Have you noticed that both sides of government seem equally contemptible? Have you noticed why there are only ever two sides to the debate, and all other minor parties are ignored? Who is served by that strategy? Do we really have competition? Why do politicians advocate competition in industry, but in the realm of policy debate and politician salary setting there is very little choice or competition? The great fear for a political party is that a 3rd force might emerge in politics. We all saw how the Liberals 'took out' Pauline Hanson. Notwithstanding her flaws, there was a tremendous campaign to discredit her in Australia. It wasn't that she has a small, loyal support group, she was a symbol that a 3rd force was possible.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
The greatest robbery ever conceived – robbery by collusion
The greatest thefts of all time occur because:
Well thought out plans
By great minds with illegitimate interests
A perception of security
Where a pool of wealth exists
There are numerous pools of money – they lie in institutions, the capacity of banks to create money, but more often than not the prospect for mass ‘illegitimate’ transfer of wealth comes as a result of government favours. Consider that governments have often been behind the great success of business leaders:
Bankers were behind the financing of the post-WWII reconstruction
Bankers are behind the current derivatives market expansion
Corporate executives are granted a free reign to set their own pay levels
Corporate leaders are given exclusive licenses to operate a certain area of business
Corporate leaders are given grants
Corporate leaders are in a position to leverage their companies money. They have options on the upside, but no exposure on the downside – unlike shareholders. How can such benefits be considered fair?
What possible justification is there for the huge salaries that these executives are paid. There is no justification for paying them that much. They aren’t that special. Ayn Rand created in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the symbol of the ‘producer’ who supported the world through productive capacity. Whilst such symbolism works well with novels, the reality is that executives depend on a huge team of talent. Why are the leaders so special? Does the enterprise fall apart because the leader is away. He is the leader generally because he is the best candidate – not because he is the only candidate. So where is the competition in this market? Why aren’t politicians enforcing the notion of competition? Well surprise surprise – political pay is another area lacking competition. Its not unusual in the Australian parliament for politicians to vote for pay rises in the last Xmas session of parliament. Might corporate leaders be turning a blind eye to political largesse for the sake of preserving their own? Ask yourself how many politicians end up in corporate boardrooms? Well only the leaders. But what is the boobie prize for the idiots that populate our parliaments? Well they get a generous pension for life – they just have to serve one term.
SMH reports that Wall Street CEOs “who presided over the subprime mortgage crisis awarded themselves bonuses totalling $US33.2 billion – down just 5% on the previous year. That is despite the fact that -of the major banking groups Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers - only Goldman Sachs largely avoided the risky loans which have since resulted in a financial crisis. In their defense, these 7 firms earned $US39 billion during the first half of 2007, a 41% gain over 2006, but they lost $US28 billion in the third and fourth financial quarters. Total pretax profits for the 7 firms totalled $US11 billion in 2007, less than one-fifth of the $US60 billion record set in 2006. Employee compensation (includes bonuses) accounted for 61% of the firms' revenues in 2007, up from 45% in 2006. The bulk of the earnings go to the employees working in mergers and acquisitions and in equities. They are rewarded with bigger bonuses than the employees in the fixed-income units handling mortgages. But the problem is – these staff aren’t the reason for the huge profits – it’s the boom. They don’t make these profits when equities are falling. Are they really so clever? The problem is the market actually supports high rates of pay because:
Rates are set on your ability to make money which is often not sustained and not tied to actual contribution
There is no competitive market since the executives who set junior pay rates have a vested interest in raising them to justify higher pay rates for themselves. The directors are thus in a weak position to argue for the CEO not to get more pay.
Incentive schemes reward on the upside – which in a boom is likely to be achieved – but don’t penalize on the downside
Often huge bonuses don’t reflect sustainable earnings, but rather the benefits of consolidation mergers & acquisitions. Of course its easy to buy the market to increase earnings in a boom. CEOs don’t have to live with the downside – the premium paid for these assets. But they make sense in the short run.
See http://business.smh.com.au/wall-st-execs-collect-us33b-bonuses/20080118-1mq1.html?sssdmh=dm16.298124
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Well thought out plans
By great minds with illegitimate interests
A perception of security
Where a pool of wealth exists
There are numerous pools of money – they lie in institutions, the capacity of banks to create money, but more often than not the prospect for mass ‘illegitimate’ transfer of wealth comes as a result of government favours. Consider that governments have often been behind the great success of business leaders:
Bankers were behind the financing of the post-WWII reconstruction
Bankers are behind the current derivatives market expansion
Corporate executives are granted a free reign to set their own pay levels
Corporate leaders are given exclusive licenses to operate a certain area of business
Corporate leaders are given grants
Corporate leaders are in a position to leverage their companies money. They have options on the upside, but no exposure on the downside – unlike shareholders. How can such benefits be considered fair?
