invitation for submissions: “climate change"

As our current feature points out, we are living in an age when free speech has come under overt threat. In the name of protecting a range of alleged special interest groups (women, ethnic minorities, gay people – even “the planet”), censorship is being re-packaged as a tool of social justice. “Hate speech is not free speech” is the slogan, devised, we can imagine, by some ad-agency under contract. The implicit assumption gaining ground is that some opinions, maybe even some facts, have no right to be heard.
We think this is potentially one of the most dangerous developments of our time. We don’t have to agree with the “deniers” or the proponents of alternative therapies or minority opinions in order to recognise their innate right to be heard, or to recognise that if they are successfully silenced, we may be next.
So, in order to do our own bit to redress the balance and resist the creeping censorship, we’re inviting submissions on one of the most polarised and overtly censored subjects in the modern world – “man-made climate change,” or “anthropogenic global warming” to give it one of its more official names.
Whether you are a “believer” or “denier” in AGW, a scientist involved in this field or simply a lay person who has studied the subject. Whether you want to discuss the science itself or the way in which it has been handled by the media (mainstream and alternative), we would love to hear from you.
But remember we want to encourage a serious and rational debate, with an emphasis on evidence and sources. Please don’t bother submitting an evidence-free rant about how the deniers/believers are all fools or shills, because we won’t publish it. But if you have good sources and/ or an interesting and considered argument – send them our way.
Send your submissions to: [email protected], subject line “climate debate”.
We look forward to reading them.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: latest, OffG
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Feb 28, 2017 11:03 AM

Interesting take by Jonathan Cook on this subject:-
It’s The Guardian Wot Done It!

Ian Upsall
Ian Upsall
Feb 28, 2017 10:45 AM

I support your project and await with anticipation the debate which will ensue. May it contain a minimum of name-calling and a healthy awareness of the pitfalls of “consensus”,, “publication bias”, and appeals to authority!

Feb 28, 2017 12:05 AM

Why do you package the subject in such a simplistic ‘sound bite’ manner? Using media terms such as climate change, global warming can only solicit simplistic responses. Why must the issue be framed in such a manner? Maybe a more pertinent question would be what are our governments, industries etc doing that harm our environment and ourselves and then more importantly, what can we do to prevent agreed abuses?

Feb 27, 2017 8:34 PM

I couldn’t submit a cogent article but would like to leave a link to this documentary that covers Svensmark’s research into cloud formation that was broadcast I believe in 2007.

I just want to pose the question the documentary begs for me, could there be much more powerful influences on global climate and on a much longer scale than human emissions from burning fossil fuels etc?

Feb 28, 2017 10:58 AM
Reply to  Manda

I am surprised they did not mention the fact that all commercial air flights over the continental USA were grounded for 3 days after 9/11, which showed that aircraft condensation trails caused global cooling.
This provided an opportunity to carry out the sort of experiment that would never otherwise be possible.
See http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings for one report.
I think the ideas being advanced in the Svensmark video do make sense but that the overall way in which weather patterns are formed on the planet Earth are based on a complex amalgam of many different factors.
No one explanation in itself is sufficient to explain everything or almost everything.
It is extremely interesting – for example – to look at the geological history of oxygen on Earth.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen [Admin: sorry for second hyperlink].
All this research will be of considerable use in the long-term, rather than having any short-term benefit.

Feb 28, 2017 6:08 PM
Reply to  John

“I think the ideas being advanced in the Svensmark video do make sense but that the overall way in which weather patterns are formed on the planet Earth are based on a complex amalgam of many different factors.” I believe scientific research was shown in the documentary. A hypothesis backed up by analysis of data from various sources and experiment. Svensmark is confident the team did good and sound science and that the findings were valid and important. More scientists need to corroborate or disprove the findings. That’s how science works. Weather is not climate. Weather is local. Of course the two are connected. I have read how a less energetic sun allows the jet stream to become wavy and the jet stream has a huge impact on British weather along with other factors. Of course there are many factors influencing climate and weather but where is the majority of… Read more »

Feb 27, 2017 3:00 PM

I will answer as an historian; with observations from my 45 yr life. This is the rhetorical pathway I recollect on environment/ climate:
-“Give a hoot, don’t pollute.”
President Carter
– “Turn the heat down, wear a sweater.” & “We are in danger of global cooling.”
Reagan/Bush 1
-“The climate is warming.”
-workedin E.Europe,saw environmental devastation of Soviet Era. Noticed that data from former Soviet Union’s coldest weather stations were no longer included in calculating because of political incentive to show warming.
Bush 2/Obama
– “the earth is warming”
-“the earth is fluctuating”
-“California is in a permanent drought”
-diminish EPA/global environmental regulations

Feb 27, 2017 2:57 PM

An excellent introduction ….