’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.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

ClimateGate will not be researched further

Here is an update on the "climategate" issue. One could argue that they are not wrong though; that they simply derive no credibility from being associated with the discrediting process. And of course democracy is not exactly the recourse for rational argument, so I guess we will never know. Though every piece of science I'm looked at tends to fold like a pack of cards. The problem is the poor use of the scientific method; the lack of critical review of research, the prospect of manipulating or selectively using data, and of course politicians selectively citing research or exponents of research favourable to the positions of their constituents, i.e. We are talking of a political system which advances what people want to believe as opposed to what is actually the case. The resources to investigate the 'realness' of the science are not there; and neither is the objectivity. Why? Because majoritism (i.e. representative democracy) is the standard of value - not rationality. And that is not the same as the scientific method which is merely correlation detached from context.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

IPCC under attack for pseudo-membership

We love climate sceptics - here is a good one. Most special because she is a journalist...she appears not to be in a hurry to get home.

------------------------------------Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Thursday, October 20, 2011

The fundamental climate change problem

So what has greenhouse gas policies delivered the American people - take a look - a 0.6% reduction in greenhouse gas levels; but at the expense of causing a shortage of corn/grains worldwide which will have a more lasting impact on those countries experiencing famine. Oh, and since Asia has no interest in farming because the returns have traditionally been less lucrative than industry, we will see a rise in farm output in Western nations, but that will entail clearing more forests. Yep, market economics was never a strong point for greenies.
The implication of policies are often far-reaching. The solution is actually to deal with the core issue - which drives human decision making, and that is values or philosophy. People are investing a great deal of energy in restructuring society, and failing to identify what really ales society, and that is a crisis of values - a lack of a coherent philosophy.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, September 12, 2011

Electricity consumption is falling in NZ

This is an interesting article from NZ. NZ has apparently recorded a fall in power consumption. This article posits a number of reasons why this has occurred, and I am adding my own below.
1. NZ has static population growth - there are roughly the same number of people going to Australia and other countries as there are going in as Asian or European immigrants.
3. They use 70% hydro here
4. They use a lot of open fire places in NZ using wood logs or pellets, which will offset the demand for electricity.
5. NZ electricity and gas prices are very high because of the small, uncompetitive nature of the market. High prices are likely convincing a lot of people to shift from central electricity and gas heating to open fire places, i.e. Wood in rural areas is cheap, and its renewable.
6. NZ experienced the Christchurch earthquake in 2010; and its plausible that that event destroyed a lot of electricity consumption, which has not been made up by greater home use, as people run their businesses from home.
7. All new generating capacity added in NZ is likely to be expensive wind or geothermal based capacity; simply because of the opposition to coal plants, the lack of current gas reserves, and the small increments of power required.

This story does however give you a clue as to what is happening when you strip out population growth. The question is whether these trends are evident in other countries, concealed by actual population growth.
I frankly think there would be less energy consumption if business was allowed to make money, and if scientists were able to think conceptually, as opposed to relying on the correlation-based 'scientific method'.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

IPCC under attack for dubious claims

If politicians want a sense of the quality of scientific research; most particularly that funded by the WWF - read this:
"The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim -- based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study -- that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall".
Source: Science Daily, website, 12th March 2010.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Is the global climate warming?

The media and political rhetoric is that the climate is getting warmer as CO2 levels increase. If life was so simple, you might expect some type of correlation between CO2 and average global temperatures; but we don't. In fact, there are a great many reasons to be sceptical of such claims. These include:
1. The lack of knowledge that researchers have about the climate. A great many questions are still being asked and a great many answers are surprising researchers.
2. The lack of historical record of the sun's variations in global electromagnetic radiation, i.e. sunspot activity and solar flares
3. The lack of clarity about the role of water in the atmosphere, et al.
4. The broad-based poor state of science. Read this article: “The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” by Jonah Lehrer, The New Yorker, website, 13th Dec 2010.
5. The political conflict of interest - both of researchers and politicians
6. The tendency of certain researchers to seek political sanction rather than scientific resolutions
7. The arguments when some of the climate change advocates actually front up to sceptics. There is one debate on YouTube between MIT and NASA counterparties.