What possible justification is there for the huge salaries that these executives are paid. There is no justification for paying them that much. They aren’t that special. Ayn Rand created in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the symbol of the ‘producer’ who supported the world through productive capacity. Whilst such symbolism works well with novels, the reality is that executives depend on a huge team of talent. Why are the leaders so special? Does the enterprise fall apart because the leader is away. He is the leader generally because he is the best candidate – not because he is the only candidate. So where is the competition in this market? Why aren’t politicians enforcing the notion of competition? Well surprise surprise – political pay is another area lacking competition. Its not unusual in the Australian parliament for politicians to vote for pay rises in the last Xmas session of parliament. Might corporate leaders be turning a blind eye to political largesse for the sake of preserving their own? Ask yourself how many politicians end up in corporate boardrooms? Well only the leaders. But what is the boobie prize for the idiots that populate our parliaments? Well they get a generous pension for life – they just have to serve one term.
SMH reports that Wall Street CEOs “who presided over the subprime mortgage crisis awarded themselves bonuses totalling $US33.2 billion – down just 5% on the previous year. That is despite the fact that -of the major banking groups Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers - only Goldman Sachs largely avoided the risky loans which have since resulted in a financial crisis. In their defense, these 7 firms earned $US39 billion during the first half of 2007, a 41% gain over 2006, but they lost $US28 billion in the third and fourth financial quarters. Total pretax profits for the 7 firms totalled $US11 billion in 2007, less than one-fifth of the $US60 billion record set in 2006. Employee compensation (includes bonuses) accounted for 61% of the firms' revenues in 2007, up from 45% in 2006. The bulk of the earnings go to the employees working in mergers and acquisitions and in equities. They are rewarded with bigger bonuses than the employees in the fixed-income units handling mortgages. But the problem is – these staff aren’t the reason for the huge profits – it’s the boom. They don’t make these profits when equities are falling. Are they really so clever? The problem is the market actually supports high rates of pay because:
Rates are set on your ability to make money which is often not sustained and not tied to actual contribution
There is no competitive market since the executives who set junior pay rates have a vested interest in raising them to justify higher pay rates for themselves. The directors are thus in a weak position to argue for the CEO not to get more pay.
Incentive schemes reward on the upside – which in a boom is likely to be achieved – but don’t penalize on the downside
Often huge bonuses don’t reflect sustainable earnings, but rather the benefits of consolidation mergers & acquisitions. Of course its easy to buy the market to increase earnings in a boom. CEOs don’t have to live with the downside – the premium paid for these assets. But they make sense in the short run.
See http://business.smh.com.au/wall-st-execs-collect-us33b-bonuses/20080118-1mq1.html?sssdmh=dm16.298124
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
New Australian Labor Government ceases pay rates review
According to the SMH (http://smallbusiness.smh.com.au/managing/legal/afpc-ceases-pay-rates-review-902643447.html) the new Labor government has requested that the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) should cease to review junior wages and overall pay scales, thus dropping the previous Liberal governments initiative. The Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard terminated the review “pending establishment of the new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, in 2010”.
I cant help thinking there is a lot of political deception in this decision. Is it possible that the incoming government is worried about:
1. The possibility that ‘real inflation’ might be raised, given the increase in prices
2. It wants to avoid the need to address any disparity in youth wages
Would it not be better to complete a review already committed to, and might any findings be used as a basis for its policy. Why do young workers have to wait until 2010 for a resolution – that means any policy intiative will come after the next election. How convenient!
Gillard said that “awards would be modernised and simplified by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) from early 2008”. The government argues that “the AFPC's review of pay scales and junior and training wages will both overlap with and duplicate the [AIRC] award modernisation process”. So why not fold the role of the ARPC into the AIRC. Its politics. I suggest the reason is that the previous committee was stacked full of Liberal MPs, which only highlights the reality that, parliamentary committees are not object fact-finding processes. On the contrary, having submitted a number of submissions to such committees, its evident that such proceedings mean very little. Its all about political clout. So where is the objectivity in parliament if not in the parliamentary committees, which get very little public scrutiny. Well there isn’t any.
