Skip to content

‘Are We Doomed?’ Why won’t the other side debate?’ – John Stossel

November 21, 2019

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Good video from John Stossel:

 

28 Comments
  1. Phil Wood permalink
    November 21, 2019 11:40 am

    This video should be compulsory viewing for all our MP’s. So much sense spoken yet ignored by our leaders.

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 21, 2019 3:27 pm

      The problem Phil, is that the alarmists always try to quickly point out that they view the Heartland Institute as a right-wing funded organization. As if that would make what they report automatically suspect and incorrect. There is little point in responding to such an approach, because YOU are then also one of those in denial…their favorite weapon… Denial!

  2. Ariane permalink
    November 21, 2019 11:45 am

    The alarm-mongers want to feel alarmed or to make money or to control us or to virtue signal to be elected. The alarm was started by environmentalists decades ago, promoted by scientists who wanted to retain authority and funding, and the whole movement has been funded by wealthy globalists who wanted and continue to want to send the rest of us back to the stone age.

    • November 21, 2019 11:50 am

      Well stated.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 22, 2019 8:27 pm

      Ariane, it was ever thus:
      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’ 
      H. L. Mencken”

      • Ariane permalink
        November 23, 2019 9:05 am

        Harry, Mencken was not altogether right. Those who have struggled to get the vote and to be represented in the centres of power would not agree with him. What has happened, however, with the increasing representation of powerless people in these centres is that those in power have felt threatened. And like the Nazis, have sought to disempower them. They now use ‘saving the planet’ as the means to do this disempowering. For those in power there is no debate here for if they aren’t right, the structure that keeps them in power and makes them feel good will crash down.

  3. November 21, 2019 11:55 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.

  4. Michael Adams permalink
    November 21, 2019 12:01 pm

    Is it no wonder the alarmists won’t debate? All descent from the alarmists view is censored out by MSM. The alarmists don’t have to debate.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 21, 2019 1:55 pm

      They are probably also aware that they would lose so why get into a battle you don’t have to.

  5. November 21, 2019 12:01 pm

    The panel brought it out forcefully and succinctly. The end game of those who will not debate is, as stated, total control of people leading to the destruction of capitalism in favor of a Marxist state. The other side will not debate as they well know it really is not about climate.

  6. Ariane permalink
    November 21, 2019 12:28 pm

    Joan, the Marxist state that is doing better than anyone does not heed the doom-mongers BECAUSE they are too intelligent. I refer, of course, to China. The lack of debate and the hysteria do not indicate Marxism but are more about what Lenin called ‘Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder.’

  7. Joe Jarrett permalink
    November 21, 2019 2:18 pm

    Do not expect any open debate from the Left.
    Their M.O., (much like antifa’s), is a shout down, and gang mentality..

  8. November 21, 2019 2:21 pm

    Piers must be totally exasperated when he hears the rubbish being spouted by his idiotic younger brother Jeremy as laid out in his manifesto. Not much debate about the manifesto allowed by the BBC.

  9. Bertie permalink
    November 21, 2019 2:22 pm

    It’s really a replacement for ‘orthodox’ religion. People need a cause, something to believe, something that inspires them. They also take false harbinger sof doom as a crutch for that belief. It’s why people who disagree with the concept are called ‘deniers’ as in apostasy, agnosticism and atheism – all terms originally designed to be dismissive and remind followers that there is only one true way.
    As religion has declined in the western world so has the need for folk to have a belief in something. Capitalism and Consumerism don’t cut it but Climate Change – there’s something I can evangelise about. I’ll conflate all the various factors of pollution, weather, wildlife etc. and put it all under one portmanteau word. Global Warming didn’t quite cut it, so let’s call it climate change = that’s a stronger message.
    Then we can reap the benefits from the offertory collection.

    • Michael Adams permalink
      November 22, 2019 10:50 am

      Climate Change is evolving in to Extreme Weather. It sounds worse and is more immediate. Don’t forget Climate Change was Global Warming once.

  10. Broadlands permalink
    November 21, 2019 3:08 pm

    The alarmed have a 97% consensus response: “Don’t ask us where the temperature data are to support our “unequivocal climate emergency”. The 200 year anomaly of +0.83°C above 14.0°C? That’s a climate emergency? Really? No wonder they won’t debate if that’s all they have except photos of polar bears.

