This outrageous attack on freedom of speech, by one Alex Lockwood, an enthusiast for the cult of global warming climate change, was found by An Englishman.
I have left a couple of remarks on his comments but since he is now locked in a life and death struggle [M. Python] with the Devil himself, I don’t suppose I’ll get a reply.
His proposal appears to be that ‘denying’ global warming climate change should be made an offence, as ‘denying the Holocaust’ is in certain less than free countries.
The similarity between this cult and certain others is quite remarkable.
Might one suppose that holding up a placard that says “Global warming climate change is not a science; it is a dangerous cult” might now result in attempts at one’s repression, like Epic Nose Guy?
hi there,
thanks for your comments on my blog. I’ve also left other comments and replies to comments made, thanking people for their contributions and attempting to work my way through (you might say out) of the deliberation.
I certainly made a mistake overlapping regulatory frameworks for what can be proven with the idea of censorship. that was an error–I fully believe freedom of speech, when not causing harm, is essential for, well, being human. This started for me a long time ago, but the blog post came from the Ofcom ruling on the broadcast of Channel 4’s GGWS that it did not cause harm or offence. I wanted to know against what measure Ofcom were assessing whether or not its broadcast caused harm. Harm against who or what? And how could they be so sure that no harm was done when they themselves admit that the science is proven (see Ofcom ruling).
Anyway, you’re right, no censorship of honestly held opinion.
Thanks
Alex Lockwood
>I fully believe freedom of speech, when not causing harm, is essential for, well, being human<
Listen, buddy: I breed word-weasels. What exactly do you mean by ‘harm’?
>how could they be so sure that no harm was done when they themselves admit that the science is proven<
There you go again.
Science is never ‘proven’. Very few things ever are (ask any mathematician). Science awards titles to ideas: hypothesis, theory, law. Even the impressive title ‘law of physics’ means only that no exception to it has ever been observed.
The global warming idea is an ‘hypothesis’, no more than that. There simply isn’t enough admissible quantitative evidence for a ‘theory’. And certainly no justification whatsoever for a ‘dogma’.
[...] of interesing sites in Devil’s Kitchen and QuestionThat .) There were a few personal attacks here and here (and here) and a few more on-topic responses, such as from Sans [...]
Principles, dangit! Them things sure are pesky!
[...] were a few personal attacks here and here (and [...]