop more robust ethical views.
Lucia I demand that you do not attend any meetings where the climategate e-mail writers are.They have proved themselves below you,they even cheered the death of a sceptic,how can you associate with liars and tricksters?
Achab
Where is the ethics amongst climate scientists?
Lucia – I am quite content for you to carry on doing just as you please. 🙂
Lucia
your reply looks a bit aggressive and I apologize if you feel that my comment was intended to attack you or your choice to attend the conference. I was only expressing my disagreement and the reasons for it. We essentially agree on the videos, disagreement being only on the participation at the conference. Yet, you dismiss my concerns right away as poor grasp of the world for me living in a cloistered nunnery.
I’m afraid that extremism tends to dominate the blogsphere, a manichean view that there exist only allies and enemies in the furor of the battle and not the complexity of reality. As a consequence, any honest discussion turns out to be impossible or unreliable.
Anyway, rest assured that I do not plan “to sit at home and remain uninformed refusing to listen to presentations or read what they write.” Luckly, there are other options than physically going to this one conference, your presumption on my intentions really stands on nothing.
Noelene
I’m sure we agree that the lack of ethics on one side is no justification whatsoever.
Anteros @ 95210
We wish she wouldn’t
Stub her foot,
Unless, of course,
It do her please.
===========
You are certainly minimizing the damage the disinformation campaign caused:
No big deal. Sure the tobacco companies lied and were dishonest, but based on your hunch, this didn’t affect many people, so it’s really not something we should worry about.
Meanwhile Michael Mann didn’t write a paper the way you would have, so all of climate science is therefore corrupted. Interesting worldview you’ve got going there.
Achab–
I don’t think my reply was aggressive. But you wish to turn the discussion to ethics and impugn my choices based on ethics. If you wish to discuss ethics, I am glad to do so.
Only expressing your disagreement? No. You used the word “ethics” and phrases like “the right thing” and brought up examples like South Africa. You are impugning the ethics of others.
Yet, you dismiss my concerns right away as poor grasp of the world for me living in a cloistered nunnery.
No.
1) Criticized you for putting an argument I did not make into my mouth
2) Criticized you for making silly argments about ethics
and
3) I responded to your statement that
I think the notion that I should not attend because someone somewhere might think the measure of success is the number of people attending is not a valid reason not to attend. I pointed out that the similar notion that the measure of success of the 10:10 video might be number of downloads is no reason not to view it, post it or discuss it.
In fact, if we are to return to the topics of “what is right” (which you introduced) or what is ethical (which you introduced) I would say that it is positively unethical to take the position that one should cloister one away from things merely because one objects to something. I think ethics require us to expose ourselves to these things and discuss them.
On the ‘other options’, I say “Bunk.” Your sentence discussion “options” manages to leave out to achieve X.
We are discussing learning about what is presented by the people who put on this conference. If one wants to learn the dynamic of these conferences there is no better option than physically going. The next best option is to read broadly reported unbiased reports from people who do go. In either case, someone must go.
In this case: I am going.
(Quite honestly, I have no idea how you think people might learn what happens at these meeting if they don’t go and will only try to “learn” what they are like by having discussions with other people who also don’t go. Maybe you think you can create knowledge by collecting together a whole bunch of people who don’t know and sitting around speculating? I’m not going to try to guess, because you are going to have to enlighten me on this. Maybe you plan to plant secret cameras on flies who will film everything. Seriously, if you know a better option to learn what goes on at this meeting rather than going, you’ll have to tell me what it is rather than merely insist better options exist.)
But I have another comment on this:
What presumption about your intention?
I have responded to your telling me I should not go and your rather high handed elevation attempts to invoke “ethics” &etc. This is responding to what you are telling me to do and your manner or attempting persuasion. I am making no guess about your intention.
I do assume you are not going to this conference. For one thing, your IP suggests it would be a long flight. Since you lecture me about going and provide some (very stupid) reasons why I should go, I do presume you would not go if this conference was held on the continent where you appear to reside. Am I incorrect in believing you do not intend to go to the meeting? Or that you intend to persuade me not to go? If not, what, precisely do you think I presumed that was incorrect?
Don’t pretend that you don’t know what I am talking about, borish. We all can see that every predictably inane comment you scribble comes straight from the dogeared pages of your Catastrophic Climate Consensus Agitprop Handbook. You also get a weekly newsletter with your membership, and phone/email alerts with the latest talking points.
You have been spoofed, ahab. The Heartland Inst’s Unibomber billboard is a very clever parody of the desperate PR campaign that is being waged by the child exploders of the Catastrophic Climate Consensus Cabal. (I think Mosher helped hatch the plan.)
HI wanted to smoke out the hypocritical self-righteous indignant whiners, who applaud such foolishness if it is done to promote the cause. Just subtract the participants who were on this thread a couple of days ago from the current cast of characters, and you will know who the hypocritical whiners are here.
Don–
I don’t think the Unibomber campaign was intended as a parody. If it was intended as a parody, it was still a big mistake and in poor taste. There is no way for anyone driving along the highway to know they are encountering a parody.
lucia (Comment #95153),
Donna’s not going anymore….
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
Skeptical–
On the one hand, I’m disappointed I won’t get to see her again. But I can see why an invited, highlighted speaker would change their mind based on that campaign.
I’m still going to attend as a blogger. I’ll take my camera.
If attendance is lower, I’ll probably get to buttonhole people and ask them questions. Last time I promised to ask Lindsen things– but once the meeting was underway it was impossible to talk to him. (I didn’t even get to ask him things my husband wanted to talk about. In fact, I told him I wanted to ask him about ARM and he visibly brightened– saying he was happy to get a unique question. But then he was immediately whisked away by someone with a camera who had made an appointment! Drat!)
In the end, is Ross going?
I think it’s easy to go overboard in judging something like the HI billboard. A much more useful perspective is to ask if it’s done any good – has it had a positive result (from HI’s point of view)?
Reading Donna’s reaction – among others – it’s fair to say the result has been a disaster. As Judy Curry has said – a comprehensive grasping of the moral lowground.
It reminds me of the point about using the term ‘denier’ (h/t to Mosher) – forget whether it is offensive or justified – does it provide a positive result (for the worriers about AGW)? The answer seems to me to be ‘no’. By and large it annoys, motivates and persuades relatively neutral people into active scepticism, because they feel they’re being harangued by fundamentalist extremists.
Which of course, they are 🙂
It’s difficult to see how anything about the result could be positive.
My differences with Paul_K and Achab are related to
1) Mistating what the campaign actually did or claimed and
2) what they seem to be insisting I do
3) statements about whether certain things are or are not “right”
4) in Paul case seeming to think my decision in April should have been informed by an event that happened later in May,
5) mis-characterization of mere attendance to hear what is presented with support or promotion of an event.
The billboard itself was distasteful and stupid which I said in my first comment– written immediately after I first learned of the billboard.
Why HI didn’t pass that around to a few external people is beyond me.
Lucia – I agree with you entirely. And FWIW I think Donna is in a slightly different position.
I think your final point is a good one – why the hell didn’t they check out a neutral reaction to an obviously extreme ad? The 10:10 people could have been asked the same question of course..
It seems to me that now – from a purely PR point of view – would be a good time to ‘fess up and say ‘Oops, we made a misjudgement, and we apologise’.
I don’t think the ad would have stopped me going (especially if I’d bought a non-refundable ticket from Heathrow 🙂 ), and look forward to reading your posts about the conference.
