Longrider

In the wake of Alex Lockwood’s unfortunate paper and the reactions to it (including mine – and his reaction to that) I thought a more considered response to some of the issues he raises might be in order – so, here it is sans common abuse.

As a child growing up in the sixties and seventies, I recall being reminded repeatedly by my father that Britain was a bastion of free speech; that you could say what you liked and would not be arrested for it. His defence of this concept was simple; that arguments would be in the open and anyone arguing extremist viewpoints would be seen to be what they are, and that we can rebut them. Stifling them would create an aura of mystery and drive the ideas underground, giving them an authenticity that they do not deserve. My father’s generation lived through a world war where such things were vulnerable; there was a heavily armed enemy just across the channel, an enemy that did not value such liberties. Those memories and the sacrifices of the previous generation were fresh at that time, so it is, perhaps, unsurprising that he imprinted those values so indelibly on my mind.

It is a shame that in the wake of that conflict, our erstwhile foes and allies alike appear not to have learned that lesson. Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in the Eurozone and you can be arrested in this country for it. For what, exactly? For voicing an opinion. A crackpot opinion, that can be easily rebutted by the evidence, but, just an opinion nonetheless. That one can be arrested and imprisoned for it, is itself, criminal. The immediate reaction on the more impressionable minds inclined to such things is; “well, there must be something in it…” That is why free speech is so important. So that the case may be put out in the open and ridiculed accordingly – out in the open where all can see.

Since the nineteen seventies we have had various doomsayers claiming that the climate is going to change dramatically. Then, it was a new ice age. That didn’t materialise and since then, we have been threatened ever more shrilly with a burn up. Indeed, I am reminded of the science fiction series from the seventies, Timeslip, where both scenarios were covered. Yet, despite the shrill voices claiming rising sea levels and catastrophic change, it hasn’t happened. Sure, there is evidence of change – but then, I would be surprised if there wasn’t. Climate changes; it always has and it always will. The trick is to adapt. Yet there has arisen an industry in vilifying carbon – one of the basic building blocks of life – and attempting to drag us back to a dark ages existence on the flimisiest of evidence.

Alex Lockwood claims that my comments on science are naive. They are most certainly nothing of the sort. Trained to look at evidence impartially; if one of my candidates was to present a computer model that had been reviewed by a colleague, I would demand to see some corroboration – independent corroboration. Peer review, the sacred cow of the new quasi-religious science movement is not independent and is therefore, not valid evidence. He also claims that my hurling common abuse at him is pointless. Au contraire it has a very important point. Generations of Britons laid down their lives for the liberties we enjoy today, liberties Alex Lockwood treats cheaply. His arguments in favour of regulation – of whatever sort is not entirely clear – in order to stifle what he calls political malware, denigrates that sacrifice. Someone who ignores human history, who is willing to throw away what has been earned through the ultimate sacrifice is worthy of some common abuse.

Moving on, Lockwood asks why there is no meeting of the minds, why bloggers tend to stick to their tribal groups. Well, for one thing, I suspect that it is unlikely that minds will be changed. Okay, I have changed mine, but that is not entirely as a consequence of blogs; rather it is the consequence of the evidence – not least, evidence that the green lobby have been lying. The hysterical hyperbole just hasn’t happened. That and the unwillingness to share raw data has exactly the effect I mentioned in my opening paragraphs; the “what are they hiding?” effect. I also started to see parallels with medieval religion and the persecution of heretics. The idea that dissenting voices should be stifled because they pollute the debate, because “we don’t have time” is no different to the behaviour of the inquisition – sans thumbscrews, granted.

Ultimately though, my response to Lockwood’s question about bloggers crossing the divide and talking to each other is a big “so what?” I don’t write for anyone else; I write for me. This place is a catharsis. When I read something that is ill-conceived, that is yet another erosion of our liberties or is just plain stupid, I write about it. I get it off my chest. It is nice when people read and comment, but not essential – the effect of alleviating that burst blood vessel is the primary objective. Attempting to cross the divide is something I tried with Neil Harding. Having held similar views to him at one time and subsequently changed my mind on many of them, I thought that discussion would be possible. I discovered that it is not, so gave up. That, primarily is why I do not go to AGW sites and seek to argue a case. Such action would be fruitless and simply cause another of those burst blood vessels.

And finally, as Umbongo pointed out, Lockwood’s paper was so poorly presented and badly written that it is not easy to identify a conclusion. All that can be discerned is that he believes in AGW and that those who argue differently are perceived as a danger to the planet, so some “balance” is necessary. Balance being a euphemism for control that is entirely unnecessary. I would recommend George Orwell on the subject of clarity in writing. It is disappointing that a lecturer in journalism should make such a hash of what should have been a simple paper.

