’Global Warming Misconceptions - View the table of contents!

Governments this year have ramped up their global warming propaganda, but in truth, just how certain is global warming. In the process of preparing a consulting report, we undertook some research and were startled by government policy. We will show that the propaganda being financed by government is shamelessly creating hysteria for the sake of political expediency.

Global Warming Misconceptions - Download the table of contents or buy this report at our online store for just $US9.95.

Friday, December 4, 2009

IPCC to investigate claims of sham science

The IPCC said it will investigate claims that a UK university has engaged in distortion in order to generate research which supports global warming.
Clearly however the IPCC is not the best regulator of such claims because it is overwhelmly a political beast, given that it was established by a former Tory chancellor of the UK - Nigel Lawson. The bias inherent in this organisation is unlikely to result in honest disclosure.
Read the full story here.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
A new institute has been set up in the UK by Nigel Lawson, the former treasurer of England during the Thatcher administration. The intent of the institute is to achieve a balanced analysis of global warming. I didn't think it called for a 'balance', more like an adherence to facts, honesty, etc. But any forum which canvasses the views of both adherents and critics is at least a step in the right direction.
You can view below
1. A You Tube presentation by Lord Monkton (an adviser to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's) that focus on climate change.
2. The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Giant jellyfish invade Japan - WWIII "exclusive"

In today's news we have more nonsense suggesting 'climate change'. The discussion ceases to be meaningless when people don't know what they are talking about. Climate change is a natural phenomena. The climate is dynamic - it goes up and down with annoying unpredictability. Its unpredictable because its complex. Its not that we can't know the future, its just that we really haven't needed to know. What we can know is that there is a lot of assertions being made to support a flawed hypothesis. There is nothing unusual about the current climatic patterns.
This 'crisis' and the related 'dire warnings' are nothing more than liberals in the media trying to sell product, and trying to encourage you to embrace their values. Nothing wrong with selling product mind you, but its a problem when people sacrifice facts and integrity for a good story. No better that a stockbroker who spruiks a good 'gold stock' whilst knowing it will never make money. The world is full of them.
So what is wrong with the latest story out of Japan? The problem is the assertion that the annual occurrence of jellyfish off the coast of Japan is special. There are two things to note:
1. They were there 40 years ago, so its not such a stretch to go from one year to a few.
2. More importantly, we can see from the chart above that the Earth's global average temperature is lower than it was in 900AD, a period which pre-dates human impact on the climate, and that we can expect warmer temperatures for the next 50-100 years, and that would be perfectly within the pattern of previous cycles.
3. Warmer temperatures are actually conducive to greater oxygen production, as its the planets way of adjusting to such rises in CO2 levels, if it were a concern.

The issue of whether humanity could long term impact on the climate (even if there is no evidence of a current impact) is addressed in the presentation in the previous post by Woods (2008).
The emptiness of such assertions are balanced by more 'neutral' reporting. This journalist from the UK Telegraph suggests little is known about these jellyfish. Nice to have an honest confession. But at least he highlights something about the erratic nature of their numbers and migration.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Great climate change charts for the sceptics

Here is a presentation which provides very good data for those who are sceptical about the greenhouse scam. The presentation is "A Cool Look at Global Warming”by Philip R. Wood. Managing Director & CEO, Intec Ltd, as presented to the Chatswood Rotary Club, NSW, Australia.

Some of the pertinent facts are:
1. CO2 is a far less significant greenhouse gas than water vapour
2. CO2 is not a pollutant, its a fertiliser than helps plants to grow
3. Far from there being a run-away greenhouse effect, CO2 levels are displaying the usual trends they have for the last 2000 years. Temperatures were higher in 900AD, prior to Industrial Revolution, so no implied anthropological effect there.
4. There is no correlation between CO2 and global atmospheric temperature increases over the last 200 years. There is a correlation over 700,000 years, but its CO2 following temperature, rather than CO2 causing temp increases. So the proponents are reversing causation. A common phenomenon among idiots.

This is not good science. There is a dire need for some critical thinking here.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, November 30, 2009

Why is the greenhouse agenda being pushed

You might wonder why the greenhouse issue is becoming such a politically charged issue. That is simple you say: If there is any possibility of global warming then we should do what we can to avert it. Any doubt should be acted upon.
This might be a compelling argument if there was any evidence that the remedies would help. But there is no such evidence. Consider that:
1. Added cost: Carbon sequestration will require additional infrastructure and cost impositions on society, which will reduce real wealth creation and thus humanity's capacity to deal with any 'real' threat in future, environmental or otherwise.
2. Rhetoric rather than coherent policy: Ask yourself what is really being achieved. There is a tax being placed upon energy, but there is no real effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If you were going to reduce emissions you would have to increase the cost of energy considerably to offset people's desire for autonomy. You would have to end immigration which results in low (third world) emitters being sponsored to become high emitters. You would have to penalise the international seaborne trade in products. Maybe all this is coming, since it can be justified by this science.

The other possibility is that there is another reason this policy line is being pushed:
1. Liberal media companies are supportive of dire agendas because they sell more newspapers or are consistent with their political values. i.e. The paternal state.
2. Nuclear energy advocates want to justify nuclear energy, or at least overcome the sensitivity to it by conveying a generalised state of risk. i.e. that all use of energy carries risks. True enough. I am actually supportive of nuclear energy. I just don't this spirious arguments should be used to justify it.
3. Governments are keen to placate a liberal press who are able to incite the sensitivities of the liberal portion of the electorate.
4. Governments are keen to broaden their taxing powers. There is the argument that in the final hour the Emissions Trading Scheme will be used to justify broader energy taxing powers. Currently many countries have a petrol tax, but they don't tax coal, gas, or other forms of energy. Well the EMS will give them a basis for measuring CO2 emissions, and thus a capacity to tax those emissions. It can also tax CO2 credit trading transactions.

What is lost in this debate is respect for facts. There is no critical interpretation of arguments because there is no discourse where differing opinions are to be reconciled. This is what the world needs more than anything else. We shall deal with this issue through our range of books at our bookstore.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Arguments against global warming hypothesis

The global warming 'enthusiasts' would have you believe that Earth is going to overheat and that we face a 'run away' greenhouse effect as occurred on Mars; which incidentally does not have, nor has ever had a human population. In this book we mount critical arguments to this assertion or 'hypothesis' which show that the dire warnings are based on hysterics rather than science. One of the concerning aspects about science these days is the extent to which thinking is able to be distorted in the name of the scientific method. The scientific method as we know it has become a politically charged conception, such that empirical evidence is distorted by a total lack of conceptual or critical thinking. Instead hypotheses are validated simply on the basis of positive statistical correlations. Basically these scientists don't know how to think; but they do know how to raise political controversies.
You can learn more about the book at our bookstore.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Scientific evidence refutes global warming

There are an increasing number of websites on the internet which are sceptical about the inferred anthropological link between CO2 emissions and global warming. One of the best sceptics in this debate is an Australian climatologist Professor Bob Carter at James Cook University. I suggest viewing his presentation on You Tube. There are several of them:
1. Part 1
2. Part 2
3. Part 3
4. Part 4
This is what we need in this debate - some critical thinking to place those liberal journalists and scientists in their place.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Sunday, November 29, 2009

The anatomy of a global warmist/alarmist

Read this great article in The Spectator by Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Integrity in climate policy

Representative democracy certainly does deliver humanity a kaleidoscope of public policy. Remember the one where governments have to boost demand to stay in government, and to keep the economy growing. In most countries its combined with an 'easy immigration policy' to match an 'easy monetary policy. This is certainly the case in most Western nations:
1. Japan - the latest convert
2. United States
3. Canada
4. New Zealand - bearing growing due to emigration
5. Australia
6. Britain