Lucia
you went way beyond what I actually wrote trying to polarize the discussion and push me on one side. There’s no basis in thinking that I tried to lecture you just because I said I wouldn’t go to that conference for whatever reason. Others (yes, speakers) withdrew. Read, for example, what Ross McKitrick wrote. Probably he’s better than me at expressing these thoughts and maybe you’ll find my position less weird.
The Heartland decided to show the billboard on the conference web site, thus linking the two; participation, in my view, isn’t irrelevant. You probably noticed that I’m looking at both extremisms. At the risk of being accused again of lecturing you, I wouldn’t go to a conference organized by either 10-10 or Heartland if it is in some way linked to a hateful campaign. You would go to both. It’s a personal choice, mine would be different, neither is stupid.
To summarize my impressions on this failed discussion, I think that you overreacted to a disagreement, maybe presuming some hidden bad intentions on my part. This killed the discussion altogether.
Here my answers to your final questions. I already tried to clarify these same points as much as I could, but I’ll give it a second try.
“Am I incorrect in believing you do not intend to go to the meeting?”
I’m not a climatologist and do not attend climate conferences of any kind. That I’m from a different continent is irrelevant to the issue at hand, I was making a more general point on the relations with what I consider extremist organizations or even single campaign.
“Or that you intend to persuade me not to go?”
Definitely incorrect. Something I can’t see may have convinced you of the contrary but you’re wrong.
“If not, what, precisely do you think I presumed that was incorrect?”
several things, indeed. For example that I intended to persuade you, that I wanted to show some kind of purity, that I need to develop more robust ethical views, etc. As said above, maybe you presumed bad intentions on my part.
Hi Lucia
Well, I’ll try and persuade you not to go. Or at least to pressure Heartland to apologize. Please? I think that what they did was worse than wrong–it was stupid.
However, if you do go, please take good notes.
Always stupid to plant seeds of insight and nourish the process of thought. Wrong, too; what could they have been thinking?
=====================
To whom should they apologize, the dead, or the dying? Oh, you mean to moral poobahs. I get it, now.
====================
thomaswfuller2:
I don’t get why people would try to convince others not to attend this conference. If I could attend a conference on a subject I was interested in for free, I would. I wouldn’t much care who was hosting it, what their views were, or how they behaved (short of them doing illegal things). Attending something doesn’t imply anything about how one views it.
I’ve gone to churches to hear anti-homosexuality sermons, just to better understand perspectives. I’ve attended primary debates for both Republicans and Democrats (state level, not national). I’ve even gone to a rally hosted by the KKK. Exposing myself to these things doesn’t mean I agree with anything said at them. It just means I wanted to hear what people had to say.
Of course, I get why someone would cancel/not accept a speaking opportunity at a conference like this. That makes one a participant, not a witness. You can be a participant without indicating any agreement/support, but it’s harder to do. And in someone like Donna’s case, there is a personal slight to discourage participation as well.
Achab–
I disagree. I think you are not looking at what you wrote and seeing what it communicates.
I agree it is a personal choice. But while you may now be saying only you would make a different personal choice, in a comment addressed to me, you previously wrote
Saying “People should refuse to have anything to do with them” hardly communicates “It’s a personal choice”. That an allusion to South Africa is wedged in there? Sorry, but takes it even further from communicating “a valid personal choice”.
“You stuck with your boycott of South Africa allusion when Carrick pressed you on that — and you escalated the notion that yours is the ethical position with “do the right thing anyway.”
If you think anything you wrote communicate the notion that my going was a valid personal choice, I respectfully disagree.
I didn’t ascribe bad intentions to you. I am saying that you what you are now saying– that my decision to go is a personal choice– is hardly what you communicated before.
What I see that convinced that you intend to persuade me not to go are these statements which I will quote:
and later this
Conveyed the notion that you think no one should go– and that would include me.
First, I still believe you were trying to convince me not to go. And I think the quotes above demonstrate that not withstanding your current protestations, you were trying to tell me it was wrong for anyone to go. I think you were trying to convince me that your position is based on ethics– your use of words like “moral” and “ethical” and invoking South Africa are still in the thread above.
Second: I still don’t have any idea what bad intention you think presumed. Do you think trying to convince me that I should not go be a bad intention? I wouldn’t have considered your trying to persuade me to your view a bad intention. I would have considered that your presenting your position and trying to persuade. Even if I disagree with your view, position or argument, I consider trying to persuade people to ones view a good thing. So, I’m just utterly puzzled about what bad intention you think I presumed on your part.
Third: if that you wish to accuse people of being naive for not seeing things your way (as you did) and you provide arguments for why they should do so with words and phrases like “ethics”, “morals”, and “do the right thing anyway.” while also introducing the idea of a position on South Africa into the conversation, you will certainly create the impression that you are trying to “show some kind of purity” for either yourself or your position. If you do not see this, I guess you won’t.
But I think your failure to see that merely waving around South Africa and claims about doing the right thing is not trying to “”show some kind of purity” some is precisely evidence that you lack a robust framework from which to make ethical judgements!
FWIW, now that you are claiming you are not trying to persuade me not to go, I am mystified by this:
As it happened, I thought you were trying to make a more general point. But now, I’m wondering: What, precisely, was your “more general point”? I sure got the notion that it was something like “People should refuse to have anything to do with them,” stated in the context of a discussion about whether or not I should go to the meeting (where, clearly, I would have something to do with them. I would listen to presentations.)
So if you were not trying to convince me (or others reading here) that one ought to have nothing to do with Heartland, what is the general point you are trying to make? If you are concerned that you are being misunderstood, maybe you could just state what your point is.
On the positive: I think we agree the billboard was distasteful and stupid. As for other things, I have no idea. If you have a general point you wish to make, feel free to make it directly.
lucia,
You seem to always take me so seriously. I don’t know whether to be flattered, or something else 🙂
I also think it was utterly stupid. As for convincing them to apologize– I don’t think I have that much pull. Also, I don’t think my saying I’m not going would induce them. But if I go, I might be able to get 5 minutes with one of them and explain that it was a really dumb move. But honestly, I doubt I will have the opportunity to buttonhole them then.
With luck, they will have apologized by then. But really, I think they are going to bury themselves deeper.
That’s pretty much my position. Though I admit I haven’t gone to rallies hosted by the KKK! (I’ve never known of one going on!) I don’t see how one knows that people really say unless you talk to some of them.
I think this is much more difficult. The speakers are there to attract an audience — and unlike me–much of the audience pays real $$.
I guess I’d better go re-read to learn what the personal slight is.
Don–
If you write things that some people would actually say, it’s difficult to assume it’s parody.
wow! they even have a fake Muslim to tell you how to behave nowadays, Lucia…Joe Romm thinks of everything. BTW, Did you know that Eli Rabett thinks you are some kind of anti-christ? His middle ground in the climate debate has Tobis – (population-slayer) in the middle. So if you position yourself there, you are destroying the real, true debate…thus you are the anti-christ.
Hi Lucia,
“My differences with Paul_K and Achab are related to..”
I think you mean Paul K2, at least I hope you do!
Paul
Yes. Paul K2!
diogenes–
I find it difficult to believe that Eli would call me the anti-christ. Is Eli a Christian bunny?
Lucia
clearly you don’t trust me when I try to explain my maybe badly worded thoughts and go back to older sentences. Apparently you’re so sure of your interpretation that whatever I may add will be in conflict with your idea of what I said before. Nevermind, I can just apologize for wasting your time.
Achab – I have a certain amount of sympathy for you in your attempts to rephrase your earlier comments, and, well, you’ve clearly pissed Lucia off…
I think, though, that you have to live with the clarity expressed in comments such as this –
OK, the emphasis is mine, but that’s how it reads to a neutral – it’s an incredibly definitive moral judgement – and it’s not morphable into a matter of ‘personal choice’.
