Heartland Institute

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Heartland Institute

Postby KeithE » Mon May 07, 2012 7:01 am

Here is the kinda of people denialists trust:
Heartland Gone Crazy

On their website they say “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” And have posted this billboard:
Image

Sadly this is not an isolate instance.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Heartland Institute

Postby David Flick » Tue May 08, 2012 4:36 pm

KeithE wrote:Here is the kinda of people denialists trust:
Heartland Gone Crazy

On their website they say “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” And have posted this billboard:
Image

Sadly this is not an isolate instance.

My, my, what hypocrites the the alarmists are. They are quick to condemn Heartland Institute for comparing alarmists to Ted Kacyznski, the Unibomber. But long before Heartland posted the billboard for 24 hours and took it down, the alarmists were comparing the skeptics with Hitler, Nazis, and slave holders:
  • Joe Romm at ThinkProgress.Org apologetically compares skeptics with Hitler:
    Joe Romm wrote:BIG LIE

    According to the United States Office of Strategic Services, Hitler’s strategy was based on the view:

      … people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
    In fact, Hitler himself defined the term “Big Lie,” in his autobiography Mein Kempf, as

      a lie so “collosal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

    I don’t think this useful term should be a banned from public use just because Hitler defined it first. I certainly apologize to anybody who is upset by the analogy — I’m not trying to compare deniers with Nazis — there is no such comparison possible — nor does it apply to all of the people who advocate one of the 5 myths below. No, the “Big Lie” refers mostly to the strategy of the professional class of those who spread disinformation for a living. Source #1... Source #2

  • Al Gore, who is not in any way, shape or form a scientist (which is the main measuring stick for “credibility” amongst staunch global warming alarmists, unless you happen to agree with them, which in that case means it’s ok to spout off various doomsday scenarios as often as you please), compared the fight to combat global warming to the fight against … Nazism: Source...

  • Three years ago (12/3/2009), James Hansen compares “global warming” to slavery, Nazism

Boy howdy, Keith, you sure stepped in it big time with this one. You're griping about Heartland institute comparing alarmists with a measly little ole eco-terrorist who sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing the people and injuring 23. And all Hitler and the Nazis did was to direct the rearmament of Germany and the invasion of Poland by the Wehrmacht in September 1939, leading to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Under Hitler's rule, in 1941 German forces and their European allies occupied most of Europe and North Africa. Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including nearly six million Jews. Source... Now that's 11,000,000 people murdered by Hitler to 3 murdered by Kacyznski. Talk about hypocrisy, you stepped in it big time. Wanna back off and try another angle of condemning Heartland Institute???
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Heartland Institute

Postby KeithE » Tue May 08, 2012 6:46 pm

My, my yourself, David.

Using a quote from Hitler is hardly calling denailists "murderers, tyrants, and madmen”.

E.g. If you were to use a quote from Roy Spencer you would hardy be calling alarmists a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

And Gore’s using Winston Churchill leadership as an inspiration for GW activism is hardly calling someone a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

E.g. If you were to use Daniel Vestal as a model leader, it is hardly calling Paige Patterson a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

And Jim Hansen’s quote as
“This[global warming]is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”

Again not hardly calling GW denialists “murderers, tyrants, and madmen”; just comparing the seriousness of the issues as he (and I) believe them to be and demanding action.


True, the words get hot on this subject (as we can attest to) but neither of us have sunk so low as to call our opponent a "murderer, tyrant, or madman”. Your have slandered me and other “alarmists” by repeatedly calling us perpetrators of “hoaxes” (and several other names) implying we are knowingly lying for gain. But you have not stooped as low as to call us "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" as Heartland has done and has not yet retracted. We simply have the majority scientific point of view that you object to for your own reasons. Alarmists are motivated by saving the earth from having a deteriorating habitat (already ongoing in minor ways). I suspect your motivation is fear of economic consequences not accepting the majority viewpoint that business-as-usual has a greater cost than mitigation.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Heartland Institute

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue May 08, 2012 11:51 pm

KeithE wrote:My, my yourself, David.