Various news outlets have carried the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand affair. While I have generally been indifferent to Ross (occasionally finding him mildly amusing) Brand is so puerile that nothing he says is amusing. Consequently, I tend to avoid anything with him in – I caught a part of his Saturday evening show not so long ago and regretted it.

So, in the wake of them stepping over the mark that is acceptable in public service broadcasting – and one does have to wonder how it took so long for that mark to have been acknowledged – what now? The sack?

I’m inclined, I think, to go along with the Landed Underclass who feels that rather than sack two rather poor broadcasters, we should disestablish the whole shebang.

I do not demand the sacking by the BBC of these two individuals. I demand the disestablishment of the BBC, which will have the effect of sacking not only them but also those who resemble them, and those who believe that demonstrating that ‘celebrities’ are above the law by setting them at random on an inoffensive elderly actor, for whom the BBC presumably has no further use, is a reasonable application of tax payers’ money.

As taxpayers paying for this trash, we are the employer, so sacking the lot of them should be within our jurisdiction. There was a time when those who argued the public broadcasting case had a point; the BBC was a cut above, it provided a service with quality programming that would not necessarily be commercially viable. I was a child at the time. This is no longer the case. The BBC is as trashy, cheap and vulgar as the other channels with which it competes. Except, that is, it competes unequally. The commercial channels do not have access to that pot of gold wrested from viewers’ wallets under threat of a hefty fine.

Of course, if the Beeb were to become commercial, even more programmes would be stuffed full of adverts to annoy me. But, then, as I watch so little of the BBC’s output (filled as it is with PC nonsense and propaganda on everything from knife crime to AGW) I probably wouldn’t notice the difference.

I see via The Englishman that Alex Lockwood has learned nothing from the debate recently about freedom of speech. During that debate he was roundly and rightly criticised for his totalitarian views. Now he comes out with this egregious nonsense:

“The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.”
Since publication of the 4th IPCC report in 2007, the mainstream media has, in general, accepted this position. As Andreadis and Smith (2007) note, UK journalists are no longer required to balance each warning voice….

Yes, they said something similar to Galileo. Science is not “settled”. Science is always open to challenge, new discoveries, new theories; there is always room for doubt. Attributed to Einstein, but whoever said it, it remains valid; “a scientific consensus can be undone by a single fact”. Something Lockwood might like to bear in mind before blathering on about there being no doubt – I’m pleased that he is so certain, however, it does tend to confirm his arrant idiocy and arrogance. Only a religionist claims that such things are settled. There is always room for debate and Lockwood is one of the nasty little totalitarians seeking to stifle dissenting voices. He is an enemy of the people – along with the politicians who likewise pursue an anti-freedom agenda. That so many are now sceptical is not – although I suspect that the Englishman is flattered – due to a few bloggers; it is because people can see when they are being consistently lied to. Eventually even the dimmest start to get it.

It is my contention that new media is providing the spatial and temporal freedoms that, when combined with the ability to publish free from peer-review and from journalistic codes, provides the ‘room for doubt’ for which Pachauri says there is no longer any time. Do we have time for ill-informed scepticism and disinformation?….

Translation; views that disagree with mine are “disinformation” and should be shut down. Peer-review, frankly is nothing more than an incestuous agreement between like-minded people giving each others’ “research” the nod. It is not science. Scientific process is what happens when you publish your findings and someone else can repeat your results – this is not what is happening. As for journalistic codes, frankly, when journalists like Alex Lockwood stop peddling lies and disinformation, I’ll give the matter some thought. But don’t count on it. Freedom of speech doesn’t comply with codes, watchdogs or censorship.

…I would argue that climate disinformation online is a form of cultural and political malware every bit as threatening to our new media freedoms, used not to foster a forum for open politics but to create, in Nancy Fraser’s term, a “multiplicity of fragmented publics” that harms not only our democracy, but our planet.

Then you are every bit the ill-informed jerk I took you for the first time I read your totalitarian nonsense. Freedom of speech is sacrosanct in a representative democracy – even if it is speech that you don’t like or find inconvenient. Of course, this is the same plea this mindless moron was making before; fuck freedom of speech that I don’t like and regulate blogging – censor inconvenient views and stifle dissenting voices. That harms democracy, not climate scepticism.

