Climate Change Debate

ClimateGate will not be researched further

2011-11-12T15:43:00.000-08:00

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

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

IPCC under attack for pseudo-membership

2011-11-01T02:17:00.000-07:00

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

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

The fundamental climate change problem

2011-10-20T12:56:00.001-07:00

So what has greenhouse gas policies delivered the American people - take a look - a 0.6% reduction in greenhouse gas levels; but at the expense of causing a shortage of corn/grains worldwide which will have a more lasting impact on those countries experiencing famine. Oh, and since Asia has no interest in farming because the returns have traditionally been less lucrative than industry, we will see a rise in farm output in Western nations, but that will entail clearing more forests. Yep, market economics was never a strong point for greenies.

The implication of policies are often far-reaching. The solution is actually to deal with the core issue - which drives human decision making, and that is values or philosophy. People are investing a great deal of energy in restructuring society, and failing to identify what really ales society, and that is a crisis of values - a lack of a coherent philosophy.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Electricity consumption is falling in NZ

2011-09-12T19:31:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting article from NZ. NZ has apparently recorded a fall in power consumption. This article posits a number of reasons why this has occurred, and I am adding my own below.

1. NZ has static population growth - there are roughly the same number of people going to Australia and other countries as there are going in as Asian or European immigrants.

3. They use 70% hydro here

4. They use a lot of open fire places in NZ using wood logs or pellets, which will offset the demand for electricity.

5. NZ electricity and gas prices are very high because of the small, uncompetitive nature of the market. High prices are likely convincing a lot of people to shift from central electricity and gas heating to open fire places, i.e. Wood in rural areas is cheap, and its renewable.

6. NZ experienced the Christchurch earthquake in 2010; and its plausible that that event destroyed a lot of electricity consumption, which has not been made up by greater home use, as people run their businesses from home.

7. All new generating capacity added in NZ is likely to be expensive wind or geothermal based capacity; simply because of the opposition to coal plants, the lack of current gas reserves, and the small increments of power required.

This story does however give you a clue as to what is happening when you strip out population growth. The question is whether these trends are evident in other countries, concealed by actual population growth.

I frankly think there would be less energy consumption if business was allowed to make money, and if scientists were able to think conceptually, as opposed to relying on the correlation-based 'scientific method'.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

IPCC under attack for dubious claims

2011-08-24T04:12:00.000-07:00

If politicians want a sense of the quality of scientific research; most particularly that funded by the WWF - read this:

"The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim -- based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study -- that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall".

Source: Science Daily, website, 12th March 2010.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Is the global climate warming?

2011-08-21T21:37:00.000-07:00

The media and political rhetoric is that the climate is getting warmer as CO2 levels increase. If life was so simple, you might expect some type of correlation between CO2 and average global temperatures; but we don't. In fact, there are a great many reasons to be sceptical of such claims. These include:

1. The lack of knowledge that researchers have about the climate. A great many questions are still being asked and a great many answers are surprising researchers.

2. The lack of historical record of the sun's variations in global electromagnetic radiation, i.e. sunspot activity and solar flares

3. The lack of clarity about the role of water in the atmosphere, et al.

4. The broad-based poor state of science. Read this article: “The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” by Jonah Lehrer, The New Yorker, website, 13th Dec 2010.

5. The political conflict of interest - both of researchers and politicians

6. The tendency of certain researchers to seek political sanction rather than scientific resolutions

7. The arguments when some of the climate change advocates actually front up to sceptics. There is one debate on YouTube between MIT and NASA counterparties.

Follow this widget yourself and observe the climate 'change'; its like watching grass grow; except CO2 levels are rising :) There is an accurate temperature record here - current data.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Various articles on climate taxes and criticism

2011-06-20T07:34:00.000-07:00

Here are some other articles you might like to explore:

1. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/myth_of_global_warming.htm

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

3. http://climateconference.heartland.org/

4. Links to debates on climate carbon tax - see http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The united scientific opposition to global crisis

2011-06-20T07:27:00.000-07:00

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

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Do climate claimants sound familiar?

2011-06-16T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Stories on climate change

2011-06-15T18:31:00.000-07:00

Please forward this email onto others.

1) An analysis of global warming.

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

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

Australian greenhouse sceptics take on the world

2011-06-15T18:23:00.000-07:00

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

Solar activity research suggests global cooling

2011-06-15T17:03:00.000-07:00

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Solid arguments discrediting anthropogenic climate change

2011-05-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

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

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The opportunity cost of mal-administration

2011-04-22T13:28:00.001-07:00

Let me think ahead and ask what we might expect from major international oil companies in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico deep oil well blow-out last year. We might expect oil companies to give greater consideration to safety and due process; but we might also expect them to operate through contractors lacking their financial clout. After all, why would you take on such risks when they can be avoided. Why not set up some drilling operational contractor who accepts all the risks; has a limited liability structure, and yet shares the bulk of the oil revenue stream with the major oil company who finances the project.

Just asking the questions I know the government won't ask. Just cynically concluding that business will find a 'loophole' around any government legislation. In 10 years, when there is another oil disaster, you will be criticising a different administration, a different oil company, wondering why these people are not accountable. You most likely will not register the prospect that it is a systematic problem which can be traced to your values and theirs.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Media and the environment

2011-04-20T14:12:00.000-07:00

This is very naive. Ted Danson. His father was a scientist....oh "but something stuck with him'. Firstly, archeology is not the right time of scientist. His understanding of the oil industry started with a lawyer? Listen to him, and you might just grasp the basis of ignorance - 'the guy with a little knowledge' from the wrong people. Ted is sadly a cliche with too much money. And he stopped being funny.

Hollywood are another group of liberals who are destined to support environmental and global warming agendas. Ted Danson is just one of their crusaders. Certainly over-fishing is a problem, but it is a problem which will eventually be solved with 'fish farming'. If he is against subsidies on fishing great! But he is not part of the solution; he is part of a more fundamental problem.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Another climate change media frenzy

2011-04-20T13:57:00.000-07:00

Geez, Ted Danson, the star of the successful TV series 'Cheers', is an avid environmentalist. Wow! I guess now we have to believe now. Here is another misguided piece of journalism from the NY Times on climate change.

Yes, ignorance is the problem. It starts with scientists with political motives. Science is not a popularity contest. You really have to question the motives of 'scientists' who take their research to the media as a means of advancing their beliefs. Its the ultimate 'dummie spit'. My critics don't believe me, so I'm going to take my arguments to the media because they will advance any scary story to sell newspapers. I won't even have to convince tragic liberals who hate mankind, they will accept my arguments at 'Hello'.

Ignorance - quote "That CO2, of course, leads to global warming and climate change".

We have 'economic rationalism', now we have 'scientific rationalism'.

