AGW and Blog Regulation

If ever there was evidence that the green AGW lobby are nothing more than displaced Marxists who had nowhere to go when the Berlin wall fell, this bastard is it (h/t The Englishman):

I’m preparing a paper for an upcoming conference on this, so please comment if you can! Thanks. Many people have urged for there to be some legal or moral consequence for denying climate change. This urge generally comes from a number of places. Foremost is the belief that the science of anthropogenic climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that climate change is an ethical issue.

My initial reaction is WTF!?!

Okay, it is not an ethical issue and it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Skepticism in the face of blatant lies and scaremongering is a perfectly reasonable response. The idea that voicing dissent should be regulated is straight out of the Joe Stalin handbook of political debate. And, let’s be clear here, skeptics do not deny climate change. The geological evidence available to us tells us that climate has changed many times in the past and is, on a balance of probabilities, going to change again in the future. It is the height of hubris to suggest that we stop it.

Those quotes from Mahorasy’s blog are interesting. I’ll include one here:

Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all. –Margo Kingston, 21 November 2005

These people really are evil. Freedom of speech means the freedom to challenge orthodoxy, to say things that people don’t like. To make it an offence to do so is nothing more than a return to the Inquisition and persecution of heretics. Is it any wonder that as these people come out with this type of extreme, vicious, anti-humanitarian behaviour, that people are becoming increasingly turned off by them and as a consequence, their arguments?

…those sceptical of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are understandably enraged by suggestions that their views should be censored or charged against in law.

That is because they shouldn’t. Ever. If the green lobby has a valid argument, then they may present their evidence (and I don’t mean fudged figures that have been “adjusted”, or the outcomes of computer modelling based on those fudged figures, I mean verifiable evidence) and people will be able to make a rational judgement. Just as they may be able to make a rational judgement when presented with a contrary argument. A decent argument can withstand contradiction and still hold up. Only the charlatans and wannabe dictators are afraid of dissent for they are fearful that people will see through them and observe the naked control freakery that lies beneath the veneer of respectability.

So, let’s ask: what would happen if denial of both a) human-caused climate change and b) the dangers of such rapid change, were to be censored?

Samizdat.

I’m an advocate for something stronger. Call it regulation, law, or influence. Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms. In the same way that to enjoy the freedom of a car you need insurance to protect the freedom of other drivers and pedestrians; in the same way that you enjoy the freedom to publish your views, you need a regulatory code to ensure the freedoms of those who can either disagree with or disprove your views. Either way. While I dislike Brendan O’Neill and know he’s wrong, I can’t stop him. But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.” A body which can also say to me, and to James Hansen, and to the IPCC, the same.

No, you moron. That is not how freedom works. Car insurance has fuck all to do with the freedom of others, it is state enforcement of the duty of care principle. It does not protect the freedom of other drivers and pedestrians – it ensures that in the event of an accident you can pay compensation. Sheesh! What a moronic fuckwit.

When we publish our views, people already have the freedom to disagree with or disprove what we say – it’s what I’m doing here in response to Alex’s dangerous, shoddy and moronic appeal to authoritarianism. We already have that freedom. Regulation diminishes that freedom. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

You do not “balance” liberty with regulation. You reduce liberty. There is not and should not be any regulation that requires someone to prove anything before publication. That’s how opinion pieces work. If you bring in such legislation, then all the journalists who make a living publishing their opinions would be out of work.

Oh… now… There’s a…

That James Hanson has indulged in, at best, hyperbole and at worst, downright lies can be observed by picking apart his arguments, by looking at the figures he produces. The same goes for those who express contrary views. We do not need any regulation on opinion and we most certainly do not need regulation that diminishes further our freedom of speech.

What is it with these fuckwits who want to regulate everything and anything? Blogs, it seems are the latest target. I presume the pamphleteers of the 17^th Century went through something similar. Control freakery runs like a shitty ribbon through the fabric of human history – and the AGW extremists are dung beetles that feast on it.