Gillard suggested that ”the various reviews being conducted by the previous Liberal government was a piecemeal approach”. But having been in government for 11 years, might a little tinkering be all that is required? So what is Labor going to do? Apparently “modernising and simplify more than 4,300 awards”. Well perhaps its warranted, but that strikes me as tinkering, not a profound policy shift. Hence my belief that Labor is just deferring action. Trying to be uncontroversial. Might they have a confidence problem? Do they have any substantive policy. Secretly I think they are very happy with what the Liberals have given them. Interestingly, I would suggest the Liberals lost the election at precisely the right time. Labour will oversee the ‘period of pain’.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
I cant help thinking there is a lot of political deception in this decision. Is it possible that the incoming government is worried about:
1. The possibility that ‘real inflation’ might be raised, given the increase in prices
2. It wants to avoid the need to address any disparity in youth wages
Would it not be better to complete a review already committed to, and might any findings be used as a basis for its policy. Why do young workers have to wait until 2010 for a resolution – that means any policy intiative will come after the next election. How convenient!
Gillard said that “awards would be modernised and simplified by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) from early 2008”. The government argues that “the AFPC's review of pay scales and junior and training wages will both overlap with and duplicate the [AIRC] award modernisation process”. So why not fold the role of the ARPC into the AIRC. Its politics. I suggest the reason is that the previous committee was stacked full of Liberal MPs, which only highlights the reality that, parliamentary committees are not object fact-finding processes. On the contrary, having submitted a number of submissions to such committees, its evident that such proceedings mean very little. Its all about political clout. So where is the objectivity in parliament if not in the parliamentary committees, which get very little public scrutiny. Well there isn’t any.
Gillard suggested that ”the various reviews being conducted by the previous Liberal government was a piecemeal approach”. But having been in government for 11 years, might a little tinkering be all that is required? So what is Labor going to do? Apparently “modernising and simplify more than 4,300 awards”. Well perhaps its warranted, but that strikes me as tinkering, not a profound policy shift. Hence my belief that Labor is just deferring action. Trying to be uncontroversial. Might they have a confidence problem? Do they have any substantive policy. Secretly I think they are very happy with what the Liberals have given them. Interestingly, I would suggest the Liberals lost the election at precisely the right time. Labour will oversee the ‘period of pain’.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Australians named worst emitters
According to BBN News (source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092989.stm) Australia is the world’s worst emiiter of CO2 gases. Well I have 2 basic responses to this:
1. So what? And…
2. Why should that be surprise?
The first issue is whether Australia is threatening the globe by producing more CO2. Its an over-simplification to say that CO2 is pollution, when it exists naturally in the atmosphere and is a fertilizer for plants. They need it to live. Are we not then greening the planet? The argument will be made that we are upsetting the natural balance. But the earth was never in balance. The Earth’s CO2 concentrations have been bouncing around for years without any threat to man. Are we too powerful now? There is too little evidence to say? We could be on the precipice of an Ice Age, which occur every 5000 years. So maybe Australia producing CO2 is actually a good thing. The computer models run by the climatology ‘experts’ are so out of sync with reality, that they are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are truly on a steep learning curve. So what should we do to on a policy level:
1. Increase awareness of the benefits of saving energy
2. Create incentives for people to buy energy efficient light bulbs, eg. Information on packaging that tells people which bulb is the cheapest over its economic life
3. There are easy way Australians and everyone else can save energy. The next issue – should we be surprised Australia is the worst emitter per capita?
4. No, its logical. There are several reasons why we have high energy consumption:
5. Travel distances are huge – big issue
6. Australiians live on larger 600-1200m2 suburban lots compared to 60-250m2 in Tokyo, Manila or elsewhere, so our cities are big relative to their population –big issue
7. Australia doesn’t have a very good train system
8. Australia has a lot of cows that produce methane
9. Australia has a high proportion of coal-fired power stations because it has ample cheap coal up the east coast where the population lives – big issue
10. Australia has no nuclear power stations
11. Australia is the driest continent in the world, so we have the lowest capacity to generate hydro electric electricity
12. Australia's natural gas resources (until coal seam gas was recognized) have historically been very remote and offshore for power generation
13. Australia consumes a lot of energy in metal processing, eg. Alumina refineries, etc.
Australia did not select the determinants of ‘pollution’. Consider water vapour, its also a greenhouse gas, and Australia has scarcely any of that, but that is not considered in these studies.
