The Heartland Institute put up the following billboard last week:
But let’s put this in context. Scientists supporting the IPCC have attempted to marginalize others who may disagree with the IPCC analyses and findings, and for many years have relied on name calling (e.g., “skeptic” or “denier”), rather than responding to science-based alternative hypotheses presented by reputable scientists. Statements such as “all reputable scientists believe that CO2 causes global warming” or “the science is settled” are misleading at best, are deceptive, and intended to silence alternative views.
The term “denier” is intentionally used for those who do not agree with the IPCC narrative because it directly implies an association with Holocaust deniers. These tactics against scientists who disagree are not the product of scientific rigor, but self-protection at any cost.
Greenpeace has stated: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws. The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.”
“Mainstream” beliefs are simply those held by a “perceived” majority, but in fact it is impossible to know what the majority of scientists believe since not all scientists can be polled. At the extreme, a dogma or a tautology that may never be questioned can become a perceived “mainstream” belief in science if aggressively promoted by a small outspoken minority. (This is the post-modern state of today’s university….there is not much “unifying” about it…) Appealing to the majority as support for the truth of a particular belief is a logical fallacy known as ad populum – appealing to the emotions of a crowd, or appealing to a person to “go along” with the crowd, without presenting any compelling reasons to show that the crowd is an informed or impartial source.
Name calling, rather than responding to valid scientific issues raised, is an example of the logical fallacy of “abusive ad hominum.” It’s purpose is to discredit the integrity of the person raising the question, rather than responding to valid issues being raised by the person. This has been a tactic used by promoters of runaway global warming for over a decade.
How about this…..In 2010, a video was issued showing children exploding in a classroom….very disgusting…..claiming this will happen because of the “deniers”……the incident became known as “splattergate.” Click here….
Is the Heartland billboard accurate? It does appear that Ted Kaczynski in fact believes global warming is a problem (click here)….so given the history of one-sided attacks on those who question the runaway global warming tautology, it looks like the Heartland billboard shoe fits pretty well…..so perhaps posting the billboard was not a mistake? Time will tell….