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

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

Impact of methane on climate change a concern

Based on changes in methane gas levels I'm a little more concerned about the trends in greenhouse gas. Perhaps the greatest concern is that the way our governance is structured, policy does not give a lot of credence to long term issues. No one wants to make the first move because they don't want to undermine their competitiveness. So we have the indifferent Chinese and Indians driving policy, because they want the right to pollute the Earth as much as the West. Sounds childish, but true. 'We didn't get a turn (to pollute)!' There is no convincing narrow thinking like that. People that feel compelled to compare themselves, and in the process deny the facts....at least as how I see them. :)

The reason I say that there is compelling evidence is because I have looked at a lot of evidence and it was never compelling. But I can't account for the rising CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere. Its a concern because we are extracting methane from coal seams in Australia and the USA big time. In Australia, the amoust of CH4 extracted from coal seams is rising exponentially. When you tap into these coal seams you are extracting the gas to burn. My concern is that you are creating a negative pressure around the drainage holes, but what about on the periphery of the field. My concern is that there might be methane leakage into the atmosphere. Remember this is not a perfect vacuum, there is porosity and permeability issues. I did some rock mechanics at university, and as an issue it has me concerned. But because there is money in the issue, I bet no one is even looking at the problem to measure the possible amounts of methane being emitted directly into the atmosphere. Maybe I'm wrong. I could be labelled a cynic. I'm just used to people arresting murderers rather than treating the parents 15 years earlier; recapitalising banks rather than allowing politicians to engage in crazy creation policies 10-15 years earlier. Nope, don't worry, everything will be fine. Bacteria can grow everywhere, even in a methane clogged atmosphere.
This is a concern because methane is 20x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so any large increase in methane (CH4) is significant. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are far smaller, but they account for 20% of the greenhouse effect.
------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Our Environment - by George Carlin

This is a great video by George Carlin:

------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Why is USA against a greener Earth?

I have just been reading a forum posting at http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=113775 where a poster asks "WHY is US against a greener EARTH?"

My response to this is multi-faceted:
1. There is little evidence to suggest that the USA is anti-greenhouse because:
2. The USA is one of the greatest emitters by virtue of its 'prosperity' which pre-dates the escalation of the greenhouse issue - but it is also amongst the cleanest.
3. The USA government is not opposed to greenhouse, it wants China to sign on as well, thus China should be considered the obstacle. China and India will be the centre of heavy industry for the next 30-40 years, if they are permitted to adopt laxed environmental standards, the world would have more to fear. The USA in contrast is a mature, service-orientated country, so its CO2 emisisons have stabilised and could even fall in coming years. We are living in a new paradigm - a high energy cost market - so the USA will be priced out of the markets that have a high energy-intensity.

If you look at the facts you will see its actually the statist economies like Russia and China that have the worst evironmental record. eg. Lakes destroyed in Russia by oil seeps, or poor irrigation practices, pollution of rivers and coal-related haze over China.

So why do green groups criticise the USA and not China? Its because green groups are hollier than God in the west, there is an emotional attachment to the environment, even though people live convenience and have to work in the city. Greenies are considered the only bastion of their interests...never mind that their arguments are deluded. People accept appeals to emotion. As a result green groups have leverage over the US government, but they dont over China, where the statist regime would quash any opposition. Besides the Chinese couldnt care a pittance for the environment. The place is a toilet bowl. I travelled from HK to Hanoi by train and the embankment next to the railway was filled with rubbish. They have the worst emitting power stations in the world, and are pressed by the US to adopt new technology. But China just wants to be rich like everyone else. So if you want to safe the environment - tell you government to tell China and apply sanctions, and if you tire of that - stop spending. Better still, recognise that the world is not moved by logical arguments and question the science that is likely as dubious as the politics that drive it.
More on this subject coming!
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Climate change - do you need to trust the experts?

I think the accepted wisdom in society is that the study of climate change is such a specialised subject that we need to place our faith in our climatologists, since they are our experts in this field. I think this notion is erroneous, and I will suggest as much with an analogy. When you go to a doctor, do you blindly accept whatever they say, or do you filter it through your own thought process. This approach might seem a little more difficult on the issue of climate change because its so far removed from people's lives. The task of critiquing science falls upon intellectuals like me that have studied science, who are aware of the arguments, but apply what scientists aren't applying:
1. A broader perspective: Many of the so-called experts are so specialised that they fail to see the broader trends or context of the argument.
2. A critical perspective: A great many scientists are not critical thinkers. Why? Because they tend to be empiricists rather than rationalists, and if they are rationalists.
3. An objective perspective: Even if they are rationalists, they tend to be floating conceptualists indulging in rationalisations. They are compelled to delude themselves to achieve a certain understanding that is not consonant with the facts of reality.

Armed with this information, one can place oneself in a powerful position to argue against these people. But it does require one to have some understanding of science and natural processes, as well as the capacity to critically appraise information, just as you would do with your GP. We tend to be cynical about doctors because the modern medical centre means we are often examined by a new doctor every time we have an appointment, and we hear stories of doctors making poor diagnoses. We have some knowledge of medicine from reading, and more impotantly, we are in a position to ask questions and to critique their responses to establish trust. Finally we can go to alternative doctors for a different interpretation. Science is a little better than medicine because scientists are already divided into camps. If you listen to the rhetoric of one group, they will tell you that there is no opposition to the greenhouse concept. The reality however is that there is opposition, but one group would rather not recognise them so they can push through with their agenda. Of course this is not in the interests of science.