Using a quote from Hitler is hardly calling denailists "murderers, tyrants, and madmen”.

E.g. If you were to use a quote from Roy Spencer you would hardy be calling alarmists a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

And Gore’s using Winston Churchill leadership as an inspiration for GW activism is hardly calling someone a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

E.g. If you were to use Daniel Vestal as a model leader, it is hardly calling Paige Patterson a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

And Jim Hansen’s quote as
“This[global warming]is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”

Again not hardly calling GW denialists “murderers, tyrants, and madmen”; just comparing the seriousness of the issues as he (and I) believe them to be and demanding action.

True, the words get hot on this subject (as we can attest to) but neither of us have sunk so low as to call our opponent a "murderer, tyrant, or madman”. Your have slandered me and other “alarmists” by repeatedly calling us perpetrators of “hoaxes” (and several other names) implying we are knowingly lying for gain. But you have not stooped as low as to call us "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" as Heartland has done and has not yet retracted. We simply have the majority scientific point of view that you object to for your own reasons. Alarmists are motivated by saving the earth from having a deteriorating habitat (already ongoing in minor ways). I suspect your motivation is fear of economic consequences not accepting the majority viewpoint that business-as-usual has a greater cost than mitigation.


Ed: KeithE when you claim that Flick has "slandered me and other “alarmists” by repeatedly calling us perpetrators of “hoaxes” (and several other names) implying we are knowingly lying for gain." How does that "imply" that you specifically are "knowingly lying for gain"? And I am not persuaded that you cam support your suspicion that Flicks motivation "is fear of economic consequences not accepting the majority viewpoint that business-as-usual has a greater cost than mitigation." Where in fact has David suggested that we should have "business-as-usual"? I wouldn't call you a liar but I do not share your trust of all the "Scientist" who support the idea of man made global warming. And IMHO, I do believe that at times you are inclined to employ hyperbole in an attempt to silence those who do not agree with you, no matter what the subject, as in your suspicion about David's motive.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Heartland Institute

Postby KeithE » Wed May 09, 2012 7:55 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:
KeithE wrote:My, my yourself, David.

Using a quote from Hitler is hardly calling denailists "murderers, tyrants, and madmen”.

E.g. If you were to use a quote from Roy Spencer you would hardy be calling alarmists a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

And Gore’s using Winston Churchill leadership as an inspiration for GW activism is hardly calling someone a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

E.g. If you were to use Daniel Vestal as a model leader, it is hardly calling Paige Patterson a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

And Jim Hansen’s quote as
“This[global warming]is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”

Again not hardly calling GW denialists “murderers, tyrants, and madmen”; just comparing the seriousness of the issues as he (and I) believe them to be and demanding action.

True, the words get hot on this subject (as we can attest to) but neither of us have sunk so low as to call our opponent a "murderer, tyrant, or madman”. Your have slandered me and other “alarmists” by repeatedly calling us perpetrators of “hoaxes” (and several other names) implying we are knowingly lying for gain. But you have not stooped as low as to call us "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" as Heartland has done and has not yet retracted. We simply have the majority scientific point of view that you object to for your own reasons. Alarmists are motivated by saving the earth from having a deteriorating habitat (already ongoing in minor ways). I suspect your motivation is fear of economic consequences not accepting the majority viewpoint that business-as-usual has a greater cost than mitigation.


Ed: KeithE when you claim that Flick has "slandered me and other “alarmists” by repeatedly calling us perpetrators of “hoaxes” (and several other names) implying we are knowingly lying for gain." How does that "imply" that you specifically are "knowingly lying for gain"? And I am not persuaded that you cam support your suspicion that Flicks motivation "is fear of economic consequences not accepting the majority viewpoint that business-as-usual has a greater cost than mitigation." Where in fact has David suggested that we should have "business-as-usual"? I wouldn't call you a liar but I do not share your trust of all the "Scientist" who support the idea of man made global warming. And IMHO, I do believe that at times you are inclined to employ hyperbole in an attempt to silence those who do not agree with you, no matter what the subject, as in your suspicion about David's motive.



Definition of Hoax:
1: an act intended to trick or dupe
2: something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication

GW/CC scientists are not trying to trick anyone. They are concerned for the future of our habitat on earth. They are not part of any fraud to gain money and they do not fabricate DATA. They are not knowingly lying and they are certainly not in it for ill-gotten money (gain). I am not unaware about scientific fraud -I have 2 books on the subject. These frauds were usually for purposes of fame and are quickly dismissed but the self-correctiing nature of the scientific community. But when 95%+ scientists coalesce on the same basic findings year after year, outsiders need to pay heed. I am an outsider (with plenty of data analysis and scientific background) and have chosen to dig deeper and have found the basic findings (GW is occurring, and is man-caused and is leading to bad effects on our common habitat) to be true. More recently (latter half of the 20th century) scientific fraud has been for purposes of enhancing commerce sectors (e.g. tobacco, drugs, the MIC) and I’m afraid Institutes like Heartland has added the fossil fuel industry to that list.

So accept the fact that GW/CC scientists are genuinely seeking truth and quit slanderously saying they are hoax perpretrators. And yes I seriously doubt Heartland is a dispassionate research Institute.

As for David’s motivations, saying he fears economic consequences is about as tame as could be, and not an indictment. I could have said he is an Oklahoman oil business rooter and wants his state to prosper at all costs, but have no real cause to say that. I could have said he had other financial interests in maintaining the fossil fuel industry, but I don’t have any real cause to think that. I could have said he has a strong desire to correct what he believes to be scientific errors, but he really is not qualified to do that nor does he do so in other scientific areas. I could have said he has a fear of the UN or some One World Government, but he has not used that rhetoric. So, David what are your motivations? My motivations were to find out the truth (as I’m prone to do) and after digging deep into the DATA, I am troubled by where we are heading if we continue to emit CO2 and other ghgs. I have good grounds to be concerned for my grandkids and generations thereafter. Sorry if you disagree.

In this context “Business-as-usual” is what David is recommending. It means 1) no mitigative steps to curtail emissions, 2) drill-baby-drill (for lack of a more wordy statement), and 3) no governmental aided development of alternative energy sources for the common good. David, correct me if I’m wrong in 1), 2) or 3) above.

Ed, as for my use of “hyperbole”, more than perhaps anyone else on this board, I try to back up what I say with DATA, plots, other facts. If that DATA does not coincide with your preconceptions, that does not mean it is hyperbolic, it just means it surprises you. Your are more than free to offer up other DATA/plots/facts. Merely stating your doubts does not cut even mustard.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Heartland Institute

Postby David Flick » Thu May 10, 2012 5:38 pm

KeithE wrote:My, my yourself, David.

1Using a quote from Hitler is hardly calling denailists "murderers, tyrants, and madmen”.
    2E.g. If you were to use a quote from Roy Spencer you would hardy be calling alarmists a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

    1) Keith, you can spin it until you're blue in the face, but any time anyone uses Hitler's name (or one of his quotes) in a debate, the person is attempting to equate actions of the accused (in this case, the skeptics) with the actions of Hitler himself. Hitler was the arch murderer, arch tyrant, and arch madman of the entire last century. No one exceeded his evilness. I'm amazed that you are attempting to defend Joe Romm, James Hansen and Al Gore for their usage of references to "Hitler," "Nazism" & "slavery" to attack the skeptics. I honestly thought you were above that sort of tactic.

    2) That's a classic non sequitur. Roy Spencer has no relation whatsoever to the Romm, Hansen and Gore's comments about Hitler.

1And Gore’s using Winston Churchill leadership as an inspiration for GW activism is hardly calling someone a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.
    2E.g. If you were to use Daniel Vestal as a model leader, it is hardly calling Paige Patterson a "murderer, tyrant, or madmen”.

    1) Baloney cheese! Keith you're delusional. Gore wasn't using Churchill's leadership as an inspiration for GW activism. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He was using Hitler as a comparison of how evil he believes the skeptics are. It was a deliberate slam against the skeptics.

    2) Classic non sequitur #2. A ridiculous one at that.
And Jim Hansen’s quote as
“This [global warming] is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”
    Again not hardly calling GW denialists “murderers, tyrants, and madmen”; just comparing the seriousness of the issues as he (and I) believe them to be and demanding action.

    Keith, global warming isn't now, nor has it ever been, analogous to slavery or Nazism. James Hansen is a nutcase. His attempt to compare global warming to slavery and Nazism is just plain stupid. It's idiotic. In the first place, there hasn't been any global warming at all over the last 15 years. Secondly, catastrophic (unprecedented) global warming (manmade or otherwise) has never been a serious threat to humanity. Never was a serious threat. Furthermore, global warming will never be a serious threat to humanity. Romm, Hansen, Gore, & friends are nothing but fear mongers. They are losing the propaganda battle and have resorted to using these stupid analogies to drive fear into the hearts of the gullible in order to push their CAGW propaganda. Thirdly, people are rapidly beginning see through the alarmists propaganda. Two years ago (2010), a Pew Poll revealed that on a list of 21 items, global warming was dead last in importance on the list.
            Image
    Bottom line: Global warming is a serious issue only in the minds of the CAGW alarmists.
    Source...


1True, the words get hot on this subject (as we can attest to) but neither of us have sunk so low as to call our opponent a "murderer, tyrant, or madman”. 2Your [sic] have slandered me and other “alarmists” by repeatedly calling us perpetrators of “hoaxes” (and several other names) 3implying we are knowingly lying for gain. 4But you have not stooped as low as to call us "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" 5as Heartland has done and has not yet retracted. 6We simply have the majority scientific point of view that you object to for your own reasons. 7Alarmists are motivated by saving the earth from having a deteriorating habitat (already ongoing in minor ways). 8I suspect your motivation is fear of economic consequences not accepting the majority viewpoint that business-as-usual has a greater cost than mitigation.

  1. True.
  2. Call it what you will, but the alarmists have perpetrated a hoax. CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) simply does not exist. The arrogance of the CAGW alarmists is incredible. It is virtually impossible for human activity to cause global warming. Simple logic should tell you that none of the historical warming periods --several far warmer than today-- occurred because of human activity. Indisputably, over the last 2,500 years, there have been three warming periods which were much warmer than today's temperatures.
    • Between between 1500 & 550 BCE, there was a strong warming period. Human activity most certainly did not cause it because there were no fossil fuels or massive human generated CO2 in existence during that period.
    • The Roman Warming period between 1 & 450 CE was warmer than today. Human activity most certainly did not cause it because there were no fossil fuels or massive human generated CO2 in existence during that period.
    • The Medieval Warming Period between 900 & 1350 CE was warmer than today. Human activity most certainly did not cause it because there were no fossil fuels or massive human generated CO2 in existence during that period.
    Try as you might, you cannot deny that there have been warming periods that exceed today's warm temperatures. It's simply a myth to suggest that human activity can cause global warming, which the alarmists now call "climate change".
      Image
  3. I have never suggested that you are lying for gain. What I am saying, however, is that the notion of human-caused global warming (AGW) is propaganda and fear mongering.
  4. True.
  5. That's false, Keith. Heartland Institute took the billboard down 24 hours after it was put up. However, neither Romm, Hansen, nor Gore have retracted their analogous usages of slavery, Hitler quotes, and Nazism. And you are defending their usage of these analogies.
    Shame on you.
  6. I dispute that comment. True, GW alarmism makes by far the most noise but they losing the PR battle. James Hansen himself has admitted the skeptics are winning. When it comes to the "majority" view, it's clear that majority view is with the skeptics. There are more than 31,000 scientists who say that there's no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will cause in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. So much for the silly 97%, 98% or 100% consensus theory. That theory is blown to smithereens. End of story.
  7. The alarmists are attempting to save the earth from a nonexistent threat. There is no threat to the earth or humanity because there is no catastrophic global warming. Furthermore, there is none on the horizone...
  8. My fear of negative economic consequences has nothing to do with global warming. I greatly fear the collapse of the economy due to the Obama's massive, irresponsible spending.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron