The dangers of systematic and consensus-based global warming science

I am well and truly outside of the debate on global warming; and remain highly suspicious of the findings of scientists in this arena. There are a number of reasons:

1. The reliance on computer modelling of complex systems like the climate. There has for the last decade been dire projections of climate change which simply have not occurred as modelled. The only certainty on this issue is that these scientists cannot make accurate predictions. We can be assured that they will get closer because 'short terming' data will allow them to do that; but then they miss the long term factors.

2. The political loadings or 'biases' associated with such issues, i.e. The spectre of human action as reflective of uncontrollable, non-compliant, treacherous egotists who need to renounce or be regulated. Of course the flipside is that I can be biased in my alternate thesis. The 'middle ground' rationalisation or 'repressive state' does not hold, i.e. The argument that one is 'unbiased' by these considerations is not an argument. No more satisfactory than a paedophile saying he will abuse no more. Scientists are not self-aware people. They renounce moral imperatives because they think they are a betrayal of evidence. This is a false dichotomy because it means they ignore any evidence that betrays their legitimacy, i.e. They will not entertain value judgements about their own bias. They will simply not have the appreciation of ethics to make valid conclusions. 

3. Interpretation of data - There is a great deal of scope for people to misuse or misinterpret data; even to manipulate data sets knowing that no one is going to both confirming these interpretations. Scientists don't like to go over what has already been done; particularly because they don't want to take the position of a critic. 

4. The blatant lack of certainty implied in data and their interpretation of it. If you listen to these scientists they do not project a great deal of confidence in their understanding. There are simply earthly and astronomical processes that they are still coming to terms with. i.e. The processes by which methane hydrates, immense deposits of carbon-containing methane on the sea floor are formed. There is uncertainty about how these are created and how stable they are. The sensitivity of this data is huge, so there is a huge importance placed upon knowing these systems. 

5. The conflict of interest - These people are paid to create 'stigma'. We do not appreciate climatologists when we have no reason to fear climate change; just as for the same reason, we more highly value police in periods of high crime. The same for firemen in the 9/11 period. This creates a strong incentive for climatologists to seek validation; and to take measures to achieve it. Conceding that the evidence is not there is a hard step to take because it invalidates their credibility as a scientist. Have you seen what happened to the exponents of 'cold fusion'. Can you imagine what will happen to science budgets/funding when global warming is discredited - if it is? 

6. The decline in the quality of science - In the past science was a low-status field of endeavour. No one wanted to be a scientist - unless you went into space - and too few people can do that. There was always greater appeal in making money, and that meant smart people tended to enter law, finance, economics, or become an entrepreneur or programmer. Universities around the world lowered school scores in order to attract graduates. This is only part of the problem. The education system does a poor job at teaching students how to think. I studied science. No one teaches logic in science; but they do teach statistics. This entrenched empiricism in the university curriculum means that scientists are 'strongly empirical'. The problem with this is three-fold:

      (a) There is a lack of recognition of what 'causation' actually is. These scientists think that if you pass 5% statistical confidence you have causation.

      (b) These scientists don't realise that empiricism rests on analytical arguments. What is a 'valid sample' to test a hypothesis. The implication is that they are making assumptions that they cannot prove.

    (c) Given their inherent non-analytical position, you will find that they make rationalisations which invalidate their argument. i.e. In this video, this Harvard scientist says that there is 'no resolution problem' in his data. He thus need not be concerned with the fact that his data rests on 400-year sample points. His argument is that he is not concerned because CO2 levels don't rise and fall so quickly, so he does not need to worry about issue. The problem with that argument is that he is using his hypothesis as an argument for its validity. That is a circular argument - a contradiction. You can't use your conclusion as the basis of your evidence. The conversation about resolution starts at 2:15 minute mark. What is interesting is that, probably having heard the criticism already, he makes a psychological 'gesture' that would probably convey apprehension to a psychologist. That 'evidence' occurs at 2:38 when he touches his ear. Note that the video identifies a scientist with the counter-argument (Robert Rohde) has struggled to get his research peer reviewed. The implication is that there is a strong 'values laden' bias in the scientific community against alternative arguments to the global warming hypothesis. The world has a rich case history of 'human error' where people simply stopped taking critical positions and accepted the status quo. This guy's apprehension is well-appreciated. Unfortunately he is going to be validated despite his apprehensions. He will accept this 'unearned validation', the cornerstone of this 'academic ponzi scheme'. In this interview, the scientist treats the raw data 'context' in his thesis derisively as 'chitter chatter'. This is not science; its presumption (evidenced at 4:30 minute mark). This is where scientists 'don't know what they don't know' and arrogantly assume that there is no case to answer. What is conveyed is a lack of respect for facts, or a lack of procedural discipline to establish them. i.e. Its all about the money and applause; being validated rather than alienated for a counter-position. Ask yourself how many times you have seen any of these 'truth seekers' defend or spurn the lack of peer view of their counterparts. It should remind people of the lack of objectivity or defence of critics in times of political tyranny. Aside from a governor of Nagano, few publicly criticised Emperor Hirohito, when he sanctioned empire building. The same is true for Hitler and 'modern systematically-wrong science'. The problem is the education system.

