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

The anatomy of a global warmist/alarmist

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

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