Click to get your own widget

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Who Is Responsible for the Lack of "Dialogue" Between Sceptics and Alarmists?

  On of the sites I regularly comment on is the Scottish Sceptics one. On it there has recently been someone commenting from the alarmist side as well. He goes under the name Scottish Renewables. He regularly makes assertions which he is repeatedly challenged to substantiate factually and is unable to - but this does not stop him maintaining all of the. For example that mass production in the nuclear reactor industry alone could not significantly reduce costs.

   It is quite possible for somebody to overstate or even talk nonsense in the heat of the moment but when they continue to maintain the inaccuracies over a long period of time, knowing the facts and unable to produce any factual basis for such claims there can be no possible doubt that the lie is deliberate and premeditated. By definition somebody willing to do so blatantly cannot ever be assumed to be telling the truth in any other case. This is what SR was and still is doing.

   When it is done by somebody who knows that the lie they are telling is being done to deliberately results in the death of the 25,000 pensioners who die, unnecessarily, because of fuel poverty annually in Britain who could, in whole or large part, be saved by substantially lower energy costs I do not see that it is possible for anybody to say they are not responsible for the consequences they seek. This applies to every person who knowingly supports fuel poverty.

    It would be possible for "environmentalists" to properly argue that the cost of these deaths is justified by the saving to the world in retaining the supplies of uranium in the ground or preventing another Chernobyl (though it would take 500 Chernobyls in Britain alone each year to match the death toll) or some other reason. So far nobody has done so but I would be willing to publish it if they could.

   Which brings us to the conundrum in the title here.

   Having taken long term advantage of the fact that sceptics are, due to our liberal nature, always willing to allow alarmists a free voice (usually, as here, excluding posts which make no attempt at debate and limit themselves to obscenity and rudeness - something common among those who claim to care about the environment) Scottish Renewables has chosen to make his own clearly well funded site the site of an attack on me claiming I am insane. The ultimate irony being that, obviously having, used sceptic's commitment to free speech to lie and made such a claim SR has censored my reply. In part in one case and in whole in 2 others.

   So here they are.   And on a different thread
Anybody who wants to can follow the trail of gratuitous lies you used to get to this point. You have repeatedly been asked to proved verification for the claims you made and repeatedly answered not with facts but with ad homs. Even in the reply to the post mentioned you make a medical claim about me. It is possible that you are a qualified doctor but I doubt it. If not then in what way is describing you as a liar inaccurate?
There is no dispute that fuel poverty kills around 25,000 pensioners a year. Nor that it could be effectively ended by a free market in power - which would mean nuclear rather than windmills. The "environmentalists" benefiting from windmill subsidies or paid by the government to promote it cannot deny this. Thus in what way is the term “murdering ecofascist parasite” non-factual?

Anybody reading here can see you do not & cannot dispute the fact of 25,000 people being killed, quite unnecessarily, every year by fuel poverty. Nor that you are actively promoting the ecofascism that causes it. Therefore, if the English language has meaning you are a hired parasitic murderer and fascist.
You have made no attempt to provide the medical qualifications necessary for your accusation of lunacy to be even theoretically possibly anything other than a fascist lie. I note you have not attempted to withdraw it and must accept it as representing the pinnacle of honesty to which you ever personally aspire. I await your apology.
I note that every single supporter of "environmentalism" here, who possesses any trace of integrity, has had to dissociate themselves from your lies. That there is not a single person in the "Green" movement with any integrity is hardly my fault, but equally hardly disputable.
I tend to assume you will censor this post as you did the last, or moreso. Which only proves that you know you are a wholly corrupt fascist liar whose claims cannot survive honest discussion
Unsurprisingly all of the 15 "myths" about the stupidity of windmills are true.
Obviously anybody wishing to "play fair" on the subject, as the article requests, would be willing to allow discussion on the facts but since no "environmental" blog anywhere in the world, let alone either this one or the one delineating the "myths" allows free debate you will just have to accept that they all know for certain their claims are unsustainable.
  Should SR feel at any time able to factually dispute anything I have said he is, of course, welcome to do so. Unlike him I do not approve of suppression of free political discussion, regarding that as fascist (as did Mussolini).
  Equally should anybody know of any "environmentalist" site anywhere in the English speaking world which does not practice political censorship of discussion I would be very interested to hear of it. That one at least would not be properly described as ecofascist. Having previously asked for a single identifiable prominent supporter of alarmism, not just a "climate scientist" who is not ultimately paid by the state I would also like to extend it to a single identifiable prominent alarmist who is opposed to the fascism of political censorship.

   Is there a single solitary "environmentalist" anywhere in the world who posseses a sufficient trace of honesty to be willing to say that anybody who makes deliberately dishonest claims of "lunacy", or claims designed to assist in killing people is doing something wrong? They deserve the chance to prove if there is even 1.

Labels: , ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

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

British Blogs.