First past the first post and other toothsome questions

You have indeed grasped the concept correctly Mr Tulley, this is where we have Facebook arguments from now on. Huzzah. And glad you like the site, surprisingly quick and simple to do I must say. Hats off to Blogger/Google.

Aye - the libertarian thing. Finally someone fucking noticed. It's been sat there blatantly taking the piss out of anyone who knows me/what libertarianism is for the last three years and you're the first person to comment. Initially I was just massively amused that the mad data-libertarian-freetards that created Facebook actually put it in as a default option in the setup. Couldn't resist - sorry. I can probably change it now though...

As for bow-ties, fuck 'em. Too fiddly and worn exclusively by madmen. Personally I favour the cravat, smart enough for almost any occasion and yet casual enough to allow an open neck shirt. A perfect male grooming solution for the 21st century, it should never be overlooked. Touch of the Beau Brummells about it n'aw, which I just can't fault.

I would launch into a bit of a diatribe now, but it's my birthday, and I have fun stuff to do instead of arguing with you pair. However, let me briefly sum up my point of view on this climate thing.

There seems to be a conflation in your argument Tony, of climate science itself, and the structure and implementation of climate change policy by various world bodies, which I take to be flawed logic. The two aren't causally linked by any stretch, and I find it difficult to believe that policy makers have backwards-engineered that amount of data and scientists to (moreorless) universally back up the climate change thesis. Firstly, why would they bother, they don't need the almost complete level of scientific support climate change currently has in order to do what they please, and secondly it would be extraordinarily time consuming, expensive and difficult.

I don't buy the argument that UN-related funding totally dictates scientific research throughout the world either. You just need to look at the amount of research and tech that is open sourced every day to see that money is not the only motive for the scientific/technological communities. The entire concept of the web was gifted to humanity by Tim Berners-Lee, and runs almost exclusively on servers powered by Linux, a system developed for free by millions of developers around the world over the last 20+ years. Lots of incredibly successful and talented people and organisations are intensely altruistic, and whilst you're right that major funding bodies do dictate what types of research are easy to fund/profitable, there are so many counter-vailing organisations that are willing and motivated to fund contradictory research (not least the oil companies) that it acts as a fairly complete system of checks and balances.

Which reminds me - interesting that a number of the folk at the heart of climate change denial community have previous careers in the tobacco industry, lobbying and working on opposing research. I guess there are transferable skills. (An amusing movie by the way, vaguely related: 'Thank You For Smoking')

None of which has any direct bearing on the climate-related policies of the UN and worldwide goverments. These decisions are made by politicians and civil servants, not scientists. They don't understand the science completely, and the science isn't perfect anyway. They have all sorts of other agendas, they're busy, they're confused, they make mistakes. Some of them are corrupt, inept or incompetent.

To get Weberian for a minute (and I think everyone should from time to time...) climate change is formally rational science, largely uninfluenced (thanks to the system of checks and balances mentioned above) by individual interests as it has been reached and proven collectively, to a fairly high level of significance/doubt. Climate change policy on the other hand is a substantively rational decision reached by a fairly small group of people, and structured within the existing aims/beliefs/constrictions of the UN/whoever, which sometimes uses the formal rational principles of science to inform it to a degree, and back it up where it fits/required, but certainly doesn't require it.

Basically, you can disagree with every single policy implemented to 'deal with climate change' without having to deny that man made climate change is a scientific fact.

On a side note, denying the scientific basis of climate change isn't just hard work intellectually speaking, it also puts you in a minority populated by arch neo con loons like Chris Monckton, Nigel Lawson, Martin Durkin, half of Fox News and the likes of Glen Beck fer chrissake.

But you know, I could be wrong. Show me some evidence that people aren't contributing to global climate change, and/or that climate change isn't going to be a problem, and I'll have a read. I like to keep an open mind about these things ;)

What do you know - a bit of a diatribe. I best fuck off and doing something more productive instead...

Awrite. If I understand the thinking correctly, this is where we are to have facebook arguments from now on.Love the design etc Scobes, nice work.Anyway, I think I was waiting on Baloney explaining why he believes that the views of the scientific community on global warming should be disregarded on the grounds that they are part of a conspiracy to exploit the poor of the world. Here is what I wrote.

(argument continued from facebook)

Well, first of all, I don't have contempt for the scientific community. I have contempt for the pharmaceutical industry, but that is not the scientific community. Neither are governments, corporations, doctors or any other special interest group. The scientific community is by no means perfect or incapable of error, but I believe that their methods make serious error unlikely.

Having to present an idea and have it attacked from all possible angles by highly qualified scientists from across the world, all working independently and all with much more to gain from disproving your theory than proving it, forces these scientists to make damn fucking certain that they haven't made a provable mistake. These professors and research academics give a shit about nothing except their own reputation and academic standing. They spend their lives in long distance battles with other academics, meticulously going through their rival's publications desperate to find the smallest error to pounce upon. They are sad, they are egomaniacs, but they are not pawns of governments and corporations. Of course, some are in the pay of governments and corporations, but the system means that they still have to back up everything they claim with provable facts.

I do wish that the scientific community was more anarchistic, for example it's obscene that journals have a monopoly on access to scientific research. As a student I get access to journals for free, but my uni fees reflect the large amounts paid to journals just for access to knowledge that should be open to everyone. The ordinary punter pays per article.There is too much hording of knowledge and elitism,but the fact remains that if the best, most highly qualified specialists in a particular field cannot find fault in a hypothesis, then it is reasonable for the rest of us to accept that hypothesis.

The idea that governments and corporations have managed to get all of these respected scientists from across the world to falsify their research in order to prove that climate change exists when it doesn't is batshit crazy conspiracy theory. It would involve an international conspiracy of David Ike proportions. Have all of the scientists been brainwashed? have they all individually received massive bribes with similar massive bribes given to all who decide to independently verify their findings? This seems like a lot of trouble to go to, especially when the message ultimately leads people to consume less, and lays the blame for environmental crisis at the door of government and big business, who are the usual suspects when it comes to conspiracies.

If the evil forces of capitalism have engineered the idea of climate change, why have they spent so much money funding those who deny it? Look at the various fronts with names like the 'Global Climate Coalition' and the 'Competitive Enterprise Institute' who received $1.3M funding from oil companies in the early nineties. On 29th September 2006, the Guardian ran a headline 'Royal Society calls on oil company to stop funding groups that mislead public'. Exxon Mobil gave $2.9M to thirty nine climate change denial groups with similarly dodgy names like 'International Policy Network' and the 'UK Scientific Alliance'. Now here IS a conspiracy. A conspiracy to convince the public that climate change isn't happening, or at least to throw enough shit at the argument to make it look like there is some doubt. Big business spends billions on lobbyists in the US, all trying to get the government to loosen restrictions on carbon output and not sign any agreements to limit emissions. They have convinced Sarah Palin. They are cunts.

Obviously, once forced to see the facts, kicking and screaming, the powers that be will try to preserve business as usual and even profit from attempts to tackle climate change. The news item you posted is an example, as is the weird fixes like carbon capture and the creation of a separate market for carbon emissions (offsetting? fuck off.) But these things are only a symptom of the fact that they literally can't keep denying that it's happening, and are doing what they do best, trying to make money and screw poor people.It's to be expected. It doesn't mean climate change doesn't exist. Global capitalism is in ideological crisis because it can't accommodate in it's philosophy a simple fact that Karl Marx could have told them in 1848 - namely that capitalism is unsustainable.

Also Scobie, I would like you to clarify why it says you are a 'Libertarian' on facebook and if that does indeed mean that you have started wearing bow ties.

cheers

A beginning...

The authors welcome you to "Vice, folly and humbug!"; a place to partake of the gentle sport of Socratic debate, on subjects many and varied.

:: ludi incipiant ~ let the games commence ::