Follow this widget yourself and observe the climate 'change'; its like watching grass grow; except CO2 levels are rising :) There is an accurate temperature record here - current data.
Click to get your own widget
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, June 20, 2011

Various articles on climate taxes and criticism

Here are some other articles you might like to explore:
4. Links to debates on climate carbon tax - see http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The united scientific opposition to global crisis

Here is a very good summary paper outlining the climate sceptics views about the global warming hypothesis. Some 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition, including 9,029 with PhDs, discrediting the claims of global warming being due to fossil fuel consumption. Don't accept appeals to authority - either way - read the summary.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Do climate claimants sound familiar?

I have not substantiated this article however it highlights the ever-changing nature of climate change. Refer to source. The article suggests that similar fears of global warming, or similar symptoms, occurred in the 1920s.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Stories on climate change

Please forward this email onto others.

1) An analysis of global warming.

2) An interview between Alan Jones and David Karoly (an expert on the pro-Global Warming hypothesis). This interview shows how the pro-global warming camp dissemble when they argue.

Many years ago Albert Einstein was constantly attacked for his revolutionary theories. He responded by saying something like: "All it takes to disprove me is one person with one piece of evidence." There are thousands of pieces of information against the global warming hypothesis. but still many scientists say , "the science is settled."
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Australian greenhouse sceptics take on the world

Australian climate (global warming) sceptics take on the scientific bureaucrats. Read this article. Chief among the sceptics is Professor Bob Carter - you can buy his book at Amazon.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Solar activity research suggests global cooling

The evidence against global warming seems to have gone full circle. We are now looking at global cooling; and global scientist duplicity by pseudo-scientists who have long posited that there is global warming when in fact they had no data to demonstrate solar activity was not a plausible explanation, ie. Ignorance is bliss. Only now is that evidence emerging.

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Solid arguments discrediting anthropogenic climate change

Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University is one of the better critics of the Global Warming argument. I don't call him a 'sceptic' because the issue is not simply a question of a lack of evidence for climate change; there is the prospect of us doing irrevocable harm by adopting 'precautionary' measures to deal with the 'crisis'. The most blatant problem is the misuse of the issue to raise taxes, to further distort the economy. Take a look at his website.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Friday, April 22, 2011

The opportunity cost of mal-administration

Let me think ahead and ask what we might expect from major international oil companies in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico deep oil well blow-out last year. We might expect oil companies to give greater consideration to safety and due process; but we might also expect them to operate through contractors lacking their financial clout. After all, why would you take on such risks when they can be avoided. Why not set up some drilling operational contractor who accepts all the risks; has a limited liability structure, and yet shares the bulk of the oil revenue stream with the major oil company who finances the project.
Just asking the questions I know the government won't ask. Just cynically concluding that business will find a 'loophole' around any government legislation. In 10 years, when there is another oil disaster, you will be criticising a different administration, a different oil company, wondering why these people are not accountable. You most likely will not register the prospect that it is a systematic problem which can be traced to your values and theirs.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Media and the environment

This is very naive. Ted Danson. His father was a scientist....oh "but something stuck with him'. Firstly, archeology is not the right time of scientist. His understanding of the oil industry started with a lawyer? Listen to him, and you might just grasp the basis of ignorance - 'the guy with a little knowledge' from the wrong people. Ted is sadly a cliche with too much money. And he stopped being funny.
Hollywood are another group of liberals who are destined to support environmental and global warming agendas. Ted Danson is just one of their crusaders. Certainly over-fishing is a problem, but it is a problem which will eventually be solved with 'fish farming'. If he is against subsidies on fishing great! But he is not part of the solution; he is part of a more fundamental problem.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Another climate change media frenzy

Geez, Ted Danson, the star of the successful TV series 'Cheers', is an avid environmentalist. Wow! I guess now we have to believe now. Here is another misguided piece of journalism from the NY Times on climate change.
Yes, ignorance is the problem. It starts with scientists with political motives. Science is not a popularity contest. You really have to question the motives of 'scientists' who take their research to the media as a means of advancing their beliefs. Its the ultimate 'dummie spit'. My critics don't believe me, so I'm going to take my arguments to the media because they will advance any scary story to sell newspapers. I won't even have to convince tragic liberals who hate mankind, they will accept my arguments at 'Hello'.
Ignorance - quote "That CO2, of course, leads to global warming and climate change".
We have 'economic rationalism', now we have 'scientific rationalism'.
You believe you have an argument, then you confront the minority of scientists who are critical thinkers, and you prove it to them. Scientists who run to the ignorant media and avoid reconciliation of their ideas with critics, they are extortionists, no better than our politicians, with ultimately the same consequences. The problem manifests because we are less prepared than we would be for 'real problems' confronting the world.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, April 18, 2011

The US scolds NZ for lack of carbon abatement

The UN appears to be becoming the global police agency for climate change. Consider that it has sanctioned NZ for not doing enough to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. With 20% of the population living in uninsulated homes in a coldish climate, and not having any industry, you might wonder what they could do. Oh, of course they could stop expanding their dairy industry based on farting cows, and of course they could educate the Chinese to eat local produce rather than imported fatty foods, but that is not going to happen.
The issue of course raises several issues:
1. Is there really any anthropogenic climate change 'effect'? I'm a geologist and I'm convinced there is not, based on my appreciation of 'scientific expertise', human nature, political systems, and the nature of the debate itself.
2. Ought the UN be telling anyone how to behave? Well I guess they claim to embody science. The problem is that these politically aligned and appointed scientists represent only one side of the debate, and they give no standing to people with alternative views.
3. How ought the pain of climate change policy be implemented? Need Chinese people go without air conditioning? Ought NZ'ers go without housing internal heating? Do Chinese women have the right to drink milk? Its an important source of calcium.
4. Is UN intervention political meddling? It is an election year in NZ, and the UN is sticking its nose into local politics.

The reality is that the UN is not the problem or the solution. What we need more than another layer of government is a layer of objectivity. This is lacking from every government agency, as well as from a great deal of corporate and even personal discourse. Why? Well, I would suggest it has a lot to do with the nature of social institutions, as well as the quality of our education system. Yep. Its a question of values. But I will say more about that later.

I think if I was the NZ government, I would terminate the funding for the UN climate change division. I would be inclined to argue against the ardent 'scientific rationalism' that these government agencies are prone to engage in, and I would suggest that the future of carbon abatement lies in energy efficiency measures and technological improvement, and not the ideology of fascism that would see us renouncing all personal values for the sake of the climate. Parallels can be drawn with Hitler's animal rights campaign. At the time most people were probably inclined to think Hitler cared about animal welfare. The reality is that he cared more about animals than humans. The UN is the same. They are haters of humanity. They want to enslave mankind to serve its puerile policies. They ought to be asking instead why car engines are still using 1880s engine technology? Why people are so materialistic? You will find them on the wrong side of the climate change ledger. History is full of cases of 'do-gooders' who are actually antagonists for the causes the profess to embody. I assert with confidence that emissions will increase more because the UN exists than if it didn't. Not just because more government cars will exist; not just because the funds wasted on it would otherwise be invested in emissions abatement; not because they embody the worst standards of science; but because they are simply another layer of the same policy...a legitimatising agent for government coercion. Coercion that always is destined to destroy the human mind and its capacity to bring about the ideas that would result in improved efficiency. In the interim, we will have to accept the 36% efficiency of the internal combustion engine, space heating, etc. Good luck with that!
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Saturday, March 5, 2011

How the Australian Labor Government is destroying farmers

Here is a very well-researched presentation about the Australian Federal governments plans to restrict the water allocation to farmers, and in the process destroy Australian food production capacity at a time of high food prices, a global food shortage, not to mention at a huge cost to the lives of farmers. There are of course other reasons to object to this policy:
1. The nonsensical priority given to the ecology of a river ecosystem which produces 40% of Australia's food.
2. The dubious scientific research upon which the Minister of Water Resources is functioning
3. The requirement that Australia preserve all rivers in their pre-European state
4. The fact that the historic significance of this river ecosystem is in question. At various times in the past during droughts, you could drive a car across the river without a bridge, because there was so little flow.
5. Our government has a terrible track record of managing the environment. Does anyone remember the NSW State Labor governments decision to pay too much for farm assets in the Far West of NSW to secure water rights. Does anyone remember the fact that the high value of these water rights was the result of excessive allocation of licenses by successive governments. Then what of the Federal administration, which had Queensland holding captive water and in the process denying NSW farmers downstream. Is there any sign of good management practice.

It gets worse. Listen to this video and act in support of Australian farmers. They are not the greatest intellectuals in the Australian political diaspora, but then you have a habit of electing our most talented talkers. How about becoming a person prepared to take action to support our farmers.

Let's acknowledge that the Murray-Darling River is just too important to return to its 'natural state', whatever that is. Let's acknowledge that there is a need to transform some natural ecosystems to ensure optimal food production, whilst preserving other areas for 'environmental values'. This is a very well-researched documentary.

