Resigned or frustrated

I find it hard to write anything these days. It's not that there is nothing to write about, just in the last couple of weeks we've had the EU bullying Ireland at the behest of Germany, a multi-million pound talking shop farce in Mexico, the first guilty plea from a former MP who defrauded the public purse, the strengthening of the food police and people rioting about nothing in London. Yet I haven't been stirred to action. I'm trying to work out why.

When the new government limped into office the mere fact that the risible Gordon Brown and his cohort of contemptible dictators had been ousted caused me to breath a huge sigh of relief. Whatever the new lot did could not possibly have made things worse for the country than the carnage wreaked by their predecessors - carnage of a structural kind which left our society split into bitter factional interests as well as carnage to the economy. They've gone. It cannot get worse. No need to rage about things. Both my regular readers will be aware that the policy programme of the new government is miles away from what I consider in the best interests of he people of this country but at least it is a yard or two closer than poor Gordon could ever have taken us.

That can explain a quiet period while we wait for the coalition's positions to be formed clearly but it cannot explain a lack of complaint once their positions were set so closely to those of the failed Labour government. Perhaps the explanation is dispair. Because so little is different now there is, perhaps, little point in repeating my observations of the last couple of years. With the exception of Eric Pickles I have detected no current Cabinet minister prepared to pop-up above the parapet and challenge the ever-expanding State. Michael Gove did so for a fleeting moment with his proposal for schools to be run free of political involvement, then ruined it by giving detailed guidance on curriculum and examination standards. There was even a tiny hint from Andrew Lansley at the Health Department with his idea of getting rid of layers of bureaucracy only for him then to retain within the remit of the NHS every aspect of nannying that had been added over the previous two decades. Only Mr Pickles has had the guts to say he's only a politician and doesn't know how to run things on the "front line". Faced with only one obvious supporter for my views on how "public services" should be run it's easy to give up commenting on matters at least until another election is in the offing.

Or it might be that I am still in shock that so many people voted for the Labour Party at the General Election in May. More than seven months have passed since then and all the while a thought has been gnawing at what is left of my brain. Could there be a third or so of the population of this country that was both pleased with what the Labour government had done and wanted more of the same? That a fifth of school leavers were either functionally illiterate or functionally innumerate, or both, was not of sufficient concern to them that they would vote against a governing party that had interfered in schools like no government before. That there was still structural unemployment in some areas of the country was not of sufficient concern for them to vote against a governing party that claimed to be concerned for the poor above all others. That the economy was on its knees, as at the end of every period of Labour government, was not of sufficient concern for them to vote against a governing party that directed and regulated all aspects of economic activity in more detail than even Stalin managed in the USSR. Could they really think the state of the country on the 6th of May was despite Labour having been in government for thirteen years and not because of it? Could they really believe the problem was too little State interference rather than too much? Just that thought is enough to drive anyone to distraction and to the conclusion that there is no point being sensible when so many are so utterly devoid of critical faculties.

Part of me has been hoping the coalition will find the courage to join Eric Pickles in saying that government must do less. As each week goes by I see fewer and fewer signs of this happening. They still seem to be stuck in the view that government is the answer to every ill, so much so that problems caused by too much government can only be addressed by more government. Against such a background it is hard to stir the enthusiasm to comment because it feels as though you are just running into a wall. Perhaps I am resigned to the massive State now being a permanent feature, perhaps I am frustrated that the difficulties caused by government are given insufficient recognition or perhaps I am just not prepared to repeat myself too many times. Who knows.

Having said that, a couple of topics have piqued my interest so I hope to be able to add to this year's miserable number of posts a few times before the turkey is carved.

The heavy price of stardom

Now that I have been recognised as a spokesman for Britain (I think that's what this article means) it is incumbent upon me to cast aside frivolous topics and launch even deeper than before into the national and international psyche. Topics of the greatest moment must now be addressed when previously I felt they were beyond my compass. Fame has a price and here is where I start paying. I must turn to matters of the trouser.

An American gentleman by the name of Eldrick Woods is rather good at hitting a small ball with a stick, indeed he is the best ball-sticker in the world and has been for some years. He is also rather proficient with a more intimate stick, on which his wife recently found the wrong colour of lipstick. Mr Woods felt it necessary to drive his car into a tree, take a break from work and hold a sickly press-conference at which he vowed never to do again that which he has never been able to resist in the past. Perhaps he really meant that he will never again succumb to the temptation of extra-marital fleshy pleasures, perhaps he really meant he will strain every sinew not to get caught again, only time will tell.

It should be so obvious that it need not be said, but I'll say it anyway. Some people require a lot of rumpy-pumpy to feel comfortable in life and others are perfectly happy with a little bit every now and then. Some prefer to rump and pump with a number of different people and others prefer to have just one intimate companion. Some prefer those younger than them, others like them older. Some prefer the same pigmentation, others prefer a more cosmopolitan life. Some prefer the same gender as them, others take a more conventional approach to the ins-and-out of human anatomy. Some grunt, some squeak, some moan, some sigh, some use objects other than bodily parts, some use bodily parts primarily designed for other purposes and some are happy just to put the kettle on and make a nice cup of tea.

I really couldn't care less what someone wants to do with their reproductive equipment provided they don't do it to me without my consent or to anyone else without their consent. And it utterly defeats me to see why it should be the business of anyone other than those involved.

Mr Woods played away from home. So what? His wife probably claims to be upset, shocked, dismayed, appalled, betrayed or disgusted and maybe she is one or more of those things. So what? What's that got to do with you, me or anyone else? He's not the first golfer to have got involved with a bit of rough or to have treated his wife in a less than fair way and their marriage is not the first to encounter this particular hazard. There is no reason for him to bunker-down out of sight or to give up his lucrative career. Two schools of sanctimonious humbuggery have condemned him publicly and each is a complete nonsense. The first is the "role-model" argument and the second is religious.

The "role-model" argument is that Mr Woods is the most prominent golfer in the world and should set a good example to the young in everything he does. What utter bilge. It supposes that impressionable youngsters will develop bad habits because their hero is a naughty boy. Find me an alcoholic who says "I do it because George Best was my role-model". Go on, find me one. Find me a youthful golfer who turned from placid to violent when John Daly won the Masters or the Open Championship or a rugby player who turned from beer to cocaine because his favourite player was Lawrence Dallaglio. Find me a man or woman who was turned into a serial adulterer after reading a biography of Frank Sinatra or into a kiddy-fiddler as a result of their love of the "music" of Gary Glitter. Go on, find me one. If you believe in the role-model argument please spend the rest of your life hunting for these invisible creatures, it will keep you from doing any greater harm by expressing your deranged opinions.

Then there are the religious zealots who damned Mr Woods for defying their god's law. They are right, of course. He did defy their god's law. So what? What has it got to do with them? If he is a member of their club they can cancel his membership for breaking the rules. If he is not a member of their club their views are a complete irrelevance.

The final round of the 2010 US Masters tournament will start with Mr Woods in third place. He has a very good chance of winning it. Whether he wins or not will have nothing to do with his willy and everything to do with the way he hits a ball with a stick. Whether he wins or loses he will still have rumpy-pumpy sensors that will guide some of his time when not on the golf course. Somehow I doubt that they will be exercised exclusively in the matrimonial bed. Either way, it will still be none of my business and none of yours.

I'm sorry

It is with great regret that I must announce the need to take steps to reduce my blood pressure.

Normal service will soon be resumed.

Why I'm no longer here

Those nice fellows Messrs Pogo and Wadsworth have kindly expressed concern for my wellbeing, so I will endeavour to put their minds at rest and explain why I decided to stop blogging.

True though it is that I have a dicky ticker, failing liver and still-swollen leg, I haven't felt so hale and hearty for years.

I decided to stop because I feel I have said everything I have to say and am not prepared to repeat myself continually in order to keep the blog alive.

Being primarily an essay blogger rather than a provider of snappy short comments or data, there are only so many topics you can cover before engaging in pretty dull repetition. I drafted many pieces over the last few weeks but didn't publish them because the points I was making had already been made, sometimes more than once. It was enormously frustrating and I knew it was time to say "thank you and goodbye".

The writing has been on the wall for a while, hence the fall-off in the number of postings over the last few months. I could keep the blog open and post every now and then when something novel or unusual happens in politics, the economy or the law, but that isn't consistent with what this blog has been and I wouldn't find it satisfactory. I can still make any points I really want to in comments elsewhere.

It has been a wonderful experience and has helped me develop my thoughts on a wide range of subjects. It has also been hugely flattering to know that people deliberately visited to read what I had to say and were prepared to spend their time debating points I had made. But when it's time to stop it's time to stop. And now it's time to stop.

Time gentlemen please

I think I've said everything I want to say, except this:

A very big and sincere thank you to all those who have taken the time to comment on my meanderings, especially those with the good sense to agree with me.

As the old song goes, it's been great fun but it's just one of those things.

And now to a new chapter in my life. Goodbye everyone.

Certainly not

I recently left a comment over at nice Mr Watts' place. It received a favourable response, so I thought I would expand it a little and reproduce it here. The relevant background is that a number of commenters had explained that they had been subjected to abuse when leaving comments on another blog (which shall remain nameless but which does not welcome comments from me). That blog takes an extreme view on the catastrophic man-made global warming issue. Its editorial policy appears to be that the IPCC's computer games are beyond any criticism whatsoever and anyone who dares to challenge any part of them is too stupid to understand the issues and/or actuated by malice or greed.

This is a peculiar trait of extreme dedication to the catastrophic global warming hypothesis; as far as I know it is not displayed in relation to any other scientific hypothesis. To what do I refer? Certainty, that’s what.

Some practitioners of an infant science might say “this is our hypothesis, now we’re going to study what actually happens and make any necessary adjustments”. But not, it seems, those wedded to this particular idea. They like to say “the science is settled” but it seems to me that they really mean “our minds are closed”. On hearing that some measures suggest global average cooling within the last decade rather than global average warming, they reply in two ways and adopt both replies, mindless to the conflict between the two.

