Now we know who pays our trolls

[cheetah440]

A bit more revelation as to what is going on in the head of the snake.

HERE

Lindzen sure does have the best quote of all time regarding the cult of global warming:

"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

[TerryM]

Lindzen sure does have the best quote of all time regarding the cult of global warming:

"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

I liked him better when he was testifying for the Big Tobacco

[TerryM]

A bit more revelation as to what is going on in the head of the snake.

HERE

Nice link - My Heartland bookmark is getting so full I'm going to have to start breaking it down.

[dabize]

what the hell are you talking about? It;s like you live in an alternate universe. Gleick is the only one who has a damaged reputation. Nobody else. Nobody is being paid to say anything. What the hell are you talking about?

NOBODY IS BEING PAID TO SAY ANYTHING?

Uhhhh.......thats the whole point of the Heartland operation.

This is either monumentally stupid or a direct application of the Big Lie technique.

[WeatherRusty]

Copied from the thread 2012 Global Temperatures

Post #125

WeatherRusty, on 27 February 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Correct! Unlike the aforementioned individuals (a sample of 16 prominent skeptics), I am biased toward, or favor consensus science over that of, politics, ideology and personal gain. We are all biased. Some for better, some for worse!

HERE you will find an extensive list of prominent skeptics/deniers of AGW together with their documented background biases.

LEK RESPONDS

Look up the name Peter Gleick......

What I find on WIKI is no mention of any association to political think tanks or industry. Only that he is a scientist who loves water and studies the effects of global change.

[dabize]

Wiki on AGW must be a treat.

Something like the coastal front we had in Eastern MA during the December 1992 storm - moving from tropical downpours to blinding whiteout according to the whim of a mindless, cosmic force........

[WeatherRusty]

Wiki on AGW must be a treat.

Something like the coastal front we had in Eastern MA during the December 1992 storm - moving from tropical downpours to blinding whiteout according to the whim of a mindless, cosmic force........

Or four mindless, cosmic forces...

Makes it a true statement.

[dabize]

Or four mindless, cosmic forces...

Makes it a true statement.

Hmmmmm

I was looking for a metaphor for the Wikipedia editing process on controversial issues - when entries can change rapidly and randomly depending on activity of larger (usually political) forces. - I came up with that storm because I remember it well and drove around crossing the coastal front, marveling at it.

If there is a literary allusion - I'm missing it here!

[WeatherRusty]

Hmmmmm

I was looking for a metaphor for the Wikipedia editing process on controversial issues - when entries can change rapidly and randomly depending on activity of larger (usually political) forces. - I came up with that storm because I remember it well and drove around crossing the coastal front, marveling at it.

If there is a literary allusion - I'm missing it here!

The four fundamental forces in nature which every interaction between bits of matter from the tinniest particle to the entire universe are manifestations of. Everything that happens to matter on any scale can be ascribed to those four forces.

They are in order of strength and range of influence:

Strong nuclear force...short range

Weak nuclear force...short range

Electromagnetism....infinite range

Gravity---infinite range

The energy driving the storm was produced by the strong nuclear force in the core of the Sun. The energy traveled to Earth as electromagnetic energy. The storm was created and guided down to the tinniest detail by material interactions involving gravity and electromagnetism at Earth's near surface.

With enough information every motion of that coastal front could theoretically be forecast.

[TerryM]

The four fundamental forces in nature which every interaction between bits of matter from the tinniest particle to the entire universe are manifestations of. Everything that happens to matter on any scale can be ascribed to those four forces.

They are in order of strength and range of influence:

Strong nuclear force...short range

Weak nuclear force...short range

Electromagnetism....infinite range

Gravity---infinite range

The energy driving the storm was produced by the strong nuclear force in the core of the Sun. The energy traveled to Earth as electromagnetic energy. The storm was created and guided down to the tinniest detail by material interactions involving gravity and electromagnetism at Earth's near surface.

With enough information every motion of that coastal front could theoretically be forecast.

