Monday, May 11, 2009

Shame on you Dymocks

Whatever people may think about global warming or the more generic climate change, one of the things that has really got up my nose, (and that of a lot of other people), is the way various interests have sought to gag debate on the issue.
The debate was declared over before it had really begun. Instead we're being pressured to engage in the wholesale turning over of our economy, of a scale never before seen in human history.
Al Gore consistently refuses offers to debate the science and only ever appears at carefully controlled and stage managed events.
Though given the result of a recent debate at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, where the sceptical side won (much against their own expectations), this is probably no surprise.
He and the other alarmists are, to be blunt, shit scared of having to openly defend their claims against well read opposition.
And now I've just come across this in the comments section for this Andrew Bolt post:
I went into Dymocks at Burwood Westfield on Saturday, intending to buy Plimer’s book for my mother.
I was told by the store manager that “Oh yes. I wish we had it because eveyone keeps coming in to buy it, but head office has told us they won’t stock it even though we’ve begged them to.”
Sums it all up really. Free and open debate anyone?

Posted via email from Garth's posterous


Brentbo said...

At least global warming is a coherent, if increasingly implausible, hypothesis: an increase in a greenhouse gas would warm up the planet. I've yet to meet anyone how can begin to explain the 'hypothesis' behind climate change.

Garth Godsman said...

Hi Brentbo

I think any coherent hypothesis about the current episode of global warming must include consideration of the other periods of warming 1,000, 2,000 and approximately 5,000 years ago that were not caused by CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise.