I was going to make this post a “denier comment of the day” but there’s too many to choose from in just one place. Anthony Watts has posted a letter from Joe Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, reportedly meant to be a response to an op-ed piece in the New York Times, by Fred Krupp, titled, “A New Climate-change Consensus“. For whatever reason, the New York Times didn’t see fit to publish it, so Anthony has decided it needs airing. I’m glad he has,because it is a clear demonstration of how hypocritical and pious, Joe Bast is. If he thinks sane people are going to take him seriously, either his logic is FUBAR or his arrogance, of the charts. So, where to start?
I think I should start with the title. I’m assuming I can attribute this little gem to Anthony. (Note: all emphasis throughout post is mine)
Why We Need Debate, Not Consensus, on Climate Change
Putting aside the difference between debate and argument, I’ll assume he means argument…or maybe he doesn’t. Anyway, can you imagine a similar headline, “Why We Need Debate, Not Consensus, on Gravity“? When will these clowns realise that their Google Galileos and their Excel Experts, while not managing to put together any cogent scientific argument that can pass the muster of peer review, are not engaging in a scientific argument. All they are doing is running a propaganda campaign from the sideline with the sole aim of creating confusion amongst an equally scientifically illiterate public and perpetuating the myth that the science isn’t settled. But enough about Anthony. I’d like to start at the start of this letter but I need to jump ahead a bit first to the following passage.
“Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist, and when opinion polls and political decisions revealed that strategy wasn’t working, by denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”
Joe Bast is complaining about the name-calling. He really doesn’t like being called a “denier” and prefers “sceptic”. All I can say is Joe, if you were a real sceptic, you wouldn’t just attack the proponents’ arguments but you would have stopped funding “Lord” Monckton years ago. Peter Hadfield amongst others have demonstrated his bullshit many times and that’s exactly what it is, bullshit. If you were truly sceptical, you would stop funding Anthony Watts now that his blog-reviewed manuscript has been found to be so poorly written and scientifically inaccurate. No Joe, you are a denier and you are a shill. If it wasn’t for oil and tobacco companies, you’d have a real job. Now to the start.
I read your August 7 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” with great interest. As you know, The Heartland Institute is a leading voice in the international debate over climate change. The Economist recently called us “the world’s most prominent think-think promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
No argument there. Being labelled the biggest debater isn’t actually something to be proud of. You probably don’t understand why. You actually have nothing of any scientific value to add.
“…we ran more than $1 million in ads calling on Al Gore to debate his critics. He repeatedly refused. We hosted seven international conferences on climate change and invited alarmists to speak at every one, the most recent one held in Chicago on May 23-24. Only one ever showed up, and he was treated respectfully.”
You spent more than $1 million on that? Al Gore is not a climate scientist. But why ads? Why not send him a letter and ask for his response? I put it to you that the reason why you chose this tactic is twofold. First, Al Gore is an easy target. He’s a public figure and he’s not an expert. He also has never claimed to be an expert but given your propensity to put your faith in non experts like those on your paylist, this is not surprising. Could it be though that you realise the real experts, unlike your mob, actually know what they are talking about and would be likely to make you look more foolish than you already do? I think your problem is, you think you are more important than you actually are. But let’s get into the issue of hypocrisy. You moan about name-calling and then refer to guests whom you claim to treating respectfully as “alarmists”? Well, Joe, here is an invite to you. I respectfully invite you to my place for dinner you stupid wanker. Was that respectful enough?
“Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists who affiliate with The Heartland Institute, while the Center for American Progress and 350.org are using them to demonize corporations that fund us. No group on the left, including yours, has condemned these activities.”
No group on the “left”? Really? Interesting. Apparently the board of the Institute he works for didn’t condone his actions. The editorial in Nature from February 22, 2012 covered it and made the statement “Dishonesty, whatever its form and motivation, is a stain on the individual and the profession.” I’m sorry, did you say you condemned the illegal hacking of the UEA emails that led to the manufactured “Climategate”? Didn’t think so you hypocrite. But here we find the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.
I don’t actually need to say anything here other than to remind you of this….
When unethical companies think you’re unethical, you really have no right to complain about alleged “unethical tactics”. What’s your name? “Hypocritical Joe”? It kind of rolls off the tongue. The rest of your letter is too silly for me to bother reproducing and debunking here. I will offer one word of caution though…Anthony’s surface station stuff is garbage, just ask his coauthors.
So there you have it readers…Hypocritical Joe Bast in all his glory. I urge you to go and read the full thing. Wear forehead protection.