Comments 1 to 12:

1. chriskoz at 13:30 PM on 30 April, 2012
   The slightly OT news: Dr Michael Mann just received the coveted Oeschger medal award as reported in realclimate. Most of SkS "long-timers" probably visit realclimate, however newbies might not so I stuck this news here rather than in somewhat more relevant thread about Mike's book. If you think you can contribute to the well deserved congrat thread you are encouraged to do so. As the scientist who withstood the worst personal intimidation in recent history, Mike deserves every bit of recognition for his work and his stance.
   0 0
2. Michael Whittemore at 23:40 PM on 30 April, 2012
   Regarding thread bombing, it might just be a judgement call moderators make, that could be done privately with the poster concerned. I tend to comment a lot in some circumstances but would definitely prefer a private message from the moderators, then a public hanging.
   0 0
3. Composer99 at 02:28 AM on 1 May, 2012
   If one considers a thread hijack to be an attempt to pull a thread off-topic, the Comments Policy already cover this and usually more subtle attempts to do so are noted by commenters. If one is instead thinking of spamming a thread with a large mass of comments (or a few extremely long comments), it would depend on why this is done. I assume this is what Michael Whittemore considers to be 'thread bombing' (correct me if I am incorrect, Michael). But it would depend on whether a poster was thread bombing as an initial act or if the poster was responding to a pile-on in the comments.
   0 0
4. pbjamm at 00:12 AM on 5 May, 2012
   Hot sure where else to put this but it is so crazy that it has to be posted. Other readers of Climatecrocks will prob already have seen this. http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/ "Scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming is collapsing. Most scientists and 60 percent of the general public (in the U.S.) do not believe man-made global warming is a problem. (Keep reading for proof of these statements.) 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." We are through the looking glass...
   0 0
5. Dikran Marsupial at 00:21 AM on 5 May, 2012
   IMHO they have just scored an own goal. It is so obviously mere rhetoric that anyone with more than half a brain will see it immediately for what it is an will feel vaguely insulted that the HI should think something so lacking in subtlety would fool anybody. Of course it could be ironic humour, but somehow I doubt it.
   0 0
6. DSL at 00:30 AM on 5 May, 2012
   Oh, am I going to have fun with this one across the internets.
   0 0
7. pbjamm at 00:57 AM on 5 May, 2012
   Sadly there are people who believe this stuff. I have argued with them in the past. Through most of it I thought I had chosen the wrong door in the Argument Clinic.
   0 0
8. KR at 02:12 AM on 5 May, 2012
   pbjamm - I would agree; it's the Argument Clinic. This is one of the purest examples of the Argument by Association fallacy I have ever seen. Heartland is shooting itself in the foot with this - I cannot imagine what they thought this would accomplish. I guess this just demonstrates that the 'skeptic' side, the ones arguing that there is no problem, have no factually based arguments left...
   0 0
9. pbjamm at 03:15 AM on 5 May, 2012
   Here is the list of speakers: http://climateconference.heartland.org/speakers/ I don't think any comment can be made that would do more damage to the credibility of the Conference than that list does.
   0 0
10. vrooomie at 03:47 AM on 5 May, 2012
    Dikran@5: It may be that, to *us*, but to many who are 'on-the-fence' about the so-called "controversy" (and, in my position as an earth scientist, I see it {snip}, even from colleagues) it may {snip} slow down) efforts to make this critical science issue as effective as they must be, if we're to get any real handle on slowing down the depradation of our planet. I've been to this horse race before, in the automotive industry, and shibbolths and outright lies persist. They *especially* perdsist if not foguth, hard and forcefully, with facts, data, and clear rationale. As scienctists and activists, we have but a few tools at our disposal, and one is {snip}, when they make foolish moves, like HI has done, and undoubtedly will continue to do. As a practicing scientist (trained classicallly, raised in the classical 'rational and dispassionate' scientific bent) to be confrontational towards efforts like HI, Koch Industries, you name it, is a bit crosswise to that training. However, when battling fire...sometimes, as Wag Dodge found out in Montana, in 1949, you *must* use fire to fight it. It can be done non-ad hominem style, but {snip} be done with the full force of factual analysis. So, like BoulderBob in another thread, I'm {snip}
    0 0
    Moderator Response: TC: All caps snipped, for compliance with the comments policy. Given the extent of all caps in this post, it would have been much easier to just delete the post. Please read and comply with the comments policy in future posts to avoid that possibility. Thank you.
11. Composer99 at 05:15 AM on 5 May, 2012
    I'm surprised Monckton didn't make the list of speakers. As for the billboards, the empty, flawed logic behind them is easily exposed and disposed of with the following argument: Heartland Billboard Argument P - The Unabomber (and other undesireable characters) claimed it is important to combat climate change C - Therefore, people who claim it is important to combat climate change are like the Unabomber Analagous Argument P - Hitler owned and loved dogs C - Therefore, people who own and love dogs are like Hitler I'd say the billboard campaign makes it very obvious that the Heartland Institute is indeed engaged in scientific denialism rather than any honest skepticism. If they had a strong case to make using scientific evidence, they'd never have had to resort to such a foolish endeavour to begin with.
    0 0
12. DSL at 05:38 AM on 5 May, 2012
    Yah, it's important to remember that Heartland knows quite well that the logic is flawed. They're not actually stupid. They know that even though most people will reject the logic, they'll also carry forward the unconscious association. And now, of course, the internet is blasting that association all over the place, inadvertently serving to further Heartland's interests. Heartland should be characterized as anti-democratic because their stated goal is to increase doubt. The hoaxers will undoubtedly agree that the logic is spot on but that Heartland shouldn't have exposed themselves to the liberal media (this is the WUWT response).
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.