brought to you by www.energyboom.com
 
“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



Heartland Debate Challenge Update, May 3, 2007

DeSmog Debate Challenge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the Heartland Institute being such passionate defenders of smokers' rights I thought for sure they would be interested in a debate on the subject.

After what we thought was some constructive dialogue towards making this event happen, the Heartland seems to now be playing a bit of duck and cover.

In the meantime, please enjoy some past posts we have done on the Heartland Institute or the entry for Heartland over at Sourcewatch.

What's next?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
#78857
Eco-Hitler. +0; Thu, 2007-05-03 21:04; And ...
Eco-Hitler (not verified)


Of course all this is a sideshow by you to distract attention from the fact that GORE STILL REFUSES TO ENGAGE IN AN HONEST DEBATE.

#79428
Kevin Grandia. +1; Fri, 2007-05-04 06:32; Not a sideshow

I am making a point. Tell me what a debate between Gore and Monckton would accomplish. Debate over issues of science belong in the peer-reviewed journals amongst scientists.

Hypothesis --- conclusion --- peer review --- publish, repeat as necessary.  

#79541
Carl Szczerski. +0; Fri, 2007-05-04 07:38; Agreed, that is the nature
Carl Szczerski (not verified)
Agreed, that is the nature of any scientific debate and discussion. Media debates are best left to politicians where public debates on policy are their arena. Science isnt supposed to be reduced to soundbites and public sway, thats not how it works, it requires careful critical examination. If anything the only debate Gore should conduct would be a policy debate and let scientists continue to debate out the specifics of global warming climate change as they have been currently, which has denialists on the fridge unable to publish their garbage.
#79790
Eco-Hitler. +0; Fri, 2007-05-04 10:45; Actually, yes, it is a sideshow
Eco-Hitler (not verified)


"I am making a point."

Really? Sorry, I didn't notice for some reason.

"Tell me what a debate between Gore and Monckton would accomplish."

Why not have one and find out? Or is there something you'd rather not find out?

"Debate over issues of science belong in the peer-reviewed journals amongst scientists."

The debate to which Gore has been challenged, and seems to be afraid to participate is: Is Global Warming a Crisis?.

That is not a scientific debate. That is a political debate. Gore is a politician, and should therefore be fully qualified to defend his position -- Assuming he can.

"Hypothesis --- conclusion --- peer review --- publish, repeat as necessary."

Interestingly, you have omitted a tiny detail which generally comes before "conclusion" -- that would be evidence.
#86176
Stephen Berg. +1; Mon, 2007-05-07 13:47; Gore refuses to engage in a

Gore refuses to engage in a "debate" featuring mudslinging and ad hominems against the top climate scientists on the planet.

Eco-H*****, face it. There is no debate. You are wrong.

#86218
Eco-Hitler. +0; Mon, 2007-05-07 18:16; I see your point
Eco-Hitler (not verified)
"Gore refuses to engage in a "debate" featuring mudslinging and ad hominems against the top climate scientists on the planet."

Of course not. That's where Desmogblog.com comes in.
#90380
Jeff Agular. +0; Mon, 2007-05-21 05:24; Stop the Name Calling on Joe Bast
Jeff Agular (not verified)
I am curious why DeSmog keeps attacking the Heartland Institute. Why do they keep trying to divert the debate on global warming to smoking. Heartland has a very staunch position on Smoking. They never deny that it is bad for you. They ask that people realize how unfairly smokers are taxed and that people have rights even if they are smokers. That is one position of many that Heartland takes up. Why are you attacking them on that instead of attacking them on their position on global warming? The science is sound by the critics of mand-made global warming. They urge people to look at the many other distinct and powerful possiblites other than just man-made CO2. In fact many don't disagree that CO2 is increasing and that this is not a good sign. They however, argue that there are many other factors that play in and to take this and turn it political and use tax schemes against individuals and business is not appropriate. You can't tax the sun so lets tax big business or so they line of thought goes. Its time people stopped being emotional and using their disdain for business and progress in an effort to tax and and strike fear into the hearts of citizens. This is a new and developing science that will continue to uncover something new each year. People need to stop the panic mode and think rationally about this. Also, the attack on Joe Bast are pretty petty guys. Aren't you any better thant that? Personal attacks make your position look weak. I know you don't need to go there so why? Finally, Bast has responded on their blog. www.fromtheheartland.org. Why hasn't anyone argued it point by point. Is it that you don't have an answer! LETS ALL GROW UP!
#90416
Stephen Berg. +1; Mon, 2007-05-21 07:04; The DeSmogBlog is attacking

The DeSmogBlog is attacking the Heartland Institute because they do not engage in sound scientific investigation. They simply engage in public relations campaigns which are intended to create confusion and to prevent the general public from seeing, hearing, and reading the truth, let alone understanding it.

What the Heartland Institute has done in the past (i.e. the 1970s and 1980s) in trying to portray smoking as a safe activity was repulsive. The same applies with climate change. They try to deflect public attention from the real culprit which warms the planet (i.e. CO2 and other greenhouse gases which we are emitting into the atmosphere through industry, transportation, etc.) to things which are having a minimal effect on global temperature fluctuations at best (i.e. solar cycles, volcanism, etc.).

Jeff, the DeSmogBlog is not attacking Joe personally. That is, they are not calling him names like "bastard", etc. They are attacking his motives, agenda, tactics, and lack of objectivity relating to the science of climate change and his apparent ideological blindness.

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!



DeSmog Tip Jar

DeSmog Tip Jar

Flickr Photos

Flickr Photos
Richard LittlemoreHoggan, Robertson, HarcourtJames Hoggan - Black and WhiteJames Hoggan - Colour

Member of the Progressive Bloggers Network

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORK

Progressive Bloggers