By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Special to the Financial Post (reposted here with permission from the author)
“But there’s a CONSENSUS!” shrieked the bossy environmentalist with the messy blonde hair.
“That, Madame, is intellectual baby-talk,” I replied.
I was about to give a talk questioning “global warming” hysteria at Union College, Schenectady. College climate extremists, led by my interlocutor, had set up a table at the door of the lecture theatre to deter students from hearing the sceptical side of the case.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations. Not the least of these invalid arguments is what the mediaeval schoolmen would later call the argumentum ad populum – the consensus or headcount fallacy.
A fallacy is a deceptive argument that appears to be logically valid but is in fact invalid. Its conclusion will be unreliable at best, downright false at worst.
One should not make the mistake of thinking that Aristotle’s fallacies are irrelevant archaisms. They are as crucial today as when he first wrote them down. Arguments founded upon any of his fallacies are unsound and unreliable, and that is that.
Startlingly, nearly all of the usual arguments for alarm about the climate are instances of Aristotle’s dozen fallacies of relevance or of presumption, not the least of which is the consensus fallacy.
Just because we are told that many people say they believe a thing to be so, that is no evidence that many people say it, still less that they believe it, still less that it is so. The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.
The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying – falsely – that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that manmade global warming is potentially catastrophic.
Some climate extremists say there is a “consensus of evidence”. However, evidence cannot hold or express an opinion. There has been no global warming for a decade and a half; sea level has been rising for eight years at a rate equivalent to just 3 cm per century; hurricane activity is at its lowest in the 30-year satellite record; global sea-ice extent has hardly changed in that time; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice overall; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; and the 50 million “climate refugees” that the UN had said would be displaced by 2010 simply do not exist. To date, the “consensus of evidence” does not support catastrophism.
“Ah,” say the believers, “but there is a consensus of scientists and learned societies.” That is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy. Merely because a group has a reputation, it may not deserve it; even if it deserves it, it may not be acting in accordance with it; and, even if it is, it may be wrong.
“But it’s only if we include a strong warming effect from Man’s CO2 emissions that we can reproduce the observed warming of the past 60 years. We cannot think of any other reason for the warming.” That argument from the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. We do not know why the warming has occurred. Arbitrarily to blame Man is impermissible.
“The rate of global warming is accelerating. Therefore it is caused by us.” That is the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, the red-herring fallacy. Even if global warming were accelerating, that would tell us nothing about whether we were to blame. The IPCC twice uses this fallacious argument in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Even if its argument were not illogical, the warming rate is not increasing. The notion that it is accelerating was based on a statistical abuse that the IPCC has refused to correct.
Superficially, the red-herring fallacy may seem similar to the fallacy of argument from ignorance. However, it is subtly different. The argument from ignorance refers to fundamental ignorance of the matter of the argument (hence an arbitrary conclusion is reached): the red-herring fallacy refers to fundamental ignorance of the manner of conducting an argument (hence an irrelevant consideration is introduced).
“What about the cuddly polar bears?” That is the argumentum ad misericordiam, the fallacy of inappropriate pity. There are five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1940s – hardly the population profile of a species at imminent threat of extinction. There is no need to pity the bears (and they are not cuddly).
“For 60 years we have added CO2 to the atmosphere. That causes warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the argument from false cause. Merely because one event precedes another it does not necessarily cause it.
“We tell the computer models that there will be strong warming if we add CO2 to the air. The models show there will be a strong warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” This is the argumentum ad petitionem principii, the circular-argument fallacy, where a premise is also the conclusion.
“Global warming caused Hurricane Katrina.” This is the inappropriate argument from the general to the particular that is the fallacy a dicto simpliciter ad dictum
secundum quid, the fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits individual extreme-weather events cannot be ascribed to global warming. Hurricane Katrina was only Category 3 at landfall. The true reason for the damage was failure to maintain the sea walls.
“Arctic sea ice is melting: therefore manmade global warming is a problem.” This is the inappropriate argument from the particular to the general that is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, the fallacy of converse accident. The Arctic ice may be melting, but the Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years and the sea ice there is growing, so the decline in Arctic sea ice does not indicate a global problem.
