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
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
A Physics Teacher Begs for His Subject Back
Wellington Grey, tired of what he's seen done to his subject of physics, has written up his complaints.
read more | digg story
Read the article. This is my response...
"
What you've spotted is symptomatic of a critical trend across society - from philosophy to science, politics, economics, even a quick chat on the corner.
Dumbing down, moving language from the precise and analytical to the vague and general. And you're absolutely correct - this leads away from understanding, certainty, progress towards the dark side - may as well be stoned - I'm certainly not going to understand the world enough to try changing it.
This is definitely the case in the public sphere - muddying the thinking and outlook of the people who have most to gain from clarity and reason.
While in the private sphere science and technology are applied exponentially - manufacturing, materials, communication, medical science, pharmacology etc etc. You can bet that Halliburton is very busy applying strict scientific methods to it's own particular form of scientific progress - bombs for profit. It doesn't take much intelligence to understand that one of the biggest most powerful companies in the world has little to do with human progress - quite the opposite.
So why this strange double standard or mismatch between science for profit and science for the public? What happened to the heights of the renaissance? and the world Expo of 1900? ( bearing in mind that Britain, France, Germany, Japan, US have just lead us through a century and a half of bloodthirsty barbarism, war and colonialism and are now bombing and starving the third world into the stone age - maybe it isn't surprising that these people find it difficult to comfortably wear the mantle of progress - increasingly they are nothing more than war mongers - I personally refuse to accept these patterns of thinking).
Look at economics for example. "The key thing to understand about the economy is" ...(at which point I start listening - ooh! ooh here it comes!) .." { vague, waffly, murky, foggy statements }"....oh dear, the usual dissapointment (must be a nobel laureate talking about how people "feel" in the economy - nice and safe).
So how do you debate that? You can't.
Hence, the economy can carry on as it is, while any debate is bogged in this indistinct, vague, unscientific language and thinking.
Across the board this "battle of paradigms" - if it is actually this explicit - has been lost by US and won by THEM. Who is the US and THEM. Well, who benefits if we can't have a rational discussion about the economy? About politics? about human freedom?
Our core intellectual tools are science and language. This is how bad things are. We've been pushed back so far to the point where we're debating and discussing the way we see and describe our exploitation and atomization. We can't even get NEAR fighting these processes until we can all see it for what is - as near as possible for common ground.
Until then, somone who believes in homeopathy, acupuncture and aromatherapy doesn't give a hoot about the laws of physics or scientific evidence. They're probably comfortably middle class and not really that interested in the scientific understanding of the economy that oppresses most other people - they're not affected.
I note that you don't oppose, in this instance, Global Warming agendas. This makes me smile - I'm not clear on whether you're being careful or polite or whether you actually believe it to some extent.
It strikes me though, that if you're are talking about the effects of social and political currents on the physics syllabus, then, logically, you must also consider the likelihood that the Global Warming agenda is also symptomatic - of a generally downbeat, possibly depressed outlook, where doom and stagnation are the only possible outcomes. There may or may not be "good" (reliable) evidence of "climate change" - but how is it interpretted, what could it mean, and why NOW?
This is important. I hope I've helped. Good luck. We need it.
"
read more | digg story
Read the article. This is my response...
"
What you've spotted is symptomatic of a critical trend across society - from philosophy to science, politics, economics, even a quick chat on the corner.
Dumbing down, moving language from the precise and analytical to the vague and general. And you're absolutely correct - this leads away from understanding, certainty, progress towards the dark side - may as well be stoned - I'm certainly not going to understand the world enough to try changing it.
This is definitely the case in the public sphere - muddying the thinking and outlook of the people who have most to gain from clarity and reason.
While in the private sphere science and technology are applied exponentially - manufacturing, materials, communication, medical science, pharmacology etc etc. You can bet that Halliburton is very busy applying strict scientific methods to it's own particular form of scientific progress - bombs for profit. It doesn't take much intelligence to understand that one of the biggest most powerful companies in the world has little to do with human progress - quite the opposite.
