Heartland Institute Sends Waves Of Panic Through The Warmist Movement In Germany

UPDATE 1: Heartland reply: Heartland.org/reply-to-critics

UPDATE 2: Hat-tip Judy, Energytribune.com/desmog-debunked

UPDATE 3: Heartland.org/reply-to-critics
“The DesmogBlog web site was created by John Lefebvre, who pleaded guilty to federal money-laundering charges.”

Few US organizations are feared and hated in Germany like the Heartland Institute is today. It’s probably number 2 on the list behind Marc Morano/CFACT.

Welcome to Germany, Joe. They’ve already let the blood hounds loose.

The Heartland Institute is supporting this weekend’s skeptic climate conference in Munich, being held by the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and is thus playing a role in urging the German public to take a closer look at the global warming science and the data underpinning it.

This, for the German climate hysteria movement, is intolerable. Heartland’s success at exposing the bad science behind global warming must not be repeated here in Germany…which is the holy alter of the climate catastrophe movement. It is the last real bastion.

Heartland must expect an extremely hostile welcome.

Already the warmists have mobilized and launched a campaign to tar and feather the public image of the Heartland Institute.

The latest attack piece is one by Kevin Grandia of desmogblog and it appears at the fundamentalist warmist site klimaretter.de (climate rescuer) here in German. One of the contributors at “climate rescuer” is, by the way, Toralf Staud, who happens to be a journalist at the fundamentalist green Die Zeit weekly. Stefan Rahmstorf also donates to klimaretter.

In the latest klimaretter piece, Grandia writes that “the Heartland Institute normally spreads its mischief in the USA” but there it has been discredited. “Now the notorious institute is trying to find new friends in Germany. It has found one.” Grandia writes that “at the conference in Munich, a small group of unqualified “experts” gets together to talk about their conspiracy theory that climate change is a “hoax”.

However the fact is that EIKE and the Heartland Institute are only interested in offering an alternative view of climate science, and to get answers to open questions. They have openly invited warmist scientists to attend. But instead of accepting and engaging in a dialogue, the warmists have responded with extremely hostile reactions and sharp intolerance. “There’s nothing to discuss. We are right,” they insist.

Grandia’s malicious piece has nothing to do with promoting the development of science and dialogue; rather it has everything to do with trying to marginalize and destroy perceived threats to their movement using Alinsky tactics. They’ve gotten very good at this, we have to admit, but they are still losing more than ever.

Grandia presents an idea to the German readers:

I suspect the group is taking their event overseas where the media is less likely to know the long and sordid details of Heartland’s other efforts to attack conventionally accepted scientific conclusions. Not to mention Heartland’s offensive Unabomber billboard campaign and a long list of other outrageous stunts.
Perhaps the Heartland Institute is banking on the German media’s failure to Google search for evidence of the group’s long history of attacks on science and efforts to confuse the public about climate change and an array or other threats to public health and the planet.”

The objective reader here should ask: Is it really about downplaying threats, or is it about exaggerating them? We haven’t seen warming in 16 years.

Grandia then gives the warmists’ take on the Heartland Institute, describing to readers its “dirty and climate-damaging business fields”, for example Koch Industries and the activities on behalf of Big Tobacco – ten years ago.

He then fast forwards to the present and claims Joseph Bast today is using the same tactics to spread doubt over climate science. He writes:

Bast is banking on the media overseas not knowing what media here in North America knows about Heartland’s shady corporate front group operation. Here, they are an organization completely discredited in the eyes of major media.

So my question now is: Will media in Germany fall for Bast and the Heartland’s latest attacks on reputable science and scientists? Will German media cover this year’s Denial-a-Palooza with a hefty dose of skepticism, or give them a platform to wrecklessly spread more confusion and doubt?

What do you think?

I think you’re scared excrementless. Why are you so trembly-handed over an open discussion?

It’s obvious. Although the skeptics are out-funded (by a factor of at least 100), doubt over climate catastrophism keeps growing and spreading. Why? Could it have something to do with the desolate quality of the warmist science?

Keep in mind that:
1. Temperatures have not risen in 16 years.
2. Hurricanes are near record lows (forget the media hype).
3. Sea levels have decelerated.
4. Antarctic sea ice has expanded over the last 30 years.
5. Over the last 10,000 years it was warmer than today 60% of the time. Etc.

These are the things the many skeptic scientists want to debate. But the warmists only want to hide from the media and public. They prefer to sling mud from the hinterhalt.

The German warmists need to understand that it’s impossible to win this battle. They’ll see soon enough.


14 responses to “Heartland Institute Sends Waves Of Panic Through The Warmist Movement In Germany”

  1. John F. Hultquist

    The thought comes to mind that all publicity, even bad publicity, is good, and better than none. This is somewhat related to the “Streisand Effect’ in that, in both cases, more people are made aware of the issue.
    As CAGW is a shoddy hypothesis, promoted by shoddy practitioners, using shoddy methods (see Kevin Grandia of desmogblog), good will come from their warmist nonsense.

  2. thebiggreenlie

    I wonder what the “warmers” have to say today after finding out that Ban Ki Moon has been told to shut up about pushing Climate Change which is a LIE, by 125 REAL scientists?
    These eco-zealots are finished, they just don’t know it yet!!!!

  3. DirkH

    The fun thing is that they still call it a conspiracy theory after climategate 1 and 2. Well, it’s a theory, and it has been confirmed by the evidence. Maybe that makes it a law.

    The first law of climate science: Always conspire.

  4. archaeopteryx

    The Earth’s climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years; God willing it will do so for the next 4.5 (until we fry in the Solar Red Giant), and in my time, the Jurassic, it was nice and warm and humid.

  5. Jim Lakely (Heartland Institute)

    If you want the truth about the unfounded accusations of critics, such as DeSmog Blog, read Heartland’s “Reply to our Critics” page:


    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

  6. L Michael Hohmann

    ‘ “There’s nothing to discuss. We are right,” they insist. ‘ Hmm, Information equals log 1/p where p=probability of any event occurring or statement corresponding to facts. A 100% assertion means I=log 1/1 which is ZERO. So their statement is just an undiscussable dogma. Even Popes have to apologize for erroneous dogmas at times (killing Giordano Bruno didn’t make them ‘right’ either).

  7. L Michael Hohmann

    I like that formal definition of Information: I=log 1/p where p is the probability of any event occurring or any statement conforming to measurable facts. Claiming 100% probability for any statement like “I am right and you’re wrong” simply creates an undiscussable dogma (because log 1/1 = I=ZERO). Even Popes had eventually admit to errors since killing Giordano Bruno didn’t prove them right either. Sorts the wheat from the chaff, and is easily remembered.
    your CleanEnergyPundit

    1. DirkH

      “Claiming 100% probability for any statement like “I am right and you’re wrong” simply creates an undiscussable dogma”

      Well, I think that’s useless sophistry. I maintain that 2+2=4 ; 100% of the times. If they weren’t wrong, warmists could be right. But they’re not. Because it’s not warming.

  8. John F. Hultquist

    In following the link provided by Jim Lakely on the blog NoTricksZone, I read Heartland’s Reply to Critics. The main part of the page, while appropriately informative, seems to need a do-over and an update. We are one month away from 2013 and the information seems to have been current in September of 2009. The page could use a more appropriate title because it is more than just a reply to critics. However, the link is called that while the page does not show any title at all. That is one of the reasons I think a do-over might be good.

    After reading the main page I wondered about more recent issues. Finally I found a heading at the bottom with the phrase “Fakegate (Peter Gleick)” hidden in a column of other related and unrelated terms. Having followed the “Fakegate” story on Watts Up With That (WUWT) I knew what this was about but many people reading this Reply page would not know this reference – if they found it down at the bottom of the page.

    I hope the above is helpful.

    Thanks for the work you do.

    [I will send to the email address at Heartland.]

  9. Judy Cross

    Some background on the DeSmog Slime Machine:

  10. Panic at the German Climate Disco Over Heartland’s Climate Conference This Week

    […] Well, Gosselin noticed that Heartland hosted a climate conference in Munich Germany yesterday and today. Or, I should say, he noticed how the environmental left in the United States and in Germany went into a panic about the conference. […]

  11. L Michael Hohmann

    re. I=log1/p, I apologies to have posted twice (thought the first one hadn’t worked); would like to respond to Dirk H, though:
    2+2=4 can claim to be a fact, because it’s testable and has been found to be so.
    Not just because it has been so claimed; but it still provides no further ‘information’ when dealing with integers,which if not said, is implied. But dealing with vectors (as against scalars) or in the quantum world, it ain’t necessarily so. So yes, without stating the context within which a 100% assertion is made, it has no information (unless tacitly taken for granted, as in counting apples).

    “Claiming 100% probability for any statement like “I am right and you’re wrong” simply does create an undiscussable dogma” which in itself does not prove whether it’s right or wrong or irrelevant, but stating it or enforcing it as ‘truth’ by whatever means (including killing or silencing ‘dissenters’ by other means) yes, just makes it ‘undiscussable.’ Since if you do start discussing it, you implicitly say that the 100% claim for its ‘truth’ is invalid, and therefor needs discussion and test against context and reality.

    Ultimately, as in “The Universe…speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever existing original, which every man can read; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other.” writes Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason.

    And yes, I do love science (and other) fiction , too. Mind is bigger than logic and reason – but one must not take one for the other (in either direction). IMHO

  12. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  13. Meet the Climate Denial Machine Saturday, 01 December 2012 10:12 By Jill Fitzsimmons, Media Matters | News Analysis | ikners.com

    […] Heartland Institute Sends Waves Of Panic Through The Warmist Movement In Germany […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy