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

Australia's mining tax will not reduce global warming

I am not a believer in the argument that we are facing anthropogenic climate change. I am due to run another review through the material to see if I'm going to change my mind because I'm prone to forget all the detail of the debate, and new facts and assertions arise which can have some bearing. The politics however are taking over the science, as the following broadcast shows.

So what is wrong with this promotion. I have several problems:

1. Appeal to authority - The guy has a lot of credentials, but none is at all related to the issue, aside from the fact that he is related to the mining industry. You cannot disregard what he says because he's from the mining industry, but don't let all those letters intimidate you, it just means he belongs to a lot of mining industry associations.

2. Appeal to exaggeration - The guy cites the cost of the tax as $A72 billion over 5 years. Why not one year? Well that would mean just $A15 billion per annum, and that would be less impressive. But again the size of the tax is not really the issue....its the science. So why does he make the issue?

3. Alternative - I have a problem with a critique of the tax which does not offer alternative science, if not a different form for the tax. Preferably no tax for me.

4. Proportions - There are 33 CO2 molecules in an atmosphere of 85,800 molecules in the atmosphere. He argues that 32 of the CO2 molecules are from nature, and just 1 CO2 molecule is from nature. i.e. 3% of Earth's CO2 comes from humans.

5. Co2 is beneficial (akin to fertiliser) - Not the issue - as ammonia is a fertiliser too; but its also an explosive. Its not a helpful argument; it depends on the context.

6. Short latency - This idea that any CO2 is in the atmosphere for as little as 4-5 years. Where does he get that from? Does it matter? The amount of Co2 is increasing. This argument needs clarification to me.

7. Australia's contribution - He makes the argument that Australia makes 1.5% of world's CO2. Fair enough; but we are the world's biggest coal exporter, which means we export about half as much coal as China produces in one year. Now, if we tax that, then obviously its significant imposition on consumers worldwide, though I would argue that its not going to do anything to the dynamics of global warming, i.e. Its just an excuse for a tax. Koreans are not going to close coal-fired power stations; they are not going to stop using coal; its simply going to raise a lot more money for Gillard to waste. I personally would rather see billionaires get the billions than see the government get it....at least so long as governments are in the business of breaching rights rather than upholding them.

8. Misdirection - He says its going to cost the community $72 billion in the next 5 years. No it won't; it will cost mostly the mining companies and their shareholders; so it will cost super fund holders to some extent; say to $20 billion; but then some of that money will benefit some in the community. At the end of the day its a moral issue for me; its extortion.

9. Perspective: My friend keeps reminding me that CO2 accounts for just 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, while water is anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 parts per million. CO2 is only slightly more worrisome as a greenhouse gas than water, so why aren't we worried about water? Well, the argument is that water is bad because CO2 is bad. i.e. The more CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat, which will result in more water; at least until the point of air saturation. You'd think that this would mean more plants in the tropics, which means more absorption of CO2 and a nice little balance. We also need to consider that the earth's population is destined to flatten out in 30 years, however energy intensity will continue; however nuclear and solar might be more popular then. I don't think we need worry even if the science is correct.

If you want some even better perspective; being worried about coal, its worth considering the fact that there is still plenty of coal in the ground, and that most of that coal was deposited in 2 periods - the Carboniferous Period in the Northern Hemisphere and the Permian Period in the Southern Hemisphere. If these were periods of very high coal deposition; it goes without saying that our climate today must be similar to the climate when all that coal was deposited right? As its mostly still in the ground. Ok, let's be more sceptical. Let's look at the Earth at the start of the Carboniferous Period. Well, its clear it was higher, but perfectly within the natural range. Looking at his chart temperatures were typical (25degC average), commensurate with times, which correlates with CO2 levels of 3000ppm at that time, 8.5x more than than the 380ppm. You also get the impression that CO2 does not correlate at all with global temperatures in the long haul. The context is being dropped. Perhaps we should be more worried about the plague or asteroids which caused the mass extinction in the Triassic Period, given that the average global temperature was 25degC for most of the last 300Myrs and have been mostly around 25degC for most of the Tertary Period (i.e. the last 65Myrs). Having fallen to 10degC; the current average global temperature is currently14degC, which strikes me as 'just right' +/- 5degrees.