Yet there are several reasons why Australia should be better:
1. It spends a lot of money on air conditioning when in fact most of the population lives in a mild climate
2. It hardly produces anything – it is a service economy
3. It could invest more in rail than cars – rail is more efficient, safer, yet its taxed more harshly
But Australians are mostly paying the price for factors they have no control over. The sillyness of the argument is highlighted by the statement “Australian power stations are the least efficient on a per capita basis”. You don’t measure power station efficiency on a population pro rata basis. That’s lunacy. That would imply virtue lied with the poor who used none. Not necessarily you say - we could embrace technology. But we do. We just do it when it makes commercial sense. Alternatively fuelled cars and solar cells are still not efficient enough, so we delay the expense, but I am sure when they do make sense, Australians will embrace them faster than mobile phones. The best way to measure efficiency is compare the energy produced against the cost or lost energy to produce a unit of energy. By those ‘realistic’ measures Australian plants are very modern. We have the electrostatic precipitators to remove particulates and scrubbers to remove nitrous and sulphur dioxides. China has scarcely little of this equipment, and is the world’s worst emitter with the USA (which has the equipment). More incredible is that most new industrial capacity - that consumes the great bulk of energy - is going to be based in China, which will not sign on to Kyoto, nor is it required.
The BBC, a big greenhouse advocate gets its stories from The Carbon Monitoring for Action (Carma) - a green lobby group. So that’s the quality of their journalism. None of the arguments I made above were considered in the BBC article. Their agenda instead is to spread fear where it counts. Not in China, where the people couldn’t care and politicians have no ‘green’ conscious, but in western nations where there is this ‘guilt’ for being human.
Statistics are very easily manipulated. Consider that South Africa produces as much CO2 as Australia, but because of apartheid the bulk of the black population live in poverty, so this lowers the per capita CO2 emissions from South Africa. India is perhaps the most impressive – but that’s because they need to be – they have little energy or money to buy it. Hence they have few trees. Should they not be penalized for lack of birth control? If we are going to talk about carbon footprints – why don’t we look at those countries that burden the world with too many kids? Eg. Catholic and Muslim countries like the Philippines and Nigeria. And what about energy efficiency? The third world is spewing out millions of tonnes of particulates from poorly maintained trucks, tricycles, jeepneys, and what about those oil-fired power stations, using cheap high-sulphur fuel. So why don’t these countries rank highly. Because they have the good fortune to be over-populated and poor, oohh and most of their governments couldn’t care a shit. Emissions are not an electoral issue there. Surprising power failures are not even an electoral issue in the Philippines, but that’s good news right? It saves the environment.
I think it is folly to lack critical analysis of such articles, and at a political level it is folly to apply costs on the economy which undermine productive output, as we are only undermining our capacity to deal with real problems based on ‘real’ evidence. Having said that – there are low cost measures that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions, and that’s mostly a ‘energy cost’ that people should consider more. People don’t think about the lights they leave on, the energy rating of their houses. But that’s because they rely on governments to do it. Governments only get points for the cheap shots. So it comes back to our system of government – democracy sux!
But despite not considering the points above, CARMA has this to say: “We feel quite confident that no-one else has [this power plant] information in such detail”. “In this website, we do not push a particular agenda or outcome”. "In fact, we are very interested to see how people choose to use the data” explained Mr Ummel. I don’t think I have ever seen such blatant misinformation in my life. This guy posits as a scientific authority. It just supports my view that you can’t trust the media, nor even scientific authorities to deliver ‘facts’. Its all lobbying to reach baseless goals, and the problem is our system of government.
-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
1. So what? And…
2. Why should that be surprise?
The first issue is whether Australia is threatening the globe by producing more CO2. Its an over-simplification to say that CO2 is pollution, when it exists naturally in the atmosphere and is a fertilizer for plants. They need it to live. Are we not then greening the planet? The argument will be made that we are upsetting the natural balance. But the earth was never in balance. The Earth’s CO2 concentrations have been bouncing around for years without any threat to man. Are we too powerful now? There is too little evidence to say? We could be on the precipice of an Ice Age, which occur every 5000 years. So maybe Australia producing CO2 is actually a good thing. The computer models run by the climatology ‘experts’ are so out of sync with reality, that they are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are truly on a steep learning curve. So what should we do to on a policy level:
1. Increase awareness of the benefits of saving energy
2. Create incentives for people to buy energy efficient light bulbs, eg. Information on packaging that tells people which bulb is the cheapest over its economic life
3. There are easy way Australians and everyone else can save energy. The next issue – should we be surprised Australia is the worst emitter per capita?