On the one hand they assert that measured cooling is not cooling at all. This is just legerdemain, by selecting particular starting and finishing points they create trend lines on graphs to argue that lower readings from thermometers actually display continuing upward movements in average temperatures. Yet you only need to adopt different start and end points to show something different. On the other hand they say “this is what should be expected because warming causes cooling”. No. Warming means temperatures going up, cooling means temperatures going down. You cannot create ice by applying heat to a pan of water, nor can you bring tepid water to the boil by adding ice. These two positions are wholly contradictory.

There is a credible explanation available to them but it involves a concession of uncertainty, so they will not propose it. They could say “temporary blips are only to be expected because we are dealing with a vastly complex interaction of factors and we do not fully understand them all”. That would stand alongside their hypothesis and would not cause the batting of a single eyelid. But it would require them to accept that they do not know everything and, therefore, that their hypothesis has not yet been proved. Such a position appears to be unacceptable to them because they have pinned their colours unequivocally to the “the science is settled” mast.

Acceptance of uncertainty lies behind all honest debate, whether scientific or otherwise, until such time, if ever, that all the evidence points in one direction and nothing that is observed in real life is inconsistent with the position being advanced. Unjustified certainty requires dissenting voices to be dismissed rather than challenged on the merits of the points they put forward. Debate and challenge are the tools of those with open minds. Scoffing, sneering dismissal is the tool of those unprepared to accept that their belief in a hypothesis might not be well-founded. It is also the tool of those who know their hypothesis can be subjected to legitimate challenge but are not prepared to risk the personal loss (whether financial, reputational or both) that would result from such a challenge being successful.

What makes their certainty all the more absurd is that they are forever tinkering with both their hypothesis and their computer models, something that would be wholly unnecessary if they really had all the answers already.

Is it worth a candle?

Tonight dinner at FatBigot Towers will consist of one of the finest meals in my modest repertoire and a bottle of even finer wine, because today is this blog's first birthday. I could claim to light a candle in celebration but I would fib because the truth is that a candle always burns in the evening here (it's a fine way to prevent stale ciggy odours greeting one for breakfast).

Thinking of this anniversary and of candles I was reminded of the phrase "not worth a candle", meaning something of such little use or value that it is not worth lighting a candle to view it. It seems only appropriate to discuss a subject I would place in that category, namely, counselling.

Most of the true evils of the modern world can be identified by asking whether they existed fifty years ago. I don't mean things - microwave ovens, mobile telephones, computers and the like - I mean methods of human interaction that are claimed by self-appointed "progressives" to ease life's problems. We are infected by a whole host of people whose "work" is claimed to make life better. They tell us what we should and should not eat, drink, drive, see, read, think and goodness only knows what else. None of them has any expertise in anything, they just regurgitate a message fed from on high by "progressives". Let's take a look at eating a drinking.

We should eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, they tell us. The message necessarily suggests that eating fewer than five portions a day is harmful. They know they could never get away with saying eating fewer than five is harmful because it would be unsupported by any evidence, so it is put in advisory terms. There is only so much satisfaction in advising people to eat more grapes so a subtle change of emphasis turns it into a minimum dietary standard, thereby turning advice into a requirement and adding weight to the lie implicit in the initial advice. It doesn't much matter how you define a portion because the whole thing is utter tosh. To live in a state of reasonable health we need a combination of protein, carbohydrates and vitamins. We each require a particular balance of the three in order to be able to stave-off diseases of malnutrition. Some are perfectly fit and well and maintain regular bowel movements despite eating small quantities of vegetative matter, others get clogged at the drop of a hat unless they take a whole savoy cabbage and nine pears a day. Five-a-day is far more than many need and less than some need. It is an invented figure. Those employed to promote it are spokespeople for a cause not medical professionals. Yet the message has been pushed so hard and so often it has taken on legitimacy by repetition. And those who promote it are given legitimacy. Their work is now vital because eating five-a-day has been deemed necessary.

We should not drink more than so-many units of alcohol per week, they tell us. I know not and care not what the current figure is because every weekly figure they have ever come up with seems to me to be more appropriate as a recommended daily minimum. Let's call a spade a spade I'm a drunk, my level of consumption of alcohol is off their scale but it also isn't the point. The recommended levels of consumption are simply invented figures, plucked out of thin air and given a thin veil of respectability by not being absurdly low. Those employed to promote these fictitious limits are spokespeople for a cause not medical professionals. They too are deemed to be necessary because the lie they tell has become the official standard to which everyone must comply.

The "work" of fruit and booze advisors / consultants is pointless in practice as well as being patently dishonest. Find me someone who eats more fruit and veg or drinks less booze by reason of this army of expensive naggers. Just one, that's all I ask; one person who has been persuaded by the nagging but would not have been persuaded by reading a sensible message about balanced nutrition or the possible effects of drinking more than your body can tolerate. I suspect that such people are as rare as those whose lives were ruined by failing the Eleven-Plus exam but would now be living in bliss if only comprehensive education existed when they were ten years old.

