EPA Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
znoob
June 26 2009
QUOTE: Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told
CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland,
was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or
he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously
coming from higher levels."
QUOTE: After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on,
Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and
did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not
currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be
in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the
mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
QUOTE: "I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study
that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach,"
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report
that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon
dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a
series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation
recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page
report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific
hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff
researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has
decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy
case for this decision."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in
what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal
agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration,
which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com
in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being
pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me
working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from
higher levels."
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have
any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the
topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be
shared with the agency group working on the topic.
"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years
exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA.
"And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update
a grants database instead.
For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims
that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely
false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to
openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles
were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment
finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an
inter-agency review was conducted."
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in
economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and
public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to
environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin
said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not
reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not
currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be
in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the
mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did
not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years;
that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that
there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels;
and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's
temperature.
If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures,
Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than
regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level
rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more
cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's
John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations
if they are eventually challenged in court.
"The big question is:
there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public
evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and
the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington,
D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global
warming.
Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not
the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday.
As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment
period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.
The EPA also said in its statement:
"The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the
working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he
submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information
from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for
developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that
document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."
That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said
to Carlin, the report's primary author: "I decided not to forward your
comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in
the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He
also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with
anyone outside of our group on endangerment. There should be no meetings,
e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."
One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the
unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA
administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about
regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second
anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.
"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very
urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an
ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case,
it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he
and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a
half days to do so.)
In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the
report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called
cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee,
invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The
science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has
been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If
you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't
need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in
its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon
dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)
"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that
contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the
senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its
findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this
important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other
analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues."
The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator,
who said in January: "I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the
environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values:
science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and
overwhelming transparency."
Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to
ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our
democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."
"All this talk from the president and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson about
integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers --
you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
prometheuspan
Denial of the situation is dangerous, foolish, and there is not one
iota of real science to support the denialists. There is no argument
amongst respected peer reviewed science journals, and there is no
argument amongst knowledgable scientists.
We should have no interest in bunk reports, they are merely
nonsensical distractions.
http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment
What A. Fool
Then why did you post that url?
znoob
"prometheuspan" <promet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3162404-7f21-474a...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
There is not one iota of real science to support the alarmists.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
Claudius Denk
I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
right and so completely unable to say how or why.
Clifford
news:e3162404-7f21-474a...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
or AGWers!
> Denial of the situation is dangerous, foolish, and there is not one
> iota of real science to support the denialists.
or provable science for the AGW crowd.
> There is no argument
> amongst respected peer reviewed science journals, and there is no
> argument amongst knowledgable scientists.
Better check again. Scientists are constantly coming back from the dark
side!
enigma
> "prometheuspan" <prometheus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
South America
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/05/glaciers-go-leaving-drought-conflict-and-tension
Everest's Melting Glaciers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJ9F8WKXVU
Melting Himalayan glaciers to trigger massive migration: Study
http://www.zeenews.com/news538185.html
Arctic
Starving Polar Bear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ClyXq8b__o
Antarctic
Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
Greenland
Greenland Ice Sheet Melting Faster Than Expected; Larger
contributor To Sea-level Rise Than Thought
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612092741.htm
INDIA
Week of 4.17.09
On Thin Ice
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/516/index.html
OCEAN
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch -In The Pacific Ocean- Part 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1NNIx8Mc_k
NCAR CCSM3 depiction of climate change from 1870-2100
Eric Gisin
Go play in front of a train and make the world a better place.
"prometheuspan" <promet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3162404-7f21-474a...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Atom Egoyan
>http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment
Of course, I forgot: 'the science is settled'.
Another field in which 'the science was settled' was that well-known
cause of stomach ulcers, spicy food. Two guys in Western Australia
weren't convinced, and endured twenty years of, shall we say, 'polite ribbing'
about their insistence that ulcers were mostly caused by bacteria, and
thus easily and cheaply treated with antibiotics. One Nobel Prize later and
Helicobacter pylori gets its chance to shine.
Bubbling away n the settled science basket is a 50-year old discontinuity between
relativity and quantum physics, known to Einstein but conveniently buried in the
'too hard' basket. The gap between local and general phenomena is yet to be
'settled'. And they haven't found the Higgs boson yet, either.
I'd consider quantum mechanics a lot more 'settled' than climate modelling...
Atom Egoyan
Melbourne Australia
prometheuspan
Go play in front of a train and make the world a better place. "
clearly, you do not have sense, integrity, or a cogent argument, and
thus must resort to ad hominem attacks, because you do not have the
ability,
nor the sense to make an argument.
>
> Of course, I forgot: 'the science is settled'.
>
> Another field in which 'the science was settled' was that well-known
> cause of stomach ulcers, spicy food. Two guys in Western Australia
> weren't convinced, and endured twenty years of, shall we say, 'polite ribbing'
> about their insistence that ulcers were mostly caused by bacteria, and
> thus easily and cheaply treated with antibiotics. One Nobel Prize later and
> Helicobacter pylori gets its chance to shine.
----------
Thats firstly not comparable for several reasons, as the level at
which the issue was settled was quite different.
Secondly, you seem to be confusing primary causes with total
causation, and in fact, spicy food can be a strong contributing
factor, especially in certain blood types or the elderly.
Thirdly, its always amusing to listen to ignorant people reason by
utterly off analogy.
---------
>
> Bubbling away n the settled science basket is a 50-year old discontinuity between
> relativity and quantum physics, known to Einstein but conveniently buried in the
> 'too hard' basket. The gap between local and general phenomena is yet to be
> 'settled'. And they haven't found the Higgs boson yet, either.
----------
Babbling incoherent drivel will not earn you any prizes with me.
If you wish to talk about incongruities between quantum mechanics
models, I'd be quite happy to
entertain such on my wiki, since that will then be on topic there as
one of our sciences. As fate would have it,
I have read hundreds of textbooks on the subject, and I have my own
theories.
----------
>
> I'd consider quantum mechanics a lot more 'settled' than climate modelling...
-----------
thats ludicrous, since climate is orders of magnitude simpler than
quantum mechanics, and since the gross levels and scales
at which climate operate are easy to interact with and very well
understood.
Catoni
Peer Review: Get all your fellow buddies to read your study and give
it their stamp of approval. That makes it good. Just like Hitler got
all his Nazi peers to read and approve Mein Kampf. That made it a
good and worthy piece of Nazi Philosophy.
Bullshit !
Catoni
I remember in school in the 1950's, Continental Drift and Plate
Tectonics was just starting to be take seriously. For almost 50 years
they laughed at Alfred Wegener, and his book "The Origin of Continents
and Oceans". No way the continents moved. Looking like South America
and Africa were joined in the past was just a coincidence.
The "scientific consensus" was that the continents were fixed in
position and did not move.
prometheuspan
>
> I remember in school in the 1950's, Continental Drift and Plate
> Tectonics was just starting to be take seriously. For almost 50 years
> they laughed at Alfred Wegener, and his book "The Origin of Continents
> and Oceans". No way the continents moved. Looking like South America
> and Africa were joined in the past was just a coincidence.
>
> The "scientific consensus" was that the continents were fixed in
> position and did not move.
Your point being?
We learned, and what we know now is orders of magnitude more than we
knew then. We have millions of points of data now by which
to make sense of geology, instead of hundreds, with that amount of
information and the knowledge density we have, there can be no
comparison.
There are things which science does not know and which honest
scientists will admit aren't currently known, climate science is not
one of them where that science concerns our understanding of how
humans are responsible for global warming.
In any case, your assertion is false, there was no consensus, in fact,
there were many different theories about continents and oceans and
geology, the theory of tectonic plates goes back farther than that.
What there was was a dominant scientific theory, and then
presentations made by people who were half ignorant in any case for
grade school books.
"Peer Review: Get all your fellow buddies to read your study and give
it their stamp of approval. "
Actually, they are not all buddies, they are frequently in fact
competitors, often do not know each other, and in any case thats not
how it works.
That makes it good. Just like Hitler got
all his Nazi peers to read and approve Mein Kampf.
---------
argumentum ad hitlerum, you should now by all means do humanity the
favor of reading a logic text, since your arguments are of the most
banal and pathetic kind.
---------------
Reductio ad Hitlerum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for
details. (June 2009)
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or
argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to
Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern formal fallacy in logic.
The name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, or especially its related
argumentum ad misericordiam. It is a variety of both questionable
cause and association fallacy and has the effect of an appeal to
emotion. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic
ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes
known as playing the Nazi card.[1]
The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis)
supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad,"[1] as in
"Hitler supported the anti-smoking movement, thereby showing that such
campaigns are wrong". The argument carries emotional weight as
rhetoric, since in most cultures the values of Hitler or the Nazis are
automatically condemned. The tactic is often used to derail arguments,
as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less
reasoned responses.[1] On the other hand, just because reductio ad
hitlerum is a logical fallacy does not necessarily make X good/
desirable. In other words, labelling a counter-argument reductio ad
hitlerum does not make your argument right. In the example, pointing
out that Hitler's support for anti-smoking is reductio ad hitlerum
does not in itself mean that anti-smoking campaigns are good/
desirable; just that this particular argument against these campaigns
is invalid.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Fallacious nature of the argument
o 1.1 Countering the fallacy
* 2 History of the term
* 3 Allegations of the fallacy in practice
* 4 In popular culture
* 5 See also
* 6 References
[edit] Fallacious nature of the argument
Reductio ad Hitlerum is rationally unsound for two different reasons:
As a wrong direction fallacy (a type of questionable cause), it
inverts the cause–effect relationship between why a villain and an
idea might be criticized; conversely, as guilt by association[1][2] (a
form of association fallacy), it illogically attempts to shift
culpability from a villain to an idea regardless of who is espousing
it and why. Specific instances of reductio ad Hitlerum are also
frequently likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question
or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are frequently
(though not always) false as well.[1]
Those policies advocated by Hitler and his party which are generally
considered evil are all condemned in and of themselves, not because
Hitler supported them. In other words, genocide and race supremacism,
as two examples, are considered evil on their own merits, while Hitler
is considered evil for numerous reasons largely because he advocated
them. A common example of the fallacy in action is, "The Nazis favored
eugenics, therefore eugenics is wrong."[1][2] But the ethical debate
over eugenics has nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis in
particular; both eugenics and criticism of it considerably predate
Nazism, and have gone well beyond it, into concerns about modern
genetic engineering, unknown to Hitler. Used broadly enough, ad
Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type,
as it does in the eugenics example, by both inverting cause and effect
and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. The
fallacy of guilt by association can readily be seen by noting that
Hitler was fond of dogs and children; arguments that because of this,
affection for dogs and children is evil do not convince.
The argument being false, however, does not prove that X or its
supporters are not evil (assuming so would be another fallacy, namely
affirming the consequent). Moreover, recall that the argument is false
in itself, no matter whether X is actually good or evil.[1] So,
"Hitler killed human beings, therefore killing is wrong", is
nonetheless a fallacy, however truthful the premise and conclusion may
be, because there is no logical connection between the two. It would
be akin to "I wear trousers, therefore the sky is blue". This sentence
is logically faulty, even if the speaker does wear trousers, and the
sky is blue that day.
Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures,
regimes, and atrocities other than Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust
can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum
could assert that corporal punishment of wayward children is necessary
because Joseph Stalin enacted its abolition[citation needed], or that
atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist.[3]
Similarly, one example of a reductio ad Cromwellium would be to equate
enjoying chamber music with hating the Irish, while a reductio ad bin-
Ladenum might equate making propaganda or non-mainstream media in
general with terrorism. Such constructions, as a class, make no more
sense than saying moustaches are evil because Hitler and Stalin had
moustaches.
[edit] Countering the fallacy
The fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is, however, most easily
illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his
supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as
painting, owning dogs or being a superb orator. It may be refuted
through counterexamples using figures with reputations generally
opposite that of Hitler:
* Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, Hitler's British opponent,
also painted.
