Climate change

I have long been interested by the way in which a number of individual decisions, each logical and rational in their own right, can add up to an unintended, undesirable and even catastrophic outcome. Such is the essence of tragedy. By the time that the outcome of the chosen action is revealed it is too late to return, or to cross over to a path which would avoid the tragic consequence.

Such, I fear, will be the assessment that future generations will make about actions our politicians are taking over global warming. Tinkering around the edges of the climate when the forces involved, the mechanisms of change and the consequences of interference are so little known has all the hallmarks of a tragedy in the making.

Climate change has been a feature of the earth since it first developed an atmosphere and hence climate. Our data on climate change is almost non-existent in the context of the history of the planet. We have relatively good observation for about 200 years. Before that we have deductions from ice samples. Leaving aside the issue of the accuracy of those observations, throughout all of its history the planet earth has only had one ice age. So in a very real sense we have an unfinished set of observations about an unusual period.

Maybe this is how ice ages behave. At the end of the last colder period of the ice age the temperature rose by some 4 degrees in 20 years. Maybe whatever caused that increase is happening again. Maybe the ice age has run its course and the earth is rejoining the rest of the planets as a very hot and uninhabited planet. Any model has to explain climate change since climate existed, including the origin of the ice age. Neither model is as yet anywhere near doing that.

Selecting one of the many complex variables that influence our climate as the primary if not only determinant of change is risky. And when that one is relatively small compared to the forces that shape the Universe, risky begins to seem like foolhardy.

The point is that we do not know. We have two models of climate change. One sees the current apparent warming as the latest natural development in the story of the earth. The other assigns to man the sole responsibility – climate change becomes Global Warming. In reality, either model could be correct and we have very little if any evidence to point towards one or the other. Strip out the assumptions and deductions and the few facts, heavily biased towards the recent past, support either model.

Simply repeating the mantra of carbon emissions and man-made global warming does not make it correct. To be convinced we need a proper scientific analysis of both models, recognising the very real limitations of the data and acknowledging the role of assumption and deduction in both. Only then will we be convinced that climate change is due to Global Warming brought on by mankind.

Reflecting on the recent Queen’s speech, for the second time I am in complete agreement with the Prime Minister – it’s criminal.

The Government has used procedures that were introduced to save Parliamentary time to pass thousands of laws which criminalise activity and behaviour which many would agree is undesirable but hardly worthy of a criminal conviction.

Does it matter? Of course. Partly because if the trend continues everybody in the country will have a criminal record. Maybe this is the reason behind the criminalisation of trivia – no need for data protection laws and selective databases if everyone has a criminal record and is included on one criminal database. Logically, the trend will lead to the criminalisation of birth, allowing everyone born in the UK to be given a criminal record along with their £500 and added to the database.

It matters greatly to those of us who are left who believe in individual freedom and liberty. Fundamental to liberty is the right to action not specifically proscribed by law. Those opposed to liberty, for whatever reason, have always sought to use the law to restrict and control individuals and ensure that they conform to the wishes of the state. Socialist governments always seek to control their citizens, concentrating power in a few privileged members of the elite who govern and who help those who govern. Corrupt patronage is despicable, whether in the former communist Soviet Union or a government of the UK.

Herein may lie another reason for the increase in criminalisation of trivial actions. Traditionally, British has allowed citizens to do anything not specifically illegal. European law, derived from the Romans, allows citizens to do what the law allows. How do you reconcile the two in one super state without changing UK law to the European tradition? Why, by passing UK laws which criminalise everything.

It is not only this government’s attitude to and use of legislation that is criminal. It is criminal how they have sought to destroy the health service in order to control spiraling costs. UK health practitioners are among the best in the world. It is criminal that mis-management destroys so much of the good that they do.

It is criminal that education has been corrupted to support the government’s agenda. How do you prevent opposition? Use a veneer of concern over quality to impose a curriculum and content which ensures that citizens only learn what supports the government agenda. Central to this is to ensure that history is effectively ignored, or re-written to ignore understanding and interpretation that would challenge the government line. Essential to this is the absolute control over the training of educators. Current moves to extend control over content to university teaching under the guise of quality poses perhaps the most significant threat to liberty and freedom that this country has faced since the Magna Carta.

So for the second time I agree wholeheartedly with the prime Minister – it’s criminal. And the first time that I agreed – it’s time to go.

The aim of this blog is to publish a weekly reflection on a topic which has attracted my interest. Each piece will be 500 words exactly.

I have written these short reflections for a number of years. Very few of them have been seen by other people, and even fewer by large numbers of people.

I have debated for years whether to share them and in what form. The advantage of a blog is that there is very little extra work and no cost involved. And it does not matter if no one reads them.

What made me decide that now was the time to start a blog? A discussion about the nature and value of blogs led to a number of unresolved questions. Is there any value in a format which effectively has no editorial or quality control other than the laws on publication? Is there any selection process by which some blogs survive and others do not? How might quality and value be measured? Are blogs which meet the interests of one group inherently more valuable than those that meet the interest of other groups? Is it the content or the readership that determines value - or the appearance? How does the readership develop?

What was missing from the discussion was any experience of blogs. Remedying this by reading blogs did not really provide the answer. The next step was to experience blogs by creating them.

In one sense creating a blog is easy. A few simple steps and you are in the publishing business. A few moments searching the internet and thinking about the numerous hosts for blogs soon complicates the issue. What really is the difference between the different hosts? How do you find a host where your blog will fit and find people who might read it? Does it matter, or will quality blogs always attract readers? Are you aiming at any particular group, using it to air your own views or exploring the experience?

If anybody reads this, it implies that they have explored the first stage of blogs as readers. How many are surfing, how many are dedicated blog readers and how many are bloggers themselves? Does it matter? Do they behave in any different ways? No doubt there has been research which will answer some or all of these questions.

Why 500 words? It is easy to write extensively, but much harder to write within a limit. 500 words are more likely to be read than 5000. A lot can be said in 500 well-chosen words.

Why did I start writing reflections? There were a number of reasons, primarily to remember ideas and discussions and to think systematically about issues that triggered a reaction which on reflection might not have been the logical or rational one. Having started as a purely personal exercise, some of them gained wider audiences as they coincided with opportunities for publication.

How long will the blog last? Who knows. Probably until I cease to enjoy writing it.