  11. November 21, 2019 3:56 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  12. November 21, 2019 8:48 pm

    November 12th RTE aired a big GW propaganda show

    Also November 12th
    #Ireland is ordered to pay fines of €5 million and €15,000 per day
    for failing to comply with a judgment of the European Court
    which required that an environmental assessment be carried out
    in respect of the #Derrybrien wind farm https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7052/en/

  13. November 21, 2019 9:13 pm

    Avoiding fair debate
    ..and deplatforming challenging voices
    has been a Greenblob tactic for 15 years

    BUT The Times on Monday had 2 letters
    #1 the Angling Trust argued against dredging.

    #2 ‘We want a big televised debate on CC”
    signed WWF, RSPB, WT, Greenpeace
    It makes dramatic claims in 50 years half our farmland birds have been lost.
    We have great floods.’

    … It seems political aimed at Tories
    Ah it’s not a proper debate but a Political Leaders
    Climate Emergency debate
    .. that’s biased framing for a start

    • November 21, 2019 9:17 pm

      See this
      https://theecologist.org/2019/nov/20/johnson-running-scared-scrutiny-climate

      and this letter seems very similar

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        November 22, 2019 8:44 pm

        If you listen to the ravings of David King now you can at least get some solace from the fact that he is no longer Chief Scientist. But still, people (with an agenda) listen to him.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      November 22, 2019 4:30 pm

      More like 25 years. I was having run-ins with our local Mendacious Morons way back in the 90s. It was impossible to reach any agreement with them about anything, like arguing with polyfoam. You think you have common ground — in writing even — and the next day they have reverted to the “shape” they were before you started! Half my grey hairs came from chasing down their lies and explaining that “no, that is not what was agreed!”

  14. November 21, 2019 10:07 pm

    This morning BBC Radio4 yet again tweeted a link to their Climate Change activist item
    That’s the third time from them and Woman’s Hour have also tweeted it twice
    “How do you talk to children and young people about climate change?”

    I see BBC’s Paul Lewis replied
    “It’s a problem you’ll have to solve because we’re not! ”

  15. Broadlands permalink
    November 22, 2019 1:31 am

    Dear authors of your “Climate Emergency”. Where are the temperature data that could possibly support an “unequivocal” climate emergency? As you surely know, since the early 1900s the global average temperature has risen ~6% from ~14.0°C to today’s 14.83°C… Is that the data supporting the existential crisis worthy of renaming? Remember, CO2 during that interval rose 45%. So…where are these global temperature data to support your emergency? Please leave your reply here and I am sure it will be transmitted to the rest of us as well as to the appropriate leadership…the UN’s IPCC?, Al Gore? Have a great day. And by the way, please stop using biofuels to go somewhere… they are 90% fossil fuels.

    • dave permalink
      November 23, 2019 9:51 am

      “…risen 6% from 14 C to today’s 14.83 C…”

      Whoa there! Giving away too much ground to the misleaders. The Zero Temperature in the Celsius scale is purely conventional, as being the temperature of a mixture of ice and water. In the Absolute Scale where the Zero Temperature is physically meaningful as representing the complete absence of heat energy, we will write:

      “…risen 0.30% from 287.15 K to 287.98 K…”

      Incidentally, totally correct scientific presentation does not require the approximation sign.
      One simply remembers that the last “significant figure” is MEANT to be UNCERTAIN.

      If one writes 6%, one is saying that it could be 5%, or it could be 7%. However, if one wants to say that one is pretty sure that is 6% and not 5% or 7%, one writes 6.0%. The zero to the right of the decimal point is uncertain, but it is asserted that the 6 is certain. There are two significant figures but only one certain figure. Similarly, when I write 0.30% (above) the first zero is not significant, the 3 is significant and certain* and the second zero is significant and uncertain.

      *Within the context, of course.

  16. Bill DeMott permalink
    November 23, 2019 10:17 pm

    I have been reading the climate literature since the early 80s when I was finishing my Ph.D. The scientific debate is published in scientific journals. Science is not conducive to being explained by one-liners. On needs to have a chance to review the data.

    • Ariane permalink
      November 24, 2019 11:34 am

      Bill, and a big problem is when the journals don’t publish the articles by those scientists whose work seems to show that climate is not changed by CO2. That is also, when those scientists still have enough funding to work and have enough peers to review their work objectively!

  17. Soren Nielsen permalink
    November 24, 2019 8:06 pm

    Watch the other one first. This is equally interesting though

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: