tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48286189095971926412024-02-19T07:21:57.806-08:00Climate Change DebateThis blog draws attention to alternative hypotheses which contradict the conventional wisdom that humans are causing global warming. It critiques the assertions made and offer alternative explanations.
Is there a global threat, or is government policy being driven by ulterior motives?Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-35383142156668088322013-03-09T19:01:00.001-08:002013-03-09T19:01:25.526-08:00The dangers of systematic and consensus-based global warming science<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am well and truly outside of the debate on global warming; and remain highly suspicious of the findings of scientists in this arena. There are a number of reasons:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. <b>The reliance on computer modelling</b> of complex systems like the climate. There has for the last decade been dire projections of climate change which simply have not occurred as modelled. The only certainty on this issue is that these scientists cannot make accurate predictions. We can be assured that they will get closer because 'short terming' data will allow them to do that; but then they miss the long term factors.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. <b>The political loadings or 'biases'</b> associated with such issues, i.e. The spectre of human action as reflective of uncontrollable, non-compliant, treacherous egotists who need to renounce or be regulated. Of course the flipside is that I can be biased in my alternate thesis. The 'middle ground' rationalisation or 'repressive state' does not hold, i.e. The argument that one is 'unbiased' by these considerations is not an argument. No more satisfactory than a paedophile saying he will abuse no more. Scientists are not self-aware people. They renounce moral imperatives because they think they are a betrayal of evidence. This is a false dichotomy because it means they ignore any evidence that betrays their legitimacy, i.e. They will not entertain value judgements about their own bias. They will simply not have the appreciation of ethics to make valid conclusions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. <b>Interpretation of data</b> - There is a great deal of scope for people to misuse or misinterpret data; even to manipulate data sets knowing that no one is going to both confirming these interpretations. Scientists don't like to go over what has already been done; particularly because they don't want to take the position of a critic. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. <b>The blatant lack of certainty</b> implied in data and their interpretation of it. If you listen to these scientists they do not project a great deal of confidence in their understanding. There are simply earthly and astronomical processes that they are still coming to terms with. i.e. The processes by which methane hydrates, immense deposits of carbon-containing methane on the sea floor are formed. There is uncertainty about how these are created and how stable they are. The sensitivity of this data is huge, so there is a huge importance placed upon knowing these systems. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5.<b> The conflict of interest</b> - These people are paid to create 'stigma'. We do not appreciate climatologists when we have no reason to fear climate change; just as for the same reason, we more highly value police in periods of high crime. The same for firemen in the 9/11 period. This creates a strong incentive for climatologists to seek validation; and to take measures to achieve it. Conceding that the evidence is not there is a hard step to take because it invalidates their credibility as a scientist. Have you seen what happened to the exponents of 'cold fusion'. Can you imagine what will happen to science budgets/funding when global warming is discredited - if it is? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6. <b>The decline in the quality of science</b> - In the past science was a low-status field of endeavour. No one wanted to be a scientist - unless you went into space - and too few people can do that. There was always greater appeal in making money, and that meant smart people tended to enter law, finance, economics, or become an entrepreneur or programmer. Universities around the world lowered school scores in order to attract graduates. This is only part of the problem. The education system does a poor job at teaching students how to think. I studied science. No one teaches logic in science; but they do teach statistics. This entrenched empiricism in the university curriculum means that scientists are 'strongly empirical'. The problem with this is three-fold:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(a) There is a lack of recognition of what 'causation' actually is. These scientists think that if you pass 5% statistical confidence you have causation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(b) These scientists don't realise that empiricism rests on analytical arguments. What is a 'valid sample' to test a hypothesis. The implication is that they are making assumptions that they cannot prove.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Given their inherent non-analytical position, you will find that they make rationalisations which invalidate their argument. i.e. In this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgnMuKuVXzU&feature=player_embedded#!">video</a>, this Harvard scientist says that there is 'no resolution problem' in his data. He thus need not be concerned with the fact that his data rests on 400-year sample points. His argument is that he is not concerned because CO2 levels don't rise and fall so quickly, so he does not need to worry about issue. The problem with that argument is that he is using his hypothesis as an argument for its validity. That is a circular argument - a contradiction. You can't use your conclusion as the basis of your evidence. The conversation about resolution starts at 2:15 minute mark. What is interesting is that, probably having heard the criticism already, he makes a psychological 'gesture' that would probably convey apprehension to a psychologist. That 'evidence' occurs at 2:38 when he touches his ear. Note that the video identifies a scientist with the counter-argument (Robert Rohde) has struggled to get his research peer reviewed. The implication is that there is a strong 'values laden' bias in the scientific community against alternative arguments to the global warming hypothesis. The world has a rich case history of 'human error' where people simply stopped taking critical positions and accepted the status quo. This guy's apprehension is well-appreciated. Unfortunately he is going to be validated despite his apprehensions. He will accept this 'unearned validation', the cornerstone of this 'academic ponzi scheme'. In this interview, the scientist treats the raw data 'context' in his thesis derisively as 'chitter chatter'. This is not science; its presumption (evidenced at 4:30 minute mark). This is where scientists 'don't know what they don't know' and arrogantly assume that there is no case to answer. What is conveyed is a lack of respect for facts, or a lack of procedural discipline to establish them. i.e. Its all about the money and applause; being validated rather than alienated for a counter-position. Ask yourself how many times you have seen any of these 'truth seekers' defend or spurn the lack of peer view of their counterparts. It should remind people of the lack of objectivity or defence of critics in times of political tyranny. Aside from a governor of Nagano, few publicly criticised Emperor Hirohito, when he sanctioned empire building. The same is true for Hitler and 'modern systematically-wrong science'. The problem is the education system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(d) There is the problem of there not being equal access for scientists who are more objective than others. The problem is that there is a 'consensus bias'. Politicians listen to people because people decide their fate. This is true for scientists as well. For the reasons I have made above, only 5% of scientists are critical thinkers able to substantively understand the validity of sciences. Yes, I grab this number out of the air. Its not been empirically tested, and that's not to say 'non-science' is an argument, but rather than there is a plausible hypothesis that has not been tested. I say plausible because non of my contemporaries who are 'so sure', or who conclude that 'the cost of being wrong is too high', are destined to ignore the prospect of this argument being true, because its not within their capacity to know whether its true. That is the 'disempowerment bias' that is destined to invalidate a great deal of science when dealing with these complex systems. Critcal thinking scientists - let's call them 'the 5%' are not being listened to by the media because they don't have the consensus. They are denounced as 'qwacks' as if this was a witch-hunt.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(e) One has to ask how much does this scientist actually understand about the nature of how the data is actually collected, i.e. What is the data measuring in terms of its relationship to other data. i.e. Is the data measuring maximum, minimum values, or average values? Is there data contamination within the sample record, i.e. contamination by surrounding data. this will of course depend upon the nature of the data, and it comes from different sources. We might wonder if these scientists are stitching together data that suits their rationalisation; ignoring any counter-evidence. i.e. Selective interpretation of data. We need to remember that recognised scientists can't get peer reviewed. There is bias among scientists. Strangely, great scientists have historically often encountered this problem because smart people are not commonplace; that's why they call it mediocrity. When the standards for university science entry were lowered, we opened up science to mediocrity. That process took 15-20 years. It happened in the 1980s; so in the 2000s, we saw the full impact of this 'correlation'. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is interesting to read some of the support for this research</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Michael E. Mann</b>, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University, an expert in the relevant techniques but was not involved in the new research, said <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130308&_r=0">the authors</a> "had made conservative data choices in their analysis".</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What a curious thing to say. What is a 'conservative data choice'? It makes you wonder. I simply want them to identify trends based on facts. Such statements tend to convey; that we are not certain; but we are going out on a limb and saying the world only has our research, and you'll just have to live with our inaccuracy or uncertainty. But in fact - there is a choice - not doing anything until we know. The argument is that doing nothing is not a choice. This is nonsense. There is a cost to doing the wrong thing. The 'high pressure' 'must act' notion is popular; its called 'high pressure sales' - create urgency. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Dr. Marcott </b>said: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130308&_r=0">Scientists say</a> that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age".</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The implication is that global warming is allowing humanity to stabilise the average global temperature before we go into a freeze. We need to remember that we are currently using coal because its the cheapest fuel. If we artificially make it expensive, then we are actually sabotaging our wealth creation capacity, and thus our capacity to finance change in the future, to offer technological solutions in the future, if indeed those 'interventions' are required. We need to remember that the concern for energy consumption efficiency is a pretty new concern. It was never the focus of corporate leaders. You can ask yourself why. Many of you will conclude its the 'failings of capitalism', but I would argue that government intervention has added costs (i.e. cynical tax impositions, little of which has gone into solar/renewable, little of it efficient expenditure on research). I would also argue that government intervention is wholly compatible with the moral relativism that allows the current system of economic reward to discourage CEOs from making cost savings in energy. It is far more 'remuneratively beneficial' for CEOs to simply consolidate global capacity rather than organic growth. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem with these researchers is that, even if they make no other statement, their conclusions in the hands of journalists results in some damaging conclusions. But scientists too are destined to 'reach outside their page grade'; and by that I mean that are free to speculate outside of their narrow field of expertise, and in doing so rely on others thinking - or rationalisations.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Dr. Marcott: </b>"The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. If the rise continues apace, early Holocene temperatures are likely to be surpassed within this century".</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, this makes me recall the old days of the Club of Rome and the 1980s projection that coal prices were going to $100/tonne. Instead, we found more resources and coal collapsed to $25/tonne....and only in more recent times have reached $180/tonnes due to completely unrelated phenomenon; a commodities bubble and inflation. So what do they need to consider:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. The prospects for nuclear fuel to take more market share</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. The prospects for prosperity to reduce the energy-intensity of people</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. The prospects for rebalancing of labour from 'cheap' to 'quality' in about 20 years to change attitudes to buyers/consumers</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. The prospects for technology to reduce energy intensity of consumption, renewables and innovation in other ways.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5. The prospects for lifestyles to change when we can make our own food at home; live in cities, which are better designed</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6. The prospect that a complete revolution in decision-making, say by political reform, could and should change our capacity to be efficient and judicious in our actions. How much is our political paradigm holding us back now. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
7. The prospects of global population growth reversing in 70 years. Might this however be offset by longer lives? Possible? But maybe by then, we will be so advanced we will be engineering our bodies or lives to consume 240% less energy and products. Maybe we will realise that we already over-eat, and we can already achieve a 50% reduction in calorie intake simply by addressing issues like anxiety. That is a 'political problem'. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When you consider these issues; you realise that society does not project a realisation that they have any inkling of what the problems really are. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
-------------------------------------------</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>
Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-75144083674547096532012-04-12T03:23:00.007-07:002012-04-12T15:06:43.108-07:00Australia's mining tax will not reduce global warming<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">I am not a believer in the argument that we are facing </span>anthropogenic<span style="font-size: 100%;"> climate change. I am due to run another review through the material to see if I'm going to change my mind because I'm prone to forget all the detail of the debate, and new facts and assertions arise which can have some bearing. The politics however are taking over the science, as the following broadcast shows. </span></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /></span></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span>So what is wrong with this promotion. I have several problems:</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span>1. <b>Appeal to authority</b> - The guy has a lot of credentials, but none is at all related to the issue, aside from the fact that he is related to the mining industry. You cannot disregard what he says because he's from the mining industry, but don't let all those letters intimidate you, it just means he belongs to a lot of mining industry associations. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span>2. <b>Appeal to exaggeration</b> - The guy cites the cost of the tax as $A72 billion over 5 years. Why not one year? Well that would mean just $A15 billion per annum, and that would be less impressive. But again the size of the tax is not really the issue....its the science. So why does he make the issue?</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span>3. <b>Alternative </b>- I have a problem with a critique of the tax which does not offer alternative science, if not a different form for the tax. Preferably no tax for me.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; ">4.<b> Proportions </b>- There are 33 CO2 molecules in an atmosphere of 85,800 molecules in the atmosphere. He argues that 32 of the CO2 molecules are from nature, and just 1 CO2 molecule is from nature. i.e. 3% of Earth's CO2 comes from humans.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; ">5. <b>Co2 is beneficial </b>(akin to fertiliser) - Not the issue - as ammonia is a fertiliser too; but its also an explosive. Its not a helpful argument; it depends on the context.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; ">6. <b>Short latency</b> - This idea that any CO2 is in the atmosphere for as little as 4-5 years. Where does he get that from? Does it matter? The amount of Co2 is increasing. <span>This argument needs clarification to me.</span></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; ">7. <b>Australia's contribution</b> - He makes the argument that Australia makes 1.5% of world's CO2. Fair enough; but we are the world's biggest coal exporter, which means we export about half as much coal as China produces in one year. Now, if we tax that, then obviously its significant imposition on consumers worldwide, though I would argue that its not going to do anything to the dynamics of global warming, i.e. Its just an excuse for a tax. Koreans are not going to close coal-fired power stations; they are not going to stop using coal; its simply going to raise a lot more money for Gillard to waste. I personally would rather see billionaires get the billions than see the government get it....at least so long as governments are in the business of breaching rights rather than upholding them. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; ">8. <b>Misdirection </b>- He says its going to cost the community $72 billion in the next 5 years. No it won't; it will cost mostly the mining companies and their shareholders; so it will cost super fund holders to some extent; say to $20 billion; but then some of that money will benefit some in the community. At the end of the day its a moral issue for me; its extortion. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; ">9. <b>Perspective:</b> My friend keeps reminding me that </span>CO2 accounts for just 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, while water is anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 parts per million. CO2 is only slightly more worrisome as a greenhouse gas than water, so <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html">why aren't we worried</a> about water? Well, <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html">the argument</a> is that water is bad because CO2 is bad. i.e. The more CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat, which will result in more water; at least until the point of air saturation. You'd think that this would mean more plants in the tropics, which means more absorption of CO2 and a nice little balance. We also need to consider that the earth's population is destined to flatten out in 30 years, however energy intensity will continue; however nuclear and solar might be more popular then. I don't think we need worry even if the science is correct. </div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; ">If you want some even better perspective; being worried about coal, its worth considering the fact that there is still plenty of coal in the ground, and that most of that coal was deposited in 2 periods - the Carboniferous Period in the Northern Hemisphere and the Permian Period in the Southern Hemisphere. If these were periods of very high coal deposition; it goes without saying that our climate today must be similar to the climate when all that coal was deposited right? As its mostly still in the ground. Ok, let's be more sceptical. Let's look at the Earth at the start of the Carboniferous Period. Well, its clear it was higher, but perfectly within the natural range. Looking at his chart temperatures were typical (25degC average), commensurate with times, which correlates with CO2 levels of 3000ppm at that time, 8.5x more than than the 380ppm. You also get the impression that CO2 does not correlate at all with global temperatures in the long haul. The context is being dropped. Perhaps we should be more worried about the plague or asteroids which caused the mass extinction in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event">Triassic Period</a>, given that the average global temperature was 25degC for most of the last 300Myrs and have been mostly around 25degC for most of the Tertary Period (i.e. the last 65Myrs). Having fallen to 10degC; the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm">current average</a> global temperature is currently14degC, which strikes me as 'just right' +/- 5degrees.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><img src="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif" /> </div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; ">Source: <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html">Climate & The Carboniferous Period</a></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; ">It saddens me that the mining industry has not raised the fact that the entire globe of governments is now raises mining taxes because of Gillard. Products will get more expensive because of Gillard. i.e. Gillard and Rudd have singularly undermined freedom around the world; well maybe in the West only, as you could argue that some of those undeveloped countries need to spend more on justice and infrastructure....or are they corrupt??</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 100%; font-family: Georgia, serif; "><br /></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; ">Polar sea ice levels are another controversial arena to debate <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wbzK4v7GsM">climate change</a>. The exponents of global warming here are a geophysicist (i.e. glorified geologist) and a US Navy Oceanographer (i.e. a bureaucrat). There arguments are really not compelling. i.e. The evidence the geophysicists is the 'melting ice doesn't lie'; true, it is what is it is; but it does not make an argument for climate change, which is an abstract value judgement. Is this what behaviourism has done to science? This science from a denier strikes me as more useful; as it looks dispassionately at the whole '<a href="http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/seaice.php">modern period</a>', not selectively at 'convenient' facts. I must however acknowledge that I'd like to do more research of this topic. Here though is another study which suggests that the extent of <a href="http://dspace.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/21436/2/183047.pdf">Arctic ice coverage</a> was lower in the 11-14th century, prior to the Industrial Revolution. Look at the chart - it tends to convey a pretty natural trend.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; ">Here is another <a href="http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html">website</a> to take a look at.</div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><div style="text-align: justify;">------------------------------------------</div></span><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; "><span>Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></span></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-24855732101953437942011-11-12T15:43:00.000-08:002011-11-12T15:49:34.109-08:00ClimateGate will not be researched further<div style="text-align: justify;">Here is an <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/2296-flawed-climategate-inquiries-failed-to-restore-confidence-in-uk-climate-science.html">update</a> 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-32610295396026095092011-11-01T02:17:00.000-07:002011-11-01T02:19:33.547-07:00IPCC under attack for pseudo-membershipWe 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.