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

Australian greenhouse sceptics take on the world

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

The US scolds NZ for lack of carbon abatement

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

The issue of course raises several issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

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