Når en diskusjon blir amper nok, og en av partene begynner å gå tom for rasjonelle og saklige argumenter kan vedkommende kaste Hitler kortet. Via en eller annen retorisk fluktvei sammenligner man sin motpart med Hitler, nazismen eller noe annet fryktelig. Da har man kastet Hitler kortet.
For ordens skyld. Jeg sammenligner IKKE Heartland Institute med Hitler og Nazismen. Jeg påpeker bare at en sentral politiske motstanderne av effektive tiltak mot klimatrusselsen har falt til et debattnivå ufattelig langt under beltestedet.
Rett skal være rett. Heartland sammenligner ikke den vitenskapelige konsensus om menneskeskapte klimaendringer med Hitler og nazismen. De sammenligner den med:
De har også antydet at Osama Bin Laden og James J. Lee vil bli brukt i framtidige oppslag.
Å assosiere meningsmotstandere med forkastelige hendelser eller mennesker som har begått alvorlige forbrytelser er en kjent debatt-teknikk. Eller kanskje man skulle kalle det for en hersketeknikk. At teknikken har vært brukt mange ganger før gjør den ikke mer legitim. Det er et skamfullt lavmål fra Heartland institute og det er vanskelig å se for seg at noen av de store selskapene som står bak Heartland og finansierer deres kamp for markedsliberalisme og kamp mot regulering av drivhusgassutslipp ønsker å bli knyttet til virkemidlene Heartland bruker.
Argumentasjon bygger på logiske brister. At mennesker som har begått forferdelige forbrytelser også har rasjonelle synspunkter kan ikke alle andre mennesker som har de samme rasjonelle synspunkten ta ansvar for. Hvis Charles Manson mener at jorden er rund så gjør ikke det alle andre mennesker som også mener at jorden er rund til kopier av Charles Manson. At Anders Behering Breivik på et tidspunkt var medlem i Fremskrittspartiet gir oss ingen rett til å assosierer alle andre medlemmer av FRP med Breivik og hans grusomme forbrytelser. Det er en skitten taktikk som det er nærliggende å forklare med at brukeren enten har et ekstremt behov for oppmerksomhet og at enhver oppmerksomhet er bedre enn taushet og/eller at man har løpt tom for saklige argumenter. Og så begynner man å sparke etter mannen og ikke ballen.
En annen kommentator påpekte at når man først har kastet dette kortet, så er det etterpå vanskelig å vende tilbake til normal og saklig debatt og samtidig beholde sin troverdighet. Heartland har demonstrert at de kommer til kort med logisk argumentasjon og for å løse den krisen valgte de å satse på det ulogiske. En slik handling ligner litt på å brenne broer bak seg.
Med andre ord, det er ikke alle klimaforskere, miljøaktivister, forretningsfolk som satser på fornybar energi, byråkrater, politikere, journalister og lobbygrupper som er mordere og tyranner. Det er bare de fleste av dem som er det. Eller kanskje halvparten, muligens bare en tredjedel…. vel faktisk så vet vi ikke hvor mange av dem som er mordere og tyranner. Men noen er det ihvertfall.
Hvor ble det av James Hansen, Al Gore og IPCC? Er de ikke lenger prominente eller er de mordere, tyranner og sinnsyke.?
Jeg ønsker Heartland god bedring og er glad for at de har trukket reklamekampanjen.
Jeg er også glad for at de har vist sitt sanne ansikt og gjort sitt ytterste for å marginalisere seg selv i den offentlige debatten. La oss håpe at de i fremtiden satser mer på reelle diskusjoner om løsninger på klimatrusselen i tråd med sin markedsbaserte ideologi.
May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too. The first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – appeared today.
The Heartland Institute is widely recognized as a leading source of science and economics questioning claims that man-made global warming is a crisis. The rest of this page provides answers to some of the questions you might have about these billboards. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at firstname.lastname@example.org and 312/377-4000.
1. Who appears on the billboards?
The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards includeOsama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).
These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about how man-made global warming is a crisis and how mankind must take immediate and drastic actions to stop it.
2. Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?
Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. They are so similar, in fact, that a Web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his “Manifesto” and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.
The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.
Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants. But the Climategate scandal and the more recent Fakegate scandal revealed that the leaders of the global warming movement are willing to break the law and the rules of ethics to shut down scientific debate and implement their left-wing agendas.
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.
3. Why shouldn’t I still believe in global warming?
Because the best available science says about two-thirds of the warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes, not human activities; the warming trend of the second half of the twentieth century century already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs. Global warming, in other words, is not a crisis. For a plain English introductory essay with lots of links to research that proves these points, see “Global Warming: Not a Crisis.”
Most people who still believe in global warming do so because they trust the United Nations, the so-called mainstream media, and leading political figures to be telling them the truth about a complicated scientific issue. That trust has been betrayed.
The government agency created by the United Nations to find a link between human activities and global warming did exactly what it was created and paid to do! By ignoring natural causes of climate variation, it claims to have found evidence of a human impact and an urgent need for the UN to be given more money and more power to solve the problem. See Donna Laframboise’s book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, for an excellent recent commentary on just how unreliable the IPCC has become.
The mainstream media are “in the tank” with environmental activists and big-government advocates, to the point that they deliberately and expressly censor dissenting views on climate. Even distinguished scientists who dissent from the global warming dogma, such as MIT’s Richard Lindzen and the University of Virginia’s S. Fred Singer, are regularly savaged and defamed by reporters for some of the largest-circulation newspapers in the country. See the Media Research Center’s 2008 report, “Global Warming Censored,” for a good account of media bias on this topic.