4. No, its logical. There are several reasons why we have high energy consumption:
5. Travel distances are huge – big issue
6. Australiians live on larger 600-1200m2 suburban lots compared to 60-250m2 in Tokyo, Manila or elsewhere, so our cities are big relative to their population –big issue
7. Australia doesn’t have a very good train system
8. Australia has a lot of cows that produce methane
9. Australia has a high proportion of coal-fired power stations because it has ample cheap coal up the east coast where the population lives – big issue
10. Australia has no nuclear power stations
11. Australia is the driest continent in the world, so we have the lowest capacity to generate hydro electric electricity
12. Australia's natural gas resources (until coal seam gas was recognized) have historically been very remote and offshore for power generation
13. Australia consumes a lot of energy in metal processing, eg. Alumina refineries, etc.
Australia did not select the determinants of ‘pollution’. Consider water vapour, its also a greenhouse gas, and Australia has scarcely any of that, but that is not considered in these studies.
Yet there are several reasons why Australia should be better:
1. It spends a lot of money on air conditioning when in fact most of the population lives in a mild climate
2. It hardly produces anything – it is a service economy
3. It could invest more in rail than cars – rail is more efficient, safer, yet its taxed more harshly
But Australians are mostly paying the price for factors they have no control over. The sillyness of the argument is highlighted by the statement “Australian power stations are the least efficient on a per capita basis”. You don’t measure power station efficiency on a population pro rata basis. That’s lunacy. That would imply virtue lied with the poor who used none. Not necessarily you say - we could embrace technology. But we do. We just do it when it makes commercial sense. Alternatively fuelled cars and solar cells are still not efficient enough, so we delay the expense, but I am sure when they do make sense, Australians will embrace them faster than mobile phones. The best way to measure efficiency is compare the energy produced against the cost or lost energy to produce a unit of energy. By those ‘realistic’ measures Australian plants are very modern. We have the electrostatic precipitators to remove particulates and scrubbers to remove nitrous and sulphur dioxides. China has scarcely little of this equipment, and is the world’s worst emitter with the USA (which has the equipment). More incredible is that most new industrial capacity - that consumes the great bulk of energy - is going to be based in China, which will not sign on to Kyoto, nor is it required.
The BBC, a big greenhouse advocate gets its stories from The Carbon Monitoring for Action (Carma) - a green lobby group. So that’s the quality of their journalism. None of the arguments I made above were considered in the BBC article. Their agenda instead is to spread fear where it counts. Not in China, where the people couldn’t care and politicians have no ‘green’ conscious, but in western nations where there is this ‘guilt’ for being human.
Statistics are very easily manipulated. Consider that South Africa produces as much CO2 as Australia, but because of apartheid the bulk of the black population live in poverty, so this lowers the per capita CO2 emissions from South Africa. India is perhaps the most impressive – but that’s because they need to be – they have little energy or money to buy it. Hence they have few trees. Should they not be penalized for lack of birth control? If we are going to talk about carbon footprints – why don’t we look at those countries that burden the world with too many kids? Eg. Catholic and Muslim countries like the Philippines and Nigeria. And what about energy efficiency? The third world is spewing out millions of tonnes of particulates from poorly maintained trucks, tricycles, jeepneys, and what about those oil-fired power stations, using cheap high-sulphur fuel. So why don’t these countries rank highly. Because they have the good fortune to be over-populated and poor, oohh and most of their governments couldn’t care a shit. Emissions are not an electoral issue there. Surprising power failures are not even an electoral issue in the Philippines, but that’s good news right? It saves the environment.
I think it is folly to lack critical analysis of such articles, and at a political level it is folly to apply costs on the economy which undermine productive output, as we are only undermining our capacity to deal with real problems based on ‘real’ evidence. Having said that – there are low cost measures that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions, and that’s mostly a ‘energy cost’ that people should consider more. People don’t think about the lights they leave on, the energy rating of their houses. But that’s because they rely on governments to do it. Governments only get points for the cheap shots. So it comes back to our system of government – democracy sux!