Don't tell the butterflies!

[WeatherRusty]

Don't tell the butterflies!

Chaos theory complicates things such that knowing every last detail is in all practically impossible. Even the slightest change in initial conditions can alter the outcome.

That is not to say the system involved is not deterministic in nature however. The events are not random. They follow from cause to effect. IF you could know the initial conditions precisely, you could predict accurately the outcome. Even the act of observation can change the initial conditions as can the flapping of butterfly wings. This effectively means there are limitations to how precisely we can take measurements and predict outcomes. However, most of the time, close is good enough.

At the quantum level, things really do happen randomly and without cause. The only reality is probability or likelihood.

[dabize]

The four fundamental forces in nature which every interaction between bits of matter from the tinniest particle to the entire universe are manifestations of. Everything that happens to matter on any scale can be ascribed to those four forces.

They are in order of strength and range of influence:

Strong nuclear force...short range

Weak nuclear force...short range

Electromagnetism....infinite range

Gravity---infinite range

The energy driving the storm was produced by the strong nuclear force in the core of the Sun. The energy traveled to Earth as electromagnetic energy. The storm was created and guided down to the tinniest detail by material interactions involving gravity and electromagnetism at Earth's near surface.

With enough information every motion of that coastal front could theoretically be forecast.

I know, I know. Didn't pick it up. Those are usually the type of allusions that I make

It hurts, being outnerded by someone.............

[dabize]

Chaos theory complicates things such that knowing every last detail is in all practically impossible. Even the slightest change in initial conditions can alter the outcome.

That is not to say the system involved is not deterministic in nature however. The events are not random. They follow from cause to effect. IF you could know the initial conditions precisely, you could predict accurately the outcome. Even the act of observation can change the initial conditions as can the flapping of butterfly wings. This effectively means there are limitations to how precisely we can take measurements and predict outcomes. However, most of the time, close is good enough.

At the quantum level, things really do happen randomly and without cause. The only reality is probability or likelihood.

Holy Heisenberg, Beatified Brown and My Mandelbrodt!

Shall I add Good Gleick, to keep things on topic?

Funny how Gleick keeps surfacing whenever one points out Heartland's nefarious funding practices.

It's a bit like a medieval maiden warding off a vampire with a crucifix.............

[dabize]

Cross posted from the Cuccinelli thread

As usual, you troll a thread and post nothing but empty nonsense.

The most recent IPCC report, AR4, had Mann paleoclimate reconstruction, i.e. the "Hockey Stick", in section 6.6 The Last 2,000 Years. The next edition of the IPCC report, AR5, is not due to be released until 2013 and I am sure it will discuss paleoclimate reconstructions, too. Strike 1!

Of course people know what data and methodology Mann used - how on Earth do you think McIntyre & McKitrick did their botched review, or how other independent teams have validated Mann's reconstruction? Here's what the IPCC wrote about that:

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a, raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

So your second sentence is completely bogus too. Strike 2!

The divergence problem with one tree ring proxy series out the the large number of proxies used in Mann's climate reconstruction was pointed out by - wait for it - Mann himself. Nobody hid anything, all of the details were published in the methodology. All data falls short of perfection - and proxy data sometimes is questionable quality - so Mann used what was reliable, excluded what was unreliable, and annotated the record to explain what was done. That's how good science works. And you seem determined to ignore the fact that other researchers have reproduced Mann's results by using other sets of proxies. Your third assertion is simply totally wrong. Strike 3, you're OUT!

Nice comprehensive rebuttal.

It is so comprehensive that it even raises questions as to whether Heartland could be open to civil lawsuits on behalf of Mann and other scientists being harassed by the Heartland funded campaign on the grounds of malicious mischief and/or libel.

I don't suppose that Cuccinelli would have exposure here, nor would the actual trolls funded to do the harassing (although in Britain this might be different). But Heartland? Maybe it would depend on what the actual marching orders to the "troops" were.