<br /><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TYPwPXNazOs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /><br />------------------------------------Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.comAndrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-90068083063713524102011-10-20T12:56:00.001-07:002011-10-20T13:02:30.547-07:00The fundamental climate change problem<div style="text-align: justify;">So what has greenhouse gas policies delivered the American people - <a href="http://ecopolitology.org/2011/02/01/cornfields-vs-oilfields-infographic/">take a look</a> - 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-34224626262510624162011-09-12T19:31:00.000-07:002011-09-12T19:41:36.390-07:00Electricity consumption is falling in NZ<div style="text-align: justify;">This is an <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10751317&ref=newsl_businessnewsdirect_J20080610_113625_2167_4261_883682029">interesting article</a> 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.</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. They use 70% hydro here</div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. They use a lot of open fire places in NZ using wood logs or pellets, which will offset the demand for electricity. </div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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'. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-1912603665693517752011-08-24T04:12:00.000-07:002011-08-24T04:15:59.915-07:00IPCC under attack for dubious claims<div><div style="text-align: justify;">If politicians want a sense of the quality of scientific research; most particularly that funded by the WWF - read this:</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">"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".</blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Source: Science Daily, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311175039.htm">website</a>, 12th March 2010.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-1917394433867722692011-08-21T21:37:00.000-07:002011-08-21T21:48:37.983-07:00Is the global climate warming?<div style="text-align: justify;">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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. The lack of historical record of the sun's variations in global electromagnetic radiation, i.e. sunspot activity and solar flares</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. The lack of clarity about the role of water in the atmosphere, et al.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all">website</a>, 13th Dec 2010.
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. The political conflict of interest - both of researchers and politicians</div><div style="text-align: justify;">6. The tendency of certain researchers to seek political sanction rather than scientific resolutions</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/">here</a> - current data.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/">
<br /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "></span></a><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/"><img title="Click to get your own widget" src="http://cache4.intelliweather.net/wcw/world_climate_widget_sidebar.gif" alt="Click to get your own widget" width="166" height="223" /></a></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-64398052005337774022011-06-20T07:34:00.000-07:002011-06-20T07:37:29.104-07:00Various articles on climate taxes and criticism<div>Here are some other articles you might like to explore:</div><div>1. <a href="http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/myth_of_global_warming.htm">http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/myth_of_global_warming.htm</a></div><div>2. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; "><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>List_of_scientists_opposing_<wbr>the_mainstream_scientific_<wbr>assessment_of_global_warming</a></span></div><div>3. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; "><a href="http://climateconference.heartland.org/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); ">http://climateconference.<wbr>heartland.org/</a></span></div><div>4. Links to debates on climate carbon tax - see <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; "><a href="http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); ">http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/</a></span></div><div>------------------------------------------</div><div>Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-57724491316875074162011-06-20T07:27:00.000-07:002011-06-20T07:32:34.829-07:00The united scientific opposition to global crisis<div style="text-align: justify;">Here is a very good <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php">summary paper</a> outlining the climate sceptics views about the global warming hypothesis. Some 31,487 American scientists have signed a <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/">petition</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php">summary</a>. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-73626308628408744512011-06-16T16:54:00.000-07:002011-06-16T16:57:49.347-07:00Do climate claimants sound familiar?<div style="text-align: justify;">I have not substantiated this article however it highlights the ever-changing nature of climate change. Refer to <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp">source</a>. The article suggests that similar fears of global warming, or similar symptoms, occurred in the 1920s.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-80894706982501087642011-06-15T18:31:00.000-07:002011-06-15T18:34:02.895-07:00Stories on climate changePlease forward this email onto others.<br /><br />1) An <a href="http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/05/the-critical-decade-part-i">analysis of global warming</a>.<br /><br />2) An <a href="http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/06/where-s-the-evidence">interview between Alan Jones and David Karoly</a> (an expert on the pro-Global Warming hypothesis). This interview shows how the pro-global warming camp dissemble when they argue.<br /><br />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."<br />------------------------------------------<br />Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-67632301460206733022011-06-15T18:23:00.000-07:002011-06-15T18:27:53.157-07:00Australian greenhouse sceptics take on the worldAustralian climate (global warming) sceptics take on the scientific bureaucrats. Read this <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/an-effort-to-clarify-the-climate-conversation/?nl=opinion&emc=tyb1">article</a>. Chief among the sceptics is Professor Bob Carter - you can buy his book at <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1906768293/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=staceyintern-21&camp=1406&creative=6394&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1906768293&adid=1EDBM7XEEFNZ3CRR1BD0&">Amazon</a>.