Monday, December 7, 2015

Denier weirdness: Heartland Institute deniers don't want their disinformation questioned

Sou | 8:05 PM Go to the first of 14 comments. Add a comment
You know how deniers are always going on about free speech. What they mean is that sometimes when they protest climate science they get rebuffed with sciency facts. I've already commented on the fact that Mark Steyn, that champion of "free speech" (or his version of it) doesn't allow comments on his blog. Now it seems that the Heartland Institute has decided that their public denier fest is not going to be public after all - although I'm guessing they will still be streaming the event to anyone who won't be bored senseless by it. (The only people who'll like it will be the already senseless.)

Kyla Mandel from DeSmogBlog reported on Twitter that the Heartland Institute has just kicked out one third of the women who rolled up to attend their denier fest at COP21, which has just begun - that is, Kyla Mandel, I'm guessing:

The Heartland Institute website says that "Heartland's "Day of Examining the Data" event is open to the public". However Kyla Mandel reported that hotel security told her that it was a private event.

Maybe it's only open to some of the public - certified (or certifiable) deniers. Or maybe they didn't want any representatives from non-fake sceptic organisations present at the first session, which they called a "press conference".


  1. There's a great film script being written here...comedy of course.

    1. +1 PG, - with themes and denier memes, like:

      - speech should be free as long as you agree with me; and

      - women are not welcome at the science denier clubs (except for two token females).

      Kevin Grandia reported that only 30 people turned up to this earth-shattering, deadly boring protest against science. I'll bet just like that other poorly attended exercise, the launch of the Not the IPCC Report, the attendees including a few grumpy old white men, a few reporters, and the people listed on the program as denialist speakers, plus two women who wandered into the room by accident.

    2. Not to mention the flooding membership of the OAS. I think his name was Trevor.

  2. I'm trying to figure out how you 'examine the data' as a public event. Is it more like misrepresenting things and constructing conspiracy theories? Will they be offering prizes to whoever can find an imaginary pause? Will there be tobacco scientists?

    And on a wider note: will Lamar Smith be launching an investigation if they are a bit hasty in publicising their conclusions? Will Marke be along to tell us all how wonderful Heartland really is? Does Anthony get another prize for being such a wonderfully denierish kind of non-denier?

    Whose turn will it be to be marked out for some special hate? Hansen, Mann, Lewandowsky, or Al Gore? Will the Unabomber be invoked?

    So many things we could learn if we were all invited. The only thing Heartland cannot offer is anything connected to science as it is properly conducted.

    1. Prizes? They could hand out packs of cigarettes - Kool would be an appropriate brand. Hell, they could even offer a grand prize of a "Snark" sailboat with a Kool logo sail... "Never a rough puff!"

  3. #ClimateCriminals

    I can see the Watts article now ...
    "I wasn't there, but if I had been there, nobody would have bothered with me anyways ... because I'm more cavemanish then the GEICO cavemen, but you can always fine me at #ClimateCavemen."

  4. I think they suddenly realised that journalists attend and faithfully report what they say during public events they hold ... even (and especially) when they discuss what communication tools they should use to get maximum impact.

    I still do not understand why they made that event public and why they didn't restrain themselves in front of journalists [i]who didn't even hide themselves[/i]. It was evident that the report would show them either as cynicals (Monckton) or totally delusionnal (the people scoffing at the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas).

    Now they try to compensate, except that they *overcompensate* to the point that their message will be less transmitted. Bad communication, really bad, really subpar compared to other lobbying groups.
    But coming from an "institute" thinking that their billboard campaign was a "success", we could not expect better. Not that I regret that :]

  5. OT but very important: almost 600 scientists have signed and sent a letter to NOAA Director Kathryn Sullivan showing support for her standing up to Lamar Smith. The letter starts: "As scientists and technical experts, we thank you for standing up for scientific integrity and independent research by refusing to disclose National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists' internal deliberations to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith."

    An article (with a link to the letter somewhere) can be found here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458476435/is-this-congressmans-oversight-an-effort-to-hobble-climate-science

    -- Dennis

    1. Anti-science politicians can be dangerous if they get power. Our previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott did his bit to disrupt and destroy science at the CSIRO by slashing its budget. Malcolm Turnbull has now restored most of the funds, but a lot of damage will undoubtedly have been done, which will take quite some time to recover from. When projects and programs were stopped, scientists and technical staff left - with all that accumulated knowledge - you can't just pick up where they left off. Still, rejuvenation may have some benefits.

    2. Don't forget former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen "I can't even get my friends to like me" Harper.

      His destruction of Canada's world renowned fisheries libraries caused irreversible losses to one of the world's most extensive collections of knowledge on the subject.

      HuffPost said: "The massacre was done quickly, with no record keeping and no attempt to preserve the material in universities. Scientists said precious collections were consigned to dumpsters, were burned or went to landfills."

    3. Yes indeed. Tony Abbott was just getting started. Harper had managed to get a column in Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467501a.html, something a lot of scientists would love but not something a serving PM is likely to want.

      Australia is fortunate to have gotten rid of Abbot before he could cause even more damage.

      The new Canadian government seems to be trying to restore things to something a bit better than the train wreak the Cons left behind but something like the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's library holdings are irreplaceable.

  6. Replies
    1. Either they really are clueless - or put enormous effort in creating that impression..

      Could that only be a play for the audience, a smokescreen while they really are up to something more clever..?

  7. Your material is always valuable, acute, and thorough. I think this laptop will let me in.

    Going OT, just found your bio with some of the sexist stuff, didn't want to draw attention to it by commenting there, despite your fearlessness about the nastiness. But I was intrigued by the state of mind demonstrated in this lovely snarky commentary at the Guardian:

    "Perhaps destruction is simply easier than kindness. We find it easier to tell a stranger on WhatsApp we want to have sex with their face than hold hands with someone we might be falling in love with. It’s ridiculous really. Charles Manson or Anders Breivik murder people to try to start a race war and it’s laughably insane, but when IS do it we decide to give them one."

    I should have left out the second sentence, but here in the US people who should know better have joined in obsessing over this instead of facing reality about climate change, and I find this disturbing.

    Anyway, this is transferable:
    "This is the worst time for society to go on psychopathic autopilot"



Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.