Alex; read my words very carefully – I will never register with a watchdog, I will never abide by any government approved code of conduct and I will, absolutely, continue to promote a sceptical viewpoint – and you can stick that where the sun doesn’t shine, you nasty little specimen. The first time I read your work, I came to the conclusion that you are a pompous wanker. Reading the latest steaming pile of horseshit that has slithered from your keyboard, I realise that I was right.

As for the Englishman; congratulations on getting under this little wart’s skin. Keep up the good work.

———————————————————

Update: Incidentally; anyone who can write “multiplicity of fragmented publics” and keep a straight face is worthy of Pseud’s corner. What a self-righteous arsehole.

———————————————————

Update: John B commenting over at the Devil’s Kitchen thinks that those of us lambasting Lockwood have got the wrong end of the stick:

His argument overall can be summarised as “1) irresponsible online loonies tell lies about global warming; 2) this gives the public a false impression of the science; 3) while some people like the concept of laws against lying they’re likely to do more harm than good; so 4) the best we can do is clearly spread the right information and counter the loonies as much as possible”.

To be fair, I went back and re-read the paper. John B is being somewhat generous to a paper that is at best, waffly and unclear and is – to put it mildly badly written (and this man is a journalism lecturer). However, the penultimate paragraph says it all. You see, while Lockwood argues that there should be room for legitimate argument, it is very clear that he does not regard climate scepticism as legitimate I re-quote:

I would argue that climate disinformation online is a form of cultural and political malware every bit as threatening to our new media freedoms, used not to foster a forum for open politics but to create, in Nancy Fraser’s term, a “multiplicity of fragmented publics” that harms not only our democracy, but our planet (Fraser, 1993).

Given that he does not see our views as legitimate, he is clearly arguing for some sort of control even if he is not directly arguing for what happened recently in Belarus. So, I remain contemptuous of this man, in part because despite being a lecturer in journalism, he demonstrates rank incompetence in his own field. Given that, I see no reason to take him seriously on the matter of science.

All that said, if John B is correct in his assessment of Lockwood’s meaning, then all I can say is; perhaps he should invest in some basic training in writing plain English, so that his meaning is clear to the casual reader.

Simon Jenkins’ final article in the Sunday Times is a swan song that everyone should read.

Is Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, a pocket dictator? Is there no drop of liberalism in her veins, no concept of personal freedom, no fear of a repressive state? Or is she just another home secretary? This month she apparently felt obliged by dark forces beyond her control to add another weapon to the armoury of illiberal power. She wants to record at her Cheltenham communications headquarters every mobile phone call, text and internet message of every Briton living. This is close to madness.

Yes, no, yes.

Jenkins covers the erosions of liberty carried out by this dreadful administration and sums up beautifully:

There have been few outspoken MPs. Those supposedly defending freedom are whipped into obedience. I find this ominous.

In a parliamentary democracy, this is a wicked, wicked disgrace. Our elected representatives have become the enemy of the people. And, paradoxically, the last bastion against them is the unelected Lords.

It’s that time of the year when we are plagued with that dreadful American import; trick or treating; followed by World War III in early November. Those of us who just want a quiet life are in for a pretty awful couple of weeks.

On the matter of the truly egregious trick or treat phenomenon, the Times asks the question; good fun or begging? Actually, it’s neither, it’s making demands with menaces dressed up as a children’s game. It is unethical, immoral and should be discouraged.

The article then goes on to talk about the fear factor – the fear that children will come to some harm:

Hallowe’en often coincides with half-term, and concerned middle-class parents can find themselves working out what worries them more: senior citizens being mugged on their doorsteps by knife-wielding trick-or-treat hooligans, or little old ladies getting their own back by doling out slabs of chocolate spiked with razor blades.

However, there are still pockets of the country where parents can relax and children enjoy levels of freedom that the angst-ridden suburbs can only dream of. In one Staffordshire village, children aged from 9 or 10 upwards go trick or treating unaccompanied and older residents welcome their arrival. “There’s no fear factor,” says Deborah Poole, a mother of three, who moved there last year.

Good grief! Look, the likelihood of the little brats coming to any harm is negligible. They might deserve a good kicking for demanding treats on pain of a trick, but it isn’t going to happen. People will acquiesce rather than make a fuss, say “no” politely, or simply not answer the door. There is not – nor has there ever been – some bogeyman waiting on every street corner to abduct them and do nasty things to them. Nor is there any justification in this “tradition” for demanding a curfew.

Still, parents could to the decent thing when their sprogs want to go about making others’ lives miserable for a few hours. They could tell them why this is a bad idea and that making demands with menaces is unethical and if they do it later in life, they will find that it is illegal – unless they enter a career in politics, that is.

Me? I don’t answer the door.