Its difficult however to reconcile these policies with climate change. Frankly I think all these policies are silly. Basically its a huge diseconomy to take people trained to work in one country to give then work in another. Why would you want poorly trained doctors from third world countries? If not medicine, why would you want a former student with 2 degrees from an Indonesian university to work in an Australia Post office as a mail sorter. These are the types of economies that Western countries are generating through their immigration policy in order to keep demand strong. Its not all bad. Asian students coming to Western countries for a better education is a positive development...that is if they end up going back.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against immigration; I'm for it. But it just doesn't reconcile with government climate change policy, nor with efforts to encourage political reform in third world countries. It seems we are intent on sponsoring immigration of those candidates who are most likely to make a difference to third world countries. We are creating a brain drain. We are decreasing the standards of competency in the third world, whilst also diminishing them in the West.
I regard climate change policy as a hoax, and have even produced a book to prove as much; but publicity aside, how does shifting an Afghan from Aghanistan to Australia improve the global balance? Well in Afghanistan he would probably be a farmer. In Australia, we would be a taxi driver, consuming 15x more energy than in Afghanistan. This expansion of his carbon footprint according to climate change advocates will have dire consequences.
If you are hoping for integrity in government policy you will have a long time to wait. So what is my solution. Discard the climate change hypothesis and acknowledge it for what it is - an excuse to adopt a comprehensive energy tax policy to replace a rather limited petroleum tax policy. The solution is simply to:
1. Stop artificially stimulating economic activity. This will encourage companies to cut costs in order to drive productivity and sales. Currently CEOs can simply rely on government stimulus to increase their incomes. They have stock options remember which are more than indexed to inflation. They do even better than the government.
2. Stop providing subsidies to energy alternatives: The providers of these services are simply raising their prices to take a greater profit, whilst offering a dubious benefit. Small governments like Australia and NZ cannot match the generous incentives offered by the Germans, so why try, they are only increasing the pricing of the service.
3. Sell state-owned railways so that rail can compete with cars. Government owned railways are often a burden because of the politically-powered concessions that unions can win. Governments are less likely to compensate when they are both the owner and regulator.
4. More research on climate change: There is a need for more research on climate change, though the arguments appear compelling against the prospects of primarily an anthropogenic source of carbon emissions. A carbon tax could be used, but it should only be a user-pays tax to fund policy which can be objectively demonstrated in a court; and not for general revenue raising.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Swine flu vaccine - politics driving science

The political drive to promote the inoculation of children and adults against swine flu is reminiscent of the 1970s swine flu scandal where many people who took the vaccine contracted a neurological illness which impaired their motor skills. Lives were devastated. This vaccination is looking very much like the scare of old. These types of politically-inspired programs highlight the incompetence of politicians to adequately develop sound policy. Should they be controlling our administration?
Listen to the following program to see if you can pick the similarities to the global warming debate. This was the 1970s, but as you can see its being repeated today. Politicians trying to look busy.

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Sham science by committee

Its shameless how governments around the world and media are promoting the global warming issue. This is a science issue, yet arguments are being shifted and used by politicians and collectivists to achieve their political ends. There is no crisis, unless of course you are referring to the disturbing misuse of science for political ends. This is of course not the first time. In the 1970s it was asteroids striking earth, in the 1980s it was a 'Mini-Ice Age'. What this highlights is not simply the fact that media and government have some vested interest in some scare to create a new tax, to sell more newspapers, to placate the reader, but an underlying lack of critical thinking skills by all concerned. The greatest threat is that people will lose confidence in reason as a standard of value because it was wrong again on scientific assertions. Of course the problem is 'science is not a popularity contest'. The truth is destined to lie with the few scientists who challenge convention. That is historically how the world progresses. The Einstein's of the world, not typically science committees are what moves the world.
So where is the evidence of this. The evidence arises in several forms:
1. The assertion that there is a global consensus which believes humanity is a significant cause of global warming. In fact there are a significant number of opponents to the hypothesis
2. The fact that no attempt is made to acknowledge or challenge critics of the hypothesis
3. The fact that governments spend millions promoting global warming as if it was an incontestable fact
4. The fact that the media will give no air-time to differing arguments
5. The fact that scientists will not risk 'alienation' by offering differing views. The 'Cold Fusion' issue highlighted how a 'scientific consensus' can destroy a promising career.
6. The fact that you have popular personalities 'selling' global warming. The most pathetic was Jamie Durie, the former host of a landscaping/gardening TV program in Australia going to the Arctic, and asserting that the falling population of seals was the result of global warming. I suspect he made that up himself. Might I suggest over-fishing is a more probable cause or hunting. But no, suddenly global warming is the unquestioned cause of all sinister events.