It just so happens that current mandatory "advice" on the intake of fruit, veg and booze is based on lies. That it is based on lies makes it particularly objectionable but it would be objectionable anyway. It is dressed up as scientific advice being delivered by experts when it is nothing of the sort, it is a robotic message thrust at us by people who require no special knowledge or skill in order to hold down their superannuated positions.

The reason I mention these two hideous areas of governmental waste is that they are, at heart, pseudo-science. Humans lived perfectly well for centuries without it. Malnutrition in the past was not the result of ignorance but of lack of nutritious food. Starvation in Africa today is not the result of the parents not knowing how to feed their children, it is the result of insufficient food for the size of population. If they had the food they would eat it. Suggest to them that they would benefit from someone telling them what they should eat and the most likely response is: "sod that, don't pay them, spend the money on food for us". No one needs food and drink advisors, let alone food and drink advisors paid for out of dwindling tax receipts. The whole thing is a nonsense based on a perceived need that simply does not exist.

And that is where we arrive at counselling.

Did widows in the two World Wars suffer to the end of their days because the death of their husbands was not eased by a visit from a fat baggage in a crocheted shawl? Of course not. The widows grieved as we all grieve when we lose a loved one or, as the case may be, as many spouses grieve when they lose someone who made their life a misery. Then they stuck their chin in the air and said "that won't put food on the table" and got on with life. Of course many of them felt the need to talk about their grief, they did so to relatives and friends who would help ease the blow. There was no magic in it. Auntie Flo didn't need a degree in social work and four weeks of refresher courses a year in order to know what to do and say when her beloved niece cried on her shoulder. She did what human beings have always done, she responded to the situation and gave support as best she could. And she always said "life goes on".

When a landslide killed 116 children (and 28 adults) in Aberfan in 1966 were the parents unable to cope with life because of an absence of people they didn't know sitting in their living rooms? Of course not. They had to get on with life as best they could. Did they talk about it? Of course they did if they wanted to, and they did so to family and friends and anyone who would listen in the pub. I think I can guess what the reaction would have been in a little mining village in Wales to the descent upon them of "professional counsellors" - two short words, the second of which is "off".

These days something awful happens and the television, radio and newspaper reports inform us that the victims have been offered or are being given counselling. It is described like an established medical procedure. "Mr Bigot had another cardiac infarction, he was given morphine to ease the pain, clopidogeral to dissolve blood clots and counselling." Yet it is nothing but pseudo-science, touchy-feely "we share your pain" twaddle. If people need to talk about a traumatic event they will do so. That's one of the many reasons we developed an extensive network of pubs. Getting something off your chest doesn't require any expertise in the listener, it just requires an ear, preferably one that just listens. Seeking advice about how to move your life forward doesn't need a tax-funded sympathiser, it needs family and friends who can give the combination of genuine sympathy and tough love. For those with no family and friends who can fulfill that role they will find it in any good landlord or landlady of a pub or proprietor of a teashop and all for the cost of a few pints or a pot of English Breakfast and a buttered scone.

There is a very simple test of whether we need counsellors and that is to ask whether they would exist if people had to pay for them out of their own pockets. Some with deep pockets might do so, and more fool them. For the same reason the human race has existed happily in the past without these barnacles, we can exist happily without them now. OK, so there might be some benefit in a tiny number of cases where the counsellor does a better job than Joe and Doris behind the bar at the Dog and Duck. But I have no doubt that the institutionalisation of counselling as a response to trauma has a significant negative effect. It formalises the notion that outsiders are better able to give help than those close to us. Nothing could be further from the truth. It also places the State as the first port of call in times of difficulty, a recipe for disaster if ever there was.

Counselling is one of the aspects of modern life that makes me truly angry. So angry that it has become an obsession. Indeed I am so obsessed I must address the problem, I might need counselling. No no no ... gin and tonic does it so much better.

Happy anniversary.

The aggregate demand for wasting money

One of the great joys of blogging is receiving comments that put a different point of view. It's mildly irritating to find a view you have taken time to express might be based on foundations of slush, although the irritation is not with the commenter but with oneself for not taking into account a relevant point (or, indeed, being completely fundament over mammary papilla). The result of the exercise is increased understanding of the topic you have discussed which, to some of us, is always a joy. What is not much of a joy is receiving short snide comments which provide no explanation of the alleged error in our reasoning and are nothing more than insults. I don't receive many of those but a few arrive from time to time. It would be wrong to delete them, however tempting it might be. The only comments I delete are true "spam" such as automatic links to commercial sites which have been left here because some wording I have used triggered a reaction in a computer somewhere else.

An occasional insulter has returned recently after some weeks doing other things. Whenever I throw out one of my half-baked pieces on matters economic there is a chance that he will pop in to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. There is no debate, just assertion of a different view without explanation of why that view is so obviously superior to my own that I should spare the world any further ignorant offerings. I should make one thing clear. I don't claim to "know" about economics. All I do is put forward my views and attempt to justify them with reasoning. If they are completely misconceived then they are completely misconceived, but neither I nor anyone who finds them a little persuasive is likely to change his mind by someone chipping in with "that's nonsense" or words to that effect. One reason I write essays rather than single paragraphs containing nothing but conclusions is so that my reasoning (such as it is) is available for all to demolish if they think they can. From time to time comments are left attempting to do exactly that, and it's huge fun. They believe they have proved me wrong and are happy, I believe I have proved them wrong and am ecstatic.