[PhillipS]

Well, it's been a month since the release of the Heartland documents so it may be timely to update this thread. Since the documents were released on Valentine's Day:

The Heartland Institute has admitted that all but one of the documents are real but claim that the 2 page strategy memo is a forgery.

Dr Peter Gleick admitted that he was the one who released the documents. He said that the strategy memo was mailed to him earlier in 2012 by an anonymous Heartland insider, and that he got the rest of the documents by posing as a Heartland board member and requesting that they be emailed to him.

Dr Gleick temporarily stepped down as head of the Pacific Institute.

Analyses of the alleged forgery were performed multiple times using an attribution analysis tool, JGAAP, and the results consistently point to Heartland director Joe Bast as the strategy memo's author. Heartland still insists the memo is a forgery.

After GM is revealed to be a donor to Heartland a flood of protest causes GM to pull its support.

Dr Gleick resumes lecturing.

What I find most interesting is what hasn't happened. Despite conservative commentators accusing Dr Gleick of every crime imaginable - from identity theft to supporting Al Queda - no criminal charges have been filed against him, nor has the Heartland Institute filed a civil suit against him. Why is that do you suppose? Are all prosecutors, (except of course Cuccinelli) part of some conspiracy? Or, crazy as it sounds, is posing as someone else deceptive and unprofessional but not unlawful?

But Heartland can file a civil suit whether or not Dr Gleick is charged with a crime - so why haven't they? Could be they've decided to forgive and forget. That they realize Dr Gleick is a heck of a guy and they feel he's suffered enough. Maybe. Or, it could be that they realize that if they sue Dr Gleick then Bast, Watts, Singer, Idso et al will have to testify under oath - and maybe they are reluctant to do that for some reason. It's a mystery.

[donsutherland1]

But Heartland can file a civil suit whether or not Dr Gleick is charged with a crime - so why haven't they? Could be they've decided to forgive and forget. That they realize Dr Gleick is a heck of a guy and they feel he's suffered enough. Maybe. Or, it could be that they realize that if they sue Dr Gleick then Bast, Watts, Singer, Idso et al will have to testify under oath - and maybe they are reluctant to do that for some reason. It's a mystery.

Perhaps the costs of going through the discovery process might be prohibitive to Heartland. Much more might ultimately be revealed about the organization's climate change related goals, tactics, and operations than what was made public through Dr. Gleick's actions. Heartland may have too much to lose from trying to pursue legal recourse. Of course, that's only one possible scenario.

[TerryM]

Perhaps the costs of going through the discovery process might be prohibitive to Heartland. Much more might ultimately be revealed about the organization's climate change related goals, tactics, and operations than what was made public through Dr. Gleick's actions. Heartland may have too much to lose from trying to pursue legal recourse. Of course, that's only one possible scenario.

Just a WAG but after the discovery process caused so much damage to tobacco concerns, I doubt that Heartland wants anything to do with it. Easier to flood the airwaves with threats than to chance having more revealed if you actually proceed legally.

Many donors it seems do not want their name publicly associated with such an organization. I assume that those who had donated with the understanding that their support would remain anonymous are now upset that they have been outed and are furious that Heartland did not do more to keep their involvement secret. I wonder how many are still willing to risk their reputation by continuing their association?

[dabize]

Just a WAG but after the discovery process caused so much damage to tobacco concerns, I doubt that Heartland wants anything to do with it. Easier to flood the airwaves with threats than to chance having more revealed if you actually proceed legally.

Many donors it seems do not want their name publicly associated with such an organization. I assume that those who had donated with the understanding that their support would remain anonymous are now upset that they have been outed and are furious that Heartland did not do more to keep their involvement secret. I wonder how many are still willing to risk their reputation by continuing their association?

Heartland would be playing Oscar Wilde to Gleick's Marquess of Queensberry.

[PhillipS]

Heartland would be playing Oscar Wilde to Gleick's Marquess of Queensberry.

Wow, you win the erudite reference award for this week. It's a good analogy though.