So, I think Lucia’s reaction is relatively predictable.
I’d take it on the chin, commend yourself on a valiant attempt at explanation and assume (correctly, I think) that by tomorrow it won’t be held against you! 🙂
lucia:
Telepathy. I’m convinced many people believe they can read minds.
Agreed. I don’t think it’d be as bad if this was free (or at least cheap) to attend, but I think entry normally costs about two hundred dollars.
I don’t think slight was the right word. I meant to say they caused her harm, but slight implies disrespect, not damage. The point was being associated with that billboard could cause one’s reputation to be harmed, and that could discourage participation.
Sorry about the bad word choice.
it made me laugh out loud…..but it is Eli “reasoning” at its best/worse(if there is any difference)….is it worth trying to decide?
“So what is the lukewarmer’s mission. Oh the surface, very obvious, to establish themselves as the voice of the middle, but if you look carefully at their position, to be in the middle they have to help shift the Overton window so that the real middle, the Barts and the MTs are on one fringe and the Sky Dragons on the other. As Richard Alley said to the US Congress
You have now had a discussion or a debate here between people who are giving you the blue one and people giving you the green one. This is certainly not both sides. If you want both sides, we would have to have somebody in here screaming a conniption fit on the red end, because you are hearing a very optimistic side
and shifting the Overton window back towards reality is what Eli is trying to do. If you have a world only with the Sky Dragons, the Lucias and the Barts out there, make no mistake about it, in spite of the pretty words, the middle of the window is denial and the lukewarmers know that their first goal has to be to destroy any opposing shift of the argument back to reality, which explains the unrelenting attacks against Joe Romm, Mann, and Hansen”
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2012-04-25T13:33:00-07:00
How dare you take attack reality so unremittingly!
Anteros:
I could maybe see reading annoyance into lucia’s comments, but not anger. As for sympathy, it’s hard to feel sympathy for someone who says:
lucia tried to explain to Achab why his comments were inconsistent, and thus, why she interpreted them the way she did. She even acknowledged he may not have meant what he said, even though he did say it. Achab ignores this and paints her as being extremely unreasonable.
I feel sympathy for people who get misunderstood. I feel sympathy for people who have trouble expressing themselves. I don’t feel sorry for people who make things up in order to (at least effectively) insult others rather than admit their mistakes. Once you start doing that, whatever sympathy I may have held for you goes away.
Achab–
In Achab (Comment #95228) , you didn’t seem to be trying to explain your thoughts. You seemed to be concentrating on accusing me of all sorts of bad things.
If you wish to explain your thoughts or make your points, explain your actual thoughts and make whatever point it is you think you want to make.
Bradon–
I re-read her post. It appears she was distressed that an add for her book appeared on the page where they justified the billboard. I can see how that would make things doubly bad for her in particular.
I was hoping to see Donna. I like Donna.
diogenes
The Rabbett’s notion that people with whom he disagrees are all thinking about pushing Overton windows is amusing. I wasn’t aware I had a “mission”. I thought my position was to simply express what I think on my blog. I’m not all that concerned about where the edges of the Overton window are. How in the world does that harebrained blogger think these things up? [/rhetorical]
But I see he did not use the term “anti-christ”. Such a use would have surprised me.
Brandon Shollenberger
“he may not have meant what he said, even though he did say it. Achab ignores this [..]”
Just out of curiosity how do you interpret this:
“I apologize if you feel that my comment was intended to attack you or your choice to attend the conference.”
Also, how do you interpret that admitting my possible poor wording I pointed to Ross McKitrick letter?
The latter was my unsuccessful last try.
Achab–
Look up notpology. Starting with “I apologize if you feel” is a classic sign of a notpology.
I read it and thought “I have no idea what notion in Ross McKitrick’s letter he thinks he was trying to communicate.”
I imagine that if heartland had invited me and put me on the speaker list I would have to contemplate these options
1. not attending. In which case people would still smear me for having been invited.
2. attending and changing my speech: heartland wouldnt like what I would say.
I imagine if I was invited as the press, I would still attend.
its news. And I would focus my coverage on asking every attendee the same embarassing questions about heartland.
Not attending, seems to me, to be the cowards way out and highly unethical. If they invited me, in any capacity, id show up and make their life as miserable as possible. Choosing not to attend is giving up your power. your power is to attend and to raise the issue in person and as loudly as you can. It’s not like you are going to “catch” their stupidity by being in the same building.
Overton windows is a funny spatial metaphor to apply to what Lukewarmers are all about. Beware of spatial metaphors.
The “movement” was born on a thread at CA. we were discussing what percentage of global warming we had seen this century could be attributed to man. There were, as I recall, three groups.
none. some. all. Lukewarmer was born. The second in that series.
As tiem went on folks tried to put some numbers on that and we switched to the central question of sensitivity. The IPCC has a mean value of 3C for 3.7watts of forcing. given that figure we take an under bet. It’s not exactly what i would call the middle.
rather, its a restatement of the PDF. More importantly we focused on open data, open code, and open debate.
Here is the score card.
1. all the latest estimates of ECS are below 3.
2. the science is stumbling toward openness.
3. debate? Judith Curry and others are willing to engage
skeptical kooks.
The IPCC is a luke warmer. ModelE is a luke warmer.
fringe groups like skydragons and joe romm will be with us always.
Achab:
Normally I wouldn’t say, but since you asked…
As lucia points out, this is a notpology. However, I’d go beyond what she says. I interpret this as you being a coward who just wants people to stop “being mean to him.” Rather than address any points, or explain what you actually think, you offer a notpology as a way of pretending you’re responding to what was said.
To put it as kindly as I can, I interpret that as being a disingenuous and meaningless comment which serves only to allow you to hide from your own failings.
SM –
Can you elucidate?
On a slightly different point your characterisation of three general positions on climate and AGW bring out something that has been bothering me for ages. It’s that the numbers and proportions and sensitivities to me seem to be negligibly important. Everyone seems to think that there’s a vast difference between 1 degree of warming and 2 degrees and we need to know because one (if not the other) will result in catastrophe and disaster for humanity.
This strikes me as crazy. The important variable is surely our dramatically changing resilience to climate, not the difference in possible changes in weather patterns.
If you take the impacts of climatic events 200 years ago, they would have been at least an order of magnitude greater than they are now. And the ballpark 1 degree increase in temperature since then has been irrelevent, and pretty much not noticeable. My view is that if – as seems likely – there is another degree of warming in the next 50 or 60 years it will be accompanied by a further change in the impact of climatic events – by as much as another order of magnitude or so. How is the change in raininess, windiness or sunniness even worth considering?
For example, in 1783 there was a very wet April in Britain – widespread floods, overflowing rivers etc and during the month approximately 700 people died (directly as a result of the climatic event – the weather). The population of the time was about 6 million. This April has also been wet – the wettest for a hundred years, but only one person died out of a population of 60 million. This suggests that we in Britain, in this regard at least, are effectively climate-immune, which isn’t hard for a rich country with a mild climate, but wasn’t always the case.
Every developing country in the world is going through this process at a pace that is not even comparable to possible changes in the climatic events themselves.
If we want to find climate disasters and catastrophes we need to go back in time – they are going the way of infectious diseases and violent deaths which are also orders of magnitude better than they were.
Somehow, people who worry about the impact of climatic events cannot see that they are dramatically diminishing over time and the purported changes in the climatic events themselves are actually an irrelevance in comparison.
