IPCC to investigate claims of sham science

The IPCC said it will investigate claims that a UK university has engaged in distortion in order to generate research which supports global warming.
Clearly however the IPCC is not the best regulator of such claims because it is overwhelmly a political beast, given that it was established by a former Tory chancellor of the UK - Nigel Lawson. The bias inherent in this organisation is unlikely to result in honest disclosure.
Read the full story here.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

A new institute has been set up in the UK by Nigel Lawson, the former treasurer of England during the Thatcher administration. The intent of the institute is to achieve a balanced analysis of global warming. I didn't think it called for a 'balance', more like an adherence to facts, honesty, etc. But any forum which canvasses the views of both adherents and critics is at least a step in the right direction.
You can view below
1. A You Tube presentation by Lord Monkton (an adviser to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's) that focus on climate change.
2. The Global Warming Policy Foundation
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Giant jellyfish invade Japan - WWIII "exclusive"

In today's news we have more nonsense suggesting 'climate change'. The discussion ceases to be meaningless when people don't know what they are talking about. Climate change is a natural phenomena. The climate is dynamic - it goes up and down with annoying unpredictability. Its unpredictable because its complex. Its not that we can't know the future, its just that we really haven't needed to know. What we can know is that there is a lot of assertions being made to support a flawed hypothesis. There is nothing unusual about the current climatic patterns.

This 'crisis' and the related 'dire warnings' are nothing more than liberals in the media trying to sell product, and trying to encourage you to embrace their values. Nothing wrong with selling product mind you, but its a problem when people sacrifice facts and integrity for a good story. No better that a stockbroker who spruiks a good 'gold stock' whilst knowing it will never make money. The world is full of them.
So what is wrong with the latest story out of Japan? The problem is the assertion that the annual occurrence of jellyfish off the coast of Japan is special. There are two things to note:
1. They were there 40 years ago, so its not such a stretch to go from one year to a few.
2. More importantly, we can see from the chart above that the Earth's global average temperature is lower than it was in 900AD, a period which pre-dates human impact on the climate, and that we can expect warmer temperatures for the next 50-100 years, and that would be perfectly within the pattern of previous cycles.
3. Warmer temperatures are actually conducive to greater oxygen production, as its the planets way of adjusting to such rises in CO2 levels, if it were a concern.

The issue of whether humanity could long term impact on the climate (even if there is no evidence of a current impact) is addressed in the presentation in the previous post by Woods (2008).
The emptiness of such assertions are balanced by more 'neutral' reporting. This journalist from the UK Telegraph suggests little is known about these jellyfish. Nice to have an honest confession. But at least he highlights something about the erratic nature of their numbers and migration.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

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