A couple of days ago I had the temerity to suggest that the government should cut its expenditure because it is borrowing vast sums of money and the less it spends on unnecessary fripperies the more it can devote to repaying that borrowing. I don't find that a difficult concept. Apparently I was completely wrong. My lurking insulter crept out from under a cheese to tell me I had ignored the effect public-sector redundancies would have on what he called "aggregate demand". No doubt he will be surprised to learn that I am familiar with the term "aggregate demand" and have at least a passing knowledge of what it means. To see whether I can elicit a second insult in a few days, I want to discuss why dispensing with pointless paper-pushers is likely to be of overall benefit to the economy. I will keep my "reasoning" as short as I can because my point is essentially simple.

Let's start with a simple observation, an observation with which everyone might be able to agree. If public sector employment is, of itself, a net benefit to the economy it follows that every government should seek to employ as many people as possible. As a factory closes the government should take on those who lose their jobs and give them something to do, or even give them nothing to do but just maintain their incomes at the previous level. Yet governments do not do this, for the very obvious reason that it would be a loss-making exercise. Much of the public sector does not produce anything and merely adds to the costs of the productive sector of the economy.

That is not to say that the public sector does not confer benefits. As things are currently arranged, defence of the Realm, the emergency services, the NHS, State education and social security benefits (any many other things as well) are paid for out of taxes. They add costs to business but they also deliver a benefit which would otherwise have to be paid for through other means. This piece of waffle is not an appropriate time to deal with issues concerning those "beneficial" tax-funded services.

However, far too much of the public sector delivers no discernible benefit and is pure dead-weight cost. It does things that no sane person would ever think of paying for with his own money. That is the structural problem I referred to in my last epistle. To argue that it should not be challenged because of the effect on "aggregate demand" is, in my opinion, misguided. Of course if taxpayers pay salaries totalling hundreds of millions of pounds to hundreds of thousands of government employees who do nothing but shuffle paper for no purpose, the dismissal of those people will remove an awful lot of spending power from the economy. But it will do so only because that spending power was handed to people with non-jobs in the first place. Keep them in place until the trump of doom and they will be a dead-weight cost until the trump of doom. If you think they should be kept in place, why not add another 100,000 to the number so that "aggregate demand" (paid for by unaffordable government borrowing) can be boosted and the path from recession can be eased? If those in place at the moment were not there, who would suggest they should be added to the public payroll to boost "aggregate demand"?

It goes without saying that matters should be approached according to current circumstances, but that does not necessarily mean that cutting out the dead-weight should be delayed until we are out of recession for fear of making matters worse by exacerbating falling demand. There is just as sound an argument for saying that this is exactly the time to cut out the wholly unproductive parts of the public sector. Do it now and the recession might go on a little longer or be a little deeper. Frankly there is every sign of it being horrendously long and deep in any event. I can see an argument for starting with as clean a slate as possible once we are in a position to recover. Surely it is better to build from a position in which dead-weight does not continue to hamper the productive economy.

Objective global climate warming change

It is always nice to find people taking an interest in things one has written, whether their interest is sparked by a desire to show the writer up as a cretin or to pat him on the back. A couple of my recent posts (here and here) have created, by the modest levels of interest this site engenders, a veritable flurry of activity. Much of that activity comprises comments from Mr W, including what might be a question. He wrote: "Perhaps you're not really interested in the science, but prefer to be ideologically driven?" I replied to this possible question then felt my reply could have been construed as rude or petulant and deleted my comment, by that time he had already answered it and confirmed that it was intended to be a question, which he then re-phrased and expanded by asking "Do you see yourself as looking objectively at the issues, or are you swayed by the `political' issues involved, as I think most involved in bog debates are?" Yes, I know he meant "blog" not "bog", but so many blog debates surrounding AGW get bogged down by people talking at cross-purposes that "bog debates" seems quite apposite.

There seems to me to be an inherent flaw in Mr W's question. It presumes that it is possible, in the current state of knowledge, to be objective about the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I believe this to be impossible. As always we must define our terms to ensure we make ourselves clear. There is no single, definitive meaning of "objective", so I will adopt the meaning I believe to be used in science, namely "not subject to interpretation or opinion". This is my formulation, I do not claim it possesses any magic, but I do believe is accords with the way the term is generally used in science. There are two elements to objectivity in science, one is purely factual and the other is a process of comparison with established thinking and is, essentially, circular in reasoning. I can illustrate what I mean by reference to an anvil and my big toe.

If I hold an anvil in my plump sweaty hands and let go it will drop to the floor and land on my big toe. I say "Ouch". A scientist says "gravity". So, since we're doing science today rather than fat toes, what is gravity? It is two things. It is a purely factual description of what is observed - the anvil falls, something causes it to fall and we call that thing gravity. But what is gravity? What is the force that makes the anvil fall? The answer, of course, is that no one knows for certain but theories are put forward and assessed by people who claim to understand them and the most persuasive theory at any given time is treated as correct until something more persuasive comes along. Old Isaac Newton might have known a thing or two about the Cox's Orange Pippin and the Bramley, but current scientific thinking is that he was wrong in his theory about what gravity is. Ask a scientist who claims to understand gravity and he will spout a theory.