***
You know what? I think it’s time I started my own blog (with the quatloos I’m going to be winning when the UAH anomaly is published next week..)
It’ll at least stop me being OT on other people’s blogs 🙂
Ah, moshe, and then there are lukewarming coolers.
==================
kim – lukecoolers?
Elsie kim..
Interesting exchange between Lucia and Achab.
Achacb seems to be ‘feeler’ when evaluating the ethics of a situation and Lucia seems (surprise!) a ‘thinker’. My experience is that the ‘feeler of ethics’ characteristic is very common among those who would classify themselves as progressives.
Here’s a link describing what goes at these conferences if anyone is interested. Some have probably seen it already.
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
But nothing like a first hand account. So if Lucia or anyone still plans to attend, would someone gather some information for me? I would like to know how during the 2004 Presidential campaign, “agents†associated with Heartland were able to advance the idea that John Kerry had actually shot himself in order to get his Purple Heart and Bronze Star.
That was a good one…
Tom–
I’d say it’s true that a lot of people at the meeting lean right of center. It’s also true many thought not all are coolers and fairly vehement about it. It’s also true that there is a lot of clapping and joviality during the dinners, lunches, key note speeches and so on.
At the previous meeting there were parallel sessions running. So, you couldn’t sit in on all the talks– only a fraction of them.
I can’t begin to speculate about the John Kerry thing in 2004.
I’lll be able to comment on whether the upcoming one has a different tone from the previous one I attended. I’ll be interested in seeing what sort of reception Ross gets.
@ 95233 Brandon S: I’ve even gone to a rally hosted by the KKK.
Brandon, that’s fascinating. I’ve been around serious redneck USA and I have never heard of anyone going to a KKK rally. Can you give any details about this rally, like what year, what state, how many people attended, etc?
Matt B:
I went while I was in Arkansas visiting a friend of the family, but it’s been at least five years, so I forget a lot of the details. However, I remember a number of things about it, and I’d be happy to share.
I think the name of the specific group was the Bayou Knights of the KKK, but people from other branches came as well. There were people from Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Lousiana, and probably some other states. There was a sizable turnout of KKK members, well into the hundreds. If you include family members and other “visitors,” there were probably a thousand or more people.
One of the surprising things about it was how “normal” it was. The organizers focused on it being a family event, so you had a lot of the regular stuff. There were games for the kids, free food, and mostly just a lot of socializing. By far and large, it was polite, peaceful and friendly. If not for the outfits worn by some of the people (they look just like movies portray), it’d have been hard to tell who was hosting the rally. Of course, I’m white.
Another surprising aspect was the lack of hate. There was talk about races, but for the most part, it doesn’t come up in their regular conversations. I wound up missing most of the speeches because I got caught up in some game with frisbees, but what I did hear was mostly normal group stuff and some tame talk of white values.
The most interesting part was the “cross lighting.” Since I learned the history of it, I haven’t understood why the KKK does that. While it is commonly associated with the KKK, it wasn’t actually used by the original KKK, and it only started because of some books, and a movie (Birth of a Nation) based on those books, portrayed the KKK as doing it.
Anyway, it’s hard to describe the cross lighting. If you didn’t know who the KKK were, or the significance of what they were doing, it’d seem like just another ceremony. People in those outfits stood around the cross, words were said, and everybody was pretty solemn. It was almost boring in its normalacy.
Personally, I was disappointed by how unremarkable the entire rally was. I only stayed long enough to see the cross lighting out of curiosity. Well, that and a love of watching fires. And a cute girl.
ant.
sure: look at the PDF for sensitivity.
On Costs:
plenty of study
http://www.eesi.org/warming-world-impacts-degree-25-apr-2011
But I like
http://www.newton.ac.uk/programmes/CLP/seminars/120916101.html
@ Brandon – Thanks for the reply, interesting story! I had a co-worker back in the day that grew up in Appalachia (she was born in the 20’s) & she remembered the Klan as “normal” part of their society. Her recollection was that in her community the Klan was more a “societal morality” group than a racist/anti-semitic etc group; for example if you were a philanderer/deadbeat dad kind of guy you may get a visit from the Klan (bringing baseball bats) to get you back in line. Kind of like a strange hood-wearing Costra Nostra that had no problem veering into straight racist actions…..
Matt B:
The KKK has started up three different times, and each time it was different. I’ve always wondered what someone from the 20s would think of the modern KKK. Or even better, what someone from the 1870s would think of the 20s version of the KKK. It’s kind of fascinating to look at the differences in the “generations.”
Lucia and Brandon Shollenberger
never heard about notpology, I’ve learned one more thing. Your last comments has been illuminating on the attitude of not allowing people to even apologize for a mistake. Although a bit late but I was right when I noted that “whatever I may add will be in conflict with your idea of what I said before.” Fair enough, it borders with prejudice but it’s your choice.
Achab–
Apologies are permitted. But while you have learned the term “notpology”, I think you have not learned what it actually is.
However, in the US (and likely other places) including the words “I apologize” is insufficient to make something an apology. To count as an apology the person apologizing must apologize for something they did and admit the error was theirs. You can’t apologize for my reaction and then claim it was an actual apology. What’s my response supposed to this supposed to be: “your reply looks a bit aggressive and I apologize if you feel that my comment was intended to attack you or your choice to attend the conference. “?
First: The sentences begins by accusing me of being aggressive. That’s rather insulting– and if you are apologizing to someone, you don’t lead with an insult. Second, you apologize for something you think I did– which is “feel” something about your comment. (BTW: I didn’t “feel attacked“; I didn’t say I felt attacked. I have no idea why you would think I felt attacked and I have no idea why you heap this feeling on to me in your notpology. )
Now let’s return to your notpology and consider what type of response would be possible on my part? Am I supposed to say “I accept your apology for accusing me of responding with aggression and having felt attacked by the position you took during this argument?”
Clearly, if accepting your apology is tantamount to accepting that I am to blame and that my position is wrong, then what you wrote was not an apology. That is why we call this a “notpology”. It includes the phrase “apologize” while simultaneously complaining that the person you are supposedly apologizing to is the one to blame for whatever bad thing you think occurred.
Getting back to substance rather than discussing apologies: I plan to go to the conference and I think that is a perfectly right thing to do. If you have some actual real point to make, make it.
It occurred to me that I can also provide examples of “notpologies”,
Achab,
Your comments appear confused; I apologize if you feel people’s responses were intended to attack you.
You seem to think you communicated something other than what you wrote; I apologize if you feel people should not interpret your use of ‘”no one should” do X’ as indicating something other than that you, Achab, would not do it.
Do you accept my apologies?
lucia (Comment #95223),
I know you were looking forward to seeing Donna and I felt bad being the one to tell you that she was no longer going, but I fully understand her position and why she pulled out.
Contrary to what others have said, I think you are doing the right thing by attending the conference. Even though most will see Heartland’s campaign as an act of stupidity, that campaign should have nothing to do with the media reporting on the conference. Bloggers are considered part of the media now which means you have a duty to your loyal readers to report on this conference.
Skeptical
Most will see it as not only stupid but offensive because it was. But I agree with you this is no reason not to report on Heartland in general nor the conference specifically. The Chicago Tribune carried a story on Heartland’s stupid billboards, so they must agree the fact HI did something stupid is no reason to not report their activities.
Tom:
The Nation is the first place I go for balanced, fair and even-handed reporting…. when I’m on crack.
So now you’re blaming Heartland for Kerry’s political blunders? Being Left means never having to say you’re sane.