One flaw that occurs to me in the documentary is the lack of consideration for the efficiency of farmers in their water utilisation. I recall arguments to the effect that these farmers reliant on irrigation water were hugely wasteful in their use of water, i.e. They were using open ditches to distribute water rather than piped water which reduced seepage and evaporation. I have no idea whether farmers have addressed these issues in the last decade since I first became interested in this issue. Yes, that is how long government has been sitting on this issue. Yes, democracy is a very efficient decision-making instrument. That is why we have compiled a great deal of 'praise' for our national institution for 'action'.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The relationship between the media and facts

If you listen to liberals in the media, like this NY Times editorial, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is a dire need for global emissions abatement. I guess they did achieve their intention was to make an issue out of something. After all, if you want to sell media content, to raise advertising dollars, you need stories right. The best type of stories for a media organisation are those with "global pull", i.e. Those stories which reach a global audience. This allows you to go to a Merril Lynch or a KPMG and demand a larger advertising dollar. Also climate issues are a rather 'intellectual issue', so it is likely to appeal more to people with greater wealth. i.e. If you are struggling to pay the rent, you are not going to read articles on climate change. So articles like this attract, and are even written to appeal to a certain audience. It can even matter little if you read the whole article.
So when the NY Times editorial team are accusing big business or the Republicans of 'imbalance' we ought to think to ourselves 'pot kettle'. Now, there are two levels to this debate:
1. Corporate media interests which want to make money out of scaring you, so you read their articles in hope that the government will finally respond to your petitions
2. Liberal media interests which have a tragic sense of life and little respect for facts. Liberals, unlike myself tend to study the humanities. The implication is that they tend to have less respect for facts and objectivity, they don't understand science, much less the environment. But that does not stop them bleating from the highest tree or flagpole of the need for you to renounce your selfish interests and sacrifice your happiness to the common good. These people will probably always be this way. Its not about the climate, just as it wasn't about Y2K, ice age, meteorite impact, over-population; its about their hatred of humanity, or more specifically their disdain for human nature. Their lack of respect for reality culminates in a petition against themselves 'in effect'; saying why do I have to be a prisoner to my nature as a human being. Why can't I fly without wings; why can't I have money without working, why can't I magically cure world poverty. The reason of course is that they refuse to respect objectivity. That the wishes of their consciousness cannot make it so 'subjectively'; they have to earn it objectively, or otherwise sabotage the objectivity of others. To do this, they don't use science; they sabotage or misuse it. I will highlight this in this NY Times editorial.
So it is evident that there is a personal dimension to the 'global warming issue'. We can expect corporate media interests to selectively recruit 'liberal' editors, with a propensity to employ 'liberal' journalists, and we can plundered by incessant steams of articles about the 'global greenhouse catastrophe', and yet still the world does not change. Its a call to all liberals to read more, to be more vigilant, and if the media are lucky, they will create more hype, more protests, which of course feeds into their profitability. It just shows you how non-conceptual these media magnates are because, do they imagine when they drive the public to revolution, that their wealth will be excused from the liberal government they empowered. No, they will be the first to be nationalised, and they espoused the message for them - 'the common good', whatever that was. No one has ever defined it. It exists not in anyone in particular, but everyone in general. No objectivity there. All they can say is 'its not your interests', its someone else's. You can't argue with that - you are just the one. So this brings us to the article, and all its logical flaws...

1. The media likes to label anyone opposed to emissions abatement as 'climate-change deniers'. The intent of course is to smear them as evaders. The problem of course is that their factual assumption is that, science is based on popular opinion, whether of people or scientists. They seldom give the 'deniers' media space, and neither does the government because they swing with the popular perception. In a democracy, perceptions are more important than facts. The same is true for the media, so they spend a lot of time rationalising facts to suit their 'tragic' interests. So why are these government-funded scientists getting it so wrong. The problem is that, most government-funded 'anything' tends not to be very good because its 'unconditionally supported'. If you are in the public sector, you get paid for any work you do, there is no quality control...unless of course it blows up into a huge ministerial embarrassment...then of course you are a scapegoat, and you might lose your job along with the minister. So its a very limited form of accountability. Public servants love that arrangement; which is why they seldom jeopardise it by leaking documentation. Fortunately WikiLeaks provides a conduit for that rare public servant. The failing of these 'government-funded' scientists is that they are not great thinkers. They might have a great memory for facts, so they are great in essay subjects, but they are not great analysts. They can produce a story in their mind, but there is only the simply 'correlation' we expect from higher level mammals. They do not require causation. That is beyond them. Why? Our school system rarely even teaches grammar; few schools bother with logic or causation. We get it implicitly if we get it at all. So basically scientists look for patterns in the data, and they exclaim 'fire', and from then on the media takes over, and suddenly Labor/Democratic governments are throwing heaps of funds at projects. And suddenly these public-funded scientists are feeling pretty important. Their projects are being funded. They are really excited because they'd like to believe that their study of the advancement of glaciers is important, even if they don't quite understand the mechanisms, any rationalisation will do. And if there is a part of Antarctica (actually 3/4ths) which is not retreating, that's ok, they will just say they are ambivalent about the causes of that discrepancy....and not focus upon it. That is not to say that all these scientists are so bad. Some are good despite government-funding. Their loyalty to facts transcends their reliance on government welfare, and their lack of accountability. Some have their own 'healthy' internal value system, and are good despite their horrid value context.

2. The media is about as objective as Saddam Hussein. This editorial team saids that on global warming "politics trumps science among House Republicans". How can anyone say that about the Republicans and fail to accept about the Democrats or Labor. The reality is that our system makes all politicians 'biased', or perceptions-driven. That is why democracy is such a farce. Democracy is driving us towards fascism...or some collectivist variant. The reality is that democracy disempowers people. They have no effective voice, they have no opportunity to effectively participate, so they don't. They resign themselves to disempower and ignore the 'big picture'. Is it any wonder why people just want concrete, material possessions? This system demands the renouncement of mind. When people renounce their mind; when opponents are forced (as the Republicans are) to defend themselves against 'fears' which compel people to be concrete, practical and expedient; this is when Labor/Democrats drive the world towards fascism. Sadly, Republicans sell out. Occasionally, they even lead the charge, as was the case with George Bush...so in a sense they are more contemptible. But given the fact that our political representatives are foremost 'moral agents' or custodians of our moral interests, you don't split hairs. They are all horrid people, and the system has to be changed from a perceptions based democracy to a meritocracy, otherwise known as a consensus-based democracy, where reason is the standard of value.

3. The liberals in the media are biased...displaying a selective acknowledgement of facts. What is the significance of "recently voted to zero out this country’s extremely modest $2.3 million annual commitment to the IPCC" if the IPCC is a political lobbyist, and not an objective authority on global warming. The answer is none. They deserve no funding. Anyway what is the significant of $2.3 million, when billions are being spent around the world. Any what about the efficiency of those programs. The paradox is that the liberals are in a dilemma. They are insolating homes in some countries, which is only allowing some families to burn more greenhouse gases, whereas before they would have saved the money by wearing warm clothing. They are paying $5000 for a heat pump, when without a subsidised, this 'glorified refrigerator' would otherwise sell for $1500 installed. How is that for liberal efficiency? You can't imagine the Republicans supporting such a scheme can you? I can't. Whether its their greater understanding of economics, or just their cynical, narrow self-interest, they seem to offer the better direction on this point. But to the extent that neither embody logic, I repudiate them and the system which empowers them.

4. Liberal journalists love context dropping. Consider this statement: "The budget for the Energy Information Agency — which gathers information on energy production, consumption and pollution — would be cut by one-sixth". Nevermind the fact that the government is currently funding a plethora of energy projects, and the merits of some of these are dubious, duplicated in the private sector, or unviable. For the liberal, any cut in expenditure is bad, and any largesse is good. They make no distinction.

5. Liberal journalists never elaborate on their assertions. Consider this comment: "Small but vital Interior Department programs that measure the impact of climate change on animal, plant and fish species and their habitat were reduced and in some cases nearly wiped out". We are left wondering why they cut the budget. Did a preliminary investigation show that the expenditure was unwarranted, or do Republicans just hate animals? We don't know. We are left with our 'tragic sense of life' to assume a value judgement...such that they don't even have to say anything...they just insinuate it.