But despite not considering the points above, CARMA has this to say: “We feel quite confident that no-one else has [this power plant] information in such detail”. “In this website, we do not push a particular agenda or outcome”. "In fact, we are very interested to see how people choose to use the data” explained Mr Ummel. I don’t think I have ever seen such blatant misinformation in my life. This guy posits as a scientific authority. It just supports my view that you can’t trust the media, nor even scientific authorities to deliver ‘facts’. Its all lobbying to reach baseless goals, and the problem is our system of government.
-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Greenhouse Hoax
On many occasions over the last 100 years the science community has made assertions about natural disasters and impending doom. These assertions have included warnings of mega-tsunamis, meteorites striking the earth, impending ice age, and none of these events have come true as foretold. Thats not to say they can't. The issue is more one of: (i) Perspective, (ii) Facts supporting their evidence, and (iii) the way evidence is presented.
The current assertion warning of global catastrophe is 'global warming' or more precisely the assertion that humans are largely causing global warming. There have been several reasons why I have always been skeptical of this latest threat:
1. The argument that all climate scientists believe there is a global warming phenomena, and that humans are largely the cause of it.
2. The argument that scientists had a high level of understanding of the processes that cause global warming
3. The argument that a computer model was going to predict climate change 100 years into the future when they cant even get a 3 day forecast right
4. The philosophical values that underpin most people's lives. My concern here is that climate scientists are 'normal people' - they are not critical thinkers. They are empiricists who look at sensory evidence from an emotionally charged philosophical context.
5. There has been no 'great debate' where opponents have had an opportunity to present evidence or question the evidence against climate change.
Since forming those conclusions I have always remained open to new evidence that might cast into doubt my existing beliefs. In the last few years there were 3 compelling sources of information that have shaped my opinion:
1. Media articles: Particularly in Japan I was reading weekly articles asserting scientific conclusions that just didn't stand up to scrutiny. Some were even inherently contradictory. There was the occasional article suggesting that scientists had it wrong. One could be forgiven for thinking that the media has no interest in presenting conclusive arguments for or against climate change. I would suggest the media has a vested interest in keeping us in doubt. If you think about it the best story is the one that never dies, that evokes great passions, that poses a great threat, because everyone will be interested in it. There are plenty of 'crackpot' scientists in specialised fields that you can get quotes from to support your cause.
2. Al Gores movie:
3. Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis. This document grabbed my attention because as a geologist I took great interest in paleo-climates, fossils, and I knew that ancient landscapes could be understood by looking at evidence from rocks. Its interesting that no advocate of 'man-made climate change' has made any assertion or refutation based on rocks that date back billions of years.
suggesting that human I have come across a number of media articles that have reinforced in my mind the belief that scientists still dont know what they are talking about.
4. Personal observation: There are places on earth like China where we are actually seeking 'regional cooling'. China is of course the dirtiest polluter on the planet because its power stations dont remove nitrous oxides and particulate matter from their emissions. Only the newer plants built from the 1990s have these anti-pollutant plant installed.
The last document I read presents several points that reinforce my belief that the dire warnings of climate change are misguided, and that humans are largely to blame. The pertinent arguments are:
1. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases. It makes sense that if the earth was naturally warming (in a documented natural cycle) a higher percentage of water would be concentrated in the atmosphere. Humans account for just 0.28% of global greenhouse gases.
2.
PS: I dont give much credence to the assertion that the National Center for Policy Analysis is independent of private money or government agencies.
-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
The current assertion warning of global catastrophe is 'global warming' or more precisely the assertion that humans are largely causing global warming. There have been several reasons why I have always been skeptical of this latest threat:
1. The argument that all climate scientists believe there is a global warming phenomena, and that humans are largely the cause of it.
2. The argument that scientists had a high level of understanding of the processes that cause global warming
3. The argument that a computer model was going to predict climate change 100 years into the future when they cant even get a 3 day forecast right
4. The philosophical values that underpin most people's lives. My concern here is that climate scientists are 'normal people' - they are not critical thinkers. They are empiricists who look at sensory evidence from an emotionally charged philosophical context.
5. There has been no 'great debate' where opponents have had an opportunity to present evidence or question the evidence against climate change.
Since forming those conclusions I have always remained open to new evidence that might cast into doubt my existing beliefs. In the last few years there were 3 compelling sources of information that have shaped my opinion:
1. Media articles: Particularly in Japan I was reading weekly articles asserting scientific conclusions that just didn't stand up to scrutiny. Some were even inherently contradictory. There was the occasional article suggesting that scientists had it wrong. One could be forgiven for thinking that the media has no interest in presenting conclusive arguments for or against climate change. I would suggest the media has a vested interest in keeping us in doubt. If you think about it the best story is the one that never dies, that evokes great passions, that poses a great threat, because everyone will be interested in it. There are plenty of 'crackpot' scientists in specialised fields that you can get quotes from to support your cause.
