For a while, I’ve become more and more frustrated looking for news stories on Global Warming, because not only have the number gone down dramatically, not only do those that remain lack “meat”, but almost invariably those media outlets who still publish Global Warming bullshit, do so without allowing comments. From Wikipedia to the BBC-Guardian, to DeSmugBlog the alarmists can only publish their propaganda when they prevent sceptics from giving the evidence on the other side.
Quite literally the debate is over.
There is no longer anywhere I know of that allows free debate – not because sceptics are not willing to argue rationally, but because alarmists can’t stand the overwhelming dominance of sceptic views which is now prevalent on every open forum.
The best analogy I know is this – at the end of WWII, when the Americans were invading islands, many Japanese sat in bunkers refusing to come out even though they could not possibly win the battle and they were just wasting their lives. Their action was totally futile – just as those like the BBC-Guardian, etc. are futile. They cannot possibly turn the tide, the debate has moved on from their non-science alarmism. They’ve lost and sometimes I really do wish I had a proverbial flame thrower to stop their stupid pathetic pot shots.
Most folk I talk to seem to believe it all – because the BBC is still going on about it [radio 4 news yesterday, for instance] as if it’s a done deal.
If the unreliables policy didn’t hit everyone very heavily in the pocket, then you would be correct – the mere fact the BBC says it’s a good idea would cause politicians to do it.
But the truth is that the unreliables policy is hitting people on fuel bills, rising prices, lost jobs and hideous monstrous eyesores.
The real question is not whether people are in favour of something as a concept – where no cost is involved to them, it is this: “would they personally spend any money on it”.
I would think that even if a majority said they were in favour, the reality is that less than 1% of the UK population were willing to give up the kind of money that was being envisaged before the UK government announced an end to onshore subsidies.
Well, it seems you’re more optimistic than I am that the common people will be able to influence the outcome …. where the civil service [and the establishment(?) …. both of whom are aiming to stay in the EU – and have the ability to influence public opinion with their hold on the media] have taxation in their mind.
I think you over estimate the “greens” – who are completely ignorant of the real world. And under estimate the duplicity of politicians who are quite capable of fooling even the shrewdest of us – but the greens are a push over.
I agree the political rhetoric still talks about reducing CO2 emissions – and that is apparently enough to fool the greens – but in the real world (where we sceptics live) it’s no longer something that is being implemented.
Pingback: Washington Post – once dominated by alarmists but read these comments | Scottish Sceptic