And nobody should believe politicians who say they want to raise taxes, give subsidies to their buddies, or regulate growing industries in the name of “global warming.” Politicians aren’t scientists, and they aren’t motivated by the search for scientific truth. Mostly, they want to raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and regulate industry because doing so increases their power and chances for reelection. Two good recent books that make this point are Climate Coup by Patrick Michaels and Eco-Tyranny by Brian Sussman.
4. But isn’t it true that 98 percent of climate scientists believe in global warming?
No, this is just a myth that gets repeated over and over by global warming advocates. The alleged sources of this claim are two studies. One is a survey that didn’t ask if global warming is bad or even how much of past warming was man-made. That survey also excluded all but 79 (not a typo!) of the thousands of people who responded to it in order to arrive at the 98 percent figure.
The other study reported the number of times global warming alarmists and realists appeared in academic journals, and found that a small group of alarmists appeared hundreds of times. That doesn’t mean they are more likely to be right. In fact, there are many reasons why realists appear to be published less often than alarmists.
A detailed analysis of these two studies appears in this essay: “The Myth of the 98%.”
More broadly, the claim that there is a “scientific consensus” that global warming is both man-made and a serious problem is untrue. Sources used to document this claim invariably fail to do so, while more reliable surveys and examinations of the literature reveal that most scientists do not believe in the key scientific claims upon which global warming alarmism rests. For example, most scientists do not believe computer models are sufficiently reliable to make long-term forecasts of climate temperatures.
That goes to the very heart of the alarmists’ predictions and worries. For a detailed analysis of the claim of a “scientific consensus” on global warming, see this essay: “You Call This Consensus?”
5. Are you saying anyone who believes in global warming is a mass murderer, tyrant, or terrorist?
Of course not. But we are saying that the ethics of many advocates of global warming are very suspect. Consider two recent scandals that exposed the way they think:
Climategate was the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England in 2010 and 2011. The emails revealed a conspiracy to suppress debate, rig the peer review process to keep out of the leading academic journals any scientists skeptical of catastrophic man-caused global warming, hiding data, fudging research findings, and dodging Freedom of Information Act requests.
Fakegate was the theft in early 2012 of confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute by Dr. Peter Gleick, a leading climate scientist and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. Gleick admitted on February 20 to using a false identity to steal the documents and then disseminating them – along with a fake memo purporting to be Heartland’s “climate strategy” – to sympathetic bloggers and journalists.
Megan McArdle wrote this about Fakegate in The Atlantic: “Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?”
Robert Tracinski wrote this at Real Clear Politics: “The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal–James Delingpole calls it Fakegate–shows just how desperate they have become.”
Poor judgement … believing the ends justify the means … desperation. Now do you see why we really shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Ted Kaczynski, and other famous criminals believe in global warming?
6. Why should I believe The Heartland Institute?
We don’t think you should “believe” anyone. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions. But since you ask …
The Heartland Institute has been conducting research into the real science and economics of climate change for more than 15 years. We have assembled hundreds of scientists to share their knowledge, participate in debates, and conduct peer review of our publications. Importantly, nobody here is paid to believe in global warming.
Heartland is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. It is supported by approximately 1,800 individuals, foundations, and corporations. No corporation gives more than 5 percent of its annual budget.
Heartland has distributed millions of copies of books, booklets, videos, and reprints that examine the causes and consequences of climate change. It published two hefty volumes citing thousands of peer-reviewed studies: Climate Change Reconsidered 2009 (880 pages) and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report (416 pages). Both reports are available online at NIPCCreport.org andGlobalWarmingHeartland.org.
Heartland has hosted six International Conferences on Climate Change attracting nearly 3,000 people. Many of the world’s leading scientists, economists, and political leaders have spoken at these conferences. Video of the presentations made at those events can be found online.
So if you are looking for objective research on climate change, we are a good place to start.
7. Should I attend the ICCC-7?
The Heartland Institute will host its Seventh International Conference on Climate Change from Monday, May 21 through Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel, starting on the final day of the historic NATO Summit. The conference will feature more than 50 scientists and economists lecturing on their latest findings, as well as political leaders and dignitaries from around the world.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, will deliver the first dinner address on Monday, May 21. More information about the conference – including registration information for the public and the media – can be found at climateconference.heartland.org. Videos from past conferences and describing theupcoming conference are also available on that site.
This year’s conference theme is “Real Science, Real Choices.” We will feature approximately 50 scientists and policy experts speaking at plenary sessions and on three tracks of concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consequences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.
Speakers for this year’s conference include:
- Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI
- Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 mission
- Walter Cunningham, Apollo 7 mission
- Harold Doiron, former NASA scientist
- Thomas Wysmuller, former NASA scientist
- Joe Bastardi, chief forecaster, WeatherBell
- Roger Helmer, MP, Britain
- Donna Laframboise, feminist, author
Past conferences have taken place in New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Sydney, Australia and have attracted nearly 3,000 participants from 20 countries. The proceedings have been covered by ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Le Monde, and most other leading media outlets.
ICCC-7 is open to the public. Registration is required. More information is available at the conference home page. For media credentials, register here or contact Tammy Nash at email@example.com or 312-377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit our Web site or contact Jim Lakely firstname.lastname@example.org or 312/377-4000