Reaction to climate change billboards reveals the hypocracy of climate change alarmists.

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
TheHeartland Institute put up some provocative billboards comparing climate change alarmists to madmen and serial killers.


The reaction, even among conservative circles was less than supportive. Congressman Sensenbrenner and Author Donna Laframboise canceled plans to appear at an upcoming conference and several endorsers of the group have dropped their support over the ads.

The institute said the ads were meant to be provocative in order to find out if there was a double standard when it comes to arguing over the climate change issue.


Climate Change Billboard Stirs Controversy

Though the campaign is discontinued, Bast refused to apologize. Instead, he defended it, saying, "This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message." He said those on his side of the climate debate are "subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists." Bast referenced such incidents as a 2010 congressional hearing when U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) made modest headlines comparing climate-change skeptics to Nazi deniers.

Bast believes climate alarmists have free rein when it comes to name-calling and said Heartland's campaign was an experiment to determine whether his organization would be held to a separate standard. "The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules," Bast opined. "This experiment produced further proof of that."

The New American

There have been several cases of global warming alarmists calling for the arrest of skeptics and questioning their mental state, even a comparison recently in Think Progress claimed that climate change denialists had inspired Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik.




It seems he has proven his point; while global warming alarmists get away with every type of character assasination against sceptics, when the tables are turned, the opposite side finds the tactics offensive and belittling. It is very telling how they respond when their own tactics are turned against them:


Bast says provocative messages are not Heartland's normal tack but maintains the institute has spent 15 years and millions of dollars "presenting the economic and scientific arguments that counter global warming alarmism." His latest experiment may have undermined those years of work. "Putting up these billboards is an act of desperation," Stanford University professor Ken Cladeira told the Washington Post. "They are unable to argue based on facts."


If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.





edit on 5/9/12 by FortAnthem because:
_________ extra DIV




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
when one doesn't have right on thier side all they have left is tactics



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I love it!
Well served Heartland Institute.
You can't have it only one way.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
While I believe global warming is naturally reoccuring...Which it is!
Us humans certainly don't help the matter constantly destryoying mother Earth!

Mehh



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I think the reaction to the billboards shows some of the core differences between the left and the right.

When the right goes overboard on something like this, they are rightfully taken to task for it by their own. Not only do they have to face reprecussions from the MSM and liberals, their allies also distance themselves from the imporper tactics. This shows that the right has enough integrity to insist on higher standards and that their side sticks to the facts and reasoned arguments, not Ad Hominem attacks against their opponents.

On the left, on the other hand, any tactics are considered OK, so long as they further their agenda. They can ignore the facts, paint their opponents as racists, "flat Earthers", anti-semites or whatever label best suits their purpose to discredit their opponents without having to address their arguments. Nobody in the MSM or the left ever calls them on their underhanded tactics, in fact, oftentimes their efforts are applauded by the MSM and the left because they are furthering the cause of progressivism.

Take PETA for example and their anti-fur campaigns:


They present women as objects of sexual desire in order to further their crusade. While you may hear some grumbling about over-sexing the subject, for the most part, the media crows about their innovative tactics and their ability to catch the attention of the average Joe out on the street. "Sex sells" and why shouldn't PETA use that axiom in their advertizing.

Of course, you could never imagine the right using such tactics. They would be called right away for their sexism and it would be used as yet another example of the right's "war on women".

There is a double standard out there and the left uses it to their advantage every time. The right's biggest problem is that the MSM expects them to adhere to their own high standards and attacks every time they stoop to the level of the left.

Perhaps the left's biggest advantage in the war of words is the fact that they have no standards to be used against them and this makes them free to use every and any tactics they please against their ideological enemies. On the left, the ends always justify the means.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


comparing climate change alarmists to madmen

Seems a fair assessment to me.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem


I think the reaction to the billboards shows some of the core differences between the left and the right.

When the right goes overboard on something like this, they are rightfully taken to task for it by their own. Not only do they have to face reprecussions from the MSM and liberals, their allies also distance themselves from the imporper tactics. This shows that the right has enough integrity to insist on higher standards and that their side sticks to the facts and reasoned arguments, not Ad Hominem attacks against their opponents.

On the left, on the other hand, any tactics are considered OK, so long as they further their agenda. They can ignore the facts, paint their opponents as racists, "flat Earthers", anti-semites or whatever label best suits their purpose to discredit their opponents without having to address their arguments. Nobody in the MSM or the left ever calls them on their underhanded tactics, in fact, oftentimes their efforts are applauded by the MSM and the left because they are furthering the cause of progressivism.

Take PETA for example and their anti-fur campaigns:


They present women as objects of sexual desire in order to further their crusade. While you may hear some grumbling about over-sexing the subject, for the most part, the media crows about their innovative tactics and their ability to catch the attention of the average Joe out on the street. "Sex sells" and why shouldn't PETA use that axiom in their advertizing.

Of course, you could never imagine the right using such tactics. They would be called right away for their sexism and it would be used as yet another example of the right's "war on women".

There is a double standard out there and the left uses it to their advantage every time. The right's biggest problem is that the MSM expects them to adhere to their own high standards and attacks every time they stoop to the level of the left.

Perhaps the left's biggest advantage in the war of words is the fact that they have no standards to be used against them and this makes them free to use every and any tactics they please against their ideological enemies. On the left, the ends always justify the means.


so how does PETA feel about the allowing of Beastiality in the baraks under the NDAA?
are whips and chains OK there?
Are hot sheep not just for counting anymore?
is this to save on heating costs as global cooling sets in?
is this about plugging some methane gas output ports?
edit on 9-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I love how every time Heartland gets caught with their pants down, they immediately try to spin it into some sort of reverse scandal to save face.

And I love how all the climate conspiracy theorists, clearly immune to even the slightest shred of lucid reasoning, or specifically - reading between the lines - automatically lap the obviously obvious damage control up, and tune their frequencies right back to the comforting propaganda parade they're so accustomed to, rather than face basic facts.


The Heartland Institute is one of the most notorious of the corporate shill "think tanks" out there. It is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, and its ties to cloak and dagger corporatism have been proven time and time again.



They started out as lapdogs for Big Tobacco, as documents like this one reveal:


Because Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris' bottom line,
things that no other organization does, I hope you will consider boosting your
general operating support



Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco (and other industries) from
what I view as being an unjust campaign of public demonization and legal harassment.
(lol)



Detailed investigations into their more recent "donors" have revealed a bankroll of Big Oil funding. All the major players have a hand in the pot - from The American Petroleum Institute to ExxonMobil to Koch Industries. (Source)



Recently this was further verified when climate scientist Peter Gleick tricked them into sending a bunch of their confidential sponsorship information out - which they then tried to spin into some absurd "fakegate" - even though they themselves admitted all the documents except one were real - and the information in the supposedly fake one was later CONFIRMED to be completely accurate.

But oh how they cried about being hacked and ethics and blah blah blah, even though they continue to trumpet the climategate non-story as evidence of "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind" (you want to talk about alarmism/calling the kettle black...ha)




These people are such utter, obvious, blatant sheisters. They are the friggin posterboys for the Big Oil sponsored denialist campaign. Literally - look at their ****ing posters!




Trying to equate a billboard campaign to a blog post is ridiculous. It's just another desperate attempt to avoid facing the uncomfortable FACTS none of you so-called climate "skeptics" have the slightest cajones to confront.

Oh let's pretend these blatantly sensationalist, BIG OIL-funded hacks were just innocently trying to make some deep, reflective commentary on the state of the climate debate, and not simply trying to stir up more hyperbolic fear and paranoia in the most insanely alarmist group of people I know: global warming deniers.


Seriously, that's all you hypocrites ever talk about/focus on. This thread and its ridiculous title are just more proof of that.

And since you insist on making this a left/right thing, I can sum up the whole ridiculous climate debate in one cartoon and one ATS thread:



Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study


Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear, said the study on Thursday in Current Biology.


I know all of you right-wingers will just lunge all over the alarmist thing now, and that will only further serve my point.


Every actual climate change "alarmist" I know spends way waaaay more time discussing complex issues like actual science, social responsibility and sustainability. Deniers do nothing but project their idiotic alarmist fears on everyone else because that's all YOU ever think about apparently.

And that's exactly why Heartland made these billboards. You all eat it right up, one way or the other, whether you want to admit it or not. The difference between the Heartland billboard and the Anders Breivik comparison is that one is based on nothing but sensationalist tripe. Meanwhile look at the other one:


Breivik argues that global warming is actually a eco-Marxist plot "to create a world government" using the "Anthropogenic Global Warming scam"



Sounds just like every single global warming "skeptic" on ATS.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 



wow... great post...

Before you get flamed by the oil loving corporate hugging masses; I just wanted to applaud you. Sadly, on ATS, we are becoming the minority. There has definitely been a pole shift on ATS in recent years and Climate change is one of the area’s most affected.

I have given up altogether in these threads... except for the occasional reply to a great post.

Just like to add that there was a great article in the Guardian (British newspaper) which pointed out many of the issues you raised. It also went on to say that while the majority of developed countries had accepted Climate Change as an issue, and are now debating about how to deal with it... America is still arguing about if anthropogenic climate change exists at all.

Bit like the flat earth argument I guess

edit on 9-5-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


good to see there are at least 2 others on ATS that believe that Global Warming is actually happening AND that humans are responsible for at least a large part in it. I was starting to believe I was the onliest one, and I too, have given up on trying to discuss it on ATS.
edit on 10/5/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join