“Monckton says he’s a member of the House of Lords, but the Clerk of the Parliaments says he isn’t, so everything he says is nonsense.” That is the argumentum ad hominem, the attack on the man rather than on his argument.
“We don’t care what the truth is. We want more taxation and regulation. We will use global warming as an excuse. If you disagree, we will haul you before the International Climate Court.” That is the nastiest of all the logical fallacies: the argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force.
In any previous generation, the fatuous cascade of fallacious arguments deployed by climate extremists in government, academe and the media in support of the now-collapsed climate scare would have been laughed down.
When the future British prime minister Harold Macmillan arrived at Oxford to study the classics, his tutor said: “Four years’ study will qualify you for nothing at all – except to recognize rot when you hear it.” The climate storyline is rot. To prevent further costly scams rooted in artful nonsense, perhaps we should restore universal classical education. As it is, what little logic our bossy environmentalists learn appears to come solely from Mr. Spock in Star Trek.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Bill Tuttle says:
April 23, 2012 at 12:08 am
“Just in case Greg House tries to pull a Jan P. on me and demand references for my statement (at 10:03pm) that the Third Reich’s Final Solution was formed on the scientific consensus of that time, let’s take a trip in the ‘WayBack Machine to 1939, specifically to see some excerpts from a paper read by Felix Tietze, MD, to the Eugenics Society on 17 January and cited in Eugenics Review, Vol XXI, No. 2.”
===========================
Ah, finally. The reference requested by G.H. With that, you may stick a fork in him Bill, ’cause he’s done.
And I’ll add a p.s. having seen Brendan H’s post while waiting for mine to appear.
Monckton says of me: “While it is welcome that Myrrh now recognizes that the argument from consensus is a fallacy,”
Which is actually contrary to the truth – it was Monckton who now changes to claiming consensus is a fallacy, before this he claimed the authority of ‘settled science consensus’ re the Greenhouse Effect – and got very shirty when I asked for the actual science on which this claim is built because I don’t hold consensus as proof.
Then as now, he promotes the idea of science as seeking the truth regardless the hurdles of science consensus, but doesn’t incorporate it into full logical expression in his conclusions.
Brendan H says:
April 23, 2012 at 12:41 am
We’re talking about the argument from authority in general. As long as certain conditions are met, the argument from authority is quite acceptable.
“Argument from authority” is the *definition* of the type of fallacy. Citing *an* authority who is recognized as both an expert on the subject under discussion and is acknowledged to be truthful is *not* an “argument from authority.”
“All that Brendan H is really asserting is that he would prefer the headcount fallacy and the reputation fallacy not to be fallacies…”
I have yet to state my preferences, so Lord Monckton is simply broadcasting an assumption. This attempt to rewrite one’s opponent’s argument is known in the trade as the strawman fallacy.
“…so that the climate extremists might continue to rely upon them in the absence of real-world confirmation of their fanciful predictions.”
Got a timestamp on that reply of Lord Monckton’s? He replied to Greg House, Jan Perlwitz, Systemsthinker, ali, Myrrh, Hugh Pepper, Manic Beancounter, and Don Huffman, so I obviously must have missed seeing both your tag *and* those quotes in my re-readings of his replies…
Brilliant article.
May I add a little ‘Latin’ quote which decorated the desk of a work colleague, many years ago…
‘Nil illegittemi carborundum…’
(Never let the b*stards grind you down)…
Two articles on the eugenics movement in Britain: http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/sparkes.htm
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled
My comments in double square brackets. From the second: “Britain and America are two countries that, in recent years, have led the world in attempting to give disabled people rights and equality. During his presidency, George Bush Senior was proud to sign the Americans with Disabilities Act while the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has gradually transformed the lives of disabled people in the UK. It may appear on the surface that the UK and USA have nothing in common with Nazi Germany, a regime that is estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number.
However, there is a dark side to the history of the two partners in the “special relationship” that has quietly been forgotten and swept under the carpet. It is a history that is deeply uncomfortable, disturbing and shameful and which seems to contradict the values America and Britain claim to uphold. This makes it even more vital that light is shone upon this history. Even if it is painful to do so, the past must be confronted and acknowledged.”