6. Liberal journalists are pretty conceptually inept. Understanding global issues requires an educated mind. These people are not lacking intelligence, the problem is they don't think conceptually. That is a 'value judgement', and that is a culmination of their liberal education, i.e. The public education system and their parents....some of them Republicans. Irrespective, they are all collectivists. For this reason we get statements like "The bill would also make it impossible for President Obama to meet his promises to help poor countries save their rainforests and deploy clean energy technologies". The implication is that, if not for US assistance, the rainforests of the third world would disappear. The problem with this argument is the context dropping on a grand 'conceptual' scale. The third world is poor because they are collectivist regimes with little respect for rationality. They did not experience the 'industrial revolution' and 'the Age of Reason', so why are we modelling for them, the values which is driving us back into the Dark Ages...that being democracy. Interestingly, we have to blame the British Republicans for this folly. In the 1830s and 1880s the Tories in Britain failed to offer an intellectual defense to limited suffrage. That is not to say that I advocate exploitation, but rather 'rational' participation, as opposed to 'extortion by democratic majorities'. The Tories backslid to protect their properties. A legitimate concern if they justly earned their wealth. Just as business leaders of today, they failed to offer a credible intellectual defence of meritocracy, which the parliament had some elements of. The problem was they represented their narrow self-interests, and had no empathy for the poor. Sadly, that problem has still to be learned. But its not going to be learned so long as the poor or greens are lampooning the rich or 'polluters', and at the same time extorting their wealth. Its not a basis for respect, and they smear them for their lack of compliance. Where is the evidence for global warming? There is none, but this is not a 'system' to establish truth... at least not by 'official processes'.

7. Liberal media fail to address the big picture questions. Instead they beat the grass to leave people scared of snakes and spiders. "Mr. Obama asked for $400 million for the World Bank’s clean technology fund, $95 million for the bank’s program to prevent deforestation and $90 million for its program to help at-risk nations cope with the effects of a warming planet by, for instance, developing drought-resistant crops. The House’s answer in all three cases: zero".
Of course he go nothing. Why would you waste money in countries which have no respect for accountability, no public accountability mechanisms, and thus high levels of corruption. Only 30% of the funds would get to their intended target, and the program was probably poorly conceived from the start. Why? Well, its public money. Who cares if it makes a difference. It only needs to create the 'perception' of making a change.

So for as long as the NY Times scares little about facts, and loves 'drama' and 'tragedy', we are left with a colourful media which distorts political decisions. After all, the media are creating the high drama. You don't see science communities with top-end connections. The media of course lives off these politicians. Its a duplicitous relationship - and perceptions are the standard of values. They have developed a symbiotic relationship. The payoff has to be great for them to breach that trust.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Corporate middlemen, global parasites

You could be forgiven for thinking carbon taxes were a good thing given the corporate support for them. The problem of course is the underlying motives for such advocacy. All those incumbents are 'middlemen', mostly government-funded advocates like scientists, bureaucrats, academics, but even among them corporate middlemen. Even Hitler had a collective of corporate 'favourites'. People who tow the`government policy' line, and advocate that which would be deplorable to most business. Their motives are of course a narrow vested interest. They would sell the world for a commission.
I take this to be the nature of such advocacy from such global CEOs as this guy from KPMG. This company stands to gain from corporate requirements for accounting services, consulting, IT applicaitons. It has no doubt spent millions developing solutions for business. A strategic decision which will only pay off if there is a carbon tax. IT and consultants do not pay a carbon tax; they merely advise those who do.
They will be the corporate 'pin-up boys' for good corporate citizens, and they will inevitably be rewarded with huge consulting fees for the partners in the firm. Kind of a thank you for supporting government policy perhaps. There is never any evidence. There could be Swiss bank accounts to reward politicians. Its the way things are done. If we are lucky some evidence of this will come available through WikiLeaks. But that is difficult as these decisions look like normal corporate deals at middle-management level. The only people to know otherwise are those at the top pulling the levers. Gross conflict of interest, but no money trail. No one could make anything of a politician and global CEO meeting in some hotel room after some conference in Bali on climate change. This is probably how things are done. I have no evidence mind you. Its just how democracy can function because decisions are based on 'numbers' rather than reasons (i.e. as in a meritocracy). Corruption is actually only possible because of arbitrary government policy. As soon as policy is determined by reasons, corruption is not possible, because any corrupt advocate would be trumped by a better logical argument, even if the logical argument had just one advocate. Read this article and tell me that I my argument is not plausible.
KPMG has developed software solutions for a global problem. The economies of scale from adopting these solutions in just a few countries is phenomenal. They are not the only players, and there will be investment banks in their bidding for similar deals. Clients beware. Middlemen have no particular interest in helping you. After all if there is no carbon tax, they have no basis to extort money from you. Hitler made use of such people. Of course they do not have to engage in corruption. There are plenty of zealots (i.e. environmentalists) behind this tide.....they can simply remain conspicuously silent on the issue. They might also fund green groups and the like as a community goodwill program. We do not repudiate companies for lobbying, donating money to charities. The problem is that all this politicking is extortion, and its all made possible by democracy.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, February 28, 2011

