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.