..
“Galton’s views were not regarded as eccentric or offensive at the time. Far from it. In fact, he received many awards during his career. He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860 and was knighted shortly before he died.”
[[The first much longer piece, gives more background on the campaign against it, G.K.Chesterton the prime mover here, but timely intervention by Horatio Donkin in a report direct to Churchill, who was Home Secretary at the time, disrupted its progress in 1910 and makes a comment pertinent in the current hijacking of science]]:
“Eugenics fervour reached its peak in the United Kingdom in 1912, when the first International Eugenics Conference, with over 750 delegates, was held in London. It was addressed by the former Prime Minister Balfour, and attended by an enthusiast who had the power to make law in Great Britain – the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. He called for a “simple surgical operation (sterilisation) so the inferior could be permitted freely in the world without causing much inconvenience to others.” In 1910, on becoming Home Secretary, he had asked the civil service to investigate putting into practice the Indiana law (see below): “I am drawn to it in spite of many Party misgivings. . . . Of course it is bound to come some day.” Churchill was put off by the chief Medical Advisor of Prisons, Dr. Horatio Donkin, who wrote of the Indiana arguments for eugenics: “the outcome of an arrogation of scientific knowledge by those who had no claim to it. . . . It is a monument of ignorance and hopeless mental confusion.”
[[So Churchill still firmly a supporter of eugenics as it gained momentum in 1912]]:
“The International Conference on Eugenics led to great public pressure for Britain to adopt eugenics laws, something Churchill was only too pleased to see. As he wrote to Prime Minister Asquith: “I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilised conditions, is a terrible danger to the race.” He was wary of the cost of forced segregation, preferring compulsory sterilisation instead. In 1912, the government introduced a draft proposal, the Mental Deficiency Bill, for the compulsory detention of the feeble-minded. Hundreds of petitions arrived in Parliament urging the government on.
Opposition seemed minimal. The Catholic Social Guild commissioned a pamphlet by Father Thomas Gerrard, which roundly condemned eugenics, but the influence of the Catholic Church was small in Britain in 1912. Indeed, Dean Inge complained that eugenics was so logical it was only opposed by “irrationalist prophets like Mr. Chesterton.” Chesterton’s response was a series of lectures, public talks and essays ridiculing what he called “the Feeble-Minded Bill.” Chesterton later compiled his arguments against eugenics into a book published in 1922 Eugenics and Other Evils. It begins:
In his book, Chesterton showed that eugenics was an unholy mixture of social Darwinism, coupled with mad Nietzsche’s dream of breeding the Superman. (It is one of ironies of history that Nietzsche, his brain destroyed by the wormholes of syphilis, should have been one of the inspirations of eugenics. He would have not lasted long when Germany really began to breed the Superman.) Chesterton also argued that the real target was not the mad, for which the Lunacy Laws were quite sufficient, but the poor, and he put his finger on the key weakness of eugenics – its essential vagueness:
According to Chesterton, the real target was the poor, as the clause highlighted above rather gives the game away. He marshals compelling arguments that eugenics was one more logical progression in the tools used by the State to suppress the landless poor, initially needed in the factories, and now surplus to requirements. One more step in the road of the Exclusion Acts and Game Laws which had forced the poor from the common lands which had once belonged to them, one more step in the Poor Laws and the workhouse with its treadmills and flogging.”
[[Gosh, we have the same analysis now of those on the AGW bankwagon, the essential vagueness and promoted by useful idiots in main, and the same ulterior motives of those driving the wagon – cheap labour, the cheaper the better..]]
– – – – – –
Philip Mulholland,
I remember my surprisingly strong feelings at my first (and IIRC only) snip at WUWT in the >3 years of ~500+ comments here.
It did humble me because I value this place so much. : )
Do not take it personally . . . .
