Click to get your own widget

Sunday, October 17, 2010


This question is raised & answered in the negative by a couple of threads on the Iain Dale site here & here.

On the 2 threads on this site which is virtually the unofficial Conservative party site & therefore has a substantial readership, 3 separate eco-fascists have made 3 specific claims -
(1) that the "sceptics" are funded significantly better than the 10 of billions available, worldwide, to alarmist "scientists" & propagandists
(2) that there is a "scientific consensus" across science about catastrophism, which would require 2 or more (much more) of non-state employed scientists to support such a "consensus"
(3) that there are "a lot of 'sceptics' who would deny that Co2 is a greenhouse gas" which would imply extraordinary ignorance on their part - the author of this lie claimed to have read all these sceptics saying so.

All 3 have been repeatedly proven to be lies.

I made the effectively the same challenge about all 3 as of the 2nd here
And still awaiting Doc or anybody naming as many as 2 out of the millions of non-state funded scientists who they can claim as members of their "consensus".

And still awaiting the retraction of or evidence to support the obvious lie about sceptics being funded better than the 10s of billions given to alarmists by the state.

While both claims are total & deliberate lies must we accept them as representing the pinnacle of integrity to which any eco-fascist aspires?

Since then not only has none of the authors made any attempt to substantiate their claims but none of them have retracted them. More importantly out of the several thousand "green" supporters who must have read Iain's site not a single one has made any attempt to either support or dissociate themselves from these total lies. Worse - i have twice emailed the leadership of the Green party & they also are unable to support these lies & unwilling to dissociate themselves from them.

Since thousands of randomly selected "greens" have thus proven that not a single one of them possesses sufficient honesty not to deliberately lie & maintain lies it thus becomes a statistical certainty that any member of that Nazi movement you hear from will be "another obscene, wholly corrupt, thieving, child murdering, fascist parasite like apparently every other member of your movement from Caroline Lucus down (or perhaps up) with less than 1,000th as much integrity as my toenail clippings."

Or perhaps there is one eco-Nazi/environmentalist somewhere in the world who considers himself to have some personal trace of human decency & will either attempt to prove these lies or denounce them as lies? Any bets?

Labels: , ,

Hi Neil - Sandy here. I sort of lost track of which set of extremeists was being more dishonest than the other. It's all a bit depressing as it is a side show from the main event. Economic growth is still lauded as the main route to prosperity, abolishing poverty etc etc. It really begs the question what is it that has to keep growing and given that all resources are in the final analysis, finite, can it ever be acheived? none of the scientists, on either side of the current debates, that I know of, are saying that resources are not limited, or even that our abilities to access them are not limited. For civilisation not to collapse catastrophically the goals of prosperity, human welfare and survival need to be redefined in terms of what we can realisticallydo and the mechanisms thatpermit us to cooperate with one another changed to facilitate this worthwhile end. Neither state control nor the unregulated markets have proved totally successful. This is something that needs to happen, but those who might be able to help it along are too busy on self promotion.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.