       (d) There is the problem of there not being equal access for scientists who are more objective than others. The problem is that there is a 'consensus bias'. Politicians listen to people because people decide their fate. This is true for scientists as well. For the reasons I have made above, only 5% of scientists are critical thinkers able to substantively understand the validity of sciences. Yes, I grab this number out of the air. Its not been empirically tested, and that's not to say 'non-science' is an argument, but rather than there is a plausible hypothesis that has not been tested. I say plausible because non of my contemporaries who are 'so sure', or who conclude that 'the cost of being wrong is too high', are destined to ignore the prospect of this argument being true, because its not within their capacity to know whether its true. That is the 'disempowerment bias' that is destined to invalidate a great deal of science when dealing with these complex systems. Critcal thinking scientists - let's call them 'the 5%' are not being listened to by the media because they don't have the consensus. They are denounced as 'qwacks' as if this was a witch-hunt.

          (e) One has to ask how much does this scientist actually understand about the nature of how the data is actually collected, i.e. What is the data measuring in terms of its relationship to other data. i.e. Is the data measuring maximum, minimum values, or average values? Is there data contamination within the sample record, i.e. contamination by surrounding data. this will of course depend upon the nature of the data, and it comes from different sources. We might wonder if these scientists are stitching together data that suits their rationalisation; ignoring any counter-evidence. i.e. Selective interpretation of data. We need to remember that recognised scientists can't get peer reviewed. There is bias among scientists. Strangely, great scientists have historically often encountered this problem because smart people are not commonplace; that's why they call it mediocrity. When the standards for university science entry were lowered, we opened up science to mediocrity. That process took 15-20 years. It happened in the 1980s; so in the 2000s, we saw the full impact of this 'correlation'.  

It is interesting to read some of the support for this research

Michael E. Mann, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University, an expert in the relevant techniques but was not involved in the new research, said the authors "had made conservative data choices in their analysis".

What a curious thing to say. What is a 'conservative data choice'? It makes you wonder. I simply want them to identify trends based on facts. Such statements tend to convey; that we are not certain; but we are going out on a limb and saying the world only has our research, and you'll just have to live with our inaccuracy or uncertainty. But in fact - there is a choice - not doing anything until we know. The argument is that doing nothing is not a choice. This is nonsense. There is a cost to doing the wrong thing. The 'high pressure' 'must act' notion is popular; its called 'high pressure sales' - create urgency. 

Dr. Marcott said: Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age".

The implication is that global warming is allowing humanity to stabilise the average global temperature before we go into a freeze. We need to remember that we are currently using coal because its the cheapest fuel. If we artificially make it expensive, then we are actually sabotaging our wealth creation capacity, and thus our capacity to finance change in the future, to offer technological solutions in the future, if indeed those 'interventions' are required. We need to remember that the concern for energy consumption efficiency is a pretty new concern. It was never the focus of corporate leaders. You can ask yourself why. Many of you will conclude its the 'failings of capitalism', but I would argue that government intervention has added costs (i.e. cynical tax impositions, little of which has gone into solar/renewable, little of it efficient expenditure on research). I would also argue that government intervention is wholly compatible with the moral relativism that allows the current system of economic reward to discourage CEOs from making cost savings in energy. It is far more 'remuneratively beneficial' for CEOs to simply consolidate global capacity rather than organic growth. 

The problem with these researchers is that, even if they make no other statement, their conclusions in the hands of journalists results in some damaging conclusions. But scientists too are destined to 'reach outside their page grade'; and by that I mean that are free to speculate outside of their narrow field of expertise, and in doing so rely on others thinking - or rationalisations.

Dr. Marcott: "The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. If the rise continues apace, early Holocene temperatures are likely to be surpassed within this century".

Now, this makes me recall the old days of the Club of Rome and the 1980s projection that coal prices were going to $100/tonne. Instead, we found more resources and coal collapsed to $25/tonne....and only in more recent times have reached $180/tonnes due to completely unrelated phenomenon; a commodities bubble and inflation. So what do they need to consider:

1. The prospects for nuclear fuel to take more market share

2. The prospects for prosperity to reduce the energy-intensity of people

3. The prospects for rebalancing of labour from 'cheap' to 'quality' in about 20 years to change attitudes to buyers/consumers

4. The prospects for technology to reduce energy intensity of consumption, renewables and innovation in other ways.

5. The prospects for lifestyles to change when we can make our own food at home; live in cities, which are better designed

6. The prospect that a complete revolution in decision-making, say by political reform, could and should change our capacity to be efficient and judicious in our actions. How much is our political paradigm holding us back now. 

7. The prospects of global population growth reversing in 70 years. Might this however be offset by longer lives? Possible? But maybe by then, we will be so advanced we will be engineering our bodies or lives to consume 240% less energy and products. Maybe we will realise that we already over-eat, and we can already achieve a 50% reduction in calorie intake simply by addressing issues like anxiety. That is a 'political problem'. 

When you consider these issues; you realise that society does not project a realisation that they have any inkling of what the problems really are. 

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

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

Stories on climate change

Please forward this email onto others.

1) An analysis of global warming.

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

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

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

Humans are hard wired for stupidity according to Yale University fellow

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?

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

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

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

Climate change numbers are red not green

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

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