Is This Just Bad Advertising? [Pic]

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in

Heartland Institute unveiled new billboards that compare global warming believers to the Unabomber. Story in credits.
There are 76 comments:
Male 2,216
You can tell a republican statement by the amount of stupid.
0
Reply
Male 176
@5Cats - Last time you called me a leftie, and now I`m a greenie? I actually *do* think for myself, which is precisely why I`m never going to fit into whatever convenient pigeonhole you want to ascribe to me. And you claim you think for yourself, yet every single post you make on this site is right out of the the republican textbook. I`m not convinced.

As I said, I agree that nuclear energy is a preferable short-term alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. The green attitude to nuclear energy is just as hopelessly reactionary as the right-wing GW denailist stance ... tho at least the green reaction is based on safety concerns rather than a handful of powerful industries concerned about their profits. And biofuel? That`s NOT a viable alternative. Biofuel is one of the token measures I mentioned.

I don`t know what the answer is, but policy needs to be based on dealing with the problem, not on protecting the profits of the fossil fuel industry.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@artmunki: But the "greenies" HATE Nuclear power! Even though there`s enough uranium on Earth to last 1000s of years, and plenty more in the asteroid belt (idk about Mars).
So again I point out: the ONE and only viable, low polution energy source is getting ZERO developement by the "clean energy" people.
Anyone that dogmatic has to be stupid, evil or both, so I reject their fake studies and think for myself.

"move away from fossile fuel"
And HOW exactly does a nation as big as the USA do that? Serious question!
Hint: if ALL the food produced in the USA were converted to biofuel, it would NOT replace the gasoline and diesel used.
0
Reply
Male 176
@5Cats - yet again you *assume* you know what I`m talking about, then do your best to prove you don`t have a clue.
The sort of precautions I`m talking about really just seem like common sense - moving away from polluting, finite and massively subsidised fossil fuel generation, and start seriously trying to develop renewable energy (rather than the pathetic token measures being taken at the moment). That could free every country on the planet from fuel dependancy AND greatly reduce the damage we do to the environment. If it also just happens to reduce the global warming effect ... bonus! And yeah, by all means develop nuclear generation in the meantime, but in case you hadn`t realised, that relies on finite resources too. We`re using up our natural resources as if we`re desperate to get to the end - surely it`s just common sense to try to do something about that before everything`s gone.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
For anyone who would like to get a taste of the complexity of the science surrounding global warming, the rigor of those scientists studying it, and the simplistic attempts to distort it by the far right, I recommend spending nine minutes watching this.

Bottom line: When the overwhelming majority of scientists in the U.S., Europe, and Japan are telling me something, I tend to think it might be a good idea to listen.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Even if their were rising sea levels, it wouldn`t be as dangerous as a government with increasing power to regulate individuals, which is what many environmentalists keep advocating for."

The sea levels ARE rising. I don`t think even most deniers will disagree with that.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]The average democrat is a poor man and the average republican is rich.[/quote]
Yeah, I feel sorry for those poor Democrats like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Jeff Immelt, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry...

Of the richest families in the US, 25% are Republicans and 75% are Democrats.

Also, here are the top bundlers for Obama:
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232

Now, who`s the darling of Wall Street?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Even if their were rising sea levels, it wouldn`t be as dangerous as a government with increasing power to regulate individuals, which is what many environmentalists keep advocating for.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Kain1 that`s exactly what the "ClimateGate" e-mails were all about!
These guys: `peer revied` each other
referenced each other`s works before they were even published
conspired to silence any critics
hid their data
faked their data
used data from outside their `studies` to make the outcome match the AGW theory...

Science? Not!
And now their fraaud IS being exposed, there`s a vast majority (outside of their tight clique) who say it`s junk.
NONE of their dire predictions are comming true. CO2 continues to rise but the Earth`s temperature, ice caps and whatnot remain oblivious!
Meanwhile: vast quantities of cash finds its way into certian studies and certian companies, all of whom SUPPORT AGW`s theory. Coincidence?
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@Cajun: Completely agree. It`s a big problem, but the important thing to note is that most often it`s not the serious scientists that spread doomsday predictions, but TV and movies in stead.

It`s probably not going to be a doomsday scenario, but it is a serious problem, that needs to be adressed.

@randomxp: If you have a science degree, you should be able to read and understand peer reviewed litterature. Go and do that. You don`t need a 22 year old to explain it to you.

There`s not that much money in science. Noone in their right mind would become a scientist to become rich. There`s no real point in "continuating the myth", and besides, it`s much much MUCH easier to scam people on wall street than it is to fake science and still get it through peer review. Fraud in science is always found out eventually, and when it does the hammer falls heavily on those responsible.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Republican logic.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
"The average democrat is a poor man and the average republican is rich."

