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

Corporate middlemen, global parasites

You could be forgiven for thinking carbon taxes were a good thing given the corporate support for them. The problem of course is the underlying motives for such advocacy. All those incumbents are 'middlemen', mostly government-funded advocates like scientists, bureaucrats, academics, but even among them corporate middlemen. Even Hitler had a collective of corporate 'favourites'. People who tow the`government policy' line, and advocate that which would be deplorable to most business. Their motives are of course a narrow vested interest. They would sell the world for a commission.

I take this to be the nature of such advocacy from such global CEOs as this guy from KPMG. This company stands to gain from corporate requirements for accounting services, consulting, IT applicaitons. It has no doubt spent millions developing solutions for business. A strategic decision which will only pay off if there is a carbon tax. IT and consultants do not pay a carbon tax; they merely advise those who do.

They will be the corporate 'pin-up boys' for good corporate citizens, and they will inevitably be rewarded with huge consulting fees for the partners in the firm. Kind of a thank you for supporting government policy perhaps. There is never any evidence. There could be Swiss bank accounts to reward politicians. Its the way things are done. If we are lucky some evidence of this will come available through WikiLeaks. But that is difficult as these decisions look like normal corporate deals at middle-management level. The only people to know otherwise are those at the top pulling the levers. Gross conflict of interest, but no money trail. No one could make anything of a politician and global CEO meeting in some hotel room after some conference in Bali on climate change. This is probably how things are done. I have no evidence mind you. Its just how democracy can function because decisions are based on 'numbers' rather than reasons (i.e. as in a meritocracy). Corruption is actually only possible because of arbitrary government policy. As soon as policy is determined by reasons, corruption is not possible, because any corrupt advocate would be trumped by a better logical argument, even if the logical argument had just one advocate. Read this article and tell me that I my argument is not plausible.

KPMG has developed software solutions for a global problem. The economies of scale from adopting these solutions in just a few countries is phenomenal. They are not the only players, and there will be investment banks in their bidding for similar deals. Clients beware. Middlemen have no particular interest in helping you. After all if there is no carbon tax, they have no basis to extort money from you. Hitler made use of such people. Of course they do not have to engage in corruption. There are plenty of zealots (i.e. environmentalists) behind this tide.....they can simply remain conspicuously silent on the issue. They might also fund green groups and the like as a community goodwill program. We do not repudiate companies for lobbying, donating money to charities. The problem is that all this politicking is extortion, and its all made possible by democracy.

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

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

Japanese government climate change funding a facade

According to the Japan Times, "none of the government's 214 biomass promotion projects — with public funding coming to ¥6.55 trillion — over the past six years has produced effective results in the struggle against global warming". The implication that the government:

1. Is a very ineffective agency for performing any effort, so ought to be dumped

2. The government was only managing 'perceptions' rather than intending to do any good, i.e. Acting with utter disdain for the public's pecuniary interests, and really treating taxpayers as slaves to its political agenda.

Of course these arguments can be made against any Western democracy, insofar as they are all engaged in the same schemes. In Australia and NZ, its subsidies for heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, which have only forced up the price of these products. Its actually cheaper to use a non-approved, less efficient product which does not get the subsidy. Such is the diseconomy of government intervention. Another example is the very efficient heat pump. It would be the choice for many people in urban areas, but they sell for $3000-5000 because of the subsidy. A heat pump is actually just a refrigerator in reverse, and they sell for $800-1000. So such is the premium people are paying for an efficient solution. The fortunate ones are the rural folk who are able to purchase a wood furnace because timber is relatively cheaper than electricity, and its old technology. Even here prices have been pushed up by new standards attempting to achieve higher efficiencies...even though most heat in an open house is wasted anyway. Open fire places are very wasteful. There is no need to heat the whole house. A better solution would be better personal insulation. Its a wonder why the wool producers are not investing in superior 'personal insulation' garments so we don't need internal heating solutions at all.

It goes without saying that the problem is democracy, in which perceptions are more important that facts or 'results'. So long as the dumb nut voter thinks something is being done because a budget allocation has been made, and so long as they have no choice about the way their taxpayer funds are spent, the 'great extortion racket' will continue.

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

UN claims environmental damages

According to the U.N. Environmental Program, it has identified "some $6.6 trillion worth of damages" resulting from environmental devastation caused by global warming or air pollution in 2008, equal to 11 percent of global GDP. This is quite a claim considering that the science is exceedingly doggy. This issue is exceedingly political, yet the media will publish it because they love scandals, and it comes from a (inter-) government agency, so it must be true.

The evidence is the fact that Japan is experiencing 'record' temperatures after a century. Notwithstanding the 'heat island' effect, there is also the natural variations in the global temperature regime. The earth's climate varies due to natural processes. We are about due for an ice age, so ought we be concerned about a warming? The answer is no. A cooling would result in a plunge in global temperatures. The cause of global temperature decreases? The UN Climate Panel have no answer.

The problem with such agencies is that they function of simple correlation. i.e. They see a problem and they simply correlate it with any 'apparent' cause. If only real science were so simple. When such ideas are challenged, governments are inclined to finance a lot of research to prove their ideas are right. There is of course less money if you prove they are wrong; so rest assured 'academics' are going to find a problem, because they need to justify their existence. What happened to respect for truth among scientists? That has seldom escaped the power of philosophy to drive science. The missing ingredient is critical thinking.

In the coming decades we can expect the earth's climate to cool naturally because at present, according to Antarctic ice core dating, we are at the peak of a global warming. From this point on, global scientists will have accepted that there is no warming. At that point, you will see a lot of attention being given to a new crisis 'global cooling', which is actually more of a concern. My suspicion is that we will cope just fine. A lot of scare. The real threat is posed by governments, which are not driven by informed critical, objective arguments, but the biggest, most popular group of scientists you can find. i.e. Its a meritocracy of sought, but its not scientific merit, so much as Aristotle's famed 'fallacy' of appeal to authority, or professional qualifications. The sad reality is that academic tenure is considered an achievement. Its not. Academic is a pretense for intellectual and scientific acumen; a dirty rationalisation. I am currently reading the history of the Industrial Revolution. It is actually striking how many of the best scientific minds existed outside the 'establishment', and the extent to which other scientists dogged on those scientists. Edmond Halley could not even get tenure because of his religious views. He needs money, so that was his justification for trying. He had an exemplary mind, and yet he was snubbed by the Establishment....perhaps they were urked by his practicality, as he was responsible for winning support from the Admiralty to get funding to map the changes in the global magnetic field, as well as the tides. Meanwhile, academia was busy living off extorted wealth, rationalists to be sure, who achieved very little by comparison. I am sure they stumbled across some ideas. Perhaps the modern equivalent like 'frogs display evidence of emotions'.

Source article - see Japan Times.

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

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

Saving the planet for a better world

In this comedy sketch George Carlin displays a great understanding of the psyche that grips the common day environmentalist.

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com