If I hear "Scientific Consensus" once more...

Consensus in Science is the implicit agreement on direction amongst the passengers and crew onboard the Titanic.

The united front of nodding faces of the UN IPCC's 'thousands of scientists' who are 'in agreement' and 'experts in their fields' adds no proof to the theories of man-made global warming or climate change. They don't improve the accuracy of the climate models that don't even predict the weather we've already had!

As Albert Einstein once pointed out - a consensus of thousands is proved wrong by only one proof.

Because there is hand-wringing consensus amongst newspaper editors and television schedulers and program producers that their industry should be rushing to report the 'scientific consensus' doesn't mean they are reporting truth or fact. It means simply that they correctly read the need to be reporting this - the need to sell newspapers to readers, to sell advertisng dollars during environmental documentaries.

Avian Flu was reported to be the doom of mankind. In one documentary alone, dripping with suggestive, emotive language, I could fill sheets of paper noting down the use of key terms from the language of environental and disease doom and apocolypse.

Avian Flue, having made Donald Rumsffeld adn Roche millions, was dropped by the media faster than a hot potato. And here we are again. Only this time there's a consensus!

Oh! there was for Avian Flu as well you say? Hmmm now, does that mean that Global warming might be a popular theme, likely to appear and disappear like the polar ice and the poor drowing polar bears? Surely not!

Comcast and P2P

Posted on http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007/10/25/blocking-network-packets-the-comcast-fiasco/#comment-21057

What is most interesting about this is the fact that, inevitably, the establishment raises the bar on anti-democratic practices, intrusions into freedom etc., and brings about the evolution of the next generation of technology - what will be the solution from the p2p community?

No-one should be surprised by this. The research carried out by the article’s authors sounds legitiate and well conceived. The results indicate a deterministic scheme, not some more random malfunction.

Comcast is no-doubt seen as a flgship in right-wing circles, including the RIAA and it’s ilk, a flag-ship amongst neo-fascist practices being rolled out in the name of protecting profit margins in the decadent media industries. But this is the tip of the fascist iceberg people!!

Politically and socially, this internet ‘war’ is perhaps the most interesting phenomenon. The establishment is claiming the moral high ground, and taking the opportunity to create and implement technologies which will be used against freedom of speech and freedom of activity per se, as suits the needs of the establishment and it’s political and economic community.

I note that encryption is now available in p2p client implementations. And what role might IPv6 play in all this? How is QoS and security balanced in an encapsulated protocol/content-type-agnostic scheme? Is it still true that the ‘internet’ is inherently a democratic space?

Anti-terrorism legislation (enacted by the terrorists themselves!) and anti-piracy measures are, simply put, the vehicles for anti-democratic controls and intrusions.

It's the Intellectual Climate, Stupid!

A Nobel Prize for Al Gore’s uninteresting, unremarkable science-fiction drama is hardly a surprise. The global power institutions are committed to the agenda and have added this polish to its authenticity – perhaps sincerely. Who could object?!

In the meantime, Global Warming nay-sayers, heretics and blasphemers, acolytes of rationality and scientific method will be counting another nail in the coffin of human thought, observing another moment of silence as we pass further under the shadow of this most gripping and least credible moral panic of the past century.

And what a chilling, Orwellian phenomenon –more so by the lack of any coordination behind the censorship and media bias. It sadly reflects our demoralised view of the world and our role in it. It demonstrates our predisposition to believe, as we are told, that we are the problem.

Al Gore, cynical bureaucrat, is set for life - USD$100,000 per appearance!

Inconveniently Boring

Al Gore's triumph is actually just a really boring, over-long average doco.

If you haven't seen 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' you simply don't know what you are talking about

I couldn't be more shocked than I am now.