John
It wasn’t too long ago that the learned and clergy authorities were of the concensus the Earth was flat and the whole Universe rotated around it….and anyone who proved differently was executed for their stupid proof and data. Many of Lord Monckton’s observations, so elegantly written here, could have been written by a scientific heretic of the Dark Ages, resulting in his beheading. Why are we digressing back into that era of delusion and superstition??
I’m highly honored to be allowed into his lordship’s presence. Thank you.
Guys, again on the idea of Lord Moncktons about Holocaust based on scientific consensus, I have not seen any clear evidence of it.
Second, you can not just attribute Holocaust to scientific consensus (eugenics, whatever), because there had been prosecution and killing of Jews in the Christian World BEFORE eugenics. Please read again the quotation of Marthin Luther above. Jews were considered enemies, “god killers” etc. for 2000 years. You can not just say “eugenics”. And please do not ignore the UK’s White Paper of 1939.
It would be better, if Lord Monkcton found another example and dropped this one, that is all.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
If I recall correctly from university logic class (+30 yrs ago), in logical analysis of the form of arguments it should be remembered that the truth value of the premises and conclusions does not matter as to the logical validity of the form of an argument. It is rather the form of the argument; the relation between premise and conclusion that makes for logical form validity and not the truth value of the premises and conclusions.
For example, if an argument is in a correct form logically, it does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. It could be that the premises are not true. But when the premises are true, it follows that the conclusion also is true, just as a logical result of the form of the argument being logical.
John
Re: Henry Clark’s reference to Doran and Zimmerman question #1,
“1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
This question is totally absurd and has no meaning whatsoever. “Pre-1800s” comprises all of geologic history. There have been huge increases and huge decreases of global temperatures in the pre-1800’s. What part of “pre” are we talking about?
I’d like to address again one crucial mistake of Lord Monkton’s, that belongs to the family of “not understanding what is going on”-fallacies.
People know, that what other people say might be untrue, but they REASONABLY rely upon scientific consensus, because they have no other choice.
Hence it does not change anything, if you tell people, that climate consensus MIGHT be wrong. Either you show them there is no consensus, or you prove that the consensus is wrong, like flat earth consensus. Otherwise they will not change their mind.
I thank Christopher Monckton of Brenchley for bringing logical form analysis to WUWT. I will try to extend his logical precedent.
Is there a logical fallacy in this following argument?
????
John
John Whitman says:
April 23, 2012 at 9:31 am
Is there a logical fallacy in this following argument?
Proposition #1 – The Precautionary Principle is the highest overriding principle in the protection of free democratic societies…
============================================
John, this red-green so called “precautionary principle” is absurd by it’s logical nature. It is very easy to prove, if you apply this “precautionary principle” to the implementation of the “precautionary principle”.
Amazing. Now we have Greg House arguing that there is no such thing as the Precautionary Principle, even though we see it every day here, and insurance companies use it in their cost/benefit analyses.
When an inconvenient fact pops up, the alarmist crowd’s response is to pretend it doesn’t exist.
And relying on the supposed “consensus” reminds me of Orwell’s Winston Smith, who wonders: if everyone believes that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true?
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 9:43 am
John, this red-green so called “precautionary principle” is absurd by it’s logical nature. It is very easy to prove, if you apply this “precautionary principle” to the implementation of the “precautionary principle”.
– – – – – –
Greg House,
Thanks for your comment.
Taking the Precautionary Principle as a fundamental irreducible premise, then the Precautionary Principle does seem to caution one about applying the Precautionary Principle. : )
But I do not see the Precautionary Principle as contradicting itself per se and therefore I do not see that by itself it is self-contradictory or illogical.
As far as the argument I asked analysis on, I tend to think it has the logical fallacy called Non-Sequitur. Non-Sequitur in Latin meaning ‘doesn’t follow’. The argument contains a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premises. This fallacy means there is actually no rational connection though one is implied in the argument.
John
Bill Tuttle: “Argument from authority” is the *definition* of the type of fallacy.”
No. “Argument from authority” is the *name* of the legitimate argument. The definition would be: “an argument in which the conclusion is supported by citing an authority”.
The name of the fallacy would be “fallacious argument from authority” or “argument from false authority” or similar.
