Environazi's - Willing to debate but only with fellow global warming believers.

From Iain Dales site:

A few days ago I emailed Ben Stewart, one of head honchos at GREENPEACE, asking if he would like to come onto 18 Doughty Street and debate Dominic Lawson on the subject of climate change. I have to admit to being totally unprepared for his response...

Iain,

We have a policy at Greenpeace that we no longer debate people who don’t accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change. It’s similar to the policy undertaken by cancer specialists who used to debate the tobacco industry but discontinued doing so. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, if we debated Dominic Lawson on climate change it would look great on his CV, not so good on ours.

I would make clear that that doesn’t mean I don’t think there should be freedom of speech for people with DL’s view, there should be. He is welcome to write about it and speak on it all he wishes, even though I disagree. But by debating him and his fellow-travelers we perpetuate the myth that this is a ‘he said/she said’ issue, a 50/50 where there is still a debate.

I’d debate Bjorn Lomborg, who accepts the science but disagrees vehemently on the need to take action on climate change. But not Dominic Lawson.

All the best

Ben

That really tells me all I need to know. Anyone who seeks to constrain debate on this hugely important issue is adopting the tactics of crypto-fascists. They act as if scientists are in one hundred per cent agreement. They are not. The hubris and condescension in this email is almost beyond parody. Ben Stewart obviously considers himself to be a superior being to Dominic Lawson. Intellectually, he is not fit to lick Lawson's boots.

My intention was to have two 'political' figures and two scientists taking part. Let's hope the Green Party or Friends of the Earth have a more open and democratic approach than GREENPEACE.

UPDATE: There's an interesting article HERE on the subject of closing down the debate.

**Well said Iain Dale, what scares me is the total fascist style belief system that is part and parcel of the whole eco-religion scene, no longer can anyone even dare question and why should they have to prove their religion, sorry "scientific facts" with non believers. Anyone who dares to think for themselves might as well class themselves as a kufir from the religion of envirofascism.

Looking at the people in Greenpeace and other tied in organisations on the global warming bandwagon it makes radical mohamadism look liberal. The whole point of debate is that if you have a belief system/scientific theory/fact etc you should be prepared to stand up for those beliefs and convert others to your way of thinking. To deny that is to just drive people away and as is stated above debate on the global warming eco-fascist religion is stifled:

**Worthless tree hugging Guardian reading, swivel eye'd tofu eating fascist wankers the lot of em. Debate that in the Guardians Comment Is Free - you cunts.

link: http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-enviro-fascists-are-trying-to-close.html

"More than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which says in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."Heartland Institute

Tags:Global Warming
Ben Stewart
Greenpeace

.