2. Al Gores movie:
3. Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis. This document grabbed my attention because as a geologist I took great interest in paleo-climates, fossils, and I knew that ancient landscapes could be understood by looking at evidence from rocks. Its interesting that no advocate of 'man-made climate change' has made any assertion or refutation based on rocks that date back billions of years.
suggesting that human I have come across a number of media articles that have reinforced in my mind the belief that scientists still dont know what they are talking about.
4. Personal observation: There are places on earth like China where we are actually seeking 'regional cooling'. China is of course the dirtiest polluter on the planet because its power stations dont remove nitrous oxides and particulate matter from their emissions. Only the newer plants built from the 1990s have these anti-pollutant plant installed.
The last document I read presents several points that reinforce my belief that the dire warnings of climate change are misguided, and that humans are largely to blame. The pertinent arguments are:
1. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases. It makes sense that if the earth was naturally warming (in a documented natural cycle) a higher percentage of water would be concentrated in the atmosphere. Humans account for just 0.28% of global greenhouse gases.
2.
PS: I dont give much credence to the assertion that the National Center for Policy Analysis is independent of private money or government agencies.
-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Friday, October 12, 2007
The democratization of the media
One of the profound shifts in the last few decades has been the concentration of media ownership that has resulted in about 4 large media barons controlling the bulk of the world’s media. The problem with this process is that:
- Media content becomes politically motivated
- Media content becomes populist drivel
- The barrier to entering conventional media markets is very high because of the high costs of publishing and establishing news gathering networks and establishing a brand
But that is all going to change. Internet service providers like Digg.com promise to transform the media business by allowing anyone to post content on the internet and allowing users to vote on its merits. The implication is that everyone becomes empowered – whether as a content publisher or reader. This mode of media delivery allows people to promote their services as well as critique their opponents. I think this media solution will work better if friendships are based around personal interests – which is usually the case.
If you are interested in how Digg.com works, see http://life-tools.blogspot.com/2007/10/art-of-self-promotion.html. There is further information on the Digg FAQs page - www.digg.com/faq.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Sleeping with the enemy
In recent weeks Burmese Buddhist monks mounted a street rally to protest the rise in fuel costs in Burma. The monks were joined by the general population and the protests soon escalated into violence and military intervention as the military junta applied force to return control. Its strategy was to shoot and incarcerate the leaders of the dissidents.
The western reaction to the conflict was to morally condemn the action, though without taking more concrete steps there seems little value in such action. It is apparent that western governments are willing to take action when tyrants breach the rights of a significant number of people, and its fair to say that western governments abhore the Burmese military junta. But historical precedence also suggests that western governments are not prepared to escalate moral outrage to military intervention unless there is a compelling vested interest in doing so. Eg. In the case of Cuba, the US feared regional insecurity and early Russian missile deployment, in Iraq it was concerned about the oil (never mind the press focus on weapons of mass destriuction).
The only benefit from western governments helping Burma would be the goodwill extended by any new government. Given the Buddhist values of Burma, it seems likely that any force applied to the country would likely result in regime change. The question is whether western govrnments are likely to act. The west only applied sanctions the last time this occurred in 1988, when 3000 protesters for democracy were killed. Since then the military junta has retained power. There seems to be little support for the junta within the country, but also little incentive for the west to engage. The likely reason for not intervening in Burma is likely to be Chinese sympathy for the regime. I can see several reasons why the Chinese would support the Burmese junta:
Drug trade through China profits Chinese government officials who likely turn a blind eye to the trade in exchange for kickbacks
China would not like to see a new democratic government in Burma because it would be concerned that any new administration would allign itself with western governments. The implication is that a Burmese government sympathetic with western interests might support US bases. China is unlikely to support any western involvement in the region.
Moral righteousness has never been a compelling reason to engage in military intervention. Morality has become secondary to pragmatic (materialistic) concerns in the global race to advance the interests of your country. Some countries are better than others, and it has to be appreciated that whilst Chinese interests are implicated in supporting the Burmese statist government, they have more at stake given that Burmese is on their doorstep, and not close to western markets. Having said that, the USA gave Cuba’s Fidel Castro a lot harder time than China and Singapore are giving Burma. There are many examples of government duplicity in state politics:
- Western countries preparedness to engage in trade and investment with China despite its failure to rectify the debasement of individual rights in the country.