It is important, in my view, to recognise that any argument based on a theory rather than observable fact is circular. "What is gravity", "a force", "what is that force?", "it is X", "how do you know it is X?", "because Y says so", "how do you know Y is right?", "because no one has proved it isn't X".

Many theories that were accepted by scientists for generations have had to be abandoned because a newly-found fact provides definitive dis-proof. How many of us had a relative who suffered from a stomach ulcer and spent decades burping at inopportune times on the number 53 bus, saving the big one for when the snooty lady who smells of cats got on board? It's a pretty safe bet they were told in the 1950s or 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s it was caused by stress or a fatty diet. Then someone had an idea about a particular bacterium and investigated it. Lo-and-behold, the old theory went straight into the wheelie-bin in 80% or so of cases despite decades of the most eminent medical people believing it to be universally correct. Yet the original diagnosis of stress or fatty diet was objective in the state of knowledge at the time. The two strands of objectivity were seen - (i) Mr Belcher had a stomach ulcer, fact, it could be seen, it was objectively true, (ii) Mr Belcher's stomach ulcer was caused by stress and/or diet because the state of knowledge at the time gave no other explanation.

In the same way that it is fair to describe an analysis as objective because it corresponds with a theory accepted over time as being more likely than any other, so it is necessarily true that nothing about a scientific analysis can reach the status of being objective until a consistent theory has been accepted over time. In order to be accepted by any fair-minded person it must be shown to be consistent with factual observations and to be more consistent than any rival theory. There is nothing unique about science here. In every field requiring deductions and inferences to be drawn from observed facts, the deductions and inferences we draw depend on our knowledge, and our knowledge is based on our acceptance of theories promulgated by others.

So, how does this relate to Mr W's question?

First, we must differentiate between objective facts and interpretations of those facts which correspond with established theory to such an extent that it is fair to call them objective. For current purposes I assume it is a matter of objective fact that the overall proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million by volume in about 1750 and it is now about 385ppm. I also assume it to be a matter of objective fact that an increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the capacity of the atmosphere to store heat. Beyond that we are in the realm of interpretation, as the discussion Mr W had with other commenters shows. They put forward arguments and analogies and received arguments and analogies in return, the amount of objective fact involved in both proposition and rebuttal was limited.

This, inevitably and necessarily, means that the argument is all about interpretation. Any talk of carbon dioxide being a "forcing" gas or a "driver" of the climate is, to my mind, subjective rather than objective because it relies on a theory that fails both parts of the objectivity test. Not only is the "forcing" or "driving" effect not substantiated by observed facts but it is a theory that has not been around for long and has not been able to gain general acceptance. I must qualify what I have just said because those who argue for carbon dioxide being a "forcing" gas fall into two camps, some argue for it having a widespread deleterious effect other consider it of no real consequence to anything.

Ah, yes, now we've reached the real issue.

Who gives two hoots about human activity changing the climate if it has no deleterious effect? If it comes to that, who gives one hoot? The whole issue is of purely academic interest unless it presents a real problem to human life or, if these things are of concern to you, animal and plant life. Maybe Mr W is concerned with this issue as a matter of pure science and has no axe to grind other than to ensure that obscure blogs written by fat retired lawyers in North London should be scientifically accurate. If so, I am very grateful that he should spend so much of his time trying to correct what he perceives as my errors and those of others kind enough to leave comments in my little pop-up box.

Somehow I think that might not be the case. Somehow I think he feels the need to argue a particular case for some reason other than the fun of doing so. Somehow I think he feels the need to sway the mind of someone he does not know and will almost certainly never meet. I might be wrong, I often am, but it doesn't seem to me he is engaging in an exercise equivalent to debating the number of angels who can balance on the end of a salami sausage.

His initial question was whether I am interested in the science or ideologically driven. It is impossible to be driven by ideology if you are not an ideologist and, to the best of my knowledge, I am not. The question was absurd because it supposes only two possible reasons why someone would write about the AGW Armageddon theory on his insignificant blog (or bog, if you think that a better description of my corner of the interwebnet).

He then asked me if I am more interested in the science or the politics. An error again, you cannot separate the two. The issue is no more relevant to we little people than are angels on a salami without the political aspect, and the strength of the political arguments depends on the strength of the scientific arguments. All who have the privilege of a vote and the burden of a tax man are entitled to clear explanations of why we should put our cross in one box rather than another and write one figure rather than another on the cheque we send the Treasury.

That is why I opined about what 385 parts per million by volume means to me. It puts the Armageddon theories in some sort of context. Maybe a scientifically irrelevant context, so be it, argue the case if I'm misleading myself. But don't pretend objectivity comes into the equation except at the margins because you will only mislead yourself. And that is why I cannot see Mr W's questions as questions, in each he was arguing a case not making an enquiry, even if he thinks he was being objective.