You believe you have an argument, then you confront the minority of scientists who are critical thinkers, and you prove it to them. Scientists who run to the ignorant media and avoid reconciliation of their ideas with critics, they are extortionists, no better than our politicians, with ultimately the same consequences. The problem manifests because we are less prepared than we would be for 'real problems' confronting the world.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The US scolds NZ for lack of carbon abatement

2011-04-18T16:53:00.000-07:00

The UN appears to be becoming the global police agency for climate change. Consider that it has sanctioned NZ for not doing enough to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. With 20% of the population living in uninsulated homes in a coldish climate, and not having any industry, you might wonder what they could do. Oh, of course they could stop expanding their dairy industry based on farting cows, and of course they could educate the Chinese to eat local produce rather than imported fatty foods, but that is not going to happen.

The issue of course raises several issues:

1. Is there really any anthropogenic climate change 'effect'? I'm a geologist and I'm convinced there is not, based on my appreciation of 'scientific expertise', human nature, political systems, and the nature of the debate itself.

2. Ought the UN be telling anyone how to behave? Well I guess they claim to embody science. The problem is that these politically aligned and appointed scientists represent only one side of the debate, and they give no standing to people with alternative views.

3. How ought the pain of climate change policy be implemented? Need Chinese people go without air conditioning? Ought NZ'ers go without housing internal heating? Do Chinese women have the right to drink milk? Its an important source of calcium.

4. Is UN intervention political meddling? It is an election year in NZ, and the UN is sticking its nose into local politics.

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

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

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How the Australian Labor Government is destroying farmers

2011-03-05T21:13:00.000-08:00

Here is a very well-researched presentation about the Australian Federal governments plans to restrict the water allocation to farmers, and in the process destroy Australian food production capacity at a time of high food prices, a global food shortage, not to mention at a huge cost to the lives of farmers. There are of course other reasons to object to this policy:

1. The nonsensical priority given to the ecology of a river ecosystem which produces 40% of Australia's food.

2. The dubious scientific research upon which the Minister of Water Resources is functioning

3. The requirement that Australia preserve all rivers in their pre-European state

4. The fact that the historic significance of this river ecosystem is in question. At various times in the past during droughts, you could drive a car across the river without a bridge, because there was so little flow.

5. Our government has a terrible track record of managing the environment. Does anyone remember the NSW State Labor governments decision to pay too much for farm assets in the Far West of NSW to secure water rights. Does anyone remember the fact that the high value of these water rights was the result of excessive allocation of licenses by successive governments. Then what of the Federal administration, which had Queensland holding captive water and in the process denying NSW farmers downstream. Is there any sign of good management practice.

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The relationship between the media and facts

2011-03-05T12:33:00.000-08:00

If you listen to liberals in the media, like this NY Times editorial, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is a dire need for global emissions abatement. I guess they did achieve their intention was to make an issue out of something. After all, if you want to sell media content, to raise advertising dollars, you need stories right. The best type of stories for a media organisation are those with "global pull", i.e. Those stories which reach a global audience. This allows you to go to a Merril Lynch or a KPMG and demand a larger advertising dollar. Also climate issues are a rather 'intellectual issue', so it is likely to appeal more to people with greater wealth. i.e. If you are struggling to pay the rent, you are not going to read articles on climate change. So articles like this attract, and are even written to appeal to a certain audience. It can even matter little if you read the whole article.

So when the NY Times editorial team are accusing big business or the Republicans of 'imbalance' we ought to think to ourselves 'pot kettle'. Now, there are two levels to this debate:

1. Corporate media interests which want to make money out of scaring you, so you read their articles in hope that the government will finally respond to your petitions

2. Liberal media interests which have a tragic sense of life and little respect for facts. Liberals, unlike myself tend to study the humanities. The implication is that they tend to have less respect for facts and objectivity, they don't understand science, much less the environment. But that does not stop them bleating from the highest tree or flagpole of the need for you to renounce your selfish interests and sacrifice your happiness to the common good. These people will probably always be this way. Its not about the climate, just as it wasn't about Y2K, ice age, meteorite impact, over-population; its about their hatred of humanity, or more specifically their disdain for human nature. Their lack of respect for reality culminates in a petition against themselves 'in effect'; saying why do I have to be a prisoner to my nature as a human being. Why can't I fly without wings; why can't I have money without working, why can't I magically cure world poverty. The reason of course is that they refuse to respect objectivity. That the wishes of their consciousness cannot make it so 'subjectively'; they have to earn it objectively, or otherwise sabotage the objectivity of others. To do this, they don't use science; they sabotage or misuse it. I will highlight this in this NY Times editorial.

So it is evident that there is a personal dimension to the 'global warming issue'. We can expect corporate media interests to selectively recruit 'liberal' editors, with a propensity to employ 'liberal' journalists, and we can plundered by incessant steams of articles about the 'global greenhouse catastrophe', and yet still the world does not change. Its a call to all liberals to read more, to be more vigilant, and if the media are lucky, they will create more hype, more protests, which of course feeds into their profitability. It just shows you how non-conceptual these media magnates are because, do they imagine when they drive the public to revolution, that their wealth will be excused from the liberal government they empowered. No, they will be the first to be nationalised, and they espoused the message for them - 'the common good', whatever that was. No one has ever defined it. It exists not in anyone in particular, but everyone in general. No objectivity there. All they can say is 'its not your interests', its someone else's. You can't argue with that - you are just the one. So this brings us to the article, and all its logical flaws...

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Liberal media fail to address the big picture questions. Instead they beat the grass to leave people scared of snakes and spiders. "Mr. Obama asked for $400 million for the World Bank’s clean technology fund, $95 million for the bank’s program to prevent deforestation and $90 million for its program to help at-risk nations cope with the effects of a warming planet by, for instance, developing drought-resistant crops. The House’s answer in all three cases: zero".

Of course he go nothing. Why would you waste money in countries which have no respect for accountability, no public accountability mechanisms, and thus high levels of corruption. Only 30% of the funds would get to their intended target, and the program was probably poorly conceived from the start. Why? Well, its public money. Who cares if it makes a difference. It only needs to create the 'perception' of making a change.

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

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Corporate middlemen, global parasites

2011-03-01T17:50:00.000-08:00

You could be forgiven for thinking carbon taxes were a good thing given the corporate support for them. The problem of course is the underlying motives for such advocacy. All those incumbents are 'middlemen', mostly government-funded advocates like scientists, bureaucrats, academics, but even among them corporate middlemen. Even Hitler had a collective of corporate 'favourites'. People who tow the`government policy' line, and advocate that which would be deplorable to most business. Their motives are of course a narrow vested interest. They would sell the world for a commission.

I take this to be the nature of such advocacy from such global CEOs as this guy from KPMG. This company stands to gain from corporate requirements for accounting services, consulting, IT applicaitons. It has no doubt spent millions developing solutions for business. A strategic decision which will only pay off if there is a carbon tax. IT and consultants do not pay a carbon tax; they merely advise those who do.