Climate change a democratic scandal

The climate change debate highlights the problem with democracy. In this Sydney Morning Herald article, the CEO of Coca Cola Amatil argues that:
"Mr Davis said while it was important for Australia to be a part of the debate around climate change, and seeking solutions, we shouldn't be leading the charge.
"All I'm saying is that Australia should... be a fast follower rather than leading the charge," Mr Davis told reporters after an Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch today".
The folly of this is that he does not want us to 'metaphorically' be the first to jump off the cliff, but jumping second makes a lot of sense. The point is one of degree. Bad policy is bad policy in absolute terms, as well as relativist terms. There is no climate change 'effect' that we need to worry about...its a natural process, and a chorus of populist, politically aligned scientists with no capacity for critical thinking, is not going to sustain the debate, which will ultimately be used to justify a plethora of energy taxes, currently restricted to oil.
The fact that this CEO is guarded about the comments he makes highlights the fears of extortion that arise when any corporate leader dares to speak. They would be criticised by shareholders for making statements injurious to shareholders. This is why we can expect business leaders to pull the government line, just as business pulled the Nazi line when confronted by the same type of extortion.
Such sentiments of public interest traditionally have been repudiated by collectivists/environmentalists as 'vested interest' talking. The issue is not however whether one is 'self-righteously' acting in one's own 'vested' interests, or some purported 'others' interest, but rather the facts which one acts upon are valid. We have traditionally seen companies and government bow to the noble idea. We will eventually find that ideal is less than ideal, and rather a grave tragedy. There is no better example than democracy itself. In the 1880s, when the UK was debating universal suffrage in Britain. The wealthy politicians conceded the appeals for the right to vote. The government merely gave them their wish - at the point of extortion. Threats to seize property. The Liberal Party and Tory Party after decades, finally capitulated. They allowed the extortion of the poor non-enfranchised to drive policy, not for good argument, but because they had no better. The reason why logic lost that debate is because reason was not the standard of value. Nothing has changed today, even though there are better thinkers in our midst. They have no stature in a democracy. A genius is as good as a beggar in the modern economy. In the 1880s, the philosopher John Stuart Mill was one of the MPs who oversaw the travesty of universal suffrage.
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Japanese government climate change funding a facade

According to the Japan Times, "none of the government's 214 biomass promotion projects — with public funding coming to ¥6.55 trillion — over the past six years has produced effective results in the struggle against global warming". The implication that the government:
1. Is a very ineffective agency for performing any effort, so ought to be dumped
2. The government was only managing 'perceptions' rather than intending to do any good, i.e. Acting with utter disdain for the public's pecuniary interests, and really treating taxpayers as slaves to its political agenda.

Of course these arguments can be made against any Western democracy, insofar as they are all engaged in the same schemes. In Australia and NZ, its subsidies for heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, which have only forced up the price of these products. Its actually cheaper to use a non-approved, less efficient product which does not get the subsidy. Such is the diseconomy of government intervention. Another example is the very efficient heat pump. It would be the choice for many people in urban areas, but they sell for $3000-5000 because of the subsidy. A heat pump is actually just a refrigerator in reverse, and they sell for $800-1000. So such is the premium people are paying for an efficient solution. The fortunate ones are the rural folk who are able to purchase a wood furnace because timber is relatively cheaper than electricity, and its old technology. Even here prices have been pushed up by new standards attempting to achieve higher efficiencies...even though most heat in an open house is wasted anyway. Open fire places are very wasteful. There is no need to heat the whole house. A better solution would be better personal insulation. Its a wonder why the wool producers are not investing in superior 'personal insulation' garments so we don't need internal heating solutions at all.
It goes without saying that the problem is democracy, in which perceptions are more important that facts or 'results'. So long as the dumb nut voter thinks something is being done because a budget allocation has been made, and so long as they have no choice about the way their taxpayer funds are spent, the 'great extortion racket' will continue.
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.