<br />------------------------------------------<br />Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-46077786085068306032011-06-15T17:03:00.000-07:002011-06-15T17:06:20.002-07:00Solar activity research suggests global cooling<div align="justify">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 <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/would-solar-lull-snuff-climate-action/?nl=opinion&emc=tyb1">evidence emerging</a>.<br />--------------------------------------------</div><br /><div align="justify">Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a> </div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-4028138886826068562011-05-28T18:59:00.000-07:002011-05-28T19:05:00.863-07:00Solid arguments discrediting anthropogenic climate change<div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm">website</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">--------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-38117894141604189752011-04-22T13:28:00.001-07:002011-04-22T13:34:59.089-07:00The opportunity cost of mal-administration<div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-48599723591813748782011-04-20T14:12:00.000-07:002011-04-20T14:19:29.877-07:00Media and the environment<div style="text-align: justify;">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? <a href="http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/04/19/opinion/100000000781602/a-conversation-with-ted-danson.html">Listen to him</a>, 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-33236705895300112032011-04-20T13:57:00.000-07:002011-04-20T14:05:04.423-07:00Another climate change media frenzy<div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/whats-worse-than-an-oil-spill/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1">NY Times on climate change</a>.</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">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'.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ignorance - quote "That CO2, of course, leads to global warming and climate change".</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We have 'economic rationalism', now we have 'scientific rationalism'.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-35937687605501639822011-04-18T16:53:00.000-07:002011-04-18T17:20:58.173-07:00The US scolds NZ for lack of carbon abatement<div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The issue of course raises several issues:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. <b>Is there really any anthropogenic climate change 'effect'?</b> 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. <b>Ought the UN be telling anyone how to behave?</b> 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. <b>How ought the pain of climate change policy be implemented? </b>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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. <b>Is <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10720250&ref=newsl_businessnewsdirect_J20080610_113625_2167_4261_883682029">UN intervention political meddling</a>? </b>It is an election year in NZ, and the UN is sticking its nose into local politics. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-65763049045985343292011-03-05T21:13:00.000-08:002011-03-05T21:33:01.884-08:00How the Australian Labor Government is destroying farmers<div style="text-align: justify;">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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. The nonsensical priority given to the ecology of a river ecosystem which produces 40% of Australia's food.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. The dubious scientific research upon which the Minister of Water Resources is functioning</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. The requirement that Australia preserve all rivers in their pre-European state</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm85g_y2x4c&feature=player_embedded">well-researched documentary</a>. </div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><object width="640" height="390"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bm85g_y2x4c&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://polly-rage.blogspot.com/">compiled</a> a great deal of 'praise' for our national institution for 'action'. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">--------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-33434030873803081112011-03-05T12:33:00.000-08:002011-03-05T13:56:26.744-08:00The relationship between the media and facts<div style="text-align: justify;">If you listen to liberals in the media, like this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/opinion/05sat4.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211">NY Times editorial</a>, 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. <b>Corporate media interests</b> 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</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. <b>Liberal media interests</b> 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 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/opinion/05sat4.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211">NY Times editorial</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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...</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. <b>The media likes to label anyone opposed to emissions abatement as 'climate-change deniers</b>'. 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. <b>The media is about as objective as Saddam Hussein.</b> 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. <b>The liberals in the media are biased</b>...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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. <b>Liberal journalists love context dropping. </b>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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. <b>Liberal journalists never elaborate on their assertions</b>. 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">6. <b>Liberal journalists are pretty conceptually inept.</b> 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'.