You’re welcome to debate but you’re not welcome to debate

The accepted definition of science is: ?The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.? The most interesting word in this description is THEORETICAL. Which is defined as: ?Studying or working to develop theory?. Which in a nutshell, describes the global warming debate.

?Stuff” however believes that the science is settled,( theoretically anyway.) Who in their right mind at Stuff decided to??accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity??

Without too much effort I have found many authentic contradictions to their claims. All of my findings came from highly qualified climate scientists. It is not my intention to debate climate change but to challenge the childish arrogance exhibited by Stuff?s editorial staff who would much rather run around with their fingers in their ears than enter into a rational and mature discussion. Their rider being ?We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy.?

The first thing Stuff should address is the qualifications of the clown who drafted that rider. It is a contradiction of intent?(you’re welcome to debate but you’re not welcome to debate)?thus it becomes meaningless. Apparently ?appropriate response” is no response because it is censored.

Before you preach to me, get your own house in order. Also, describing those of us who have alternative opinions as engaging in ?denialism or hoax advocacy? is precisely what you are engaged in. Whilst sitting on your sanctimonious perches, you choose to ignore alternative theories. Is this not denial then? If so, are you not engaged in ?denialism??

To deny that you could be wrong is not only pretentious but contradicts the perception you have of your self-worth. Next time you choose to preach to the world, at least be honest about your political alliance. No one has conclusive evidence one way or the other, least of all a handful of journalists at Stuff.

This is not news, it is social engineering governed by censorship and promoted by a media outlet with an agenda. Very socialist in its implication, I might add. You could be right, but the minute you say you are right, you have lost the respect of your audience. Presenting opinion as fact is the very reason why the MSM has lost the regard of its target audience. On the positive?side?though, it is encouraging to see Stuff managing its ever-declining readership effectively so that many more trees will be preserved as a consequence of not being turned into newsprint.


By George