Mosh,
You mean the IPCC lukewarmers that published that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt by 2035 when they knew their own numbers said 2350? The IPCC that used non peer reviewed WWF flack pieces as scientific papers? That used Mannian reconstructions? The ones that suppressed opposing views? Oh, you mean the .2C/decade lukewarmers? My mistake.
The exchange between Achab and Lucia kind of reminds me of the photo at the top of the page next to the words “Contact Lucia”. 🙂
SteveF–
The cat formerly we nick-named “the greeter puss” brought us a pre-teen bunny last week. It was a catch and release incident. Jim knew something was up when he heard the a clunking entry to the cat door not followed by a “meow”. Jim went downstairs and, sure enough, the cat had a bunny in his mouth. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a photo before the cat dropped the bunny who scurried under the dishwasher. ( Oddly enough, we were having a dishwasher delivered that evening, so Jim was planning to pull the dishwasher out that morning. When he did the bunny scurried out– and we managed to get him to escape through the sliding glass door. )
Lucia,
Do you also get the feeling that cats think they need to demonstrate that they are contributing to the economy? I can think of no other reason for presentations like the one you describe, or the row of faces of four departed rats arrayed on daughter-in-law’s doorstep at the time the cat was requesting “let-me-in.”
I will attend ICCC-7 as planned. I look forward to it even more now because of the chance to discuss the billboard usage with the HI principles!!! It is going to be much more informative now. : )
There is an opportunity here to attend ICCC-7 and significantly influence HI future strategy. : ) I could not ask for a better situation than that.
John
I do think “the greeter-puss” is trying to make a contribution. Fortunately, so far he has not contributed live birds. The same cannot be said of “The General” (aka “chipmunk breath” in my avatar).
Lucia
From an attendee at ICCC 6:
“To what extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine?â€
You’re right Carrick. That is insane.
Tom–
I would not be surprised if an attendee said something similar to that. The idea that some have embraced climate change not because of the evidence for climate change but rather because if climate change is true that truth would provide a strong argument to make changes those people want made even if climate change is false is floating around out there. I’m sure one could find several people at HI to express that notion.
Moreover, I think it’s also correct that at least some people do embrace the climate change as true not because of the science but because it provides a reason for political changes they support. (Equally, some reject climate change not based on science but because if true, it may require political changes they don’t support. I happen to think many of the changes some insist would be necessary if climate change is true would not be necessary. I think the biggest change that is required is promoting nuclear energy. )
Now, retuning to the quote I am dubious that it’s a direct quote of anyone in particular. I don’t think that’s the way Monckton would say it (and had it been Monckton quote, Klein would surely have attributed it.) On the other hand, if you were looking for the floweriest way to put it and recorded lots of people at Heartland, you might well get a quote that used a flowery metaphor. Possibly Naomi did that because, quite often, picking a flowery way to say something and then choosing to omit the reasoning of the unnamed person quoted is a good way to make them sound goofy. As the person quoted is not named they have no power to jump in and explain their reasoning. (Heck, being unnamed, the person quoted probably can’t even get the courtesy of having the journal or magazine highlight their blog comment or give them a post in the “letters to the editor section.”)
This is the sort of thing that editorial writers sometimes do (sometimes under the guise of straight reporting. ) I don’t know if Kleins article was intended as editorial or straight reporting. If the latter: it fell short of the mark.
Lucia,
Here’s the full quote from Naomi:
“There is a question from a gentleman in the fourth row.
He introduces himself as Richard Rothschild. He tells the crowd that he ran for county commissioner in Maryland’s Carroll County because he had come to the conclusion that policies to combat global warming were actually “an attack on middle-class American capitalism.†His question for the panelists, gathered in a Washington, DC, Marriott Hotel in late June, is this: “To what extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine?†”
Ahh–my mistake. So she did name who wrote that.
Now what’s the answer? 10%? 50%? 90%?
Re #95280
“middle-class American capitalism” ?
I am a middle-class American capitalist, but I didn’t know that means I practice a specific type of capitalism.
We need a billboard with a big grinning Rajendra Pachauri, and the caption: ‘Do You Still Believe in Agenda 21?
===================
Max_OK–
I suspect adjectives are used to distinguish some ventures from others. He may be thinking “middle-class capitalism” is different from “crony-capitalism” which is sometimes used to describe ventures like Solyndra.
It’s not a completely unreasonable question because there are people who acknowledge that their reason for supporting the type of extreme CAGW remedies that get bandied about is redistribution of wealth from the wealthy nations to the poor ones. Some of them even acknowledge it doesn’t even matter whether the science is right, if this is the result of the movement.
Al Gore’s manifest includes social change and advancing social justice. Neither of these have a lick to do with CAGW of course.
This seems to be the questioner’s web page:
http://www.richardrothschild.org/
It seems he ran and won. Being a politician likely accounts for the flowery language. Also, showing up in public and being vocal and quotable probably helps get out the vote.
Also, isn’t “smearing” the entire climate change with a question from the audience that Tom finds objectionable the same tactic they were complaining about with HI’s ad?
I wonder how much activity we’d see with regard to “climate-science” if the wealth redistribution schemes were not associated with it? Would Heartland really involve itself without the threat of the schemes?
I don’t have quite the same conservative outlook that many of the more thoughtful commenters seem to have, but do suspect that many of us would drift away from this concern were the proposals of sweeping modifications to our economies and even private lives to die away.
My real fear is that these schemes will not go away until some madman includes them as components of his program to seize control of some country, or maybe all of us, and carries the whole thing beyond its logical pale, like the Munich ex-con did with eugenics – and then, once again, not without a fight.
Carrick–
It’s a milder version of the same tactic. It’s a very common tactic in politics of all forms.
But in this case, other than being phrased in a particularly flowery metaphorical way, it’s not clear the question is a poor one. I think a study was done to see how scientific literacy relates to belief in climate change. It did not come out on the side of suggesting belief in climate change is positively correlated with scientific literacy.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2011/09/scientific_literacy_and_climat.php
So, the question about the extent to which belief (or disbelief) in climate change is driven by something other than science is a good one. It cuts both ways.
This is true irrespective of what science actually tells us a about specific questions related to climate change.
I do not think the HI billboard usage is anything other than a great opportunity to highlight the radical authoritarian component of IPCC CAGWism that appears to dominate the IPCC leadership and processes.
Isolation of and concentration on that radical component is crucial to stopping the ongoing (20+ years) hijacking of the scientific process in the study of climate. It is timely.
I applaud the HI efforts to do so.
John
John–
At a minimum, it’s also an opportunity to see HI can be extremely distasteful and stupid. I certainly can’t applaud HI for those billboards. They were horrible and stupid.
I agree with John Whitman. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with the billboards.
Andrew
– – – – – –
lucia,
Thanks for your comment. This discourse is important.
It is in the vehement and vigorous disagreement/argumentation of our open discourse that the greatness of our free culture resides. It was like that in Athens during the height of the classical philosophical period circa ~ 2,400 to ~2,500 years ago. Our culture inherited that Athenian achievement of being vehemently argumentative.
I doubt that we have the same fundamental philosophical concepts that are at the root of what we think about the world. : )
I do applaud HI’s billboard usage because it has re-stimulated a much needed discussion of where ideological alarmism exists in the IPCC centric CAGWism.
John
John–
I think the discussion of ideological alarmism pre-existed the stupid billboards. Moreover, HI’s side of the argument was better off when the most-recent entrant into idiocy was Gleick. HI’s foray into soooper-doooper over the top rhetoric makes HI looks like kookie extremists and takes away any possibility of people pointing out that even if some people are not deranged mass murderers, their beliefs can make them take ridiculous over the top steps. Sort of like Gleick did.
But of course, now the response to Gleick-gate is “look at those stupid billboards!”
lucia,
HI billboards and Gleick-gate is ‘A’ and not ‘A’.
Sincerely, it seems to me that it is just an emotional position to be concerned about someone out there in the public who might think ‘A’ can be not ‘A’ . Your view is incorrect about of the capability of the public to seek info and reason correctly.
John
Re lucia (Comment #95284)
Yes, Lucia, crony capitalism may be what Rothchild had in mind, but it’s inherent in capitalism. Businesses are free to influence government by legal means, and those with the most money can have the most influence.
Thanks for the link to Rothchild’s web site. His opposition to the development of a 600 acre business park In Mt. Airy, Maryland seems anti-capitalist (against a free market) to me. I’m not sure what he’s about, other than trying to be a politician.
http://www.carrollcountypathways.org/
Lucia:
I think the only part that was in poor taste was in being honest that the motives of some of those that support draconian economic policies have nothing to do with saving the world from CO2.
j fergeson:
That’s a great question of course. But I think the deliberately over the top rhetoric and distortions of science (the paleoscience whoppers come to mind here) that some people call “nit-picking” play as big a role if not bigger.
Carrick: ” But I think the deliberately over the top rhetoric and distortions of science (the paleoscience whoppers come to mind here) that some people call “nit-picking†play as big a role if not bigger. ”
Is there a word or two missing? I would have modified above such that ‘ …come to mind here) the reactions to which some people call “nit-picking” …
It looked to me as though there wasn’t enough nit-picking within paleo-climatology. Someone had to do it.
Had there been no political POV traveling along with the climatology, I would have thought it much more likely that it would have gotten the same amount of attention that most statements of the sort “Scientists in —— have discovered that …” where the discovery seems obviously the product of a badly framed experiment, one insufficiently cleansed of other possible influences, and/or the conclusion drawn not the only one possible given the subject.” I think the Junk Science site tries to deal with a lot of this.
I find that site a bit like Tom Nelson’s. I don’t know how he can maintain his sanity in the face of all the craziness he reports.
My biggest worry about the climate madness is the possibility that some scheme for “correcting” the temperature trend will be tried at a scale where the result could be a real disaster. Given the apparent effect our human activities seem to be having on the global thermal content, we can’t really pretend we aren’t already geo-engineering, but at least the inputs are disparate and the effect of some possibly positive.
Next year when we return to Marathon, I’m going to try to have lunch with Capt. Dallas Teasdale and see if he can enlighten me on how much grasp we have of what I would call “total energy” content of the atmosphere and the other systems influencing it imagining that having some understanding of total joules or ??? might be more definitive than temperature anomalies. But maybe that’s nuts?
John–
Could you rephrase #95298. Other than that you disagree with me, I don’t understand what you are saying. (BTW: On the last sentence. My view is the public is capable of seeking information and reasoning. You said my view on this is wrong. But I don’t know if you don’t know my view or you think my view is incorrect. )
Testing to see if I can comment.
Lucia: OK. Seems to be fixed, whatever it was.
SteveF–Sorry. I should have told you it was fixed! (It was a problem in .htaccess.)
j fergunson, yes there were some words missing (as per usual in my case). Your edit reads much better than mine.
I think there is zero chance that the US will ever accept these draconian measures, and any country that does will bazooka itself (I worry about the UK here a bit).
Of course I have been wrong before..
Carrick,
“CAGW remedies that get bandied about is redistribution of wealth from the wealthy nations to the poor ones. ”
Well, yes, along with redistribution of wealth from wealthier people to poorer people. Those are the common threads in most all of the proposals to ‘combat global warming’. When/if those who express concern about global warming divorce themselves from this rather quaint socialist nonsense, there may be a chance for political compromise on the issue. But let me make a prediction: if wealth redistribution is taken off the table in striking a compromise, then there will be no constituency for compromise on the left…. they will walk away rather than address global warming without vast wealth redistribution as part and parcel of the deal. Wealth redistribution (AKA “social justice” AKA “climate justice”) is the key issue for the most rabid of the global warming nutcakes…. and seems damned important for the rest.
.
Which is one of the reasons there has been little political progress so far, and unlikely to be any time soon. Fundamental evaluations of what is “right” and “wrong” are not generally subject to compromise.
Yeah, depriving the third world of fossil energy is taking cookies out of the mouths of babies. The chocolate chips are bits of coal.
The wealth redistribution illusion masks a gigantic rip-off of the poor. The illusion is based upon guilt over carbon fueled development. The guilt is misplaced. There are enough perversely torqued incentives to create a perfect whirlwind of a storm.
============
Max_OK (Comment #95299)
May 7th, 2012 at 11:44 am
“but it’s inherent in capitalism. Businesses are free to influence government by legal means, and those with the most money can have the most influence.”
Sorry, if what you say were true then Corzine would still be governor of NJ. Meg Whitman would be a Senator. It’s the cronyism that is the problem. When both the Bush and Obama administrations wind up with the same financial people running things and who have deep ties to those who almost destroyed the financial system you can see where the real rot is.
Barry, cronyism has always been a part of capitalism, and in 2010 the Supreme Court made it easier to practice by loosening restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations and labor unions.
It’s hard for me to imagine capitalism without collusion and influence buying. Regulations place limits on cronyism, but don’t eliminate it.
Let me tweak that:
“..
BusinessesLabor Unions are free to influence government by legal means, and those with the most money can have the most influence.â€Lots of things can try to influence government and there are many means to do so. Can money help get your views heard? Sure. But it doesn’t guarantee they will be adopted.
Moreover: bringing this up is a bit orthogonal to the topic of crony capitalism which has more to do with government picking winners and loosers and transferring money to their cronies. These cronies may or may not have been vastly wealthy before getting the government money. They may have found other ways to get into the inside track where they could tap into government generosity.
On the crony-capitalism– I’m not naive enough to think that it will ever go away. But above you wrote “middle-class American capitalism†? in a way that seemed to suggest you thought the adjective was somehow meaningless. There are people running businesses without heavy favoritism from the government. There is nothing wrong, mistaken, absurd or questionable about someone making the distinction.
Sure. But while campaign contributions may be your bug-bear, campaign contributions to congressman is not the same as crony capitalism.
It depends on what the regulations are. Sometime regulations extend cronyism. Sometimes industries want regulations that give them a competitive advantage over others or business people figure out ways to influence politicians to grant waivers etc.
By the way, it’s difficult to imagine heavily socialist systems without collusion or influence peddling. Or heavily regulated systems without collusion or influence peddling. Capitalisms doesn’t increase the level of cronyism!
The key to limiting the corruption of influence of a government is to limit the power which a government holds influence.
Re lucia (Comment #95315)
Lucia, I would agree cronyism is to be expected, regardless of whether the system is laissez-faire capitalism, state-directed capitalism, socialism, or a hybrid of these “isms.” I also would agree that regulations can serve cronyism in cases where that’s the purpose of the regulation.
I find little meaning in Rothchild’s term “middle-class American capitalism.†As a capitalist I would try to make money regardless of whether I lived in the U.S or another country, so the “American” adjective seems meaningless to me.
Capitalists, be they lower-class, middle-class, or upper-class, are all trying to make money. I doubt those in the middle-class are above seeking government help to further their ambitions or protect their interests. Rothchild, for example, wants to block the development of a 600 acre business park In Mt. Airy, Maryland, presumably through local government action.
