Heartland’s moonbat attack squads

Dec.11.2007
4:41 pm
by cao

Heartland’s moonbat attack squads

TAKE NOTE: The automatic links do not work here with the footnotes. If you want to follow the footnotes manually, stay here, otherwise, see this at Cao’s blog.

I like to investigate what moonbats are saying so that I can translate it to rational thinking. A commenter claimed that the Heartland Institute is a ‘frontgroup for Exxon’, and accused me of being ‘too stupid and lazy’ to do basic research. This would seem to me to be someone with an IQ of about 75; didn’t provide any links or facts to back up this wild assertion, and engaged in a pathetic ad hominem attack which is against my rules of engagement and against the rules set forth in front of 8th grade debate teams. This is the default position for a leftist: when you can’t debate points (and most of the time they can’t), and instead, prefer to engage in personal attacks to discredit a source. We don’t need to stereotype them; they stereotype themselves with completely redundant and recognizable behavior. One has to question the intelligence of someone who a) thinks that constitutes debate and b) thinks that makes points for his side and c) thinks that’s going to convince anyone as to the validity and veracity of his position.

As ridiculous as all of that sounds, I thought I’d investigate where those claims originate from.

Heartland proclaims the sources right in the FAQ section of its website: 1

Web sites such as ExxonSecrets.org, DeSmogBlog.org, Mediatransparency.org, and Sourcewatch.org claim The Heartland Institute is a “front group” for (take your pick) oil companies, drug companies, telephone companies, fast-food companies, and tobacco companies.

Ridiculous. Heartland is completely transparent: Among its 2,100 donors, 75% of its income comes from individuals and foundations, and 25% from corporations. No corporate donor gives more than 5% of its annual budget.

More information about its funding and policies concerning working with donors is posted on their Web site.

In addition, “more than 100 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors to The Heartland Institute, including members of the faculties of Harvard University, The University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and scores of other respected universities.”

I guess those don’t count, though, as long as you have a professional PR outfit with a Conservative-leaning nonprofit in its sights.

Aside from the ridiculous claims about corporate donors which are obviously false, what are these websites that libs are taking their marching orders from and quoting from?

Sourcewatch 2 is an online collective like the Borg. It describes itself as an “Online “encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda”, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) 3 The CMD is an Anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization seeking to “expose right-wing “public relations spin and propaganda””. Which helps one understand what’s behind the attack squads on people who promote Milton Friedman’s ideas about economics.

Consider for instance the “Activism” category, wherein there is an article depicting expressions of concern about violent acts of ecoterrorism as nothing more than right-wing fear-mongering and selective outrage: “Since 1990, there have been numerous attempts by industry front groups, PR firms and conservative think-tanks … to associate environmental activism with terrorism. … While conservative groups routinely denounce both peaceful protests and vandalism as the equivalent of terrorism, they remain silent about violent attacks against environmentalists and animal rights activists.”

Of course, examples like Earth First!’s “spiking trees with concealed 11” nails that caused lumberjack chain saw chains to snap and cause severe injuries to the user” (Ponte, 2004); 4, and “Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which along with related eco-animal terrorist groups (according to a May 2004 FBI statement before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee) have “committed more than 1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976, resulting in damages conservatively estimated at approximately $110 million.”–are completely ignored; including “the torching of a large apartment complex under construction in San Diego, California and many more violent terrorist acts.” 5 It’s a strange alternative universe; a green world where scientific research is sacrificed for the rights of mice. 6

From Discover the Networks: 7

There are in fact more than a dozen political databases parallel to DiscoverTheNetworks that have been created by the left to map the political right, which have existed for years. Among these the most active are: MediaTransparency, Namebase, SourceWatch (formerly called Disinfopedia) and MediaMatters, a site created by Democratic Party funders and operatives led by George Soros and John Podesta.

Desmogblog is actually run and owned by Jim Hoggan, the owner of the Canadian PR firm, Hoggan & Associates. It appears to be the Canadian equivalent of Cindy Sheehan’s leftist-agenda-promoting Fenton Communications, 8 out of Vancouver. Again, a PR firm talking about science? How would they know the first thing about it except to promote propaganda?

Kevin Grandia, a writer at Desmogblog, has worked in communications, “having served as an advisor in the areas of health care, Canadian heritage and Asia-Pacific trade,” according to his bio there, 9 and has a degree in psychology. I’ve seen his bio on digg, he’s edited wikipedia and writes about “Friends of Science” being connected with big oil companies. He’s done other things promoting the big government IPCC view of Climate Change, although it should be noted that he has no scientific background; he’s more of an expert in spreading big government propaganda, IMO. He is a Canadian.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 In footnotes you’ll see desmogblog’s disinformation campaign against Heartland and “Friends of Science.” 18 19 20 21 22

I haven’t investigated the rest of the writers at that blog, what I’ve uncovered just on the surface is enough to paint a picture for me. This is the equivalent of Christopher Hitchens, the former Trotskyite, talking science when his background is economics and philosophy, or Chomsky talking political policy when his specialty is linguistics. 23

It is also noteworthy that Friends of Science opposes the Kyoto protocol, which of course, goes against the liberal agenda of promoting big government through global warming hysteria rather than looking at the science (or lack thereof) behind it:

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.

Unlike the left hand side that’s smearing them, who are a collection of what appear to be paid PR activists promoting the liberal agenda.

We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.

In other words, Friends of Science are represented by a much more distinguished collection of experts than those at desmogblog, for instance.

On to another one of Heartland’s hit squad:

ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace “research project” highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem.

Greenpeace 24 leads environmentalist opposition to technological progress. It is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice antiwar coalition, the Win Without War antiwar coalition, and the Abolition 2000 antiwar coalition, which explains why it attempted to blockade ships delivering supplies to coalition forces in Iraq. What the environment has to do with the war is anyone’s guess, but…

Taking issue with Greenpeace’s anti-biotech stance, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become “dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity.”

“Environmental purity”, however, is something we will never achieve, even if we follow the environmentalists’ advice on curtailing technological advancement to save the trees. A bug=dog=boy and if they were asked which one is worth saving, they’d seriously have to think about it.

According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, “the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.”

This sure explains a lot. Patrick Moore also complained that Greenpeace has gone off the charts in its activism, suggesting that Chlorine should be removed from the periodic tables of elements.

What a laugh.