They will be the corporate 'pin-up boys' for good corporate citizens, and they will inevitably be rewarded with huge consulting fees for the partners in the firm. Kind of a thank you for supporting government policy perhaps. There is never any evidence. There could be Swiss bank accounts to reward politicians. Its the way things are done. If we are lucky some evidence of this will come available through WikiLeaks. But that is difficult as these decisions look like normal corporate deals at middle-management level. The only people to know otherwise are those at the top pulling the levers. Gross conflict of interest, but no money trail. No one could make anything of a politician and global CEO meeting in some hotel room after some conference in Bali on climate change. This is probably how things are done. I have no evidence mind you. Its just how democracy can function because decisions are based on 'numbers' rather than reasons (i.e. as in a meritocracy). Corruption is actually only possible because of arbitrary government policy. As soon as policy is determined by reasons, corruption is not possible, because any corrupt advocate would be trumped by a better logical argument, even if the logical argument had just one advocate. Read this article and tell me that I my argument is not plausible.

KPMG has developed software solutions for a global problem. The economies of scale from adopting these solutions in just a few countries is phenomenal. They are not the only players, and there will be investment banks in their bidding for similar deals. Clients beware. Middlemen have no particular interest in helping you. After all if there is no carbon tax, they have no basis to extort money from you. Hitler made use of such people. Of course they do not have to engage in corruption. There are plenty of zealots (i.e. environmentalists) behind this tide.....they can simply remain conspicuously silent on the issue. They might also fund green groups and the like as a community goodwill program. We do not repudiate companies for lobbying, donating money to charities. The problem is that all this politicking is extortion, and its all made possible by democracy.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Climate change a democratic scandal

2011-02-28T21:43:00.000-08:00

The climate change debate highlights the problem with democracy. In this Sydney Morning Herald article, the CEO of Coca Cola Amatil argues that:

"Mr Davis said while it was important for Australia to be a part of the debate around climate change, and seeking solutions, we shouldn't be leading the charge.
"All I'm saying is that Australia should... be a fast follower rather than leading the charge," Mr Davis told reporters after an Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch today".

The folly of this is that he does not want us to 'metaphorically' be the first to jump off the cliff, but jumping second makes a lot of sense. The point is one of degree. Bad policy is bad policy in absolute terms, as well as relativist terms. There is no climate change 'effect' that we need to worry about...its a natural process, and a chorus of populist, politically aligned scientists with no capacity for critical thinking, is not going to sustain the debate, which will ultimately be used to justify a plethora of energy taxes, currently restricted to oil.

The fact that this CEO is guarded about the comments he makes highlights the fears of extortion that arise when any corporate leader dares to speak. They would be criticised by shareholders for making statements injurious to shareholders. This is why we can expect business leaders to pull the government line, just as business pulled the Nazi line when confronted by the same type of extortion.

Such sentiments of public interest traditionally have been repudiated by collectivists/environmentalists as 'vested interest' talking. The issue is not however whether one is 'self-righteously' acting in one's own 'vested' interests, or some purported 'others' interest, but rather the facts which one acts upon are valid. We have traditionally seen companies and government bow to the noble idea. We will eventually find that ideal is less than ideal, and rather a grave tragedy. There is no better example than democracy itself. In the 1880s, when the UK was debating universal suffrage in Britain. The wealthy politicians conceded the appeals for the right to vote. The government merely gave them their wish - at the point of extortion. Threats to seize property. The Liberal Party and Tory Party after decades, finally capitulated. They allowed the extortion of the poor non-enfranchised to drive policy, not for good argument, but because they had no better. The reason why logic lost that debate is because reason was not the standard of value. Nothing has changed today, even though there are better thinkers in our midst. They have no stature in a democracy. A genius is as good as a beggar in the modern economy. In the 1880s, the philosopher John Stuart Mill was one of the MPs who oversaw the travesty of universal suffrage.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Japanese government climate change funding a facade

2011-02-15T19:53:00.000-08:00

According to the Japan Times, "none of the government's 214 biomass promotion projects — with public funding coming to ¥6.55 trillion — over the past six years has produced effective results in the struggle against global warming". The implication that the government:

1. Is a very ineffective agency for performing any effort, so ought to be dumped

2. The government was only managing 'perceptions' rather than intending to do any good, i.e. Acting with utter disdain for the public's pecuniary interests, and really treating taxpayers as slaves to its political agenda.

Of course these arguments can be made against any Western democracy, insofar as they are all engaged in the same schemes. In Australia and NZ, its subsidies for heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, which have only forced up the price of these products. Its actually cheaper to use a non-approved, less efficient product which does not get the subsidy. Such is the diseconomy of government intervention. Another example is the very efficient heat pump. It would be the choice for many people in urban areas, but they sell for $3000-5000 because of the subsidy. A heat pump is actually just a refrigerator in reverse, and they sell for $800-1000. So such is the premium people are paying for an efficient solution. The fortunate ones are the rural folk who are able to purchase a wood furnace because timber is relatively cheaper than electricity, and its old technology. Even here prices have been pushed up by new standards attempting to achieve higher efficiencies...even though most heat in an open house is wasted anyway. Open fire places are very wasteful. There is no need to heat the whole house. A better solution would be better personal insulation. Its a wonder why the wool producers are not investing in superior 'personal insulation' garments so we don't need internal heating solutions at all.

It goes without saying that the problem is democracy, in which perceptions are more important that facts or 'results'. So long as the dumb nut voter thinks something is being done because a budget allocation has been made, and so long as they have no choice about the way their taxpayer funds are spent, the 'great extortion racket' will continue.

-----------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

UN claims environmental damages

2010-12-30T17:07:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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.

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'.

Source article - see Japan Times.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Global warming evidence no stronger

2010-12-10T11:52:00.000-08:00

In this CNN article, the UK's Meteorological Centre argues that the arguments for global warming are more compelling than any time ever. This makes one laugh because they posit no new evidence for their claims. Its simply more of the same. The problem is - what they consider science. Animals function on the level of 'mere correlation', humanity 'ought not'. Just because a warming phenomenon occurs when humanity is emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases is not satisfactory as a basis for causation. That is simply bad science.

The stalwarts for an 'imminent crisis' behind these stories ignore the flaws in their own evidence. My prior observation of global warming is that over the last 700,000 years the average Earth's temperature has fluctuated. The current measurements are within the pattern observed over the last 700,000 years.

At issue is the fact that the Earth's temperature record is on the cusp of a 'radical' climate change. That is the thesis, and certainly, statistically it is a possibility, given that the present climate sits at a point of inflection. i.e. It might go either way. So what does it mean to say the climate could go either way. It can mean 3 things:

1. The Earth could cool, i.e. slow its rate of heating and eventually cool in the same pattern that has occurred over the last 700,000years.

2. The Earth could continue to heat, i.e. It could develop new climatic character, which might merely reflect natural phenomena, or it could reflect human influence. Even if humans are responsible, it does not mean that we ought to worry for a number of reasons:

a. The climate will likely provide its own means of adjustment, i.e. more cloud cover, more robust vegetation growth (i.e. CO2 is actually a plant fertiliser).

b. Scientists might find a new way of coping with the problem, i.e. Say gigantic mirrors to reflect solar radiation...or simpler options like seeding the oceans to stimulate plankton growth.

The article even cites evidence to suggest the 'global warming' is starting to turn around.

"Although the warming trend is continuing there is evidence that the rate has slowed in the last ten years. Since the end of the 1970s, the rate of surface temperature warming has, on average, risen 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, according to the Met Office. But from 2000 to 2009 that decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13 degrees Celsius, despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise".

In what sense can this be considered to be stronger evidence for global warming. CO2 emissions are rising unabated and yet temperatures are cooling. I am not saying that his proves that there is no global warming, as I would then be committing the error of my counterparts. My argument is merely that a slowing might be suggesting the historic cycle remains true. The historical record indicates that we are due for an Ice Age. That will be the next scare to strike the public. Is it possible that after the folly of this one that no one will take an ice age seriously. At least it will not be our fault. We should only be concerned about crises which we cause. Such thinking is the 'cave men' values of the Dark Ages. Should we not respond to real threats, whether they are our fault or natural phenomenon. Anyway, that is a problem on the horizon. Of course not all minds are equally compelled to see threats that lie around corners....they are too busy imagining them.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Saving the planet for a better world

2010-11-28T18:33:00.000-08:00

In this comedy sketch George Carlin displays a great understanding of the psyche that grips the common day environmentalist.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Humans are hard wired for stupidity according to Yale University fellow

2010-09-26T02:27:00.000-07:00

A lot of what is posited as science is really nothing more than conjecture, and blatant rationalisations are just as common. Read this article from Yale University and you will hear that 'Humans have been wired by evolution to respond to the most immediate threats, ones they can hear or smell or see".

This would be amusing if the implications of such quackery were not so common in the media. The implication is that our conceptual faculty has a tendency towards the concrete, range-of-the-moment thinking, i.e. like feeding your children, and in the process neglecting the more abstract issues like climate change.

The reality is that this is true. But we are not starving. Humans have a great deal of leisure or free time these days, and surviving the next few decades, and ensuring their kids survive is important. The reality is that most of them are not conceptual, not for genetic 'hardwired' reasons, but as a matter of choice. Interestingly, most of them share the same collectivist philosophies of socialism, environmentalism, animal liberation, liberalism, democracy and conservatism that are 'concrete-bound'. If you are wondering if I left anyone out....I most certainly did....the fringe 'idiots' who know how to think critically. They have since time began been very unpopular...just ask Galileo. Critics are not liked by hysterical people with political agendas.

What difference would it make if people were more conceptual thinkers? Well, for a start they might repudiate the welfare state which shackles productive people, which leads governments to favours immigration and economic stimulus rather than productivity-based economic growth which would result in more R&D and less consumption, which people engage in because they need some physical means of overcoming their repression and anxiety. Such is the state of our distorted, 'secular' collectivist-quasi capitalist state. Don't expect any integrity from it. Don't expect any respect for facts, you will not get it based on contemporary values. The nature of government has to be changed first. Representative democracy has to be repudiated for a consensus or meritocratic based system.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Where is the climate change consensus?

2010-09-26T02:02:00.000-07:00

I want to quote another sample of poor scientific reporting from Google Answers about the significance of 'peer reviewed' climate change articles posted in scientific journals. A person asked the following question:

"I am interested in learning about scientists who have have completed studies about global warming. Of those that submit to peer review, what percentage of them show that global warming is both (a) man-made and (b) expected to have a severe negative impact to mankind?
The reason that I ask is that a relative told me she believed it was about 99% of scientists believed that global warming was real and caused by humans...and that the remaining 1% were the fringe idiots. And, although i know nothing about the subject, her number seemed too high".

The response was:

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point"... Source: www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686.

There are several problems with this response that ought to be evident to any critical thinking scientists. These include:

1. Science is not a popularity contest. I would suggest just a fraction of scientists are critical thinkers, and most are publicly-funded academics, so they have great sympathy for the nanny state, so there is a plausible professional bias emerging because of their implied values.

2. The pollster postulated a 'false alternative' by implying that there was sufficient evidence to take a valid position on climate change. i.e. There might be 10,000 scientific researchers who would not compromise their integrity by 'shooting from the hip' by rendering scientific assertions when there was inadequate research to support either hypothesis....that the climate is warming because of humanity or not, and how significant it is. The implication is that the 'politically hysterical' scientists who are friends with Al Gore et al are the ones who attract all the media, because we all know the media loves a good story.

Then you get the community concerned, environmentalists who have a tendency towards the tragic, and school kids are all being mobilised to support an issue for which there is inadequate research to support either hypothesis. This is the state of our stupid political system. This is a source of great content for the media, and of course unthinking politicians respond in kind. See a previous article which showed Rob Oakshotte, an MP in the Australian parliament, attending a seminar by an environmentalist (i.e. not a scientist) on population control. That MP holds the balance of power in the Australian parliament. Do you think he paid a visit to some Climate Change skeptic at James Cook University? I doubt it. I agree, they are hard to find when a contrary position is so 'politically unpopular' and the media will not publish your story because anyone with a contrary opinion is considered a 'nutter' or a 'fringe idiot'.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Scientific journalism reaches a new low

2010-09-26T01:41:00.001-07:00

Does science get any more ridiculous than science reporting. We live in a world where science is considered a political football, or a popularity contest. Science is based on evidence and testing of hypotheses. It it not a majority vote, and judging from this article in the Guardian, it is not a decision flung from one team to another depending on the daily balance of power.

Read this article, as journalism doesn't get any more pathetic. The author seems to believe that because a scientists has shifted from the Climate Skeptics to Climate Sensationalists, that this marks a turning point in the debate.

Before it was enough that a group of IPCC scientists believed that global warming is man-made. That was sufficient to call it a day and waste billions of dollars on remedial measures. Now, we are down to one guys opinion.

One needs to appreciate that not all scientists are of equal credibility. Some are more salesmen than researchers. Some are critical thinkers, whilst others are just plan old, unaccountable academics with little accountability for what they produce. They will give a degree to anyone these days. Everyone gets a "C" in most universities, and those mediocrities eventually end up in academia because they can get unconditional love and a safe salary package. That is the quality of the army fighting for global warming....and with their sense of life, they are able 'bedfellows' for political bureaucrats and ministerial meddlers.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Climate change is not recession-proof

2010-09-19T13:46:00.000-07:00

A NZ Herald survey has shown that NZ's are growing increasing sceptical of the climate change assertions - that humans are driving the planet towards a run-away greenhouse effect. The fact that there is any human impact does not even mean that there need even be a runaway effect because CO2 is a fertiliser for plants, not a pollutant. The human population growth rate is declining with increasing prosperity, and our consumption patterns are also set to change.

People also ought to ponder why consumption rates are so high. There is a 'human values' component to this issue which people don't even challenge. The ethics involved are startling because we are being asked to embrace the save ethical system as Adolf Hitler. In the 1930s Adolf Hitler was a huge exponent of animal rights. You can argue that he was not so much a great proponent of animals. I would suggest elevating animal rights was his way of undermining human rights. The same can be said of the environment. This issue is not about protecting humanity from climate change, otherwise we would simply use common law to mount a class action against companies based on the 'evidence'. The reason why we are being 'guilt-induced' with pseudo-science from politically-motivated, uncritical thinking academics, is that these people have a tragic sense of life, and they are so loathing of humanity, they would find a crisis if they were paid to. Governments of course want a 'legislated' solution so they can control the process. A tax is not going to do anything because emitters can merely pass on the costs to consumers. It reduces wealth by funding a lot of unnecessary remedial measures. Unnecessary because there is no credible evidence that humanity is having a discernible impact on the climate.

This survey shows that most people have downgraded the importance of climate change. This is not surprising because it is a recession. The survey however also shows that the number of people who believe no climate change problem exists has increased from 17.5% to 19.3% in the last year. This might be because they repudiate the trumped up evidence, or it might be because they want to cynically repudiate climate change to allay any guilt resulting from their conflicting values. i.e. their short term economic values vs their long term, conceptual moral values. I'm not suggesting that concepts are purely a long term tool, but rather that people are inclined to take concrete steps to resolve concrete problems having already developed a long range plan.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

What if global warming cause is anthropogenic?

2010-09-18T23:06:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting question - I did not read about it on Political Forum.com, but I will post a response to it:

The fact is that if there was a anthropogenic cause for global warming it would not make a difference because any 'negative externality' has to be established on the basis that the trend is destined to cause harm to specific individuals. The fact that the process of change takes so long and change is occurring anyway tends to underpin any such consideration.

An argument could also be made that CO2 is a fertiliser to plants, and that enrichening the atmosphere will eventually result in stimulated plant growth, and higher temperatures would result in more evaporation, cloud formation and precipitation, resulting in greater oxidation (i.e. usually by carbolic acid, i.e. CO2) and more reflection of UV back into space.

The greatest obstacle to the current climate change debate is the lack of a compelling 'causation' for it. I would however suggest solar flares is far more credible as a cause.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

A proud climate change denier

2010-08-08T16:13:00.000-07:00

Denying climate change is a matter of pride to those who embrace the idea of 'minimal anthropogenic responsibility for climate change'. Their argument fundamentally rest on the premise that climate change is a natural phenomena; that there is nothing unusual about the current fluctuations in the Earth's climate, and that whilst there might come a time when humanity poses a threat to the climate, the facts are not currently on the side of politically-motivated scientists and liberal media commentators.

The reasons why I do not support such assertions are:

1. Many such assertions have proven false in the past. i.e. Dire warnings of asteroid impacts, ice ages, so climate change needs to be treated with some suspicion.

2. Many scientists and journalists base the 'irrefutability' of the evidence - not on science - but the popularity of the hypothesis among scientists. Its not even all scientists, but that does not even matter. Its a clan of politically-motivated scientists. The problem with this is that science is a question for decade, not opinion polls. This is particularly important when you consider that probably only 3-5% of scientists are critical thinkers. The vast majority will perform science which will not contribute to the world. i.e. They are malfunctioning bureaucrats supported by similarly hopeless tenured professors who helped them get a PhD because they felt sorry for them, and they make them look good. That is the more typical climate for 'scientific advancement' in the more academic universities, and is unquestionably better in the more applied unversities. They are not all useless.

Now let us turn our attention to the journalist who incited this article - Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald with his 'beat up' on education. i.e. 'Beat a stick and they will come'. He draws an analogy in his story of climate change deniers. Gittins says:

"That's why climate change-denying scientists get a degree of media publicity out of proportion to the relevance of their qualifications or how representative they are of scientific opinion".

Actually the amount of media recognition given to 'climate change deniers' is pitifully small. Despite that a lot of people in the community remain suspicious or cynical about such claims. Is it because it has always has a political edge, because the evidence does not stack up, because the alternative hypothesis of solar flare variations have yet to be fully investigated (despite offering good correlation).

How is it that this journalist - who is an economist - can be so sure that the science stacks up if they have no training in climatology. After all the whole basis for his argument is that 'deniers' are unqualified. He also implies that science ought to be a media contest, so there is a great lack of intelligence in his assertion.

I guess he is one of the economists who think all people are rational so the media is very effective at determining the truth of arguments. Well, the profession of economics is in disrepute, and economists of this calibre are clearly to blame.

Scientific trials by media are not the way science ought to be conducted. There is a lot of bad science around, and it is being used by politicians to adopt a broader-based tax on energy. Of course they dare not do that if it cripples the economy...but don't give them that power.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

2010-07-27T14:24:00.000-07:00

I have started a debate on climate change at the Liberal Democratic Party website which you might like to follow. My response to their discussion is:

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

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

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

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

You can follow this debate at the LDP forum. I am Shouganai1:

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How to be a good environmentalist

2010-07-23T01:10:00.000-07:00

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

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

Why do they not then aim their guns at advertisers, salespeople and particularly politicians with their monetary stimulus, who do more to push 'conspicuous consumption' than the business people, who merely makes what people want. This is more perplexing when you consider that they are seeking solutions from the persons (i.e. politicians) who can do more for the environment than anyone, and yet they do more to sabotage it. Why? I guess because business sabotage their arbitrary assertions. The implication is that these issues are defined not by facts, but by conflicts over issues, where people fail to see the issues. People have forgot what the real issues are.

It is the poor and middle class aspirants who are inclined to spend indulgently on dubious pleasures. They are the pleasure seekers. Business and real aspirants take pride and pleasure in pursuing some purpose. They are thus inclined to save money rather than spend. They are saving for an acquisition of some business, or to start one. Production you say is the problem. Actually its not. Its arbitrary consumption which does not relate to a broader purpose. It is indulgence. It is a lack of thinking about the broader implications of one's decisions.

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

1. Large companies developing huge projects

2. Environmentalists who are determined to stop them.

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

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

So how does one become a good environmentalist. My suggestions are these:

1. Don't interfere with the functioning of the markets, nor support governments which do the the same thing. Why? Because efficient markets result in the best allocation of resources, and thus maximum real wealth creation. This is important so we have the capacity to deal with any problem in future.

2. Support justice - that is social regulation which facilitates market optimality, rather than those government interventions which distort or undermine wealth. This does not mean supporting projects which impact others; it means respecting facts. If BP drilling poses a threat, and there is science to support those arguments, or BP has a poor safety track record, then they ought not to be awarded a license.

3. Support reason as the standard of value: Meaning that if the protection of the environment is worthy of protection, it is good for a reason, and those reasons need to be appraised in a specific context. They are not intrinsic values, and they are not dogmas.

4. Know thyself: It sounds like a Christian proverb, however a great many people engage in activities with no conceptual appreciation for the things they do. It would better serve them to develop a coherent hierarchy of values to account for what is important to them. This will help them to see the integrity and legitimacy of what they are pursuing.

These same principles hold true for business as well as environmentalists. I would argue the pragmatic businessman is equally a threat as the passionate environmentalist. A threat why? Because they both have little respect for ideas, the interests of others, or the facts of reality. They seldom attempt to see the perspective of others. There is the rare exception. The founder of Greenpeace who has celebrated a role for nuclear power. Small business people who are typically the engines of environmentally-sound technologies, whether its technological innovations like battery technologies, or new ways of thinking about the world, as I am doing.

