The fundamental climate change problem

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

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

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The united scientific opposition to global crisis

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

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Another climate change media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The relationship between the media and facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Climate change a democratic scandal

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

"Mr Davis said while it was important for Australia to be a part of the debate around climate change, and seeking solutions, we shouldn't be leading the charge.

"All I'm saying is that Australia should... be a fast follower rather than leading the charge," Mr Davis told reporters after an Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch today".

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

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

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

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Scientific journalism reaches a new low

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

ABC chairman attacks journalistic bias

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