Free Speech Union Climate Change Debate in Cambridge on Thursday with Ross Clark
There are still tickets available for the Free Speech Union’s Cambridge Speakeasy this Thursday on the topic ‘Net Zero or Not Zero: Can we Debate Climate Change?’, which doubles as a book party for Ross Clark, author of Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China (and Won’t Even Save the Planet). Those attending will have the chance to purchase a signed copy of Ross’s book. In addition to Ross, the panel of speakers will include Harry Wilkinson, Head of Policy at NetZeroWatch, and Austin Williams, Director of the Future Cities Project.
If you’d like a ticket, click here. The panel discussion will begin at 7pm, with drinks afterwards going on until 10pm.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Good luck. I find that talking to demented fascist cult members is not an edifying experience. It simply confirms what the Rona scamdemic (and all the other scamdemics) confirmed about human gullibility, stupidity or criminality.
How can You have “Free Speech” on the issue of energy and climate when an army of brainwashed dreamers will likely storm the place and disrupt the whole thing? When it comes to issues like this speaking freely is not tolerated. Proponents of the “climate emergency” base their world view on faith and emotion and abandon facts and reason. It has become a secular religious cult and the cult members see themselves as climate missionaries going after all the heretic unbelievers.
I saw this superb self filmed little vid from an Ulster Farmer explaining in simple terms why the whole Methane from cows thing is another huge lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmtW9ckRqt0
I thought a debate meant a motion and speakers for and against the motion. Aren’t all the advertised speakers on the same side?
As spelled out in the text, the motion is Net Zero or Not Zero: Can we Debate Climate Change? and speakers will presumably be presenting different viewpoints on that.
Do you think there will be any speakers making the case that you can’t debate climate change?
Possibly, although such a The world is lost! Let’s all just roll over an die! would seem pretty pointess.
Nothing should surprise us any more.
You will presumably be happy there is NEVER any debate on the BBC, despite all TV license payers funding it and perhaps a large chunk of them do not fall for the “climate crisis” politics masquerading as science. —-Infact there is little debate on most mainstream news (except a little on GB News and a little more on Fox) So you hardly have anything to complain about.
That’s a formal debate, at least one possible format for a formal debate.
I don’t care if there are not speakers on both sides – they can use the time to better prepare their approach to defeating the evil collectivist plans to impoverish ordinary people and destroy Western civilisation.
Anyway no debate is needed – we know that it’s not a subject that can be freely debated in the mainstream, and as opposition to Nut Zero grows the desperation and the crackdown will intensify as the collectivists see the wheels coming off their wagon – a pattern that we are seeing repeated everywhere (but I am just a far-right, racist, climate denier, covid denier, granny-killer, anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist, Putin apologist etc. who is a threat to democracy).
Nice one.
Debating climate alarmists is like debating with Bolsheviks in Russia on the merits of liberty in 1917. These ppl are beyond reason, the only thing that would make them see it would be living in Siberia in winter without fossil fuel. I admire Toby’s eternal optimism which this site is a testimony to, but the left do not have better angels to appeal to.
Or like when two Jehovah’s witnesses arrive at your door with their little leaflet. There is no point in discussing anything with them. They have already decided what is true. Just as the climate cultists have.
I had a couple knock on the door, I answered and invited them in, offered them tea and biscuits, then sat down with them and said ‘Right, what is it you want to talk about’, and the older one said ‘We don’t know, we’ve never got this far before.’.
I like your style Neil – presumably you then got into an interesting discussion?
Not really, its just a joke. Actually I don’t feel bad about making it as my parents (rest their souls) were in the church, and that included me too until I reached the age of reasoning about 13, and saw through it all. 50 years a sceptic and a rebel..!
Jehovahs Witnesses seemed to be pretty benevolent in those days, but from what I hear they have gone full on cult since. I try not to get close to anyone who wants to peddle their flavour of religion now a days. Saves me the time for telling them to get lost.
We used to talk to a JW couple a couple of decades ago. They were quite sweet. I patronisingly felt sorry for them as they seemed more like lost souls than I was (and I was and am pretty lost myself). They were under a lot of pressure, and their marriage had caused problems in their families (I don’t think either of them came from JW families). I do admire their persistence and willingness to give up their time and as do-gooders go (I’m not keen on do-gooders) I think they are not that dangerous – far less dangerous than nut zero fanatics.
That’s because they have no actual power. But they’re still an eschatololigcal sect believing in imminent doom whose members (figuratively spoken) chained to the more than dubious operations of the Watchtower Society. I certainly wouldn’t want to be one. And I certainly also don’t want to find out what the Watchtower Society would be capable of if it could forcibly change society to its liking, like the official Christian churches could in the past.
Those are good points.
Yes your joke was a funny one, but like you I do not tolerate anyone peddling religion at my door (any religion). There is no point in discussing anything with people already indoctrinated who think their way is the only way and that the rest of us would be best advised to think the same. ——-But now we also have secular religions to contend with like radical environmentalism and climate change dogma, all based mostly on faith and emotion where anyone not subscribing to the cult is a heretic and a sinner.
There should be televised debates about all the current contested issues: climate change and net zero, vaccines, excess deaths, trans issues, immigration, etc.
The BBC mostly or completely avoids most of these issues, they want people to hear only one side, and yet claims to be unbiased.
Anyone who is opposed to debate should not be trusted.
You don’t have debates where you want truth exposed. ——That is exactly why Mann would not reveal his data and methodology so McIntyre could check his work. ——Political agenda’s masquerading as science do not tolerate debate. No tyranny does.