[dabize]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder

It seems right to resurrect this conversation about how Heartland spends its money.

[WeatherRusty]

http://www.guardian....-warming-murder

It seems right to resurrect this conversation about how Heartland spends its money.

And how they drive the skeptic misinformation machine. Ever wonder where the skeptic talking points come from? Who develops them? Heartland is a conservative 'think tank'.

Here is a list of Heartland Institute associated 'climate scientists' and creators of the propaganda that reads like a who's who of climate skepticm elite:

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center
  
• David Archibald, Scientist (no affiliation given)
  
• J. Scott Armstrong, Professor, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
  
• Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute
  
• Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist and Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute
  
• Timothy Ball, Environmental Consultant and Former Climatology Professor, University of Winnipeg
  
• Robert Balling, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
  
• Joseph Bast, President and CEO, The Heartland Institute
  
• E. Calvin Beisner, National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
  
• David Bellamy, Botanist, The Conservation Foundation (UK)
  
• Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader in Geography, University of Hull
  
• Donald Boudreaux , Chairman, Department of Economics, George Mason University (and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute - Ed.)
  
• Alexandra (Sandy) Bourne, Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute
  
• Robert Bradley, President, Institute for Energy Research
  
• William Briggs, Statistical Consultant, New York Methodist Hospital
  
• H. Sterling Burnett, Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis
  
• Robert Carter , Marine Geologist, James Cook University
  
• Randall Cerveny, Associate Professor of Geography, Arizona State University
  
• John Charles, President and CEO, Cascade Policy Institute
  
• Paul Chesser, Director, Climate Strategies Watch
  
• Kenneth Chilton, Director, Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment
  
• John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville
  
• Ian Clark, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  
• John Coleman, Meteorologist, KUSI-TV San Diego
  
• Ralph Conner, Local Legislation Manager, The Heartland Institute
  
• Roy Cordato, Vice President for Research, John Locke Foundation
  
• Richard Courtney, Energy and Environment Consultant
  
• Joseph D'Aleo, Executive Director, Icecap.us
  
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, University of Auckland
  
• Peter Dietze, Energy Advisor and Climate Modeler, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  
• David Douglass, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester
  
• Paul Driessen, Senior Fellow, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
  
• John Dunn, Policy Advisor, The Heartland Institute
  
• Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton
  
• Myron Ebell, Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
• Michael Economides, Professor, Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston
  
• Robert Essenhigh, Bailey Professor of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
  
• Christopher Essex, Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario
  
• Michael Fox, Consultant, Nuclear Energy
  
• Dan Gainor, Vice President, Business & Media Institute
  
• Lee Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas
  
• Ivar Giaever, Fellow, American Physical Society
  
• Indur Goklany, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
  
• Fred Goldberg, Climate Analyst
  
• Stanley Goldenberg, Meteorologist, Hurricane Research Division/AOML/NOAA
  
• Robert Gordon, President, Responsible Resources
  
• Lawrence Gould, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford
  
• Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  
• William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
  
• Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
  
• Kesten Green, Senior Research Fellow, Monash University
  
• Tom Harris, Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
  
• Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus, University of Connecticut
  
• David Henderson, Former Head, Economics and Statistics Department, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
  
• Ben Herman, Professor, University of Arizona Institute of Atmospheric Physics
  
• Donald Hertzmark, Adjunct Professor in Global Electricity Markets, Johns Hopkins University
  
• Art Horn, Meteorologist, The Art of Weather
  
• Chris Horner, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
• Craig Idso, Founder and Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  
• Andrei Illarionov, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
  
• Roy Innis, National Chairman and CEO, Congress of Racial Equality
  
• Kiminori Itoh, Professor, Yokohama National University
  
• Yuri Izrael, Vice Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  
• James Johnston, Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute
  
• Madhav Khandekar, Former Research Scientist, Environment Canada (and on Friends of Science advisory board - Ed.)
  
• William Kininmonth, Scientist, Australasian Climate Research
  
• Václav Klaus, President, Czech Republic
  
• Hans Labohm, Guest Teacher, Netherlands Defense Academy
  
• Christopher Landsea, Science and Operations Officer, National Hurricane Center
  
• David Legates, Climatologist and Director, Delaware Environmental Observing System
  
• Jay Lehr, Science Director, The Heartland Institute
  
• Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
• Henry Linden, Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Illinois Institute of Technology
  
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  
• Craig Loehle, Principal Scientist, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
  
• Bjorn Lomborg, Director, Copenhagen Consensus Centre
  
• Leon Louw, Executive Director, Free Market Foundation
  
• Anthony Lupo, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri - Columbia
  
• Howard Maccabee, Founding President, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
  
• Ken Malloy, Executive Director, Center for the Study of Carbon and Energy Markets
  
• Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus Association
  
• Phelim McAleer, Director and Producer, Not Evil Just Wrong
  
• Ann McElhinney, Director and Producer, Not Evil Just Wrong
  
• Ross McKitrick, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph
  
• Owen McShane, Chairman, Policy Panel, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
  
• Fred Michel, Director, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University
  
• Steven Milloy, Portfolio Manager, Free Enterprise Action Fund
  
• Ferenc Miskolczi, Atmospheric Physicist (no affiliation given)
  
• Barun Mitra, Founder and Director, Liberty Institute
  
• Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute
  
• Marc Morano, Communications Director(sic), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
  
• Julian Morris, Executive Director, International Policy Network
  
• Robert Murphy, Economist, Institute for Energy Research
  
• Iain Murray, Director of Projects and Analysis/Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
• Todd Myers, Environmental Director, Washington Policy Center
  
• James O'Brien, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, The Florida State University
  
• Kendra Okonski, Former Environment Programme Director, International Policy Network
  
• R. Timothy Patterson, Professor of Geology, Carleton University
  
• Benny Peiser, Social Anthropologist
  
• Alfred Pekarek, Assistant Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, St. Cloud State University
  
• Roger Pielke, Professor and Fellow, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences
  
• Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide
  
• Eric Posmentier, Adjunct Faculty Member, Dartmouth College
  
• Andreas Prokoph, Adjunct Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  
• Richard Rahn, Chairman, Institute for Global Economic Growth
  
• Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur
  
• Ronald Rychlak, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of Mississippi School of Law
  
• Harrison Schmitt, Former NASA Astronaut and U.S. Senator
  
• David Schnare, Senior Fellow - Energy and the Environment, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
  
• Joel Schwartz, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
  
• Tom Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
  
• Nir Shaviv, Professor, Racah Institute of Physics
  
• Daniel Simmons, Director of State Affairs, Institute for Energy Research
  
• S. Fred Singer, Founder and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
  
• Fred Smith, President and Founder, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
• Lawrence Solomon, Founder and Managing Director, Energy Probe Research Foundation
  
• Willie Soon, Chief Science Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute
  
• Douglas Southgate, Environmental Economist, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development , Ohio State University
  
• Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama at Huntsville
  
• John Sununu, President, JHS Associates, Ltd.
  
• Gordon Swaters, University of Alberta
  
• Thomas Tanton, Fellow in Environmental Studies, Pacific Research Institute
  
• George Taylor, State Climatologist and Faculty Member, Oregon State University
  
• James Taylor, Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute
  
• Mitch Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, Lakehead University
  
• John Theon, (no affiliation given)
  
• Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation
  
• David Tuerck, President, Beacon Hill Institute
  
• Brian Valentine, General Engineer, U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
  
• G. Cornelis van Kooten, Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Victoria
  
• Jan Veizer, Professor, University of Ottawa
  
• Paul Waggoner, Distinguished Scientist, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
  
• Anthony Watts, Founder, SurfaceStations.org
  
• Gerd-Rainer Weber, Scientist, German Coal Mining Association
  
• Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Research (retired), Geological Survey of Finland
  
• David Wojick, Consultant, Office of Scientific and Technical Information
  
• Miklos Zagoni, Physicist and Science Historian, Eotvos Lorand University (Budapest)
  
• Antonino Zichichi, Founder and Director, Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture
  

I'm sure most of you recognize many familiar names in that list of Heartland advisors.

