The article tells us of a poster campaign by the Heartland Institute, designed to discredit what they call ‘climate alarmists’. Here’s an example:
Really. Of all the ridiculous, pathetic, childish, transparent, simple-minded, fallacious, disingenuous tactics to try, they wheel out the Hitler fallacy. This is a tactic employed during debates to tarnish some argument by association with Hitler. You know, Hitler was an atheist (err, he wasn’t, try Roman Catholic), and therefore atheists are very bad people without morals.
Anyway, the geniuses at Heartland have also reportedly created billboards with Charles Manson and Fidel Castro.
Hey, all these guys smoked too. Does Heartland still want to invoke them as the bad guy? No, I thought not, given the vast tobacco industry funding to HI in the past.
If you read the article, it quotes a press release by the Heartless Institute in defence of its really intelligent advertising, which in part reads:
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. 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.
So let me get this straight: Because some crazy mass murderers may have similar views on climate change to spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians, then naturally people in these groups are crazy, right?. Very sophisticated argument that. I’m dazzled by the train of reasoning employed.
So let’s see what the many Heartland Institute plants, like Dr. Bob Carter, have to say about this. Do they support this? What about that HI trojan horse, the Australian Environment Foundation? And what about the Institute of Public Affairs. Is this your position too?
I’m guessing we’ll just get the head in the sand defence on this one. ‘Nothing to do with us’ will be the response. ‘Completely different organisations’ etc etc.
The usual gutless smoke and mirrors tactics.