“Citing *an* authority who is recognized as both an expert on the subject under discussion and is acknowledged to be truthful is *not* an “argument from authority.”
Yes it is. As above. And the argument is legitimate as long as certain conditions are met, such as genuineness and consensus.
“Got a timestamp on that reply of Lord Monckton’s?”
April 22, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:37 am
Guys, again on the idea of Lord Moncktons about Holocaust based on scientific consensus, I have not seen any clear evidence of it.
And here’s me thinking I presented evidence..
Second, you can not just attribute Holocaust to scientific consensus (eugenics, whatever), because there had been prosecution and killing of Jews in the Christian World BEFORE eugenics. Please read again the quotation of Marthin Luther above. Jews were considered enemies, “god killers” etc. for 2000 years. You can not just say “eugenics”. And please do not ignore the UK’s White Paper of 1939.
Yes, but. You are arguing about a specific event, the Holocaust, and this was inspired by the evil breath of eugenics science and was able to be put into effect because that science was deemed fact by consensus. That there has been a persecution of Jews over some 2,000 years is a distraction, the mass slaughter which culminated in the Holocaust was justified by the science consensus of the day from America which had legalised various eugenic solutions to their perceived problem with others. Hitler studied these laws and his scientists were trained in them, they used these methods not only on Jews as others have pointed out, but also other nations, the Slavs and Gypsies (Romany) were also targetted. If I recall, Hitler actually targetted the Jews because they were an ‘easy’ target, not particularly out of any real personal anti-semitism, but because he knew he had to provide a ‘common enemy’ to get what he wanted. (Though some say it was personal from his rejection by the arty Jews, there were some with Jewish ancestry in his organisation.)
It would be better, if Lord Monkcton found another example and dropped this one, that is all.
It was because of the Holocaust and the revulsion it engendered that the eugenics movement was driven underground, even the stupid dupes woke up to it. It is an excellent example of scientific consensus promoting a range of fanatical ideas, and as has been covered in sceptic discussions, the solutions proposed from our current scientific consensus includes the mass murder of billions and a world governing elite supervising every move of a slave class. “Science consensus” has merely replaced other superiority of some over others belief systems de-humanising the others. The link between science consensus and the Holocaust is clear, the methods are more subtle now.
Ms Delman’s clothing and hair are fairly typical of liberally-minded college students in the modern era, even 20 years ago, she would have fit right in at a CA liberal arts university. Very pretty too, I’m sure she has no problems recruiting hopeful young college-age males to join her in her cause.
Greg House says –
“Guys … whatever”
I think we’ve reached a consensus. Just as the science of eugenics had a foundation in xenophobic notions about those practicing the Jewish faith; so too does the science of climate change have a foundation in simpleminded notions of impure Man living within a pure Nature. I think we all appreciate the impulse to make sweeping condemnations of our fellow man, but let’s make sure that any sinfulness we attach to the burning fossil fuels has genuine basis and is not something concocted to comfort a green ethic. Yes human activities can have undesirable long term effects on the environment (for instance adding tetra ethyl lead to gasoline). On the other hand human activities can also have desirable long term effects (for instance substituting the burning of kerosene for the burning of whale oil). It takes particular attention to the issue at hand. Proceeding from a general proposition that all things Man does must necessarily be bad for Nature is a sweeping generalization or what I like to think of as the fallacy of simple-mindedness.
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:53 am
I’d like to address again one crucial mistake of Lord Monkton’s, that belongs to the family of “not understanding what is going on”-fallacies.
People know, that what other people say might be untrue, but they REASONABLY rely upon scientific consensus, because they have no other choice.
Hence it does not change anything, if you tell people, that climate consensus MIGHT be wrong. Either you show them there is no consensus, or you prove that the consensus is wrong, like flat earth consensus. Otherwise they will not change their mind.
=================
In full agreement with you here, and so my gripe about Monckton’s presentation – the non sequitur conclusion from the premise. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/the-illogic-of-climate-hysteria/#comment-964011
He continues to give them credibility by changing direction at the last moment, I find this jarring. If, as he has shown, there is no consensus, then let him say it loud and clear – then there wouldn’t be this confusion of whether he has shown it or not or proved it wrong or not..
