Against Certainty

With the Panzer Pope heading home soon, it is perhaps good to reflect on what an extraordinary visit this has been for the religious leader. Sure, his pronouncements have been exactly what you might expect from a Pope - namely, that those who do not share his beliefs are wrong and evil (possibly even Nazis). The protests that arose as the result of his visit reassure me to some extent - they show that this is no longer a religious nation as such, or at least is a nation where religious beliefs are no longer privileged and have to fight for respect alongside other belief systems. This can only be a good thing for a modern democratic nation.

Yet what was striking to me was the sheer level of conviction of many of those who protested the Pope's visit. Don't get me wrong, I can't stomach the man and I think his views, and his actions over the paedophile scandal, are reprehensible and clearly not suitable for a man running a religious organisation of billions. Yet there's a distinction between protesting what the Pope says and arguing against his right to visit this country. I believe anyone with any sort of moral sense should protest what the Pope says; yet to demand that he should not even be allowed to visit his country is just as illiberal (given he is a key figure for Catholics in this country) as many of Ratzinger's pronouncements.

Which has been the striking thing about many of the secular protestors - their certainty that they are right has now reached a point where they seem to be demanding that the religious do not express their views. To me, this is clearly wrong. I believe religion is a lot of stuff and nonsense, and I have no compunction about sharing those views with both believers and non-believers. I believe I have a right to express my beliefs - however, I do not believe that I have a right to tell others what they should believe. The sort of aggressive secularism of some now seems to be reaching a point where it is telling people what they can and cannot believe in and say. And I see this as extremely dangerous.

As far as I can see, the demise of religion as the dominant force in this country has meant that religion has simply been substituted with other views that cannot be argued with. This is a true irony - many people have freed themselves from religious domination only to find other "truths" to dominate their thinking. This isn't just the case with militant atheists - we can see this certainty affecting many other beliefs throughout this country. The climate change campaigners are now so certain that they have discovered an indisputable truth that they are happy to deny the rights of sceptics to debate and question their conclusions. The same with socialists and other statists - their certainty in the benevolence of the state means they cannot contemplate the views of those who seek to reduce the size of the state. Likewise, flawed organisations and bodies created by flawed humans are now revered to such an extent that to talk of reforming or even abolishing them has become a form of sacrilege. Don't believe me? Try saying that you want to abolish the NHS and see what sort of a reaction you get.

Let me be clear here - I'm not calling for people to abandon their beliefs. I'm not putting forward a case for nihilism; positive or otherwise. What I am saying is that while people should have their belief systems, they should also take into account that other people may differ in their beliefs, and in this inherently uncertain world in which we all exist there must be the possibility that a belief, no matter how apparently logical, adamantly held and cherished, may be proved to be wrong in the future.

Certainty and rigidity in belief can be a comforting thing in an ever-changing world, but it can also be used to dominate others and strangle debate. It should go without saying that we must be very careful to prevent this from happening; but given the readiness of some to deny others their right to express their beliefs, it clearly does need to be said anyway.

So if you're like me, and you think the Pope is an appalling person and Catholicism is nothing more than archaic myth and superstition, by all means make your case and make your protests. But don't seek to deny others their right to hold their own beliefs, no matter how ignorant, ludicrous and downright stupid they may seem to you.

Captain Planet...

I like to think that my scepticism about climate change is entirely down to a mix of intellectual doubts about the veracity of the argument for man-made climate change, and about the refusal of those who make that argument to engage with those who challenge their beliefs.

However, I do have to concede that being forced to watch guff like this when I was a kid may have been a contributing factor:

Generally speaking, if your theme song is improved by a continuity announcer talking over it, then it is shit. Then again, the theme song for this show was very much in keeping with the overall programme, in that it was absolute crap.

Ed Miliband, Saviour of the World.

Apparently, the fate of the world is in Ed Miliband's hands. Which would be terrifying if the threat facing us wasn't climate change. Because, as the article on LabourList points out, climate change has slipped down the international agenda with good cause:

The world is far from environmental consensus, opposing domestic and international interests make sure of that. Recent attacks on the science behind climate change have dented public support. And several among our world’s leaders are shamelessly playing the expectations games.

It is worth decoding the phrase "Recent attacks on the science behind climate change". There have always been attacks on the science behind climate change; what has happened recently is the exposure of some of the fraudulent claims being made by those who create the "science" behind climate change. Just a little piece of LabourList spin there; but essential to understanding why climate change consensus seems to be falling apart.

Ultimately, you can tell that the British government don't think that climate change is a pressing issue. The key indicator is the fact that Ed Miliband - the less famous sibling in the political equivalent of the political version of the Chuckle Brothers - is in charge. If it really was an issue that the government wanted to focus on, then it would be Gordo himself - the perennial control freak - would be in charge. So Ed Miliband, a charisma vacuum, is going to save the world from a possibly non-existent threat? It could be used as the basis for the plot of perhaps the world's most boring film. It certainly isn't going to be at the heart of this failing government's final months in power.

BBC Priorities...

So, a leading body that researches climate change has been apparently exposed as telling the odd lie. The potential implications for the climate change lobby are massive. And God love the BBC, they are even reporting this story. In their Technology section:

The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

And:

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

Yes, because it is all about the (possible) hacking, isn't it? That's the crucial issue here. Silly me, thinking that the media might report on the apparently egregious and gross distortions perpetrated by those who would want to radically change government policy based on spurious and often fabricated evidence. But no. It is all about the alleged hacking.

Fucking hell. And I wonder why some people claim that the BBC is biased?

Climate Change *Proof*

DK is (naturally) celebrating the news that some of those Climate Change "scientists" have been caught being somewhat economical with the the truth. Now, the climate change brigade would probably argue that this makes little difference; that the environment is still under threat even if these scientists have been caught constructing the sort of fabrications that might normally be associated with a Nu Labour government preparing for war. Certainly, I'll concede that the climate is changing, and that humanity often does have a negative impact on that environment. And I'll also concede, since I am in an unusually generous mood this morning, the deceit of some environmentally focussed scientists does not dismiss the findings of all environmentally focussed scientists. However, it does bring it all into question.

Which is the point. I, for one, am sick of being called a "climate change denier" in the same tones that are normally reserved for Holocaust deniers. I don't "deny" climate change, I simply question the extent to which humanity is responsible for it and also doubt how convincing some of the supposed evidence for it is. Guess what? I'm a skeptic - and this evidence shows that being sceptical is a good position to be be in.

Blind adherence to the "truth" about climate change is a frankly moronic position. Like every other part of life, science can seldom offer an absolute, indisputable "truth". And it is also open to use and abuse by those with agendas. So for all those environmentalists out there who wish to close down the debate because the evidence for climate change is now "indisputable", take a step back and a deep breath, admit you are wrong, and start making your case again. This time without the shrill, strident tone that sounds more appropriate coming from a religious fanatic than someone talking about reality.