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.
But even he recognises that he is a totalitarian shit and that the science absolutely isn’t settled and the media bears a very grave responsibility in skewing the current domination discourse AGAINST the denialists. He quotes an Oz blogger
“But more than that, blogs like mine
have given frustrated academics, even from India and Canada, a place to send
dissenting material on global warming that much of the media prefers to ignore. A
debate the media often says is “over†is on again. Thanks to blogs.”
“Dissenting material that the media chooses to ignore.” Savour that for a moment, and now consider that this bandit thinks that that is not enough. Wow.
That so many are now sceptical is not – although I suspect that the Englishman is flattered – due to a few bloggers
Credit where credit’s due. I happily went along with the MMGW stuff until a just over a year ago, but Devil’s Kitchen kept linking and linking to loads of other incredibly well researched stuff, and then the scales fell from my eyes, so to speak. So as regards my ‘scepticism’, it was probably due to ‘a few bloggers’. Once you realise that it is a scam, you wonder why you ever fell for it, if that still ranks as ‘scepticism’ rather than outright disgust.
Mark Wadsworths last blog post..The Sun Says…
My experience is somewhat similar. I tended to accept it until I started reading more widely and following those links. That, combined with a suspicious nature. The more people scream at me that they are right and the discussion is over, the more I’m inclined to root about and find out what it is they are trying to hide.
Apparently, Alex thinks my attitude towards the science is “naive”. Er, if naive means the diametric opposite to its dictionary definition, he would be correct. Computer models peer-reviewed via a mutual back-slapping club is not science, no matter how much Lockwood would like it to be. He also thinks my abuse of him is “pointless”. Far from it; it relieves my blood pressure when reading drivel that would do away with freedoms fought and died for by generations of Britons. So, I can burst a blood vessel or I can vent some spleen and call Lockwood a totalitarian moron. He may not be a moron, of course – which is worse…
One of the defences for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s promotion of sharia law was that the Archbishop is so learned and sophisticated that he didn’t mean what he is generally understood to have meant. In other words his prose is so opaque it could mean anything and therefore let’s be generous and consider that even this AoC is not lunatic enough to say what most people understood him to say (even if he meant it).
The same applies to Lockwood’s paper. Defenders of Lockwood quote one bit of his paper, critics quote another, the reason being that the paper is a sterling example of muddled thought and, worse, muddled writing. Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear that only an over-generous interpretation of the paper as a whole could interpret it as, in any way, a defence of free speech.
My thoughts precisely. Given John B’s comments, I revisited it, applying the benefit of doubt and still came to the same conclusion. The only caveat is so weaselly, it can be reasonably dismissed.
I find it disappointing that a lecturer in journalism should present a paper that is so badly constructed. I would recommend that he reads Orwell – and I don’t just mean the novels.