What a load of complete bollocks. The average Republican is far from rich. Probably as many Democrats are rich as Republicans. Democrats buy the support of poor people with working people`s money - that is why they support policies that keep people poor, they don`t want to lose voters.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Kain1

And yes, I understand climate science. A degree in Earth Sciences from the a world-class university (far better than UEA, but not far away from it) will help in these things.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
"If a rich democrat exists its due to hard work."

Yes - other people`s hard work.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Kain1

Not when the people who decide on their grants see their interest in the continuation of the myth.

If this evidence is there, why do we not know of any? I have been asking warmists what this evidence is for three year now, and none of them has been able to tell me.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Kain: Any scientist`s theory, discovery, or experiment should be able withstand criticism even from a common person. The doomsday notion of global warming hasn`t. The claims have been so grossly exagerrated so much that the AGW crowd has turned from a noble grassroots movement into a big political football.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
It`s funny how people with practically no understanding of climate science have such firm opinions on Global Warming.

As for the underhanded claims that it`s all a big silent conspiracy by the climate scientists, so they can get funding. This is ridiculous. Scientists that make claims they can not back up by solid evidence instantly lose all credibility and the hope of a career in science. Before any article is published, it is reviewed by several other scientists to check if the science is backed sufficiently by evidence.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah:

[quote]...and people just like you eat it up.[/quote]

You misspelled "squirrels." ~wink~
0
Reply
Male 140
man made golbal warming vrs natural global warrming is the REAL question, there is global warming but not man made global warming...imo
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"If a rich democrat exists its due to hard work."

But the Republicans money was given to them by genies, right? All Republicans are from the same line of rich families! They just pass their money and positions down through birth! The only real Americans are the working class Democrats! All Democrats are hard working citizens! Hard working average Republicans don`t exist!! Looks like I`M not the conspiracy theorist after all~
0
Reply
Male 787
Leesah you not only sound like a conspiracy theorist but you also seem to be confused.

The average democrat is a poor man and the average republican is rich. Google stats if you want. It`s all about birth circumstances. If a rich democrat exists its due to hard work.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"and peopl"

and people just like you eat it up.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"You conservatives are all for NASA--except when its planetary scientists are stating facts you dislike?"

NASA is not above releasing information they find most useful to getting funding. If the Dems with all the money say they want records released to infer global warming, the records will be released in a way that infers global warming. That is, in fact, the reason "us conservatives" support privatizing the space industry.

The fact is that the Earth goes through periods of climate change, which have done nothing but shape this planet and the species on it to be exactly what you see today. A not-even-one-degree change in global temperature means nothing (margin of error), and if the Earth is warming then so be it. It`s obviously not rising fast enough to be absolutely effected by what humans are doing. I`m all for going green with energy/etc, but this is yet another gross over-exaggeration turned scare tactic by the government/lobbyists and peopl
0
Reply
Male 1,735
Da`Fuq is wrong with some people, sheesh let anything with a few bucks post anything. If it was my company who owned the billboards, I`d have someone checking so stupid things don`t go up.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

I`ll post a graph that emphatically proves my point as soon as I`m done drawing it with light cycles.



0
Reply
Male 1,045
What I can`t believe is that there are still people who don`t believe global warming is real.

Of course, there are still people who don`t believe in evolution, so it`s not that strange.
0
Reply
Male 1,810
@RevWubby. Hitler persecuted both the Catholic and Protestant churches. Many were either executed in Gestapo jails or sent to concentration camps because of their christian-based opposition to Nazism. History....how does it work ???

Also - Godwin`s Law...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@RevWubby: That site is offensive... LOLZ! Ok, it`s funny.

@2L84ME: Ok then, lay it on us: HOW do we go about `caring for our environment` on a global scale?
0
Reply
Male 64
This is a great ad campaign idea. Here is my shameless stealing of it.

I`m a Christian.
0
Reply
Male 208
Even if Global Warming is not a result of humans don`t tell me we should not care about what we do to the environment. What a selfish way of thinking.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]- a global insurance policy.[/quote]

@artmunki: If we`d have fought "Global Cooling" in the 70`s by heating the planet, how would THAT have helped us?

Fact is: It would cost MANY TRILLIONS per year.
No "new jobs" would be created: every "green job" kills 2.
It would starve Hundreds of Millions to death each year.
It might actually make things WORSE.
And there`s no proof AGW is even happening! None that I`ve ever seen.

Oh sure, some guys got together and published a bunch of stuff: THEN hid their data, conspired to FAKE it, lied about it, and when caught claimed it wasn`t them (or something).

Aside from building lots of Nuclear Power Stations, there is NO proven way to lower Earth`s temperature by lowering "greenhouse emissions".
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The global warming crowd has equated skeptics with Holocaust deniers, refused to publish any research that contradicts their preconceived orthodoxy, denied promotions and tenure to professors who don`t agree with them, and tried to strip the professional credentials from meteorogists who don`t toe the global warmist line of thinking.

After what the global warming alarmists have done to the people who have figured out that their global warming hoax is nothing but a bunch of socialist bull$#!+, turnabout is fair play. In fact, we`ve got a lot of catching up to do.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
For anyone who doesn`t think NASA`s planetary scientists are full of "bullplop" (5Cats`s term, not mine) and wants to read what they have to say on this issue, click here.
0
Reply
Male 49
Sorry, 5Cats, I`ll believe NASA over your (literally) oil-company funded studies.
0
Reply
Male 176
I`d be willing to bet that the vast majority of those in denial over climate change are perfectly happy shelling out loads of money every year for all sorts of insurance products, just in case something goes wrong, despite the fact that most of these policies will never be claimed against. And that`s really all we`re talking about here - a global insurance policy. Sure, man-made global-warming may not be true (tho I`d be much more comfortable trusting the massive majority of people who actually know what they`re talking about who say it`s real), but do we really want to take the risk? Wouldn`t it make more sense to take a few precautions, just in case?
0
Reply
Male 162
They just started recording the temperatures 130 years ago. Even NASA says the temperatures fluctuate over a period of ten or even one hundred thousand years.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: Thanks. And thanks for the support the other day. (See my latest comment under the Furry Chart post.)

As for global warming, I`m afraid we`re going to have to agree to disagree. I think we can do that without being disagreeable, right? =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 910
5Cats, i like how all of your relevant graphs end at the year 2000, way to try and hide evidence. Just like all the other oil corporation paid propaganda spewing dishonest scum.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Good charts 5Cats.

Global Warming is scam, Al Gore is now one of the richest vice-presidents ever because of that farce.

Besides, we would be better off warming instead of cooling and Global Cooling is a distinct possibility due to the lower than normal amount of solar activity that we`ve been having lately.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
For Heartland`s own reasoning:

http://bit.ly/IxeNfa
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Lalala: I can do this all day:







OR I could just point out that Al Gore`s bookcover is photoshopped, ie: FAKED to make it look `scarier`...
0
Reply
Male 261
Global warming... few more months global freezing... blah blah

It is fake.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
As for this particular poster - look at Heartland`s own explanation.

They are right - this is not a mainstream idea, not an idea strongly linked to sane, thinking people. It is an idea that kooks use in their lunatic ravings, some of those kooks used to be VP, some of them are multiple murderers (and the posters are true). All think they have something to gain from this new religion. None of them make their statements out of altruism.
0
Reply
Male 40,752



0
Reply
Male 1,293
keith2

They originally did not lie. They thought it was true. Many of them still sort of believe it. There is, however, no evidence beyond a bunch of models that were discredited 15 years ago.

The conspiracy is there. Read the emails leaked from the CRU. These include communications which conspire to lie, the idea you so ignorantly dismiss.

As for why - their jobs, their wealth (did you know that James Hansen illegally earned over US$1 million last year from work outside NASA? That is just one year) and their prestige depends on this. They are being listened to. They are famous. They are in the world news media. They are feted by world leaders.

And you ask why????
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Proof #1 (scroll down)

More Proof

It`s a FACT: The Earth has been slowly warming up since the "Little Ice Age" which is something AGW "science" completely ignores...
0
Reply
Male 1,293
leesah

No-one claims 1 degree. They claim 0.7 degrees. However large parts of that are down to poor siting of US temperature stations, artificial "corrections" to Icelandic, Australian and New Zealand data and ignoring all Russian stations that don`t include warming. Some of the rest is due to urban heat island effect. The figure is also far more uncertain than you think as one station covers most of Canada, all stations in Bolivia are now ignored and they ignore the modern floats in the oceans because they show cooling; the less numerous old floats show warming so are used instead.

Arcval

Nothing to do with evolution denial. It is you that is in denial - denying that you have been lied to. Your dishonesty simply shows you have no reasoned argument to give, so have lost the argument before you even post.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000[/quote]
Sorry @Squrlz: This is 100% false, untrue, propoganda, complete bullplop.