There are also the scientific committees comprising scientists of no particular scientific credibility who achieved standing, not because of their scientific credentials, but because they host good parties and are well liked by politicians or the media. These people have a disproportionate media standing because they are a 'compelling face' on TV. Just like Jamie Durie - they make great TV. They make TV look personable. 'Science with a smile'. That is the face of modern science.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, July 27, 2009

You might wonder what the government's track record is like on science before you so quickly accept government advertising campaigns. The following news report by Sixty Minutes documents the impact of US government propaganda in 1976 in relation to the Swine Flu. Yes indeed, the Swine Flu is not a new phenomena. The government engaged in an advertising blitz, giving the US people the false impression that there were no serious side effects, ignoring a government report which stated otherwise. The untested flu vacine resulted in 300 deaths, as well as neurological disorders and disability, and a class action law suit for $3 billion. The Justice Dept has accepted responsibility, drafted an agreement with the Attorney General, but never settled, fearing that admission could have some negative consequences.
This is precisely why governments cannot be trusted to run such programs. LIsten to the news cast by Sixty Minutes. Government should not be both an executive and regulating agency. It has a huge conflict of interest. It also does not help matters that the bureaucracy is structured with utterly no accountability.
Would such news impact on your views about the veracity of the government's assertions with respect to climate change? Are tax payers around the world being encouraged to support a policy for which they have utterly no understanding of? Are you confident that the government knows any better?
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Politician rejects global warming consensus

It appears hell has frozen over because I have recently heard from one politician who is not jumping on the global warming wagon. For a long time there has been a consensus among politicians, supported by the media, and a great many scientists that global warming was indeed a problem. The problem however is that the evidence is less than compelling.

Steven Fielding, the sole member of the Family First Party made the following statement: "At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government's set of "facts". Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis. The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media".

Unsurprisingly this man is an engineer, unlike the rest of the politicians in the Australian parliament who display absolutely no respect for facts or objectivity. Refer to The Australian for the full story.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Third grader could solve global warming

For some time now we have been told that humanity is unleashing a global environmental crisis, and that if we don’t act now we will do irreversible damage. These are major claims. Governments around the world are spending huge amounts of money to correct a problem that may not be a problem. What does the evidence suggest? Being a geologist I was inclined to question these assertions. It became apparent to me several years ago that a lot of scientists were publishing dubious research to support global warming. At this time I had performed no research into the issue myself. I merely seized on the fact that the evidence was often self-refuting, or demonstrated poor thought process. Having studied philosophy, it also became apparent to me that there was a philosophical explanation for what was happening. My university science and critical thinking skills were telling me this was nonsense...at least what I was reading. It was only after completing research recently that it was apparent that there was no crisis; that in fact the climate was changing as it had always done.

Well as a geologist I have some perspective on such matters. A perspective which understands that the climate has always changed and always will, and that humans will just have to adjust to it. It is human arrogance or humility that concludes that we could do so much damage, or that we could be so evil. But I have another perspective too, which you ‘non-technicians’ will particularly relate to, and that is a ‘common sense’ perspective.

Below I have gathered some evidence. It’s nothing as exciting as Ice Cores from Antarctica or oxygen-isotopes from some fossilised bird pooh from the Amazon jungle. It is some simple, readily available statistics pertaining to the global population and the dimensions of the Earth. I am particularly fond of this argument because it’s so simple. I have heaps of other more scientific arguments, but this is my favourite because whilst there are a lot of ‘greenies’ running around scaring people with science they don’t understand, here I am a scientist providing people with some simple 3rd grade maths they can readily understand. It has to make you laugh! God I know I am.

The evidence I have gathered shows the basic facts from Wikipedia - plus my basic 3rd grade calculations. These calculations show the implausibility of the global warming hypothesis. It is apparent that for every person on the globe there is 75,231m2 (7 hectares) of land area, but if you consider the columnar volume of atmosphere above every per capita of humanity, then you realise that you couldn’t possibly be the culprit. See! So it was arrogance.

Conclusion: The global warming hypothesis shamelessly fails the common sense argument. This 3rd grader thinks Western governments want to introduce a more comprehensive carbon tax given that world petroleum reserves are being depleted. Such cynicism from such a young tike.
Andrew Sheldon http://www.sheldonthinks.com

’Global Warming Misconceptions - View the table of contents!

Governments this year have ramped up their global warming propaganda, but in truth, just how certain is global warming. In the process of preparing a consulting report, we undertook some research and were startled by government policy. We will show that the propaganda being financed by government is shamelessly creating hysteria for the sake of political expediency.

Global Warming Misconceptions - Download the table of contents or buy this report at our online store for just $US9.95.