Climate change is not recession-proof

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

NZ climate change data dubious

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

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

IPCC to investigate claims of sham science

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

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

Integrity in climate policy

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

Politician rejects global warming consensus

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