’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.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

I have started a debate on climate change at the Liberal Democratic Party website which you might like to follow. My response to their discussion is:
I think you drift with the tide on these issues...you present reasons why their arguments are flawed to the extent that you can, as empirical evidence is involved. It is actually not so hard because there are scientists out their who pose a different picture. More importantly, H2O is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. Hotter mean temperatures could only result in greater average humidity. CO2 is a fertiliser, so it could only promote plant growth. The Carboniferous and Permian were coal-depositional periods for a reason.
They only accurately started investigating solar flares as a cause in 2005, and evidence to date suggests excellent correlation.

Daily I find misleading arguments in the press. Of course all this debate serves the collectivist. This is not science. You don't maintain a loyalty to scientists, you maintain it to the facts of reality. Do you blindly accept your doctor? No. You keep getting 2nd opinions until you strike a reasonable argument.

Why not be the party who stands against a scandal, and thus gets the credit for integrity, despite one's minuscule resources. Man has some influence. It is amazing how humanity can be so arrogant and so humble in the same sentence. Arrogant because you believe humanity is no important. Certainly he is important to himself; but to the external world we are just a fleeting moment. I suggest you reflect on how much oxygen and CO2 is in the world and the plausibility of you having an impact. I actually did a calculation. You can find it on my blog on climate change at www.sheldonthinks.com. Needs revision, but the fundamental point remains the same.

Of course reducing emissions will have an impact...but it need not be the impact you want. The earth in 50 years might start cooling as we enter thouse 'more frequent' ice ages. Now, we can waste untold wealth on climate change, or we can build wealth for the future, which will develop technologies and resources to deal with 'real' threats, whether meteorites or Collectivist China. This is therefore a huge opportunity cost. And you want to surrender that debate to anti-intellectual liberals.
You can follow this debate at the LDP forum. I am Shouganai1:
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Friday, July 23, 2010

How to be a good environmentalist

We might ask what qualities it takes to be a good environmentalists? Most business people are characterised as self-serving, ambitious, materialistic and unethical, with little or no regard for the impact they have on the environment. Certainly there are plenty that way; however there are a great many who display other characteristics, which we might otherwise associate with greens. There are those business people who invest a great deal in their staff, who don't cheat on their wives, who love the outdoors, who recycle their home waste, and who are not terribly materialistic. Even the most 'greedy' businessmen are often not materialistic. They are more inclined to invest in ideas and new products, and spend their time in the factory, rather than flying around in a Lear jet or jet boating in Florida. So who is more inclined to save money? The millionaire or the welfare statists who would like their wealth dispersed among themselves?

You could rightly argue that some dedicated greens are hypocrites like I describe, and that is certainly true. Some greens participate in the 'global economy' only so long as they can save enough money to buy the latest 'green technology', which is not a product of the 'greener than thou' community, but rather a product of capitalism. i.e. These people are professing to be greens, but the ultra-efficient solar panel they want, the defense from Soviet aggression they want, will ultimately come from capitalism. For this reason you can plainly see that such greens are intellectual 'cop-outs', repressing all signs of their reliance on the environment. Such 'self reliance' on nature is an illusion which they persist in maintaining. You will not see them give up toilet paper, though you will certainly see them self-righteously proclaim the benefits of 'environmentally-sound' toilet paper, which was always a rationalisation.

Why do they not then aim their guns at advertisers, salespeople and particularly politicians with their monetary stimulus, who do more to push 'conspicuous consumption' than the business people, who merely makes what people want. This is more perplexing when you consider that they are seeking solutions from the persons (i.e. politicians) who can do more for the environment than anyone, and yet they do more to sabotage it. Why? I guess because business sabotage their arbitrary assertions. The implication is that these issues are defined not by facts, but by conflicts over issues, where people fail to see the issues. People have forgot what the real issues are.
It is the poor and middle class aspirants who are inclined to spend indulgently on dubious pleasures. They are the pleasure seekers. Business and real aspirants take pride and pleasure in pursuing some purpose. They are thus inclined to save money rather than spend. They are saving for an acquisition of some business, or to start one. Production you say is the problem. Actually its not. Its arbitrary consumption which does not relate to a broader purpose. It is indulgence. It is a lack of thinking about the broader implications of one's decisions.

Clearly it is not our career which defines us. The environmentalist is of course characterised as a deluded, uneducated, tree-hugging, emotional parasite who lives on off the wealth created by those who they disparage. The lines are clearly defined by those in the media, and certainly those people who participant in the politics of global warming are like that because they are either:
1. Large companies developing huge projects
2. Environmentalists who are determined to stop them.

There is simply no place in the media for the environmentalist who simply wants to preserve a simple life, or the business person, who engages in business not to maximise output, or to have the highest market share, but simply because he derives pride from engaging in business.

I will argue that - if the environment is to be saved - and it is inevitable that growing global population is going to place pressure on our natural environment, then it is not going to be the large companies or the desperate environmentalist who dominate the media who is going to make the difference; it is going to be the 'silent majority' somewhere in between. Not fence-sitters, simply people who do things for less dubious reasons than power and material gain. I actually think these 'silent majority' are derived from the same fundamental values, though I think they have been mislead by the academic and media assault on science.

So how does one become a good environmentalist. My suggestions are these:
1. Don't interfere with the functioning of the markets, nor support governments which do the the same thing. Why? Because efficient markets result in the best allocation of resources, and thus maximum real wealth creation. This is important so we have the capacity to deal with any problem in future.
2. Support justice - that is social regulation which facilitates market optimality, rather than those government interventions which distort or undermine wealth. This does not mean supporting projects which impact others; it means respecting facts. If BP drilling poses a threat, and there is science to support those arguments, or BP has a poor safety track record, then they ought not to be awarded a license.
3. Support reason as the standard of value: Meaning that if the protection of the environment is worthy of protection, it is good for a reason, and those reasons need to be appraised in a specific context. They are not intrinsic values, and they are not dogmas.
4. Know thyself: It sounds like a Christian proverb, however a great many people engage in activities with no conceptual appreciation for the things they do. It would better serve them to develop a coherent hierarchy of values to account for what is important to them. This will help them to see the integrity and legitimacy of what they are pursuing.
These same principles hold true for business as well as environmentalists. I would argue the pragmatic businessman is equally a threat as the passionate environmentalist. A threat why? Because they both have little respect for ideas, the interests of others, or the facts of reality. They seldom attempt to see the perspective of others. There is the rare exception. The founder of Greenpeace who has celebrated a role for nuclear power. Small business people who are typically the engines of environmentally-sound technologies, whether its technological innovations like battery technologies, or new ways of thinking about the world, as I am doing.

The greens are worried about climate change. There is good evidence to suggest its a variability is caused by sun flares rather than human impacts. Greens are worried about the population explosion. The earth's population growth rate is actually slowing as people become more prosperous. Fear governments who are trying to encourage higher birth rates and promote immigration to stimulate economic growth whilst they choke productivity in the economy. The greens lament the development of new pollution-emitting plants, in the process forcing those plants to developing countries with lower standards. The wealth they create will result in better plants. The collectivism they impose on markets will only sabotage the creators of technologies which will reduce our per capita energy demand. Look at how technology has created a paperless office in a decade. Look how video conferencing will see you work from home, or local satellite offices, if not coffee shops in the next 2 decades, saving transport costs and reducing emissions. Batteries are offering longer lives, solar collectors will offer greater absorption and higher efficiencies. Just don't sabotage the process, nor allow collectivist governments to sabotage the process.
Andrew Sheldon 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.