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

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

NZ climate change data dubious

2010-05-15T22:32:00.000-07:00

Would it concern you that climate change data in NZ does not show a 'warming' in the raw data. The premise that there is warming arises because of 'adjustments'. This is shaky science at its best. There is nothing in itself wrong with adjusting data, however it must concern people that a vast expense is being considered to reduce 'global warming' when the evidence is 'derivative' rather than primary. It of course doesn't invalidate the sciences, but it does cast doubt on the veracity of their findings. There are several problems:

1. If we chase straw men by accepting these findings we could be undermining our capacity to deal with the issue if it does arise in future. i.e. Scientists are less likely to be accepted next time.

2. We would have undermined economic growth or real wealth in order to pursue these agendas.

The reality is that global warming is evident in the sense that the Earth is hotter than it was a century ago. It is another thing entirely to suggest that this warming is because of humanity.

See the article on NZ climate debate. The ACT Party led by Rodney Hide is critical of the research undertaken by the State meteorology service - NIWA.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Emissions trading back down by Australian government

2010-04-27T01:29:00.000-07:00

Its apparent that the Australian government is recognised the insanity of its public policies. We have seen a back-down on two STUPID policies in recent times. One was the First Home Owners Grant which encouraged people to buy at the top of a property boom. The other was the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme. This emissions trading scheme has been deferred until 2012. Trust me - it will be dropped by then completely. This is "polly-speak" for "Sorry, we were incredibly stupid".

There was no real or genuine link between climate change and humanity. The 'crisis' was simply something conjured up by academics seeking funding, or exponents with a tragic sense of life, wanting the animals to ascend to their proper place in the global hierarchy.

If you have no notion of what a government background looks like - read it and weep. Very subtle isn't it. Over the last 2 years I have done a number of things to highlight the abuse of government power. In NZ I have lobbied the NZ Broadcasting Standards Committee to ensure more credible reporting of science. I have actually to my surprise seen an improvement. Never have I seen in the media efforts to get an expert to repudiate another opinion. Three cheers for critical thinking! Go TV3 - don't stop now. I was incredibly moved by your story on retreating glaciers. I didn't know glaciers had feelings.

If you think this is the end of it. There are issues with youth alcoholism resulting in punitive taxes, there is animal rights issues which are causing farmers grief. There are silly grants to install insulation which are resulting in installers and manufacturers profiteering at the expense of taxpayers! That's right. Government is paying installers to charge you more, but you think you are getting a bargain because you get a grant. Sorry, no. Basically, if you want to understand the economics. A inverter heat pump is about as sophisticated as your home refrigerator. The difference is that the refrigerator costs $800, the inverter heat pump $3000-3500 in NZ. They are very efficient - but WAIT before installing because prices will come down when the insanity of installing them with subsidies abates.

If you are wondering if the stupidity of this scheme resembles the stupidity of the First Home Owners Scheme by forcing up prices! Congratulations! Your are our winner of the Honorary PhD from the Virtual University of Common Sense.

People there is a real crisis unfolding in the world and it has nothing to do with global warming. It is a form of fascism so insidious you have not even recognised its creeping impact. Its the power or destruction of arbitrary rule. Its antidote is reason and accountability. The poison is so-called 'representative government' and the 'numbers-driven' lobbyist.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Are greenhouse gas levels really a problem?

2010-03-13T14:32:00.001-08:00

Here are some good articles on whether atmospheric CO2 levels are actually higher than previously. What actually does the historical record show. See this article by Dr Tim Ball. You might also like to view his other published articles.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

ABC chairman attacks journalistic bias

2010-03-12T16:49:00.000-08:00

The chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) has openly criticised journalists at the ABC for presenting a biased picture of events, particularly in response to global warming. The chairman was attacked for his comments by those who consider his statements an attack of journalistic independence. The problem of course is that its all too easy to use the threat of journalistic integrity as a basis to condemn those who might be critical of your views. Isn't anyone therefore biased for expressing the view that is not the same as journalists.
At the end of the day, what is not important is whether journalists are independent or not, but whether they are reasonable or not. If journalists and other professionals have the flexibility to be independent, but the flexibility to be incompetent or indulgent, then one would sooner educate them to the facts. Does that require coercion? No. It requires accountability and monitoring of media standards.
A bigger problem arises when agencies like the Australian Media Complaints Commission ceases to be a defender of objectivity and starts to be a defender of socialistic causes. My obser vation of the types of complaints upheld by the NZ media complaints commission is that they not willing to act on issues of objectivity in media, but they will act against the networks when their journalists expose the public to unfair or unreasonable exposure or vulnerability. Whilst I applaud these measures, a respect for facts would be a greater value, when it comes to the actual content of media. See my early post on NZ greenhouse reporting.
For more information on the ABC chairman's comments on ABC media - see this article. This article of course draws attention to the lack of scientific knowledge of media journalists as well as their lack of critical thinking skills.

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

Unnecessary waste - stop buying bottled water

2010-03-12T02:13:00.001-08:00

I am among a great number of people who welcome attempts to preserve the biodiversity of the planet, but who otherwise think global warming science is just nonsense. Aside from the science of climatology, the stupidity which underpins consumer buying habits is astounding. The idea that people are buying bottles of water strikes me as lunacy. Here is a video that describes the problem. Really this is unnecessary consumption. Unless you are living in the third world there is no need to buy bottled water.

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

Biased media standards in NZ media regulators

2010-01-20T14:03:00.000-08:00

Want some sense of the nature of our media. Consider the following story about climate change. This story by TV3 of NZ is about the receding Ngozumpa glacier in the Himalayan Mountains. If you listen to this story you get the impression that this is tangible evidence for global warming. It is not. Even if it were, there is the insinuation that Copenhagen will or could do something about it. It is full of emotive language, full of contradictions and baseless assertions. How can you equate Copenhagen with research? Copenhagen is about imposing taxes on people to address problems. It is not about further research funding.
In defense of such scientists - he problem is a babe in the woods. He was probably given a day to get his story and video, and no time to research this issue. His university training was probably an Arts rather than a science degree, and he probably never studied the concept of critical thinking. So what can we expect of him?

Anyway I was annoyed about this story sufficiently to send a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Committee in NZ. I was not alone in my annoyance with this story. There were 5 other complainants on the TV3 website.

My complaint could have been written better if I had a written transcript of the story. However it was good enough if the Standards Committee considered the story in context. I did not expect them to take a word-for-word analysis of the story. I expected them to apply the rigorous analysis to the story, rather than my complaint.

The basis of my complaint was:
Complaint-Details: The program outlines a lot of assertions about
evidence for global warming which were just farcical. There was the
internal collapse of caves/caverns in the glacier. This was attributed
to signs the glacier was no longer moving. In fact moving glaciers
fracture. Receding glaciers are not in themselves evidence of global
warming since the alternative is less snow accumulation. There has
actually been global cooling in recent years despite rising CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere. Do we ever hear that H2O is a more
important greenhouse gas than CO2? Do we ever here that CO2 is a
fertiliser for plants not a pollutant?

