« Original Reading This Summer | Main | Free Scotland Campaign Banned in China »

Enforcing the AGW viewpoint on blogs by regulation - your views please.

Climate change: how to balance freedoms | alexlockwood.net

I’m preparing a paper for an upcoming conference on this, so please comment if you can! Thanks. Many people have urged for there to be some legal or moral consequence for denying climate change. This urge generally comes from a number of places. Foremost is the belief that the science of anthropogenic climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that climate change is an ethical issue.

I’m an advocate for something stronger. Call it regulation, law, or influence. Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms. In the same way that to enjoy the freedom of a car you need insurance to protect the freedom of other drivers and pedestrians; in the same way that you enjoy the freedom to publish your views, you need a regulatory code to ensure the freedoms of those who can either disagree with or disprove your views.

What do you think? Perhaps a starting point is a draft point in the codes for governing how the media represent climate change, and a method for enforcing that code. And that code needs to extend out to cover new media, including blogs.

Would really love to hear your thoughts/feedback, so that it can help shape my upcoming paper on this. Thanks.

Go on, he's asked.

(h/t Budderies)


I see my comments are awaiting moderation. I don't suppose they will survive the process.

It seems to me that "anthropometric" global warming began way back in 1984.

Left over there yonder, too... good golly, Miss Molly!

Regulation of action and speech is a part of democracy.

There's a missing qualifier here, and it's "when that action or that speech causes harm."

...then we’re all bound by the same freedoms of publishing.

Last I looked, I couldn't see any freedoms binding me.

counter-action against the majority

Oh, stuff democracy and stuff the majority. It doesn't matter what the issue is -- flat earth, little green men, bearded old men in the sky or climate change -- because 50%+1 of the people don't like hearing something that a minority has to say doesn't make it right to shut them up by force and on pain of death (and that, ultimately, is what "regulation" means) when they are just speaking.

With all due respect, please check your premises.

you need a regulatory code to ensure the freedoms of those who can either disagree with or disprove your views.

What bizarre nonsense is this?
I will drop in a bit later and see and make a comment, though I suspect that he has been suitably chastised by now.

Mr Lockwood has backtracked in the face of a fairly relentless onslaught, however, I'm still disturbed by the comment:

"While I dislike Brendan O’Neill and know he’s wrong"

Does Alex Lockwood personally know Brendan O'Neill and hence dislike him, or does he dislike what he says? Alex Lockwood has some very confused views that I disagree with and he seems somewhat credulous with regard to AGW alarmism and equally too readily dismissive of the sceptic argument, but for all I know he is a likeable chap who is always first to get 'em in down the pub.

Then there is the question of "I know he is wrong". To me that is a very arrogant and un-universityese comment. One should always concede the possibility that others are right and you are wrong.

He wants regulation, and fails to notice that there are numerous regulations of varying types already in force, ranging from "I either do not agree with you or agree but do not like the way you present your case, and will probably not bother to listen/read again" through "Pay no attention to him, people" to civil action "Your Honor, this person is lying" and even criminal "fomenting violence."

He will need to regulate me in person...shortly one of us would not be contributing to agw anymore!

Post a comment