LATimes cites ‘Mein Kampf’ to attack Heartland

The Los Angeles Times invokes der Führer to attack Heartland.

The Los Angeles Times editorializes:

Leaked documents from the Heartland Institute in Chicago, one of many nonprofits that spread disinformation about climate science in hopes of stalling government action to combat global warming, reveal that the organization is working on a curriculum for public schools that casts doubt on the work of climatologists worldwide. Heartland officials say one of the documents was a fake, but the curriculum plans were reportedly discussed in more than one. According to the New York Times, the curriculum would claim, among other things, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”

That is a lie so big that, to quote from “Mein Kampf,” it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”…

Read the entire editorial.

Send a letter to the LA Times.

About these ads

16 responses to “LATimes cites ‘Mein Kampf’ to attack Heartland

  1. Typical of the left. I’m right, you’re wrong! Why, because I say so, after all everybody knows. This is the level of debate that comes from those who support voodoo science to back up an ersatz field of study that didn’t exist before the left decided to use environmentalism to implement their zero growth agenda.

    • One can measure the moral depravity of the Times when one realizes that Hitler used this phrase to criticize the jews for referring to themselves as a religion. He preferred to call them a race. I am afraid the Times would rather condemn us to shivver in prehistoric caves or concentration camps than to admit there is an alternative under discussion.

  2. Shouldn’t that be “Mann Kampf”?

  3. Hasn’t the surface temp gone down for the last 11 or 12 years?

  4. How ironic that the Germans were the original greens way back then. And the fact is that this IS a major scientific controversy! No real scientist would claim otherwise.

  5. Are they illiterate, or merely crooked?
    According to the 600,000 year Ice-cores, 96.9696969697% of the current 0.03% of atmospheric CO2, are produced by nature, a result of the global temperatures that prevailed 800 – 2,000 years ago: 12 AD – 1212 AD.
    To gauge the effect of man’s 3.1% of the 0.03% CO2 emissions, one would have to travel forward in time to the year 4001 AD to read the CO2 levels relating to the global temperatures of 2000 AD – 4000 AD.

    What kind of aircraft and cars were they using in 12 – 1212 AD?

    Gorehansonobiles?

  6. They really, really. … I mean really want Heartland gone. But they want an open and honest debate – about the “disinformation” that threatens orthodoxy. Love the “Mann Kampf” response, but this editorial is completely over the top. I did not previously understand how completely and utterly deluded the mainstream press was when they have the unmitigated gall to ignore hundreds of “relevant” scientists, accurate and in context E-Mails, even new books by “believers” (Die Kalte Sonn), observations refuting the orthodoxy, scientific facts and competing theories, in order to claim that scientific controversy is a gigantic lie.

    Is the L.A. Times even aware of what they are projecting about themselves with this piece of propoganda? (Rhetorical question – if they are, they don’t care.)

  7. I still think we should be calling the men in white coats for these people who think we can control the climate To point out the obvious, we can’t even control the weather yet, let alone the climate.
    It is possible to get someone committed if they are believed to be a threat to themselves or someone else – and Mann, Hansen, Gore and their ilk are all delusional and pose a threat to the entire population.

  8. Let’s see, these “credentialed climatologists” that you refer to in your editorial, are they the same ones who are sucking up the taxpayers funded grants and then contribute to the UN’s IPCC report? That’s the same report that has been consistently wrong in its predictions of climate-related environmental disasters for the last 20 years. “These are facts, not philosophical or religious dogma.” The only philosophical or religious dogma in your editorial is that of the fraud perpetrated on the citizens of the U. S. in order to seize control our lives. Your “superior intellect” ideology is showing and we are tired of your misinformation. The “Big Lie” is that of your editorial.

  9. It’s tough to remember the last time someone did reducto ad Hitlerum on themselves. Do they really think that quoting Hitler does anything but undermine their credibility?

  10. Retired scientist

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

    Unfortunately, NASA, together, as we now learn, the EPA – entities that should be totally science- and not politically-driven – have succumbed to the same political pressure. In 2010 it was revealed that an EPA scientist was threatened if he released to the press his report, which was quashed by management, that global warming was a myth, and eventually reassigned to a department where he would not be heard from again.
    Global warming fanatics have pointed to NASA as proof that their concerns about a warming planet are justified. They repeatedly cite the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose director, James Hansen, asserted: “Nine of the ten warmest years in history occurred since 1995, with 1998 the warmest,” an assertion eagerly reported in the media. However, very quietly, NASA reversed itself, admitting Hansen’s statistics were wrong. NASA now admits: “Four of the top ten years of recorded high temperatures were actually back in the 1930s, with 1934 the warmest; and some of Dr. Hansen’s previously cited warm years (2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004) were actually cooler than many years of more than a century ago.”

    More evidence of NASA’s James Hansen’s duplicity recently came to light. In trying to prove that 2008 was warmer than previous years, he actually had the gall to use average temperature figures for September 2008 and compare them with previous Octobers. Nobody bothered to challenge this liar, but just accepted his data. Not, that is, until U.S. meteorologist Anthony Watts and climatologist Steve McIntyre did an audit. Caught out in the lie, the Goddard Institute at NASA, where Hansen works, juggled its books. To account for having carried the September figures over to October, it claimed to have discovered a new “hot spot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea ice 30% more extensive than the same time in October 2007.

