Great climate change charts for the sceptics

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

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

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

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