Source

[Tropopause_Fold]

And how they drive the skeptic misinformation machine. Ever wonder where the skeptic talking points come from? Who develops them? Heartland is a conservative 'think tank'.

Here is a list of Heartland Institute associated 'climate scientists' and creators of the propaganda that reads like a who's who of climate skepticm elite:

I'm sure most of you recognize many familiar names in that list of Heartland advisors.

Source

those people must make your blood boil

[WeatherRusty]

those people must make your blood boil

Someone not to long ago proclaimed, "it is what it is"!

You're right though, I don't appreciate dishonesty. Do you?

[ben4vols]

Someone not to long ago proclaimed, "it is what it is"!

You're right though, I don't appreciate dishonesty. Do you?

I don't appreciate dishonesty from either side. Both sides are guilty of that. I find it funny people are up in arms over what Heartland put out (and it was in bad taste) but you don't hear much outcry when AGW supporters make similar statements.

[PhillipS]

I don't appreciate dishonesty from either side. Both sides are guilty of that. I find it funny people are up in arms over what Heartland put out (and it was in bad taste) but you don't hear much outcry when AGW supporters make similar statements.

The only thing I can recall from the Realist side that is in any way similar to Heartland's garbage was the 'push the button' commercials of about a year ago. They were justifiably criticized by anybody with any sense. But those were produced by a fringe group, not mainstream climate science supporters.

What other extreme statements or ads from those who support the science can you share with us?

[ben4vols]

The only thing I can recall from the Realist side that is in any way similar to Heartland's garbage was the 'push the button' commercials of about a year ago. They were justifiably criticized by anybody with any sense. But those were produced by a fringe group, not mainstream climate science supporters.

What other extreme statements or ads from those who support the science can you share with us?

I don't know if I would label the other side "realist" or not, but that's just me. Maybe "Theorists" would be better. Didn't Gore compare climate skeptics to racists? Didn't Bernie Sanders say they were like Nazi sympathizers? Didn't Steve Zwick of Forbes write that deniers should be hunted down and their homes burned to the ground? RFK Jr. saying climate deniers should be tried as traitors? There has been plenty of inflammatory rhetoric from the theorists side as well.

[Vergent]

I don't appreciate dishonesty from either side. Both sides are guilty of that. I find it funny people are up in arms over what Heartland put out (and it was in bad taste) but you don't hear much outcry when AGW supporters make similar statements.

All you get from the denialist side is dishonesty. Its all a bunch of carefully crafted lies paid for by companies who profit from polluting the planet. That and the brainwashed ditto-heads that mindlessly repeat the lies over and over again, even after they have been debunked.

Unfortunately propaganda works on a large portion of the population.

[WxMidwest]

If Irving Janis was still alive, he could use this thread and many of it's participants for a case study.

[WeatherRusty]

If Irving Janis was still alive, he could use this thread and many of it's participants for a case study.

I plead guilty. I am a proud member of scientific "groupthink". I prefer over all other alternatives, scientifically derived explanations for the mysteries of our world. This includes AGW.

The other side of the public AGW argument also engages in "groupthink". What are the common factors shared by the members of that group?

[WeatherRusty]

All you get from the denialist side is dishonesty. Its all a bunch of carefully crafted lies paid for by companies who profit from polluting the planet. That and the brainwashed ditto-heads that mindlessly repeat the lies over and over again, even after they have been debunked.

Unfortunately propaganda works on a large portion of the population.

From my perspective, there are two versions of denier.

1) The totally disingenuous.

2) Those whose ideological world view logically and honestly fails to permit an acceptance of AGW. They are subconsciously predisposed to reject anything which, for example, seems to threaten free market capitalism or involves big government intervention..