A Place to Stand

"This meeting believes there is no evidence of catastrophic warming remotely as catastrophic as the regulations, taxes and other costs imposed to ameliorate it".

On the upper floor of Yates. 134-136 West George Street

Tuesday 30th October 7 00 for a 7.30 start.

  The good news is that, as well as the previously confirmed Andy Montford (Bishop Hill blogger) is that Lord Monckton has also confirmed.    Since Lord Monckton has been a leader of the warming sceptic movement for years, speaki9ng before large audiences worldwide, and being interviewed by broadcasters worldwide, except the BBC; and attracting millions when a number of his videos have gone viral worldwide, except on the state owned BBC; written numerous article published worldwide, except by the BBC and British media; and is acknowledged as one of the smartest people in British politics, except by the BBC state propaganda service.       Also the guy who came up with the concept of selling council house - which allowed millions to own there own homes, free from local political bureaucrats. And which so changed British aspirations that statist politicians of all parties were forced to say how they now agreed with it, at least until they had been elected.      The bad news is that, with the exception of the greens who openly say they don't do open debate, the other Holyrood parties haven't replied.      With 129 Holyrood MSPs and a unanimous vote for the world's most expensive and restrictive "climate change regulation", designed to cost this generation of Scots, their children, grand children and great grandchildren several trillion pounds  it would be strange indeed if every single one of them refused to explain why they think this is necessary.

 How things have changed 

An Inconvenient Truth would be shown to secondary school pupils.

Ross Finnie, the environment minister, said he felt the status of Mr Gore would ensure pupils listen to the message of the film, but was sure they would make their own minds up about it..

He dismissed any suggestion that the film was political propaganda, saying there was firm evidence of climate change and that anyone disputing it "has got to be on planet Mars".

  Now it may be that the people hiding out on another planet are the very MSPs who legislated this act.     It seems to me obvious, indeed axiomatic that, in a free democracy where political decisions are made by rational discussion any political movement which refused to engage in rational public debate with those putting different views would be giving itself an unbeatable handicap and could never persuade more than a tiny minority of any new idea.     I don't know if any of our MSPs would dispute that?     If that is true and it turns out that most MSPs simply refuse to debate 3 things follow with logical certainty.   1 - That none of the MSPs who refuse to frely debate care about liberal democracy (not least the "LibDem" ones).   2 - That they know that the warming scare story, they are using to deprive us of trillions of pounds is an obvious fraud which cannot survive even a short investigation.   3 - That this scare story could only have become widespread (as did each of the hundreds of previous environmental catastrophe stories all of which proved to be largely or wholly untrue) if it were being deliberately promoted by a corrupt state media monopoly  (70% dominance is the legal definition of monopoly & the state owned BBC & C4 have more than that in news coverage) engaged in suppressing free debate, censoring any dissent dissent on the warming scare & using it to promote big state totalitarianism in a manner long understood.

"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."Henry Louis Mencken

    If any alarmist believes the assumption is not obviously true or the conclusion does not follow automatically from it, or it is disputed that the BBC monopoly has censored dissenting views from the airwaves, doubtless they will be able to explain the error logically and factually.        If there is no such error all 3 conclusions cannot be avoided.