So glad you didn`t leave us though!
0
Reply
Male 946
Warming the globe . . . one bomb at a time.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah: From Nasa.gov:

[quote]The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.[/quote]

About a week ago, the conservatives on here were championing NASA and deriding Obama for not funding it sufficiently. So, lemme get this straight: You conservatives are all for NASA--except when its planetary scientists are stating facts you dislike?
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"recent warming trend"

The one degree increase in global temperatures is a warming trend?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Male 303
Climate denial, evolution denial etc. is so american. Never seen or heard one were I live.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Oh yeah, and David Archibald debunked:

Link
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Fallacy of composition
0
Reply
Male 3,445
5Cats: Nobody has ever denied the fact that the climate has changed at many times in the Earth`s history. That doesn`t change the fact that we know that CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gases and that the recent warming trend has been accompanied by an exponential growth in humanity`s reliance on fossil fuels, and an increase in global deforestation.
0
Reply
Male 2,085
Man-made global warming is a hoax.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Buiadh: Large parts of Antartica have had trees growing on them as little as 10K years ago, now that area`s under ice!
Nothing to do with humans.
The North Pole`s icesheet is as big and thick as it normally is, it`s NOT shrinking. It DOES expand and contract across the decades, something we`ve only learned to track recently, eh?

The "Hockey Stick" graph: Pure fiction, fyi!
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Sunspots Explained

@FoolsPrussia (and others) The GLOBAL temperature has gone UP or DOWN all by itself, without human help, for a BILLION YEARS!
More than today, more than the worst `prediction` says, and we`re all still alive, go figure!
0
Reply
Male 2,841
...So we should invade Iran?
0
Reply
Male 2,591
Why the f*** would climatologists statisticians scientists paleontologists meteorologists and the like lie about something like this? Are you insane? What you think they`re part of some conspiracy to scare you? Stupid asses.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Also, re. Coleman`s assertion that solar activity has been increasing:

"Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun`s activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise."`"If you look carefully at the observations, it`s pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that`s been going on for a couple of decades.`


Link
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Al Gore is neither a climatologist nor a meteorologist, yet you believe him."

Al Gore may be the face of the global warming issue, but he is not the reason I accept man-made global warming. He looks at the models and sees what benefits him, just as Coleman is doing in his video. Instead, I accept what virtually the entire population of climate scientists is saying.

One of the most disappointing things about Gore is that I`ve never heard him point to the largest contributor to global warming: the meat industry. Raising livestock is worse for the climate than all the cars on the road. He should be promoting less meat consumption, but I`ve never heard that from him.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
I don`t think man made global warming is the problem many make it out to be. But this add was the product of pure idiot thinking.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

FoolsPrussia - Al Gore is neither a climatologist nor a meteorologist, yet you believe him.
0
Reply
Female 546
i`m kinda confused by this billboard. is this heartland company trying to say that if you do believe in global warming you`re the same as manson? gah! i think i`m too young for all this crap. next subject please!
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Gerry, I`m from San Diego originally and I know who John Coleman is. Frankly, he`s an idiot. There is a major difference between a climatologist and Coleman, who is a meteorologist. Meteorologists do not study the overall climate. They don`t do tests on climate models, or study greenhouse gases in a laboratory environment, and they don`t study the ice cores to find out what past temperatures are. All they do is study localized weather patterns.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
I`d agree with Gerry.

It`s scientifically proven that pollution can cause adverse affects on the temperature and environment. But it will not be the end-all of the world.

I think we are in a bit of flux at the moment, the world is warmer. I think most of it is, as said, a natural cycle. But global warming DOES exist and to deny it is as stupid as stuffing your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and going "LALALALALA". Most of the rest of the world accepts it, the US doesn`t like to though.

I reckon, in 50 years time, we`ll have a clearer stance on global warming. Ie, no icecaps left and people buying real estate in antarctica=global warming. lol
0
Reply
Male 39,921

According to the weatherman in San Diego, there is no man-made global warming. Just natural cycle. If you`ve got 8 minutes, watch it.
John Coleman Debunks Glogal Warming

Me, I have found the truth usually lies in the middle. Probably there is a man-made effect on the temperature, but I doubt it`s the global catastrophy we hear tell of from fanatics.
0
Reply
Male 670
From the group’s website:


What these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming.

It continues:


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.
0
Reply
Male 670
Suuuure leecha, call it what ever the right wing, anti-science think tank website tells you to call it. They pulled it because of the backlash. Some `experiment` right?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Hey, I submitted this yesterday.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
So slow, this billboard was already taken down, it was supposedly an experiment in "provocative communication".
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Kaczynski may have been crazy but he wasn`t stupid. They`re very different qualities. Heartland apparently has the opposite qualities!
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Is America regressing?

Will ve eventually see Americans devolve into apes?

THat would be ironic in this case.
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Is This Just Bad Advertising? [Pic] [Rate Link] - Heartland Institute unveiled new billboards that compare global warming believers to the Unabomber. Story in credits.
0
Reply