While the kettle boiled and the anti-piracy message played I pondered the possibility of seeing 'the other side' of the global warming message, of weighing the merits of counter arguments and opinion. It would be, I expected, an interesting 78 minutes. I considered the carbon footprint of the packet of Gingernut biscuits I was opening and how that might be calculated. I also considered that, with my Excel spreadsheet skills being as finely honed as they are, I could probably do so and justify a career move into Global Warming consultancy. Ultimately though, I shuddered at the thought, thinking of the computer contracts I yawned my way through in the lead up to Y2k and what was then, seemingly just as enthusiastically, considered the impending doom of mankind.

My own beliefs before I watched this documentary were simply that a range of political agendas and a deep human pessimism had converged in a period where any view which expressed the idea that humanity itself was the problem would be ascendant. This can be demonstrated in a huge range of topics.

While obviously already skeptical of the seriousness of the global warming message, nothing could have prepared me for how shocked and astounded I would be at the end of this documentary. I would give an arm for a photo of the look on the face of a global warming zealot as they cringed their way through this.

Esteemed expert after esteemed expert parade their expert testimony and attempt to understand the social and political emergence of the overwhelming consensus that global warming is a man-made problem.

When I see members of the IPCC who have resigned and threatened legal action to have their names removed from its reports, the head of Green Peace claiming that the organization he helped found has become 'anti-human' in its core beliefs - the list goes on - it has the effect of making me feel quite naieve in the shallowness of my suspicions. This goes deeper than I'd imagined.

There are billions of dollars and thousands of careers now riding on the man-made global warming message remaining unchallenged. There are billions of lives at risk should it continue unchallenged.

I'll avoid any more spoilers here. If this is herecy, then it'll be a short, painful gesture to the poor souls who've made this documentary to give them their time.

Links

• Official documentary site
• Wikipedia debate
• Channel 4 pages

Freedom of Speech to be outlawed in move to reduce CO2 emissions

While the simple act of breathing is still seen as essential to human life - any unnecessary gas emissions - including talking - may soon be deemed a luxury under new Carbon Credits schemes being considered by Governments world-wide.

As if to emphasize the seriousness of the Global Warming concerns, freedom of speech is also being targeted. A spokesman for the Kyoto Action group said that no stone would be left unturned, no opportunity missed in reducing the emission of harmful gases.

Measures aimed at still allowing political discourse - through the purchase of Carbon Credits for peacful public speaking - have been criticized for favouring those who can afford it.

Some governments have stepped forward with suggestions that a citizen's freedom of speech allowance may be put in place as part of this new legislation.

For those 'holding their breath' as to the outcome of this process, a spokesman from 'Kyoto Action' yesterday told concerned citizens to 'breath easy', and that there is no suggestion that Global Warming will be allowed to come between the general population and political freedom and open discussion. He suggested that it might be simpler and better for the environment if activists in particular avoided vocal politics and instead opted for email and blogging, activities which research shows are more acceptable from an environmental perspective.

Is wikipedia run by neo-fascist, rule-book geek zealots?

After no more than two hours researching and creating two pages on Wikipedia I have been subject to the worst display of anti-social online behaviour by a Wikipedia admin and editor, and had the pages deleted out of hand without discussion or explanation.

Instead, I was confronted by short, unfriendly messages quoting sentence and verse from the Wikipedia regulations. Overnight, while pondering the stupidity of these people I now had to deal with, the pages were deleted.

At no point was there any attempt to understand what I was doing or to explain how I might do it differently.

The problems didn't begin until I attempted to cite a reference (hyperlink) to a page on a website. At that point I was accused of "BLATANT ADVERTISING" and creation of "Inappropriate content". WTF?!

This reminds me of being harrassed by the student librarian geeks at highschool.

If Wikipedia is run by a bunch of these pathalogically socially challenged types then what is it's future as a document reflecting the best opinions and expertise in the world. Not very good I would have to say.

Further, is this an example of open-source democracy?!

(BTW. I am a software engineer with twenty years experience in media, teaching, journalism, publishing and web development. I am married with three children and lead a socially normal life. If you want the names of these nasty acolytes of feudal feifdom then just take a look at my profile if they haven't deleted it )

If you've experienced anything like this then let me know.