More on Freedom of Speech

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.