Source: Climate & The Carboniferous Period

It saddens me that the mining industry has not raised the fact that the entire globe of governments is now raises mining taxes because of Gillard. Products will get more expensive because of Gillard. i.e. Gillard and Rudd have singularly undermined freedom around the world; well maybe in the West only, as you could argue that some of those undeveloped countries need to spend more on justice and infrastructure....or are they corrupt??

Polar sea ice levels are another controversial arena to debate climate change. The exponents of global warming here are a geophysicist (i.e. glorified geologist) and a US Navy Oceanographer (i.e. a bureaucrat). There arguments are really not compelling. i.e. The evidence the geophysicists is the 'melting ice doesn't lie'; true, it is what is it is; but it does not make an argument for climate change, which is an abstract value judgement. Is this what behaviourism has done to science? This science from a denier strikes me as more useful; as it looks dispassionately at the whole 'modern period', not selectively at 'convenient' facts. I must however acknowledge that I'd like to do more research of this topic. Here though is another study which suggests that the extent of Arctic ice coverage was lower in the 11-14th century, prior to the Industrial Revolution. Look at the chart - it tends to convey a pretty natural trend.

Here is another website to take a look at.

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Is the global climate warming?

The media and political rhetoric is that the climate is getting warmer as CO2 levels increase. If life was so simple, you might expect some type of correlation between CO2 and average global temperatures; but we don't. In fact, there are a great many reasons to be sceptical of such claims. These include:

1. The lack of knowledge that researchers have about the climate. A great many questions are still being asked and a great many answers are surprising researchers.

2. The lack of historical record of the sun's variations in global electromagnetic radiation, i.e. sunspot activity and solar flares

3. The lack of clarity about the role of water in the atmosphere, et al.

4. The broad-based poor state of science. Read this article: “The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” by Jonah Lehrer, The New Yorker, website, 13th Dec 2010.

5. The political conflict of interest - both of researchers and politicians

6. The tendency of certain researchers to seek political sanction rather than scientific resolutions

7. The arguments when some of the climate change advocates actually front up to sceptics. There is one debate on YouTube between MIT and NASA counterparties.

Follow this widget yourself and observe the climate 'change'; its like watching grass grow; except CO2 levels are rising :) There is an accurate temperature record here - current data.

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

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

Do climate claimants sound familiar?

I have not substantiated this article however it highlights the ever-changing nature of climate change. Refer to source. The article suggests that similar fears of global warming, or similar symptoms, occurred in the 1920s.

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

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

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

Global warming evidence no stronger

In this CNN article, the UK's Meteorological Centre argues that the arguments for global warming are more compelling than any time ever. This makes one laugh because they posit no new evidence for their claims. Its simply more of the same. The problem is - what they consider science. Animals function on the level of 'mere correlation', humanity 'ought not'. Just because a warming phenomenon occurs when humanity is emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases is not satisfactory as a basis for causation. That is simply bad science.

The stalwarts for an 'imminent crisis' behind these stories ignore the flaws in their own evidence. My prior observation of global warming is that over the last 700,000 years the average Earth's temperature has fluctuated. The current measurements are within the pattern observed over the last 700,000 years.

At issue is the fact that the Earth's temperature record is on the cusp of a 'radical' climate change. That is the thesis, and certainly, statistically it is a possibility, given that the present climate sits at a point of inflection. i.e. It might go either way. So what does it mean to say the climate could go either way. It can mean 3 things:

1. The Earth could cool, i.e. slow its rate of heating and eventually cool in the same pattern that has occurred over the last 700,000years.

2. The Earth could continue to heat, i.e. It could develop new climatic character, which might merely reflect natural phenomena, or it could reflect human influence. Even if humans are responsible, it does not mean that we ought to worry for a number of reasons:

a. The climate will likely provide its own means of adjustment, i.e. more cloud cover, more robust vegetation growth (i.e. CO2 is actually a plant fertiliser).

b. Scientists might find a new way of coping with the problem, i.e. Say gigantic mirrors to reflect solar radiation...or simpler options like seeding the oceans to stimulate plankton growth.

The article even cites evidence to suggest the 'global warming' is starting to turn around.

"Although the warming trend is continuing there is evidence that the rate has slowed in the last ten years. Since the end of the 1970s, the rate of surface temperature warming has, on average, risen 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, according to the Met Office. But from 2000 to 2009 that decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13 degrees Celsius, despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise".

In what sense can this be considered to be stronger evidence for global warming. CO2 emissions are rising unabated and yet temperatures are cooling. I am not saying that his proves that there is no global warming, as I would then be committing the error of my counterparts. My argument is merely that a slowing might be suggesting the historic cycle remains true. The historical record indicates that we are due for an Ice Age. That will be the next scare to strike the public. Is it possible that after the folly of this one that no one will take an ice age seriously. At least it will not be our fault. We should only be concerned about crises which we cause. Such thinking is the 'cave men' values of the Dark Ages. Should we not respond to real threats, whether they are our fault or natural phenomenon. Anyway, that is a problem on the horizon. Of course not all minds are equally compelled to see threats that lie around corners....they are too busy imagining them.

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

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

What if global warming cause is anthropogenic?

Here is an interesting question - I did not read about it on Political Forum.com, but I will post a response to it:

The fact is that if there was a anthropogenic cause for global warming it would not make a difference because any 'negative externality' has to be established on the basis that the trend is destined to cause harm to specific individuals. The fact that the process of change takes so long and change is occurring anyway tends to underpin any such consideration.

An argument could also be made that CO2 is a fertiliser to plants, and that enrichening the atmosphere will eventually result in stimulated plant growth, and higher temperatures would result in more evaporation, cloud formation and precipitation, resulting in greater oxidation (i.e. usually by carbolic acid, i.e. CO2) and more reflection of UV back into space.

The greatest obstacle to the current climate change debate is the lack of a compelling 'causation' for it. I would however suggest solar flares is far more credible as a cause.

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

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

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

Are greenhouse gas levels really a problem?

Here are some good articles on whether atmospheric CO2 levels are actually higher than previously. What actually does the historical record show. See this article by Dr Tim Ball. You might also like to view his other published articles.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Third grader could solve global warming

For some time now we have been told that humanity is unleashing a global environmental crisis, and that if we don’t act now we will do irreversible damage. These are major claims. Governments around the world are spending huge amounts of money to correct a problem that may not be a problem. What does the evidence suggest? Being a geologist I was inclined to question these assertions. It became apparent to me several years ago that a lot of scientists were publishing dubious research to support global warming. At this time I had performed no research into the issue myself. I merely seized on the fact that the evidence was often self-refuting, or demonstrated poor thought process. Having studied philosophy, it also became apparent to me that there was a philosophical explanation for what was happening. My university science and critical thinking skills were telling me this was nonsense...at least what I was reading. It was only after completing research recently that it was apparent that there was no crisis; that in fact the climate was changing as it had always done.

Well as a geologist I have some perspective on such matters. A perspective which understands that the climate has always changed and always will, and that humans will just have to adjust to it. It is human arrogance or humility that concludes that we could do so much damage, or that we could be so evil. But I have another perspective too, which you ‘non-technicians’ will particularly relate to, and that is a ‘common sense’ perspective.

Below I have gathered some evidence. It’s nothing as exciting as Ice Cores from Antarctica or oxygen-isotopes from some fossilised bird pooh from the Amazon jungle. It is some simple, readily available statistics pertaining to the global population and the dimensions of the Earth. I am particularly fond of this argument because it’s so simple. I have heaps of other more scientific arguments, but this is my favourite because whilst there are a lot of ‘greenies’ running around scaring people with science they don’t understand, here I am a scientist providing people with some simple 3rd grade maths they can readily understand. It has to make you laugh! God I know I am.

The evidence I have gathered shows the basic facts from Wikipedia - plus my basic 3rd grade calculations. These calculations show the implausibility of the global warming hypothesis. It is apparent that for every person on the globe there is 75,231m2 (7 hectares) of land area, but if you consider the columnar volume of atmosphere above every per capita of humanity, then you realise that you couldn’t possibly be the culprit. See! So it was arrogance.

Conclusion: The global warming hypothesis shamelessly fails the common sense argument. This 3rd grader thinks Western governments want to introduce a more comprehensive carbon tax given that world petroleum reserves are being depleted. Such cynicism from such a young tike.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon http://www.sheldonthinks.com