McKitrick Letter to Heartland
I wrote this to Joe Bast this afternoon. I am pleased to report that he replied promptly and agreed to take the billboard down.
dear Joe:
I just saw the billboards that Heartland is using to advertise the 7th ICCC:
climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
I am absolutely dismayed. This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation, hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited. Any public sympathy you had built up as a result of the Gleick fiasco will be lost–and more besides–as a result of such a campaign. I urge you to withdraw it at once.
Strike the tone in your advertisements that you want people to use when talking about you. The fact that you need a lengthy webpage to explain the thinking behind the billboards proves that your messaging failed. Nobody is going to read your explanation anyway. All they will take away is the message on the signs themselves, and it’s a truly objectionable message.
You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers. Once you have done such a thing you have lost the moral high ground and you can never again object if someone uses that kind of rhetoric on you.
I have just been cc’d on an email from someone who wrote to both my dean and university president, expressing his outrage that a UofG professor is party to such billboards. Had this simply been someone objecting to my speaking at Heartland I could easily have (and would have) defended myself. But notwithstanding that I have tenure and have the full right to speak wherever I want, the fact is that I have to agree with the person — I’m appalled.
I appreciate what Heartland does, and I know this year has been frustrating for you, and your staff may feel like venting. But I can’t be associated with those billboards. I had really been looking forward to participating in this year’s conference, but unless the billboard campaign is immediately suspended I have to cancel my participation.
Yours truly
Ross McKitrick
Update: Donna Laframboise, a fellow Torontonian, withdrew from the conference today. I agree with her remarks here.
115 Comments
I wrote to Heartland endorsing Ross’ letter in the strongest possible terms. 10:10 was inappropriate as well. That doesn’t justify the Heartland billboards. This sort of bell is not easy to unring.
And the timing is odd, seems to me
For each day we’re more likely to see
Some advancing of sense
This billboard’s main offense
Is distracting from our victory
I have never much cared for this tack
And their allies are taken aback
Yes, I do see their aim
But they’ll only inflame
It’s too late, sadly, to take it back
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
It is discouraging to see such an ad by Heartland. Didnot believe it at first, but realize it was for real. Take it down, and hope the damage will not be mortal.
Playing nice with radicals is a losing strategy.
Alinskyites are imposing their rules on your game:
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Alinskyites fear being caricatured and ridiculed, because they know it works:
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
MarkR:
Oddly that’s what the over-the-top climate change advocates say too.
So there’s no difference between either of your groups? Different message, same tactics, means there’s no real difference. Just a bunch of sleazy salesmen running a pitch.
Just wonderful.
“Just a bunch of sleazy salesmen running a pitch.”
I have to admit it looks like that.
What dark calling leads Heartland to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Someone must of thought this was a good idea, and someone else agreed. One stupid person is understandable, but two?
My argument that we’re the adults in the room just took a big hit.
Well, I don’t think that “stupid” is right
They’re good-hearted and probably bright
But they did have a fall
With this judgment call
They’ve just hit themselves in the fight
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
I wonder when was the last time that any “propaganda” from the warmist regime was repudiated with such speed and vigour?
Kudos to all that object to this kind of pugnacity. Having been “Gleicked” is no reason to sink below any level of propriety.
The facts support the argument and that should and will always be enough to win the day. Name-calling and wallowing are best left to the losers, as always.
Difference between geniality and stupidity is, again, that geniality has limits, isn’t it?
Plty txs for the ‘spotting’ + reaction [Heartland], Ross & Steve!
Brgds from Sweden.
/TJ
Heartland is over-reacting to the insanity of the behavior of the warmists. That said, I understand the anger of Joe Bast and his core group which must have precipitated these ads. In their defense, the ads themselves are not inaccurate. People like Kaczynski, Castro and Manson believe in the so-called consensus science because it dove-tails with their world view. Not unlike Gleick and Mann.
But a group like Heartland needs to respond to provocations with their head and not their heart. Glad to hear they’ve announced a strategic retreat. They win the argument by sponsoring conferences and funding good causes, not by trashing the opposition through guilt by association.
Perhaps Heartland hired the same outfit that UEA hired.
So, we should assume that Ross McKitrick would have declined any invitation by Greenpeace, “Concerned scientists” and pretty much any other radical environmentalist organization because they routinely compare climate realists with Holocaust deniers and argue that they should be persecuted for crimes against humanity? Or that mr McKitrick would have refused to come to Heartland conference if by any chance James Hansen, who many times compared skeptics with Nazis and called for their legal persecution, accepted the invitation which is routinely extended to him every year? Somehow, I doubt it.
What is then the source of this strange, selective oversensitivity to strong messages and over-the-top statements? I hope that McKitrick would not explain this oversensitivity by saying that he goes to Heartland events because he agrees with their agenda, hence a greater moral responsibility for their behavior than for say, Greenpace’s or Hansen’s?
This is not “oversensitivity”. It is anger. I am not “sensitive” about what Heartland has done. I am red faced boiling angry. Profanely angry. Until today, the skeptic side was clearly winning. This is a catastrophe. Science will out. The truth will out. And when it does, those who supported the truth will be seen to be the real heros (no I don’t think that is over the top) that they are. And then this idiocy. I must stop now, lest I swear a lot.