As Kan said. The more power the government has to pick winners and losers the larger the chance that someone will attempt to corrupt the process. Also, assuming that it’s all about money is a lack of understanding of the real driver in Government: Power. Not all power stems from money. Why do you think politicians stay in power long after they’re rich, or in spite of what they could make outside of Washington? It’s their addiction to power and the trappings that come with it. Where else can you have your every word and whim raptly listen to and acted upon? I lived in DC and there were a number of articles in the Washington Post of how ex congressmen were shocked to find how little power their name exerted once they were out of office.
For that matter, why specify crony capitalism? Unions are just as adept as are other organization. If capitalism was so powerful, how did the GM bond holders get shafted while the unions got pushed to the front of the line? Why was Boeing being attacked by the NLRB for trying to open a plant in SC?
lucia (Comment #95304)
Is that another example of of a notpology? 🙂
Max_ok–
I agree that capitalists everywhere try to make money. That’s what the noun conveys. I don’t think the adjectives are meaningless. In ‘red ball’, red conveys information even if balls everywhere had property “round”. Of course lots of people seek government help where it exists. That also doesn’t mean the adjectives in “adjectiveA capitalist” and “adjectiveB capitalist” convey information.
bug
How? I think saying, “Sorry. I should have told you it was fixed!” conveys that not telling SteveF I’d fixed the comments was my fault– and I’m the person apologizing. It doesn’t suggest any fault on SteveF’s part. A notpology following the pattern provided by someone previously on this thread go like this,
“It seems to me you are a bit hostile. I’m sorry if you feel frustrated because you think something isn’t working. But I think the real problem is you are over reacting; the submit button has been available all along. ”
Of course to get the full effect of the previous notpology, I might have to expand this and put in some musings about how communication is a two way street— and I would need to include the word “manichean” and suggest that SteveF thinks always fall into two camps. (Possible the one where comments “work” and the one where comments “don’t work”.)
Lucia,
Apology accepted, though not really required. 😉
.
What bugs could not know was that we had already exchanged emails about my comments being blocked, which makes the simple apology more understandable…. even if not needed.
I was thinking more of blaming .htaccess for the problem.
bugs–
I guess if someone thought .htaccess was a living breathing entity that wrote itself they might think I was shifting blame. I think most people know I write the rules in my .htaccess file. I’ve certainly discussed my .htaccess rules that enough in posts here.
bugs,
“Sorry. I should have told you it was fixed!” is about as simple as it gets. The rest was just information about the nature of the problem, not an excuse for not informing me the problem had been resolved. Certain people only seem to make nonpologies (think Gleick, or virtually any politician), others actually do make real apologies. Can you really not tell the difference, or were you only joking?
I know “wealth redistribution” is a big talking point in some circles, but it is not “wealth redistribution” to pay for damage that you have caused, are causing or will cause.
Re: Boris (May 8 07:36),
If you had stopped at ‘are causing’, you would be correct. But ‘will cause’ opens a large can of worms and would most likely be indistinguishable from wealth redistribution in practice.
Boris,
“to pay for damage that you have caused”
.
Well that is an important issue isn’t it? I mean, what purported damages (past, present, and future) are valued at is at bottom a big part of the disagreement. Today the CO2 level is about 120 PPM higher than the pre-industrial level, and other GHG’s are higher as well; some portion (up to ~100%) of the ~0.8C increase in temperature to date is no doubt due to those increases in GHG’s. What damage can be accurately quantified today for that temperature change? How do we assign who has suffered damages and who has profited? Do the costs become retroactive based upon our current political determination, and assigned to people living in countries where others, now long dead, ‘sinned’ by emitting CO2, or do we limit assignment of the costs to ‘damage’ going forward? What about people who have indirectly benefited from rising CO2, say, farmers who have a longer growing season and can now make more money? Do they have to pay some of the “damage” done by CO2 as well? What value (as opposed to cost) do we assign to the longer and healthier lives now lived by most of humanity…. which is the direct result of that CO2 in the atmosphere?
.
Honestly Boris, on each of these questions, and 100 others, there will never be an international political consensus, and rarely even a national one. IMO, this is a political reality that those on the left ought to simply accept, and forget about “climate justice”. At least if they want there to be a political consensus for actually reducing future CO2 emissions. As President (and inheritance based multimillionaire) Jack Kennedy noted, shortly before being shot through the head by an assassin, “Life is not fair”. To which I would add, “Most often people can’t even agree on what fair is.” One’s perception of what is “fair”, and how important “fairness” is relative to other considerations, pretty much defines one’s political inclination… and vice-versa. Sad reality, but reality still.
– – – – – – – –
lucia,
In my comment to you “Your view is incorrect about of the capability of the public to seek info and reason correctly.†I meant that I think you are worried about the public misinterpreting HI’s billoard because the public does not have the capability or time or access or interest in researching the billboard sponsors and its message. I based my assessment of your view on your statements in quotes (“â€â€ . . . “â€â€) in your following comment.
Regarding my ‘A’ and not ‘A’ portion of my comment, I meant that if ‘HI billboard situation’ is ‘A’ and if ‘Gleick-gate’ is not ‘A’ (which I think is the case) then if someone cannot realize that and thinks ‘A’ can be not ‘A’ then there is no reasoning available to that person logically. I think the public has good reasoning capability and will not think ‘A’ can be not ‘A’. So I am not at all worried about the impact of the HI billboards being confusion to the public. I am not an elitist.
I enjoy our discourse here at your place. : )
John
Ok– I admit that most of the public is not going to research the billboard sponsors. Moreover, I also think a large fraction of those who read HI’s explanation will conclude that HI is being a bit… coy about the message. When a message is plastered on the billboard, those who make it ought to know the messages is what people takeaway by looking at the billboard. A large fraction of the public is going to conclude that whoever made that billboard is a propagandist organization. They aren’t going to go further, and quite honestly, I don’t think most should take time away from eating, showering, earning a living, playing ball with their kids to ‘do more research’ to find out what HI thinks they meant to communicate. I think those members of the public who decide to not bother hunting down Heartlands excuse/explanation will be “reasoning correctly”.
Moreover, I think those who do not read HI’s web page will interpret the bill board precisely correctly; their interpretation will not the one HI puts on their web page. Many who read HI’s explanation will think even more poorly of HI after reading that. Because, honestly, I can’t swallow hard enough to ingest that koolaid.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I don’t know what quality “A” you think the HI billboard situation exhibits which is not shared by “Gleick-gate”. Should I replace “A” with “a crime”? “wiretapping”? Demagoguery? Because depending on what “A” is, either both Gleick-gate and HI “are A” or neither is, or one is and the other is not “A”.
Of course nearly everyone can understand in abstract that (!A≠A). But for that to have any meaning in context of any discussion Gleickgate and the HI billboards, someone needs to specify what A is so we can figure out whether HI=A or HI≠A and whether GG=A or GG≠A and so then figure out if HI=GG.
lucia,
Thanks for continuing the discourse on HI’s billboard usage.
I think that the moral issues, rational/social context and the factual circumstances of Gleick-gate (not ‘A’) have nothing in common those of HI billboards (‘A’); in spite of any of the MSM’s view to the contrary notwithstanding. Do you think they do? Therefore I say in reference to discussing them that it will not be hard for the public to realize that ‘A’ cannot be not ‘A’.