The report concluded that this was \'definitive evidence\' of global
warming. It was not. This was the author\'s own \'spin\' on the article.
If this was a one-off it would be just a mistake. But there is a
systematic effort by \'liberals\' in the media around the world to
misrepresent the facts. We never get the alternative view based on
critical thinking. There is either a definitive global warming or there
is a need for more evidence. Why do we never hear from well-known
critics like Prof Bob Carter at James Cook University. In this case, a
2nd scientist said there was a lot of false or outlandish assertions
made. Yet the journalist does not pull back from his agenda.

The Standards Committee response to my complaint can be downloaded here.

My response to the Standards Committee is:

Upon reviewing the Committees response to my complaint I can only conclude that they did not understand my complaint, so let me elaborate. The response was also inadequate.

A number of things have to be acknowledged:
1. The glaciologist has a bias in terms of seeing his research considered important. It serves him to see some consequence for it. If not for the 'anthropogenic' global warming hypothesis, his work would be just a curiosity.
2. Being a glaciologist with ten years experience analysing a glacier is not a substitute for facts or logic. That would be an 'appeal to authority' - a flaw of logic. For the record I am a geologist who understands the mechanics of glacial movement.
3. I don't have a transcript of the story, but one of my points was that, if you see any assertion in the story suggesting that the this is evidence of climate change, or if this is insinuated, that is a bias in the story. Or a rationalisation if you prefer. The reporter should have sought independent, critical feedback to such an insinuation. Lest we all be scared by evidence which is skewed. I would refer the Committee to the following article. See http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553.

I wonder whether the Standards Committee actually contacted the glaciologist to see whether he supports the conclusions made in the report.

The response from the reporter was even skewed with colourful language:
1. A 'healthy glacier' - there is no such thing - it is not a living thing, yet the reporter is describing the ice as if it had qualities of a living thing. If he was a romantic poet it would be fine, but this is reporting of science, which requires more disciplined analysis and objectivity.
2. The glacier is 'rotting from the inside' - again romantic, but not evidence of anything. Glaciers are always melting, and there are dynamics between snow accumulation and melting - which is glaciation. Melting is not good or bad as far as science is concerned. Implicitly he is saying there is an anthropogenic cause to global warming. Where is the evidence?

One of the problems with the media is that they lack knowledge of the topics which they report upon. Was James Mates a science graduate? Did he have any understanding of glaciers? This shows a clumsy lack of research if he isn't because he has no capacity to critically assess the scientist for the short time that he is with him. Also it is easy for him to misinterpret his comments. He is under financial pressures, and he meets a shy glaciologist which does not say much. What happens? We get an inaccurate story. I remember a story where a reporter was covering the story of a gold mine, and because explorers use diamond drilling as a ore resource assessment tool, he thought it was a gold and diamond mine. This suggests that the media needs more specialised journalists who can report on technical issues or specialised content, as well as generalists who can broadly cover issues.

From the following quote:

Reporter: So, we're seeing here a close-up view of the death of a glacier?
Glaciologist: Exactly. It is just collapsing in on itself.

This sounds like a glaciologist being agreeable, i.e. a nice guy rather than making a scientific statement. Really it shows the reporter putting words into the mouth of the glaciologist. What is the 'death of a glacier'? Since glaciers are moving ice, it could only mean no more snow accumulation. Very hard to believe at those elevations when there is accumulation down to 1800m. So the insinuation is that the snow is melting faster than it is falling. All we are seeing in fact is a period of receding of the glacier. They are a natural phenomena. If this was suggested to the glaciologist I am sure he would agree.

The reporters closing statement was:

We’ve been shown definitively what’s happening deep inside the biggest glacier in this part of the Himalayas. What it means what if anything the world needs to do about it, well those answers are needed and soon.

We were not shown the mechanics of how a glacier works? We were given emotive language. It was not scientific or educational. It was emotive, inaccurate and misleading. The fact that its the biggest glacier is not relevant either. Its a cry for action, and it alludes to a climate change problem. Its sensationalism, whether it be subtle or blatant. Why do we need answers soon? Will the world lose all its glaciers?
For years we have been told ice sheets are melting in Antarctica - global warming? No, just skewed, context-dropping reporting. Yes, one she has been rescinding for lack of snow accumulation, and the other three ice sheets have been growing.
------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Climate change numbers are red not green

2010-01-02T18:35:00.000-08:00

Want to get a sense of where the science community stands on climate change - read the following article. Given this understanding you would expect some backdown by politicians. Of course its slow in coming.....but it will come. Idiots!
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

2010-01-02T18:03:00.000-08:00

Here is a list of people who are opposed to the 'consensus' that the world is undergoing climate change due to anthropogenic (or human) causes. This list of course does not constitute evidence of the contrarian view that climate change is a natural phenomenon akin to the normal dynamic functioning of the Earth. In fact there is strong evidence against climate change. In fact there are compelling reasons to believe that climate change is threatening the world's future capacity to deal with real crisis by undermining the creation of real wealth, and more important doing untold damage to the reputation of science. Science will no longer be treated with the same respect. People - the threat is not global warming - its a Modern Dark Ages. The last period in which civilisation went backwards was from 476-1000AD - a period of over 500 years in duration. This period corresponded to a period of diminished respect for reason and logic. On that occasion it was due to religious and political oppression. The modern curse is repression and cynicism.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

IPCC to investigate claims of sham science

2009-12-04T19:21:00.000-08:00

The IPCC said it will investigate claims that a UK university has engaged in distortion in order to generate research which supports global warming.
Clearly however the IPCC is not the best regulator of such claims because it is overwhelmly a political beast, given that it was established by a former Tory chancellor of the UK - Nigel Lawson. The bias inherent in this organisation is unlikely to result in honest disclosure.
Read the full story here.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

2009-12-04T19:11:00.000-08:00

A new institute has been set up in the UK by Nigel Lawson, the former treasurer of England during the Thatcher administration. The intent of the institute is to achieve a balanced analysis of global warming. I didn't think it called for a 'balance', more like an adherence to facts, honesty, etc. But any forum which canvasses the views of both adherents and critics is at least a step in the right direction.
You can view below
1. A You Tube presentation by Lord Monkton (an adviser to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's) that focus on climate change.
2. The Global Warming Policy Foundation
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Giant jellyfish invade Japan - WWIII "exclusive"

2009-12-01T11:05:00.000-08:00

In today's news we have more nonsense suggesting 'climate change'. The discussion ceases to be meaningless when people don't know what they are talking about. Climate change is a natural phenomena. The climate is dynamic - it goes up and down with annoying unpredictability. Its unpredictable because its complex. Its not that we can't know the future, its just that we really haven't needed to know. What we can know is that there is a lot of assertions being made to support a flawed hypothesis. There is nothing unusual about the current climatic patterns.