Yet again following the lead of Christopher Monckton of Brenchley who brought some logical form analysis to WUWT, here is an argument which can be analyzed logically. Does it contain logical fallacies?
?????
John
Myrrh says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:34 am
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:37 am
Guys, again on the idea of Lord Moncktons about Holocaust based on scientific consensus, I have not seen any clear evidence of it.
———————
And here’s me thinking I presented evidence..
================================================
You have surely made an effort. Of course, you can find articles where Holocaust is attributed to eugenics, lord Monckton is certainly not the first one.
But we are talking specifically about scientific consensus on Jews. Now I am asking: were there scientific bodies like IPCC producing reports on Jews? Did many scientists studied Jews and did most of them come to certain conclusions? Never heard of any evidence of that.
Even the notion, that Nazis or most Germans really considered Jews inferior race is not supported by evidences. I guess, the Jews were considered rather superior, given they were very well represented in science and culture. They simply hated Jews for religious reasons and that hatred was amplified by the success many Jews had in German science, culture and economy. So they decided to kill their enemies, eugenics has nothing to do with that.
I’m getting the impression from his comments that Greg House is a genuine Holocaust denier. They are few and far between, but I think we’ve found one. I wonder if he thinks Herr Schickelgruber wore a yarmulke?
Smokey says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:50 pm
I’m getting the impression from his comments that Greg House is a genuine Holocaust denier.
===========================================
Smokey, would you be so kind and show, where I denied Holocaust? Maybe you need to make a stronger effort reading my comments. I clearly presented the idea, that 6 millions Jews were killed by the Nazis not because of “scientific consensus”, but in the first place for religios reasons. Does it sound like Holocaust denial to you?
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Myrrh says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:34 am
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:37 am
Guys, again on the idea of Lord Moncktons about Holocaust based on scientific consensus, I have not seen any clear evidence of it.
———————
And here’s me thinking I presented evidence..
================================================
You have surely made an effort. Of course, you can find articles where Holocaust is attributed to eugenics, lord Monckton is certainly not the first one.
But we are talking specifically about scientific consensus on Jews. Now I am asking: were there scientific bodies like IPCC producing reports on Jews? Did many scientists studied Jews and did most of them come to certain conclusions? Never heard of any evidence of that.
Even the notion, that Nazis or most Germans really considered Jews inferior race is not supported by evidences. I guess, the Jews were considered rather superior, given they were very well represented in science and culture. They simply hated Jews for religious reasons and that hatred was amplified by the success many Jews had in German science, culture and economy. So they decided to kill their enemies, eugenics has nothing to do with that.
===================
For goodness sake, get over yourself. Jews were just one of the groups considered deficient according to the eugenics classification, from the link I posted earlier:
“The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the Earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark- haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
How? By identifying so-called defective family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior — the so-called unfit. The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.
Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 “Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population.” Point No. 8 was euthanasia.
The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a “lethal chamber” or public, locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, “Applied Eugenics,” which argued, “From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.” “Applied Eugenics” also devoted a chapter to “Lethal Selection,” which operated “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.” ”
Get it? The science consensus of eugenics was that the Jews were merely a part of those who were considered inferior. That Hitler targetted them certainly was because of their standing, particularly their wealth – this he worked up to a frenzy as being the reason Germany was in dire financial straights after the first world war, however, it wasn’t the Jews who he targetted in Germany by incremental laws gaining in intensity, from not being allowed to walk in certain streets to destruction and takeover of their property, who provided the majority of his funding for re-building Germany.., the huge building projects, the great autobahns, the new factories producing weapons for war.
Hitler used anti-semitism for his own ends because he required a scapegoat, this is not direct anti-semitism. He used it to build up a following, by creating a common enemy. That is a tactic very much in use today. Anti-semitism was part of the expression of eugenic science consensus and Hitler rolled with it – he, look at his pictures for a reality check here, wasn’t exactly your typical tall blond haired blue eyed Aryan.. He was a master of hype.