And I differ profoundly with you on what I see as your implication again, wrt the HI billboards, that the public is in anyway not as capable as us; likewise what I see as your implication they are not in a situation which (unlike us) facilitates their pursuit the facts. I think you are implying that by this following statement of yours. NOTE: I maintain we have no advantages in anyway over the public; I am not elitist.
lucia said,
“Moreover, I also think a large fraction of those who read HI’s explanation will conclude that HI is being a bit… coy about the message. When a message is plastered on the billboard, those who make it ought to know the messages is what people takeaway by looking at the billboard. A large fraction of the public is going to conclude that whoever made that billboard is a propagandist organization. They aren’t going to go further, and quite honestly, I don’t think most should take time away from eating, showering, earning a living, playing ball with their kids to ‘do more research’ to find out what HI thinks they meant to communicate. I think those members of the public who decide to not bother hunting down Heartlands excuse/explanation will be “reasoning correctlyâ€.â€
Lucia, let’s do a little thought experiment. If that statement of yours is presented somehow on billboards with your name attached to it, how do we think the public would react to you wrt the billboard? Would they appreciate your presumptive assessment of their behavior on their behalf? I do not think so.
John
Both involve people who developed tunnel vision and acted based on that tunnel vision. Both involve people who want very much to sway public perception. Both involve people who want ultimately to use “guilt by association”. Gleick was hoping the donors list would get him access to prove HI and their donors have dirty hands and afterwards make it seem that everyone who doesn’t share his views has similar dirty hands. HI posted billboards that shows people with more than dirty hands — and as it’s a billboard, the simplistic message is that those who share the unibombers views have dirty hands as well.
So, depending on what “A” is, both Gleick-gate and the HI-billboard incident are similar.
I’m not sure what you are asking. The precise details of how they would react to me personally likely depends on what I posted on the billboard.
That said: If I spent money to post a huge colorful, eye catching billboard over the highway I think people would think that I wanted to convey the message conveyed by that billboard. I think they could rationally assume that I intended to convey that message not some more nuanced multi-paragraph message explaining the billboard was meant to demonstrate something no one who looked at the billboard could possibly think while glancing at it during the daily commute into the city traveling along the Ike. And if asked what they thought of the person who paid for the billboard, many will make a judgement based on the contents of the billboard. There will be a range of judgements– but it would all depend on the contents of the billboard.
One thing I think most of the rational ones will presume: That I intended to communicate the message someone sitting in their car driving into the city would take away, I think that would be absolutely, totally, entirely fair on their part. Also, they will tend to think I’m the type of person who thinks it is appropriate to spend a lot of money to put that very specific message in front of the faces of lots of people.
I don’t think viewers would object to my thinking they will respond entirely rationally and more specifically to think it fair of them to believe I intended to communicate the message the billboard communicates. People generally don’t mind that when others (like me) assume they behave rationally.
Does that answer your question?
But now let me ask you: You said you thought I would not appreciate the strong likelihood that people would judge me based on the content of a billboard I spent lots of money to post over the inbound Ike. Why do you think they would not appreciate my thinking they were rational and fair minded?
lucia,
You actually equate Gleick-gate and HI billboards in a very very broad sense with equal moral context? I could equate anything moral to anything moral with that broad brush. N’est ce pas?
If you tried to equate them legally or simply compare actual facts about specific people and actual actions, the attempt would not pass a cursory look.
Regard the public, you appear to be saying they will ‘a priori’ agree with your view of rationality and fair mindedness wrt analysis of the HI billboards. Why? Based on experience in the blog world, we know significant numbers of rational people often do not agree and in the case at hand are not agreeing on HI billboards. But you still have a presumption wrt the public behavior. How?
John
John–
Equal? No. Impersonating someone to steal information is not on the same moral level as creating a really dumb distasteful billboard.
Well… sure. But if we do exactly the same arithmetical comparison of the unibomber and people who believe in climate change, the attempt to equate them won’t pass a cursory look either.
Once again, I’m not sure what you are asking me.
If I understood you correctly, you seemed to indicate I assumed they would not respond rationally. I told you I don’t assume they will respond rationally. I told you how I think they would respond and I told you I think that’s rational.
If I understood you correct, you seemed to suggest if I posted a billboard, and they responded the way I anticipate they would respond to my billboard– that is by making judgements based on my billboards contents– that I would object to their making such judgments. I told you I think rational people would make judgments based on the contents of the billboard and that I think that making such judgements is rational
Of course I might be wrong about how they would respond to a billboard. Based on my experience in life, people do make judgements based on one’s actions. I think this is rational.
If you want to debate whether or not I am correct about what people who saw the billboard or read of them will think– we could discuss that. (Though, I think I already explained it a bit.) If you have a view that they will make different judgements– that’s good too. But then explain why they will do so.
But previously, you switched the conversation to suggesting that I think people aren’t rational or that I think they will make incorrect judgements or something like that. But that’s not so– I think they are mostly kinda-sort of rational, though often parsimonious with their time. And I think HI’s billboard campaign damaged HI because people are mostly rational though parsimonious of their time.
SteveF (Comment #95343)
So, as a species, even though we are smart enough to assess a threat, we are incapable of acting on it, because we don’t understand how ‘money’ works to a sufficient degree, even though money is something abstract that we invented for our convenience when trading goods. That is, the abstract world of money trumps science.
Is this warmer world a threat, bugs, or a promise? A warmer world would sustain more life and more diversity of life. Who could ask for anything more?
Who would ask for anything less? Oh, bugs, you would. You may get your wish.
===============
Bugs,
Did you actually read the words I wrote, or just copy and paste? I have no idea where you see support for, or even connection to, your statement in what I wrote. We are not nearly smart enough to evaluate the “threat” of climate change at this time, never mind evaluate actual damage done, with the key word being ‘evaluate’ (AKA assign appropriate value to). Money is a trading convenience; it is unrelated to climate science, save for the large quantity of it spent in pursuit of improved climate knowledge. It is also unrelated to the Robin Hood mentality that seems to me all too prevalent. If there were no currency, you could still confiscate land, real estate, livestock, or whatever someone produces, and distribute it among those you deem more worthy.
.
I will say again: the pursuit of “climate justice” and “social justice” (AKA wealth transfer on a huge scale) is counterproductive to the goal of reaching any kind of consensus on restraining CO2 emissions. There are reasonable arguments to be made, and some kind of consensus on cautious action seems plausible, but not if punishing the rich (whether nations or individuals) is part of the plan.
It’s not about punishing the “rich,” it’s about responsibility. If your actions lead to damage you are ethically required to pay for this damage.
Of course, deciding who caused what damage is difficult, but that doesn’t mean that we should throw our hands up in the air. Humans act with imperfect information all the time.
“We are not nearly smart enough to evaluate the “threat†of climate change at this time, never mind evaluate actual damage done, with the key word being ‘evaluate’ (AKA assign appropriate value to). Money is a trading convenience; it is unrelated to climate science, save for the large quantity of it spent in pursuit of improved climate knowledge. ”
We are smart enough to get some idea, but the uncertainty is no comfort to me, it means we are just as likely to underestimate as overestimate.
Money is a trading convenience, so why is it so important when it comes to this issue? A trading convenience with the status of a religious relic.
bugs,
You are seriously missing the point here. The issue has nothing to do with money per se, but with the appropriate apportionment of polluting costs. Boris raises the point that the cost of pollution should be incurred by the polluter. This is a concept generally accepted by both liberal and conservative economists: Pigouvian taxes, Coase theorem and all that. Steve F counters that the theory just doesn’t work in practice because the overwhelming scale of the uncertainty. These are both legitimate arguments. Your tangent doesn’t seem to have any relevance to the debate.
You are confusing issues. The amount of anthropogenic CO2 created each year is well understood. The risk to our biosphere is not so well understood. It is very easy to identify the CO2 polluters. The risk they are creating is less well identified.
lucia,
Shall we discuss further at ICCC-7 over drinks? Maybe we can arrange informally for some HI staff to participate?
John