This 'crisis' and the related 'dire warnings' are nothing more than liberals in the media trying to sell product, and trying to encourage you to embrace their values. Nothing wrong with selling product mind you, but its a problem when people sacrifice facts and integrity for a good story. No better that a stockbroker who spruiks a good 'gold stock' whilst knowing it will never make money. The world is full of them.
So what is wrong with the latest story out of Japan? The problem is the assertion that the annual occurrence of jellyfish off the coast of Japan is special. There are two things to note:
1. They were there 40 years ago, so its not such a stretch to go from one year to a few.
2. More importantly, we can see from the chart above that the Earth's global average temperature is lower than it was in 900AD, a period which pre-dates human impact on the climate, and that we can expect warmer temperatures for the next 50-100 years, and that would be perfectly within the pattern of previous cycles.
3. Warmer temperatures are actually conducive to greater oxygen production, as its the planets way of adjusting to such rises in CO2 levels, if it were a concern.

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

Great climate change charts for the sceptics

2009-12-01T02:33:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

Why is the greenhouse agenda being pushed

2009-11-30T15:14:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

Arguments against global warming hypothesis

2009-11-30T15:06:00.001-08:00

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

Scientific evidence refutes global warming

2009-11-30T15:00:00.001-08:00

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

The anatomy of a global warmist/alarmist

2009-11-29T19:47:00.000-08:00

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

Integrity in climate policy

2009-11-14T23:52:00.000-08:00

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

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

Swine flu vaccine - politics driving science

2009-09-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

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

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

Sham science by committee

2009-09-09T13:03:00.000-07:00

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

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

2009-07-27T20:12:00.000-07:00

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

Politician rejects global warming consensus

2009-06-14T21:49:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Third grader could solve global warming

2009-06-09T08:52:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

Impact of methane on climate change a concern

2008-10-15T22:23:00.000-07:00

Based on changes in methane gas levels I'm a little more concerned about the trends in greenhouse gas. Perhaps the greatest concern is that the way our governance is structured, policy does not give a lot of credence to long term issues. No one wants to make the first move because they don't want to undermine their competitiveness. So we have the indifferent Chinese and Indians driving policy, because they want the right to pollute the Earth as much as the West. Sounds childish, but true. 'We didn't get a turn (to pollute)!' There is no convincing narrow thinking like that. People that feel compelled to compare themselves, and in the process deny the facts....at least as how I see them. :)

The reason I say that there is compelling evidence is because I have looked at a lot of evidence and it was never compelling. But I can't account for the rising CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere. Its a concern because we are extracting methane from coal seams in Australia and the USA big time. In Australia, the amoust of CH4 extracted from coal seams is rising exponentially. When you tap into these coal seams you are extracting the gas to burn. My concern is that you are creating a negative pressure around the drainage holes, but what about on the periphery of the field. My concern is that there might be methane leakage into the atmosphere. Remember this is not a perfect vacuum, there is porosity and permeability issues. I did some rock mechanics at university, and as an issue it has me concerned. But because there is money in the issue, I bet no one is even looking at the problem to measure the possible amounts of methane being emitted directly into the atmosphere. Maybe I'm wrong. I could be labelled a cynic. I'm just used to people arresting murderers rather than treating the parents 15 years earlier; recapitalising banks rather than allowing politicians to engage in crazy creation policies 10-15 years earlier. Nope, don't worry, everything will be fine. Bacteria can grow everywhere, even in a methane clogged atmosphere.
This is a concern because methane is 20x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so any large increase in methane (CH4) is significant. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are far smaller, but they account for 20% of the greenhouse effect.
------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Our Environment - by George Carlin

2008-10-03T06:21:00.000-07:00

This is a great video by George Carlin:

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

Why is USA against a greener Earth?

2008-01-25T18:00:00.000-08:00

I have just been reading a forum posting at http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=113775 where a poster asks "WHY is US against a greener EARTH?"

My response to this is multi-faceted:
1. There is little evidence to suggest that the USA is anti-greenhouse because:
2. The USA is one of the greatest emitters by virtue of its 'prosperity' which pre-dates the escalation of the greenhouse issue - but it is also amongst the cleanest.
3. The USA government is not opposed to greenhouse, it wants China to sign on as well, thus China should be considered the obstacle. China and India will be the centre of heavy industry for the next 30-40 years, if they are permitted to adopt laxed environmental standards, the world would have more to fear. The USA in contrast is a mature, service-orientated country, so its CO2 emisisons have stabilised and could even fall in coming years. We are living in a new paradigm - a high energy cost market - so the USA will be priced out of the markets that have a high energy-intensity.

If you look at the facts you will see its actually the statist economies like Russia and China that have the worst evironmental record. eg. Lakes destroyed in Russia by oil seeps, or poor irrigation practices, pollution of rivers and coal-related haze over China.

So why do green groups criticise the USA and not China? Its because green groups are hollier than God in the west, there is an emotional attachment to the environment, even though people live convenience and have to work in the city. Greenies are considered the only bastion of their interests...never mind that their arguments are deluded. People accept appeals to emotion. As a result green groups have leverage over the US government, but they dont over China, where the statist regime would quash any opposition. Besides the Chinese couldnt care a pittance for the environment. The place is a toilet bowl. I travelled from HK to Hanoi by train and the embankment next to the railway was filled with rubbish. They have the worst emitting power stations in the world, and are pressed by the US to adopt new technology. But China just wants to be rich like everyone else. So if you want to safe the environment - tell you government to tell China and apply sanctions, and if you tire of that - stop spending. Better still, recognise that the world is not moved by logical arguments and question the science that is likely as dubious as the politics that drive it.
More on this subject coming!
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Climate change - do you need to trust the experts?

2008-01-15T15:43:00.000-08:00

I think the accepted wisdom in society is that the study of climate change is such a specialised subject that we need to place our faith in our climatologists, since they are our experts in this field. I think this notion is erroneous, and I will suggest as much with an analogy. When you go to a doctor, do you blindly accept whatever they say, or do you filter it through your own thought process. This approach might seem a little more difficult on the issue of climate change because its so far removed from people's lives. The task of critiquing science falls upon intellectuals like me that have studied science, who are aware of the arguments, but apply what scientists aren't applying:
1. A broader perspective: Many of the so-called experts are so specialised that they fail to see the broader trends or context of the argument.
2. A critical perspective: A great many scientists are not critical thinkers. Why? Because they tend to be empiricists rather than rationalists, and if they are rationalists.
3. An objective perspective: Even if they are rationalists, they tend to be floating conceptualists indulging in rationalisations. They are compelled to delude themselves to achieve a certain understanding that is not consonant with the facts of reality.

Armed with this information, one can place oneself in a powerful position to argue against these people. But it does require one to have some understanding of science and natural processes, as well as the capacity to critically appraise information, just as you would do with your GP. We tend to be cynical about doctors because the modern medical centre means we are often examined by a new doctor every time we have an appointment, and we hear stories of doctors making poor diagnoses. We have some knowledge of medicine from reading, and more impotantly, we are in a position to ask questions and to critique their responses to establish trust. Finally we can go to alternative doctors for a different interpretation. Science is a little better than medicine because scientists are already divided into camps. If you listen to the rhetoric of one group, they will tell you that there is no opposition to the greenhouse concept. The reality however is that there is opposition, but one group would rather not recognise them so they can push through with their agenda. Of course this is not in the interests of science.