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">7. <b>Liberal media fail to address the big picture questions</b>. 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".</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-46648004755888979062011-03-01T17:50:00.000-08:002011-03-01T18:10:49.972-08:00Corporate middlemen, global parasites<div style="text-align: justify;">You could be forgiven for thinking carbon taxes were a good thing given the corporate support for them. The problem of course is the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/call-for-carbon-certainty-20110301-1bd6i.html">underlying motives for such advocacy</a>. 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/call-for-carbon-certainty-20110301-1bd6i.html">article</a> and tell me that I my argument is not plausible. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-7932494731232283272011-02-28T21:43:00.000-08:002011-02-28T22:02:18.270-08:00Climate change a democratic scandal<div style="text-align: justify;">The climate change debate highlights <a href="http://polly-rage.blogspot.com/search/label/Democracy">the problem with democracy</a>. In this <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/coke-boss-raises-carbon-question-20110301-1bctd.html">Sydney Morning Herald</a> article, the CEO of Coca Cola Amatil argues that:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">"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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">"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".</div></blockquote><div></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">--------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-8162248885615652732011-02-15T19:53:00.000-08:002011-02-15T20:11:40.134-08:00Japanese government climate change funding a facade<div style="text-align: justify;">According to the <a href="http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20110216a2.html">Japan Times</a>, "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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. Is a very ineffective agency for performing any effort, so ought to be dumped</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://polly-rage.blogspot.com/search/label/Climate%20change">continue</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-----------------------------------------</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828618909597192641.post-65266015207966016812010-12-30T17:07:00.000-08:002010-12-30T17:30:20.728-08:00UN claims environmental damages<div style="text-align: justify;">According to the U.N. Environmental Program, it has identified "some $6.6 trillion worth of damages" resulting from environmental devastation caused by global warming or air pollution in 2008, equal to 11 percent of global GDP. This is quite a claim considering that the science is exceedingly doggy. This issue is exceedingly political, yet the media will publish it because they love scandals, and it comes from a (inter-) government agency, so it must be true. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The evidence is the fact that Japan is experiencing 'record' temperatures after a century. Notwithstanding the 'heat island' effect, there is also the natural variations in the global temperature regime. The earth's climate varies due to natural processes. We are about due for an ice age, so ought we be concerned about a warming? The answer is no. A cooling would result in a plunge in global temperatures. The cause of global temperature decreases? The UN Climate Panel have no answer. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The problem with such agencies is that they function of simple correlation. i.e. They see a problem and they simply correlate it with any 'apparent' cause. If only real science were so simple. When such ideas are challenged, governments are inclined to finance a lot of research to prove their ideas are right. There is of course less money if you prove they are wrong; so rest assured 'academics' are going to find a problem, because they need to justify their existence. What happened to respect for truth among scientists? That has seldom escaped the power of philosophy to drive science. The missing ingredient is critical thinking. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the coming decades we can expect the earth's climate to cool naturally because at present, according to Antarctic ice core dating, we are at the peak of a global warming. From this point on, global scientists will have accepted that there is no warming. At that point, you will see a lot of attention being given to a new crisis 'global cooling', which is actually more of a concern. My suspicion is that we will cope just fine. A lot of scare. The real threat is posed by governments, which are not driven by informed critical, objective arguments, but the biggest, most popular group of scientists you can find. i.e. Its a meritocracy of sought, but its not scientific merit, so much as Aristotle's famed 'fallacy' of appeal to authority, or professional qualifications. The sad reality is that academic tenure is considered an achievement. Its not. Academic is a pretense for intellectual and scientific acumen; a dirty rationalisation. I am currently reading the history of the Industrial Revolution. It is actually striking how many of the best scientific minds existed outside the 'establishment', and the extent to which other scientists dogged on those scientists. Edmond Halley could not even get tenure because of his religious views. He needs money, so that was his justification for trying. He had an exemplary mind, and yet he was snubbed by the Establishment....perhaps they were urked by his practicality, as he was responsible for winning support from the Admiralty to get funding to map the changes in the global magnetic field, as well as the tides. Meanwhile, academia was busy living off extorted wealth, rationalists to be sure, who achieved very little by comparison. I am sure they stumbled across some ideas. Perhaps the modern equivalent like 'frogs display evidence of emotions'. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Source article - see <a href="http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20101231a4.html">Japan Times</a>.</div><div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Andrew Sheldon <a href="www.sheldonthinks.com">www.sheldonthinks.com</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0