* President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his successor Harry
Truman, Hitler's American opponents, also owned dogs.
* Like Hitler, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela were
superb orators who ended up in trouble with legal authorities due to
their political activities.
The fallacy is sufficiently widely known to often be referred to
enthymetic and dismissively. For example comparing someone's argument
to the straw man "The Fascists also made the trains run on time" might
implicitly reference the reductio ad Hitlerum.
Many of Hitler's qualities and talents were admirable if seen in
isolation. He is generally considered an excellent orator and a
political organizer of first rank, despite his use of those talents to
further a program of genocide, aggressive warfare, and other
atrocities. In addition to this, it must be remembered that not all
arguments involving Hitler or Nazism are reductio ad Hitlerum,
although they may be otherwise fallacious.
[edit] History of the term
The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have appeared in
University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss's 1953[4] book, Natural
Right and History, Chapter II:
In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably
reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of
Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our
examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has
frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the
reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it
happens to have been shared by Hitler.
The phrase was derived from the better known (and sometimes valid)
logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant
takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as
argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived,
humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.
[edit] Allegations of the fallacy in practice
Neve Gordon, in a 2002 book review of Olivier Razac's Barbed Wire: A
Political History, questioned why: "the architectural similarity and
differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold
Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the
Holocaust [...] does not engender an outcry among survivors."[5] In a
January 2003 response to this review, Andrew Silow-Carroll alleged
Gordon's use of Reductio ad Hitlerum with, "Logical Fallacy Alert: The
Nazis used barbed wire. Israelis use barbed wire. Thus, the Israelis
are like Nazis."[6]
Some creationists, particularly religious Christians in the United
States, have alleged that acceptance of evolution as a scientific
theory leads to Nazism.[7] The argument is that social Darwinism was
inspired by Charles Darwin's discovery of natural selection, and that
Hitler's evil philosophy can be explained in terms of social
Darwinism, and therefore evolution is evil. This was carried out in
the 2008 documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which
the evolutionary biologists are juxtaposed with images of Nazis.[8][9]
Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott, two scientists that were
interviewed in the film, have been among the most vocal critics of
many statements contained in the film. After a viewer of the film
wrote to Dawkins that he accepted the film's argument, Dawkins wrote
back that the film did not consider the long history of anti-Semitism
in Europe that preceded Nazism of which Hitler took advantage and that
evolution is a scientific theory, that "whether or not we like it
politically or morally is irrelevant," and that "[s]cientific theories
are not prescriptions for how we should behave."[10] Expelled also
equated an understanding of biological evolution with the rise of
communism in the 20th century and the Berlin Wall was used as a double
entendre in many parts of the film (part implying evolution and
atheism are to blame for communism, part implying that academics in
21st century America are silenced for questioning Darwinian
evolution).
The Reductio ad Hitlerum has been used in criticisms of United States
Presidents Ronald Reagan,[11] George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush,[12]
and Barack Obama, and against 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain.
[13][14][15][16] For example, A Penn State trustee compared Reagan's
rhetoric when addressing a Young Americans for Freedom chapter to
Adolf Hitler indoctrinating the Hitler Youth.[11] If the audience is
meant to derive an equivalence between the two addressed
organizations, this would constitute the fallacy; comparing the
speakers' rhetoric alone might be a hyperbolic or bad analogy, but
would not be an instance of the fallacy itself.
[edit] In popular culture
The relative frequency of such comparisons in Usenet discussions led
to the formulation of an adage called Godwin's Law in 1990, which
posits that the probability of analogies involving Hitler or the Nazis
approaches 1 as the duration of an online discussion increases.[1]
The concept behind reductio ad Hitlerum sometimes makes appearances in
the mass media. For example,
* In the film Office Space, main character Peter Gibbons, while
trying to rationalize his embezzlement to his waitress girlfriend,
notes that "the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews
wear," in reference to cloying buttons and slogans she's required to
wear at work.
* In the episode of Daria ("Pinch-Sitter"), the children Daria is
babysitting for tell her that "Sugar is bad. Sugar rots your teeth.
Sugar makes you hyper. Hitler ate sugar."
* In the "Atomic No. 33" episode of Numb3rs, the character Susan
Doran criticizes science because it was embraced by the Nazis.
[edit] See also
* Godwin's Law
* List of fallacies
* Wisdom of repugnance
[edit] References
1. ^ a b c d e f g h Curtis, Gary N. (2004). "Logical Fallacy: The
Hitler Card". Fallacy Files. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html.
Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
2. ^ a b Curtis, Gary N. (2004). "Logical Fallacy: Guilt by
Association". Fallacy Files. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html.
Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
3. ^ Tobin, Paul N. (2004). "Hitler, Stalin and Atheism". Rejection
of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html. Retrieved on
2007-11-24.
4. ^ "Natural Right and History". University of Oklahoma. 2008.
http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/bookstrauss.htm. Retrieved on 2008-08-11.
5. ^ In These Times, 6 December 2002. Gordon, Neve. Don't Fence Me
In. Retrieved on 9 June 2009.
6. ^ The Forward, 3 January 2003. Silow-Carroll, Andrew. "The
Featherman File." Retrieved on 9 June 2009.
7. ^ "Hitler and Eugenics." Expelled Exposed. 1 May 2008.
8. ^ Rennie, John. "Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed."
Scientific American. 9 April 2008. 19 May 2008.
9. ^ "You Say You Want an Evolution." Newsweek. 14 April 2008: 17.
10. ^ Dawkins, Richard. "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's
lying propaganda." RichardDawkins.net. 20 April 2008. 1 May 2008.
11. ^ a b Shauna Moser (March 02, 2006). "Penn State Trustee
Compares Reagan to Hitler". http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=797.
12. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox
13. ^ Madonna infuriates McCain with Hitler-Mugabe sequence at
Cardiff concert, Times Online, August 25, 2008
14. ^ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/22/schiffren/index.html
15. ^ http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/15/foxs-tom-sullivan-compares-obama-to-hitler/
16. ^ http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/06/09/let_526940.shtml
[hide]
v • d • e
Fallacies of relevance
General
Absurdity • Accident • Ad nauseam • Argument from ignorance • Argument
from silence • Argumentum ad populum • Base rate • Compound question •
Loaded question • Argument to moderation • Moralistic • Naturalistic •
Proof by assertion • Irrelevant conclusion • Special pleading • Straw
man • Style over substance • Two wrongs make a right
Appeals to emotion
Fear • Flattery • Nature • Novelty • Pity • Ridicule • Repugnance •
Spite
Genetic fallacies
Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) • Appeal to authority • Appeal to
motive • Appeal to tradition • Appeal to wealth • Appeal to poverty •
Association • Bulverism • Chronological snobbery • Ipse-dixitism •
Poisoning the well • Appeal to etymology • Reductio ad Hitlerum •
Appeals to intellectual and mental stability or capability
Appeals to consequences
Appeal to force • Wishful thinking
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum"
Categories: Adolf Hitler | Genetic fallacies | Dog Latin words and
phrases
prometheuspan
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,280 for argumentum ad hitlerum. (0.16
seconds)
Search Results
Results include your SearchWiki notes for argumentum ad
hitlerum. Share these notes
Copy and paste this link into an email or IM:
See a preview of the shared page
1.
Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio
(or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to
Adolf Hitler (or the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum - Cached - Similar -
2.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic
fallacy. .... Reductio ad Hitlerum • Appeals to intellectual and
mental stability or capability ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum - Cached - Similar -
3.
Logical Fallacy: The Hitler Card
Argumentum ad Nazium; Reductio ad Hitlerum. Type: Guilt by
Association ... been used as a substitute for the reductio ad
absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. ...
www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html - Cached - Similar -
4.
Churchill, Hitler, and Newt by Patrick J. Buchanan
Feb 20, 2006 ... They will invariably trot out the Argumentum ad
Hitlerum. Before the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had become "the Hitler of
Arabia," though he had ...
www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan37.html - Cached - Similar
-
5.
Argumentum ad Hitlerum - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on
National ...
Apr 6, 2007 ... Argumentum ad Hitlerum [Chris Horner].
Argumentum ad Hitlerum . It does tend to indicate rationale discourse
has ended. ...
planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q... - Cached - Similar -
6.
Fauxlogism » Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Jan 26, 2008 ... The logic behind Argumentum ad Hitlerum is that
the person who uses this technique, barring another party using
Godwin's Law, will generally ...
www.fauxlogism.com/2008/01/26/argumentum-ad-hitlerum/ - Cached -
Similar -
7.
Argumentum Ad Hitlerum — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress
Find other items tagged with “argumentum-ad-hitlerum”:
Technorati Del.icio.us IceRocket · 24/7 Support · Free Features ·
Premium Features ...
wordpress.com/tag/argumentum-ad-hitlerum/ - Similar -
8.
Wapedia - Wiki: Reductio ad Hitlerum
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio
(or argumentum) ad Nazium - dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to
Adolf Hitler (or the ...
wapedia.mobi/en/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum - Cached - Similar -
9.
ricoblog - Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Sep 10, 2004 ... Argumentum ad Hitlerum: If you're debating
someone, and they compare you or people who espouse ideas that you
support to Hitler — you've won ...
www.supakoo.com/rick/.../ArgumentumAdHitlerum.aspx - Cached -
Similar -
10.
User:PoorNUnknown/Reductio ad Hitlerum - Uncyclopedia, the
content ...
Oct 28, 2006 ... The term reductio ad Hitlerum (sometimes
rendered reductio ad Hitlerem; ... fallacy and may also be described
as argumentum ad nazium, ...
uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User.../Reductio_ad_Hitlerum -
Cached - Similar -
You have removed results from this search. Hide them
Loading...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
leona...@gmail.com
> Denial of the situation is dangerous, foolish, and there is not one
> iota of real science to support the denialists. There is no argument
> amongst respected peer reviewed science journals, and there is no
> argument amongst knowledgable scientists.
>
But then any old sow is smarter than he.
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jun 28, 7:57 pm, "znoob" <a...@z.com> wrote:
> > "prometheuspan" <prometheus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e3162404-7f21-474a...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > there is no reason to give time or energy to climate change denialism.
> > > Denial of the situation is dangerous, foolish, and there is not one
> > > iota of real science to support the denialists. There is no argument
> > > amongst respected peer reviewed science journals, and there is no
> > > argument amongst knowledgable scientists.
>
> > > We should have no interest in bunk reports, they are merely
> > > nonsensical distractions.
>
> > >http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment
>
> > There is not one iota of real science to support the alarmists.
>
seemed compelled to waste bandwidth listing
some of the bullshit in the above url
leona...@gmail.com
•• It serves them right.
- -There are three types of people that you
James
>
> I remember in school in the 1950's, Continental Drift and Plate
> Tectonics was just starting to be take seriously. For almost 50 years
> they laughed at Alfred Wegener, and his book "The Origin of Continents
> and Oceans". No way the continents moved. Looking like South America
> and Africa were joined in the past was just a coincidence.
>
> The "scientific consensus" was that the continents were fixed in
> position and did not move.
---------
Your point being?
We learned, and what we know now is orders of magnitude more than we
knew then. We have millions of points of data now by which
to make sense of geology, instead of hundreds, with that amount of
information and the knowledge density we have, there can be no
comparison.
There are things which science does not know and which honest
scientists will admit aren't currently known, climate science is not
one of them where that science concerns our understanding of how
humans are responsible for global warming.
==================
Perhaps it would be better to give us your version of how AGW is a fact
beyond question or do you just subscribe to Al Gore's hoax in general.
Xavier X. McKee
news:05e2951d-b8e8-4aee...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Your lack of an imagination has already been demonstrated, along
with your lack of understanding of science. Why do you even bother?
Eric Gisin
> "You are one fucking green fascist.
> Go play in front of a train and make the world a better place. "
>
> clearly, you do not have sense, integrity, or a cogent argument, and
> thus must resort to ad hominem attacks, because you do not have the
> ability,
> nor the sense to make an argument.
>
Bruce Richmond
Must be difficult to breath with your head so far up your ass.
Claudius Denk
wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:05e2951d-b8e8-4aee...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 28, 7:43 pm, prometheuspan <prometheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > there is no reason to give time or energy to climate change denialism.
> > > Denial of the situation is dangerous, foolish, and there is not one
> > > iota of real science to support the denialists. There is no argument
> > > amongst respected peer reviewed science journals, and there is no
> > > argument amongst knowledgable scientists.
>
> > > We should have no interest in bunk reports, they are merely
> > > nonsensical distractions.
>
> > >http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment
>
> > I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
> > right and so completely unable to say how or why.
>
> Your lack of an imagination has already been demonstrated,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.
> along
> with your lack of understanding of science. Why do you even bother?
I wish I wuz more smarter lyke yiew.
T. Keating
>
>
>June 26 2009
>
>
>
>QUOTE: Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told
>CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland,
>was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or
>he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously
>coming from higher levels."
Report failed internal peer review, and wasn't written to official EPA
standards (formating/references/etc).
Most of the material was plagerised from pro fossil fuel /anti-science
nutjobs.
T. Keating
>
>
>June 26 2009
>
>
>
>QUOTE: Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told
>CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland,
>was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or
>he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously
>coming from higher levels."
Report failed internal peer review, and wasn't written to official EPA
standards (formating/references/etc).
Most of the material was plagiarized from pro fossil fuel
/anti-science nut jobs.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:28:06 +1000, "znoob" <a...@z.com> wrote:
>
> >June 26 2009
>
> >QUOTE: Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told
> >CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland,
> >was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or
> >he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously
> >coming from higher levels."
>
> Report failed internal peer review, and wasn't written to official EPA
> standards (formating/references/etc).
>
> Most of the material was plagerised from pro fossil fuel /anti-science
> nutjobs.
•• Keating is the anti-science nutjob.
No plagiarism was involved
- -
T. Keating
>On Jun 30, 11:52�am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:28:06 +1000, "znoob" <a...@z.com> wrote:
>>
>> >June 26 2009
>>
>> >QUOTE: Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told
>> >CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland,
>> >was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or
>> >he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously
>> >coming from higher levels."
>>
>> Report failed internal peer review, and wasn't written to official EPA
>> standards (formating/references/etc). �
>>
>���Bullshit!!!
More meaningless words from a person who hides his identity from the
public. What does he fear most?? Being held accountable for the
content of his numerous posts !!
>
>> Most of the material was plagerised from pro fossil fuel /anti-science
>> nutjobs.
>
>���Keating is the anti-science nutjob.
> No plagiarism was involved
>
Leonard(lastpost) is yet another crazy ID morphing fossil fuel troll..
From Canada no less..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=2&em
"Betraying the Planet "
"And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn�t help
thinking that I was watching a form of treason � treason against the
planet."
>
>- -
>There are three types of people that you
>can_not_talk into behaving well. The
>stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
>1-The stupid
>2- the religious fanatic
>3- There is no way to reform evil-
> Not in a million years
Leonard is all three rolled up in one package.
Stupid, religious fanatic, and evil..
john fernbach
You are one fucking green fascist.
Go play in front of a train and make the world a better place.
Wow. Real eloquence here.
Wonderful logic & a broad sense of humanity, too.
An admirable openness to new ideas & differing viewpoints.
john fernbach
>
> Must be difficult to breath with your head so far up your ass.
Truly inspired argumentation, wonderful repartee -- a keen debating
style.
leona...@gmail.com
> >•• Keating is the anti-science nutjob.
> > No plagiarism was involved
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=2&em
> "Betraying the Planet "
>
> "And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help
> thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the
> planet."
>
•• Krugman a failed economist, absent science,
now writes fascist political columns for the
NYTimes
>
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
leona...@gmail.com
•• But true.
•• Richmond is right and so is Gisin.