    And when a subject like this leaves the scientific, and enters the political sphere (and the highly profitable: close to $30 billion tax money has been spent since 1990 on global warming research), the opportunities and motives for skewing and distorting data, and selectively omitting contrary evidence, abound. Algore’s An Inconvenient Truth, of which more anon, is a perfect example. You may be familiar with his false “hockey stick” image (if not, I suggest you look it up) and graphs that purported to show global warming following increases in CO2, whereas the absolute reverse is the case – warming increases production of CO2 from increased microorganism populations in the seas, and accelerated degradation of dead plant materials.

    Global warming alarmists (many of them the same who predicted a New Ice Age in the 1970s) ignore, or evade, such awkward facts as the greatly increased CO2 production worldwide for 30 years from 1940, when industry vastly accelerated due to the war and the postwar booms in the Americas, Europe and Asia, while global temperatures simultaneously fell.

    While glaciers are indeed retreating in places – as part of the cyclical advance/retreat that has also been going on for millennia (they carved much of our landscape and valleys) – they are advancing or thickening in others. The BBC reported two years ago that surveys showed Greenland’s ice is thickening in the interior (the places that people like Algore don’t film). The former VP’s film shows dramatic shots of massive chunks of ice breaking off glaciers, but this “calving” of icebergs is a normal, natural process, which has been carving our valleys for millions of years. The film doesn’t mention, of course, that polar bears – far from dying off – are actually increasing rapidly after the US, Canada and other countries agreed to limit their greatest threat, hunting, or that – far from drowning as their ice floes melt – they are great swimmers and have been known to swim as much as 60 miles in search of food. Nor that glaciers are growing in Norway, New Zealand and even parts of the US. I spent some time in Alaska in 2007, and the US Forest Service was warning us that the Hubbard Glacier in the Tongass National Forest was advancing so rapidly that it threatened to close of a major fjord.

    In a storm of scientists speaking out against Gore’s film, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Professor of Marine Geology at Finland’s Geological Survey said: “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.”

    Gore also shows dramatic time-lapse photos of ice disappearing from Mt. Kilimanjaro, conveniently failing to mention that this has been going on for hundreds of years. Australia’s Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic.” His film also show the likely opening of the Northwest Passage to shipping, due to ice melting, but conveniently doesn’t mention that this was the case asrecently as the 1940s (and is an economic boon, by reducing shipping route mileage and time).

    People babble on about the “greenhouse effect” of CO2. But of all the so-called greenhouse gases, atmospheric levels of this are minuscule, water vapor is much more prolific, and methane is some 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. Methane is produced essentially irrelevant of man’s work, coming from the natural decay of organic matter and, especially, the gaseous emissions of the world’s hundreds of millions of wild and domesticated ruminants. Cow flatus alone far surpasses in greenhouse gas effect all that produced by all American cars, trucks, buses and locomotives.

    Lord Monckton used to be scientific adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher. After schools in the UK showed Algore’s An Inconvenient Truth, several parents and Members of Parliament threatened to sue the (socialist) government for subjecting children to political indoctrination, complaining that their kids were panicking and weeping about dying polar bears, and having nightmares that they would soon be either drowned or roasted.

    Monckton assembled a panel of eminent climatologists who essentially destroyed Gore’s inaccurate and misleading movie.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

    Since then, the BBC has screened two programs (one was “A Convenient Lie”) debunking Gore and his ilk. No TV station in the US will screen either program.

    Gore, Hansen and most pro-warming speakers refuse to answer any questions on their assertions at press conferences or after they make their highly profitable speeches, and make sure that nobody with a contrary point of view can be heard. Last month Republican members invited Lord Monckton, who flew from the UK at his own expense, to appear after Al Gore at the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on climate. The Democrats refused to allow him to speak, so as not to embarrass Gore, whom they gave, of course, all the time he wanted. As Monckton said: “The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congressman Henry Waxman’s refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear.” Waxman knew, of course, that the UK High Court condemned Gore’s mawkish movie as “materially, seriously, serially inaccurate. The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.”

    The media, of course, ignored all this. “The sky is falling, we’re all going to die and it’s greedy Americans’ fault” sells newspapers, magazines and TV time. “It’s all a hoax” doesn’t.

    Obama said that science will not take a back seat to ideology. Unless, of course, it’s his ideology.

  11. William Nuesslein

    As I understand it, only one guy other than Mann and his friends, Mr. McIntyre, took a good look at Dr. Mann’s work, and he received nothing from Big Oil or any fossil fuel concern, although I hope somebody gives him something for his hard work. The fascists are the clique that refuse to entertain Mr. McIntyre’s work.
    Mr. McIntyre says that Mr. Mann’s work is not robust and could have been an artifact of statistical manipulation. That is it is problematic that one can tease a temperature signal from tree rings as tree growth is affected by water, bugs and competition as well as temperature. Mr. Mann’s and his friends produce statistics involving the signal that show near zero R squares. Editors could not understand the point, and they required that Mr. McIntyre produce his own signal. That would be the same as saying the only defense in a murder trial would be the production of the real killer. The validation of Mr. Mann’s work was based on the same or similar data and methods. It was not independent.

    The LA Times editorial is just claptrap.

  12. Does anyone know who inserted the word “appropriate” into the argument from authority to make it possible to cherry pick one’s authorities and thus “prove” the argument. There is constant referrals to consensus, but the argument from authority is still what is being used. Plus, add in the name calling, and one realizes these people are not in any way dealing in facts. I suppose the problem here is people have figured this out and it makes the climate change people look bad so name calling becomes the response de jour.

  13. Of major dynamic systems on Earth–we have two major fluid dynamic systems. One is the atmosphere, and the other, the oceans. We cannot yet accurately define all of the important variables that control each of them. Another complication lies in accurately defining the variables that are important to the interaction of the atmosphere and the oceans. Models and wishful thinking don’t really cut it!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s