Six months of blogging

Today it is exactly six months since I started preening myself in public. I started this blog not long after encountering blogology for the first time. If my memory is correct it started with John Redwood because I was searching for something about him and Google invited me to his blog. From there I followed a few links and discovered all sorts of wonderful stuff. Within a month or so I pictured myself as a ranting addition to the clan, throwing about foul-mouthed abuse while destroying the heart and soul of everything I found offensive with a penetrating analysis previously unmatched in the published word, and chose the name under which I write still with that in mind. I soon found I do not have it in me to swear (except in the mildest way) nor to write things I do not believe and my powers of analysis are pretty good but nothing special.

What I have found most interesting is that people write in different ways and their style seems to reflect their personality. Some choose to offer essays on their topic of the day while others prefer to make brief points without detailed explanation; some give a lot of references and links while others concentrate on expressing their view on a matter whether or not it is supported by any other writer.

When I sit at my keyboard to compose a piece of verbiage I rarely know what I am going to say, or to be more precise I rarely know what conclusion I am going to draw. Many a time in the 180-odd essays I have published here I knew the topic I wanted to address but had not previously had to arrange my thoughts on it. I certainly knew what my general opinion was and often I was pretty sure that opinion had been reached by careful analysis, but actually sitting down and committing thoughts to paper (so to speak) requires you to think about many details you have not previously considered. And when you do consider them you find they do not support every aspect of your previous conclusions.

One of my earliest pieces was about common sense. In the course of writing it I had to think more deeply than before about certain aspects of the global warming issue and came out of the exercise even more sure that St Al of Gore and his acolytes are very dangerous people. When first putting fingertip to keyboard that day I had no intention of mentioning global warming at all, it just seemed appropriate to bring it up to illustrate the main point I was trying to make, and from there things snowballed. Although my essays are not very long and are of varying quality they often take two or three hours to complete because side-issues like that arise and need to be dealt with in a way that fits the article.

It is, perhaps, a sign of my disorganised character and short attention span that I have to write an essay in order to justify my conclusions to myself. Perhaps it is also a sign of insecurity that I have to write an essay because I would not expect anyone to agree with me unless I gave reasons for my view. Not for me the one-line comment expressing my disagreement with something a politician has suggested - why should anyone pay any attention to one line from an anonymous blogger? Surely my disagreement can only carry weight if I give a full(ish) explanation? Others get away with one line, but it's just not in my character to even try.

The last six months have been fascinating for me and highly enjoyable. It's quite a thrill when something you have written is referred to by others with approval and when supportive comments are left, not quite such a thrill when a commenter tells you you've got it all arse-over-tit but flattering nonetheless that they have taken time out of their lives to read what you have written.

I suppose I'd better write some more in the next six months.

I won't name Baby P

I haven't named Baby P. Others have and I doubt that they are wise to have done so. Although it is highly unlikely that any of us have read or been served with a court order preventing him and two of his abusers being named, we are on notice that such an order has been made because it is mentioned in newspaper, television, radio and online reporting from the main news media.

There are usually only two reasons why such an order is made. The first is to prevent any siblings of the dead child becoming the object of prurient interest and the other is to ensure that any further court proceedings are not prejudiced by what happened to Baby P. I believe other proceedings are pending against Baby P's mother and her boyfriend, perhaps the order will be lifted once they have been concluded.

It is often difficult to tell whether an order that someone should not be named will have a real effect on a subsequent case. The judge or jury hearing that case will have to decide it on the evidence called during that trial and it is common for arrests to be reported in serious cases without the disclosure of the identity of the arrested person prejudicing his trial a few months down the line. Of course there is a risk of the jury being affected by what they read in newspapers or saw on the television, but even in the most serious and widely publicised cases they are able to draw a clear distinction between what they heard before going to court and the evidence called from the witness box. Indeed, it is the very nature of news reporting that only a summary can be given and even that is rarely based on full knowledge of the facts, once the full story is heard it becomes clear that news reports were far from comprehensive so they can readily be put to one side by a jury. In the few cases I was involved in that were the subject of newspaper or television reports there was so much cherry-picking of juicy bits and quoting of attention grabbing soundbites out of context that it was hard to see how they could have affected the court in any way.

One relevant factor is the time lapse between conviction for one gruesome offence and trial for something else. Where one trial follows hot on the heels of another there is a greater risk of prejudice so the court would be a little more inclined to make a gagging order, but even then such orders are rare. Of greater importance is the need to protect any other children from becoming objects in a media circus. It is not uncommon to find other children of homicidal parents being taken into care and placed with foster families or for adoption. For those children the arrangement is a new start and, in some instances, a first opportunity to live in civilised surroundings with people who will care for them properly. It is not their fault that they were born to unmitigated scum and if they are to have a true fresh start the last thing they need is unwarranted intrusion reminding them, and informing those around them, of a past that should be left behind forever.

The reason it has been possible for some to name Baby P, his mother and her boyfriend is that their identities were disclosed in news reports shortly after his death. Some of those reports have remained accessible through the BBC website (and others) although they are not on open display. It takes someone with far greater knowledge than me of matters computery to find the reports, but for those in the know it is a simple task. The information is available for all to see in back issues of newspapers and anyone who wishes to do so can identify the people concerned by spending an afternoon in the local library. At first sight this might appear to make a gagging order utterly futile, but in real life very few would bother to scour the papers in order to find information they are not at liberty to dissipate without being in contempt of court.

Of course the question does arise whether it really is a contempt of court to disclose information which is already in the public domain. As I understand the law, the mere fact that information is available does not provide an absolute defence, it all depends on the particular circumstances. Where the purpose of an embargo is to prevent information being disclosed for the first time, the fact that it is already generally available will render the embargo pointless and any breach would not normally be found to be a contempt of court. It is different where the purpose of the embargo is to prevent information that is available to a limited extent being spread further. In order to justify an order of this type being made there would normally have to be a strong reason for seeking to prevent further publication. In the case of Baby P the reasons would appear to be protection of siblings and prevention of unfair prejudice at subsequent court proceedings. Without knowing a lot more about the circumstances I cannot begin to assess whether the judge's order could be challenged.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I am not prepared to name Baby P, his mother or her boyfriend. To seek to put my judgment, based as it is on limited knowledge, ahead of that of the judge in order to satisfy a desire to ensure that the great British public knows the full story would be to make a decision I am not qualified to make. I simply do not know enough about it. Even if I felt I did know enough about it and that the gagging order was not made on solid grounds, it is not for me to take the law into my own hands. An argument I have read from one of those who did make the disclosure on his blog is (and I paraphrase) that he did so because it is wrong for Baby P to be referred to anonymously when he was a human being and should be entitled to the dignity in death he was not afforded in life. It is a view with which I have great sympathy and I am sure the time will come when those with greater knowledge of the case than me will feel it appropriate to lift the embargo. But it is not for an anonymous blogger to make that decision when there could be repercussions which cause harm to other innocent people.

There is also a wider issue, one which has also been in the news recently. More than one cabinet minister has made noises about censoring blogs or requiring them to be licensed or supervised in some way. Of course the ministers say this is for the benefit of the public when it is actually to seek to suppress criticism of the government. To have an anonymous blogger apparently taking it into his own hands to ignore a court order in a sensitive case seems to provide just the sort of ammunition the government would need to justify its plan for censorship.

Those who argue against any control or regulation of blogs use the most powerful argument of all, namely that bloggers are subject to the law already and further regulation of content is as inappropriate as it would be for the government to dictate what newspapers are allowed to print. To adopt a vigilante approach to reporting one case on a blog is to assert that the rule of law does not extend to that blog and, by implication, to blogs generally. It is an unsound position to take and should be resisted. Let the rule of law apply to everyone. If you claim it doesn't apply to you, you can hardly complain when the government acts as though it doesn't apply to them.

What's up with blogging?

One of my favourite blogs, WattsUpWithThat?, turned to politics on the eve of the Presidential vote. For those of you who do not know it, WUWT is one of the leading blogs for global warming realists. The host, Anthony Watts, is a meteorologist and is conducting an interesting and informative study of weather stations in the USA (the results of which can be found here).

As I understand it he started WUWT as a means of airing observations on a host of topics, but over time it has become dedicated to discussing numerous aspects of the science relating to the climate. Although Mr Watts is a realist, he welcomes polite comments from global warming hysterics and many of the threads spawn hundreds of comments, sometimes going wildly off-topic but always entertaining the masses who read them.

His foray into the lunacy of Senator Obama's plan to send fuel prices "sky-rocketing" (Obama's terminology, not mine) was distinctly political, which is unusual for Mr Watts. Some of the comments under that thread caught my eye because they seemed to misunderstand fundamentally what a blog is all about. There were people saying that they go to the site to learn about science not to be lectured about politics, that Mr Watts has lost credibility as a serious commentator on science by dipping his toe into the fetid waters of Washington, that he should remain impartial and all sorts of similar guff.

What they failed so hopelessly to understand is that WUWT is Mr Watts' blog. He can do whatever he wants with it. He is not obliged to argue a particular cause or to steer away from controversy. He may change his mind on things if he wishes, accept or reject comments on a whim (not that he does) or simply close it down. He started it, he runs it, it is his and he can do with it anything the law allows. If people find it useful, informative or entertaining, all the better but the reaction of others imposes no obligation on him.

It is an interesting illustration of what sometimes happens when people are given something for nothing. Instead of having to trawl through numerous technical papers on how land temperatures are measured, how carbon dioxide is measured, what the sun does, how the oceans behave and the dozens of other things his site deals with, they can just visit WUWT and read concise summaries with copious explanations from genuine experts in the comments section. Having become accustomed to this free service people then consider its uninterrupted continuance to be their right. I would have thought the correct approach is to be grateful that someone takes so much time and trouble to provide a free service and just keep your trap shut if, on a rare occasion, he strays into a field which makes you uncomfortable.

You see, that's the thing about blogging. It is an opportunity for people to say what they think. No one is obliged to read what is written, no one is obliged to agree with what is written and only the author has the right to treat it as his.