JE
No, Ivan, I believe you’ve got it wrong
Analogies can fool if misapplied
Ross M’s concerned if he should go along
With HI since he’s “playing for that side”
If Union of Concerned (part) Scientists
And others of such dubious repute
Add Ross and Steve to their attendee list
They might go, as flawed science they’d refute
But if the premise is that M and M
Are working for the goals of UCS
The chance of that association’s slim:
Might that decline be visible? Oh, yes!
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
I apologize for using this language but your insinuations and epithet against Dr. McKitrick are outrageous and unfounded. Quite simply very eloquent and talented people accepted an invitation to present their findings to the Heartland conference only to find that, just before its start, HI is effectively putting words in their mouths. Furthermore IMHO you are completely wrong in insinuating that people go to the Heartland conference “because (they) agree with their agenda.” The conference was billed, as I understood it, as a place where respected scientists and authors would present their findings. In fact, right after Fakegate, HI made the point that they had even invited Peter Gleick to speak at the conference. The ad changed that by creating the public impression that the speakers either agreed with or condoned the comparisons being made. Contrary to your insinuations and epithet, the speakers have every right to defend their right to speak for themselves. Agreeing to speak at a conference does not give the hosts the right to use that attendance for their own political purposes, even if HI had not done so in such a controversial manner.
snip
any use of the word “Nazi” is an automatic delete.
Mr McIntyre,
you deleted all of my comments, but left the critiques of them by the others that mention me by name. Since it is your blog you obviously can banish whomever you want from it, including me, (as you essentially had done) but I think it is pretty dishonest from your part to leave the critiques of me while censoring my comments that prompted the critiques, and not allowing me to respond.
If I am a persona non grata on your blog, the most logical thing to do would be to delete all discussions about me, not only my comments.
The comments you censored (perfectly polite, on topic and respectful comments) appeared at Anthony Watts’ blog. Some other people over there also complained they were banished from your site for perfectly polite and respectful comments. Your appalling behavior is not going to reflect well on your reputation among many of your readers.
Steve: I have different editorial policies than Anthony. Certain words trigger moderation.
John, the emphasis in my comment was not on “sensitivity”, but on “selective sensitivity”, i.e. the fact that McKitrick is extremely concerned about Heartland behaving badly, but apparently not in the least about Hansen or Greenpace behaving badly. The Heartland adds comparing the AGW with terrorists are inexcusable, but Hansen’s constant comparing the skeptics to the Nazis and calling for their persecution for war crimes are of no great concern. If Hansen accepted the invitation to go to the Heartland conference McKitrick would not have any problems attending.
I think that this sentence from McKitrick’s letter to Heartland best describes the real reasons behhind this puzzling asymmetry:
“I have just been cc’d on an email from someone who wrote to both my dean and university president, expressing his outrage that a UofG professor is party to such billboards.”
So I appeal to you and to all other McKitrick’s cheerleaders to have this in mind and to don’t play the “useful idiots” for the bad guys.
Ivan: you are missing the point completely. What Ross and Steve are doing is exerting influence where they have the power to make a difference. While I hesitate to speak for them, I’m certain that they would treat any organization that invites them to make a presentation in the same manner. It’s just that the chances that Greenpeace will invite McIntyre or McKittrick to speak are “slim and none” as they say. Open debate is anathema to Greenpeace; it’s not to Heartland.
If Hansen accepted an invitation to speak at Heartland, why should Ross or Steve protest? The problem with people like Hansen is that they won’t engage in civil, open debate. If Hansen had a change of heart and decided to engage, I would expect everyone involved to treat him with civility and hear him out, regardless of whether he deserves it or not. Boycotting is something you would expect from the warmist side. There would be no inconsistency on the part of Steve or Ross if they didn’t boycott Hansen’s speech.
Everyone knows the debate has gotten entirely out of hand and I agree with you that the worst offenders are among the environmental extremists. But the idea that Ross or Steve can in some way influence fanatics on the extreme warmist side to change their ways by criticizing them is silly. They do have influence with Heartland, and they are using it to make a difference in the tone of the great debate so many of us are engaged in. I congratulate them on upholding high standards for everyone.
And it’s not like Steve has given the people you list a free pass. I think that if you go back through the archives you will find examples of him either correcting or admonishing them for either bad science or bad behavior.
Your unfortunate use of the term “useful idiots” implies a certain ignorance or naivete on the part of M and M. Ross and Steve have taken a lot of hits from these people and are fully cognizant of how vicious they can be. They are not being used. They are simply applying higher standards to the debate where they have the ability to do so.
When one’s job is at risk because of one’s point of view, it makes life difficult……..
Thank goodness they’ve listened to you, Ross.
I don’t know if HI realizes that with this Billboard they’ve unfortunately handed the alarmists a stick with which they can – and no doubt will – beat anyone and everyone who has any association – no matter how remote – with the organization.
Perhaps it will all be forgotten whenever the next blunder surfaces (from whatever side of the fence). But as Revkin notoriously said in the aftermath of Gleickgate:
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if in the weeks ahead we notice signs that the alarmists have (finally) ditched the Big Oil funded meme in favour of some variant of a recitation of this incident.
My initial opinion is that Ross, and others to be sure, have over reacted a bit here. I’m not endorsing the billboard, far from it, but I don’t think it was as horrendous as people have depicted.
No – it really is that bad. If you don’t immediately see it, you have a problem you need to think over.
Agreed w MarkB. It really is that bad. Why resort to such an infantile attack when they could have used facts. Integrity is hard won and fast lost. Joe Bast will need to do an awful lot of work to make up for this.