So why this strange double standard or mismatch between science for profit and science for the public? What happened to the heights of the renaissance? and the world Expo of 1900? ( bearing in mind that Britain, France, Germany, Japan, US have just lead us through a century and a half of bloodthirsty barbarism, war and colonialism and are now bombing and starving the third world into the stone age - maybe it isn't surprising that these people find it difficult to comfortably wear the mantle of progress - increasingly they are nothing more than war mongers - I personally refuse to accept these patterns of thinking).
Look at economics for example. "The key thing to understand about the economy is" ...(at which point I start listening - ooh! ooh here it comes!) .." { vague, waffly, murky, foggy statements }"....oh dear, the usual dissapointment (must be a nobel laureate talking about how people "feel" in the economy - nice and safe).
So how do you debate that? You can't.
Hence, the economy can carry on as it is, while any debate is bogged in this indistinct, vague, unscientific language and thinking.
Across the board this "battle of paradigms" - if it is actually this explicit - has been lost by US and won by THEM. Who is the US and THEM. Well, who benefits if we can't have a rational discussion about the economy? About politics? about human freedom?
Our core intellectual tools are science and language. This is how bad things are. We've been pushed back so far to the point where we're debating and discussing the way we see and describe our exploitation and atomization. We can't even get NEAR fighting these processes until we can all see it for what is - as near as possible for common ground.
Until then, somone who believes in homeopathy, acupuncture and aromatherapy doesn't give a hoot about the laws of physics or scientific evidence. They're probably comfortably middle class and not really that interested in the scientific understanding of the economy that oppresses most other people - they're not affected.
I note that you don't oppose, in this instance, Global Warming agendas. This makes me smile - I'm not clear on whether you're being careful or polite or whether you actually believe it to some extent.
It strikes me though, that if you're are talking about the effects of social and political currents on the physics syllabus, then, logically, you must also consider the likelihood that the Global Warming agenda is also symptomatic - of a generally downbeat, possibly depressed outlook, where doom and stagnation are the only possible outcomes. There may or may not be "good" (reliable) evidence of "climate change" - but how is it interpretted, what could it mean, and why NOW?
This is important. I hope I've helped. Good luck. We need it.
"
Monday, May 21, 2007
Climate Change Will Be Considered A Joke In Five Years Time
With man made carbon dioxide only .12% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, meteorologist Augie Auer argues we couldn't change the climate if we tried.
read more | digg story
There is an overwhelming consensus amongst consensus experts that the term consensus must be used repeatedly to keep them at the top of the pile of consensus commentators (a potentially lucrative place to be).
Amongst scientists there is a consensus that consensus doesn't make for good science. Especially where it is used IN PLACE OF good science.
There is also a consensus amongst GOOD scientists that formulating theories, experiment design and strategies to avoid bias and false positives/negatives are worthwhile best practices to adhere to - lest we reduce ourselves to quacks, psychics, homeopaths and the like.
Penn and Teller and James Randy and the like should surely be looking at this. I'd welcome some of their straight talking on this sorry subject.
read more | digg story
There is an overwhelming consensus amongst consensus experts that the term consensus must be used repeatedly to keep them at the top of the pile of consensus commentators (a potentially lucrative place to be).
Amongst scientists there is a consensus that consensus doesn't make for good science. Especially where it is used IN PLACE OF good science.
There is also a consensus amongst GOOD scientists that formulating theories, experiment design and strategies to avoid bias and false positives/negatives are worthwhile best practices to adhere to - lest we reduce ourselves to quacks, psychics, homeopaths and the like.
Penn and Teller and James Randy and the like should surely be looking at this. I'd welcome some of their straight talking on this sorry subject.
Search Engines index only a fraction of human knowledge...
This is in response to Paul Trotter at PC Advisor
Yahoo: search engines are 0.0057% efficient
http://digg.com/tech_news/Search_engines_are_only...
Yahoo: search engines are 0.0057% efficient
http://digg.com/tech_news/Search_engines_are_only...
Global Warming - Hot Air?
From The Timaru Herald, NZ
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Original Article ::
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
Digg ::
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Climate_Change_Will_Be_Considered_A_Joke_In_Five_Years_Time#c6775588
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Original Article ::
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
Digg ::
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Climate_Change_Will_Be_Considered_A_Joke_In_Five_Years_Time#c6775588
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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.