Heartland institute documents leaked; reveals climate skeptic strategies

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.

[The Rev]

Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.

Fewer people is an excellent starting point.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

This is true. My general starting point with that is lunar and martian colonization.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.

I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.

I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.

I can say with authority that recycling paper causes way more harm than good.

[Placid Dingo]

Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.

I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.

I can say with authority that recycling paper causes way more harm than good.

Expand?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.

I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.

I can say with authority that recycling paper causes way more harm than good.

I don't know about "way" more harm, but recycling it into paper products rather than, say, energy products is inefficient, and saves trees, but wastes fossil fuels.

This article was interesting: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.951031006

It was also a little overly simplistic and kind of ignored some upstream factors, but it seemed not a bad overview.

My main concern with recycling is that it seems to encourage the use of disposable products, rather than discouraging them. People think they can just recycle that paper cup or plastic bottle and they're being environmentally friendly, while the reality is that it's still a negative impact compared to re-using.

[BabylonHoruv]

Roger chokes better than almost anyone

That being said,  Recycle is the easiest part of Reduce, Reuse Recycle to focus on.  It doesn't cut into our consumer society.  It doesn't require any real change in lifestyle.  It is an easy fix that can spur spending.  After all there are a lot of jobs in recycling and the products are generally sold at a higher price. 

It's greenwashing by groups that have no real interest in addressing the root problems, which are too many people in a lifestyle that is ultimately unsustainable.

[Elder Iptuous]

Heartland is going to sue the blogosphere!
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

...
One document, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake "climate strategy" memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

[Scribbly]

Heartland is going to sue the blogosphere!
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

...
One document, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake "climate strategy" memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

I'm not sure I believe the Heartland Institute in saying these documents are fake...

... but it is an interesting thought, isn't it?

Part of what helps mass media inform is that, theoretically, there are standards which people are held accountable to in relaying information. Obviously this isn't perfect (you just have to look at the crap which gets published in papers or spouted on the news...)

But your eye-rolling reaction to the idea that 'the blogosphere' might be held accountable in the same way other forms of media are isn't unique. The internet is often held up as a really great way to talk and disseminate ideas, but if everyone has total freedom of speech and can make up any shit they want about what anyone else has said, with no repercussions for doing so, then it becomes much harder to have any kind of faith in the discussion at all, doesn't it?

I can see why the idea of an unregulated internet is scaring the shit out of companies. These things spread extremely quickly and become taken as fact, and companies pay huge amounts of money to project the kind of image they want to be known for. Without some means of control, the internet constitutes a real threat to the reputations they pay so much cash to try and maintain.

I don't know if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or even just a 'thing', yet, but it is an interesting thought.

[Elder Iptuous]

...
The internet is often held up as a really great way to talk and disseminate ideas, but if everyone has total freedom of speech and can make up any shit they want about what anyone else has said, with no repercussions for doing so, then it becomes much harder to have any kind of faith in the discussion at all, doesn't it?

Yes. yes it does.

I can see why the idea of an unregulated internet is scaring the shit out of companies. These things spread extremely quickly and become taken as fact, and companies pay huge amounts of money to project the kind of image they want to be known for. Without some means of control, the internet constitutes a real threat to the reputations they pay so much cash to try and maintain.

I don't know if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or even just a 'thing', yet, but it is an interesting thought.

Well, it is definitely some kind of thing.  and whatever the best reaction that the now shitless companies could take, i'm sure that "Sue Everyone!" is not likely it.     i think that deserves an eyeroll because it is so asinine.

even if they were to put the clamps on blogs and forums for posting commentary on items like this based on the notion that it is 'journalism', they still wouldn't be able to do anything about the chain email traffic regarding politics under that purview, would they?

[Scribbly]

...
The internet is often held up as a really great way to talk and disseminate ideas, but if everyone has total freedom of speech and can make up any shit they want about what anyone else has said, with no repercussions for doing so, then it becomes much harder to have any kind of faith in the discussion at all, doesn't it?

Yes. yes it does.

I can see why the idea of an unregulated internet is scaring the shit out of companies. These things spread extremely quickly and become taken as fact, and companies pay huge amounts of money to project the kind of image they want to be known for. Without some means of control, the internet constitutes a real threat to the reputations they pay so much cash to try and maintain.

I don't know if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or even just a 'thing', yet, but it is an interesting thought.

Well, it is definitely some kind of thing.  and whatever the best reaction that the now shitless companies could take, i'm sure that "Sue Everyone!" is not likely it.     i think that deserves an eyeroll because it is so asinine.

even if they were to put the clamps on blogs and forums for posting commentary on items like this based on the notion that it is 'journalism', they still wouldn't be able to do anything about the chain email traffic regarding politics under that purview, would they?

Seems likely to me that the best thing they can do, from a strategic perspective, is push measures like SOPA and gain access to tools which let them shut down sites.

Chain emails can be regulated in exactly the same way. 'Spam' emails already are illegal, it wouldn't take much to extend that measure.

[Elder Iptuous]

you don't think it would become quickly apparent that the public blowback would offset the gains in protecting their image?
isn't the image of the RIAA/MPAA tarnished most heavily by their hamfisted techniques?
or are my filters clouding my view? perhaps the numbers do not bear out what i'm thinking?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

you don't think it would become quickly apparent that the public blowback would offset the gains in protecting their image?
isn't the image of the RIAA/MPAA tarnished most heavily by their hamfisted techniques?
or are my filters clouding my view? perhaps the numbers do not bear out what i'm thinking?

Do you think they actually care?  Today, PR is all about "because I CAN".

[Scribbly]

you don't think it would become quickly apparent that the public blowback would offset the gains in protecting their image?
isn't the image of the RIAA/MPAA tarnished most heavily by their hamfisted techniques?
or are my filters clouding my view? perhaps the numbers do not bear out what i'm thinking?

Well amongst the internet community, SOPA certainly did hurt some reputations. But most of the people who don't use it regularly still aren't all that aware of what SOPA is or what it would have done.

In the short term it has been laid to rest, but long term, this is a threat which isn't going away and it needs to be addressed. More to the point, after it has been brought in, it won't hurt their reputations to defend their name using the tools in place to do it.

Imagine someone put up a website slandering you personally, claiming you are a criminal and what have you. Nobody would object to you getting that website shut down - companies can paint this in the exact same light.