- A Japanese company that was recently caught selling intellectual property to North Korea and Syria through a Chinese Malaysian company
- France’s provision of weapons to Iraq prior to the Iraqi war
- The Singapore government which steadfastly continues to finance development in Burma despite international condemnation
- Chinese indifference to the Burmese drug trade which channels Burmese drugs through China to global markets
- Western governments complicity in Singaporean and Chinese support for Burmese money-making activities
The latest example is the tacit support of Burma by the Singapore government. The Singaporean government, through its $150 billion state-owned investment house Temasek Holdings, has invested an estimated $3 billion in Burma. Temasek Holdings is controlled by Singapore's powerful Lee family, the most influential being the former president. The question is how should western governments respond to Burma as well as Singapore. Lets consider what the options are:
1. Western governments attack government interests in Burma
2. Western governments apply tighter sanctions to Burma
3. Western governments apply sanctions or freeze Singapore assets. Clearly western governments have a lot of influence here when you consider that Temasek has $3bil invested in Burma, but $20 billion invested in Australia.
4. Western governments doing nothing – ‘minding their own business’
Burma is a very poor country, and it’s a legitimate complaint to suggest that western investments in Burma (such as Singapore’s $3billion go along way to supporting Burma's military junta) play a part in supporting these governments. The question is whether this investment is central to it. Criticism could equally be drawn to China since it effectively helps Burmese by facilitating its drug trade. But don’t expect western governments to undermine their trade interests in China for the sake of Burmese democracy. I would suggest that there is more chance of western intervention if Burmese citizens escalated the conflict. However for cultural reasons I suspect the conflict will ground to a halt. Passivity will return as it did last time.
Singapore's strategy was to build links with Burma in the mid-1990s when other countries were abandoning it. As a result of western withdrawal, Temasek was able to negotiate some very lucrative deals, and were no doubt rewarded for that support. This philosophy of non-judgement and engagement has been characteristic of Asian governments for a long time and is central to Asian attitudes to moral issues. More surprising perhaps is the fact that Singapore has not received any condemnation for its action. The reality is that its not just Singapore that is helping Burma, but a number of other countries interested in its energy resources – offshore gas in particular.
The question is – just what standards should western governments apply to other nations – whether we are talking about brutal dictators or governments that support them. The military junta has a vested interest in most foreign-sponsored investment, so there is no possibility of avoiding junta support. The hotels, airlines, military equipment and training, crowd control equipment and sophisticated telecommunications monitoring devices, are derived from Singaporean inveolvement. Singaporean companies have provided computers and communications equipment to Burma's defence ministry and army, improving the junta's ability to communicate with regional commanders – thus allowing it to better suppress protesters in Burma’s 20 largest cities. Singapore is the only ASEAN country in a position to provide Burma with this equipment because of its modern armed forces and defence support base. It speaks volumes that Singapore appointed an ambassador to Burma who was previously a senior Singapore Armed Forces officer and prior director of Singapore's Joint Intelligence Directorate. Such a role would be normally filled by a career diplomat. Singapore also helped sponsor the military regime into ASEAN.
But perhaps its worth reflecting on Singapore itself. Its easy to forget that Singapore is itself a authoritarian state, albeit a rich one. There is no question that the Lee family-controlled People's Action Party has been in power for almost five decades because of the economic prosperity it has delivered, but it has also been there because of its entrenched statist policies. Its certain that soft diplomacy was a requirement by Britain, but what about Burma? Is the Singapore leadership adopting any similar standards? Singapore ranks only behind China, Cuba and North Korea in leadership longevity. I don’t think anyone would mind if Burma emerged as another Singapore, but it seems unlikely to tread this path. If Singapore is to profit from Burma perhaps it should be incumbent upon Singapore to act – to turn it into the ‘capitalist state’ that it has become.
Its clear that Singapore plays a greater role than just the supply of weapons and other support for the military. Singapore is a financial base which facilitates trade for Burmese businessmen. By setting up Singaporean accounts Burmese interests are able to evade international constraints such as sanctions. Among these junta cronies are Tay Za and the druglord Lo Hsing Han. Lo is an ethnic Chinese, from the opium-rich Kokang region of East Burma bordering China. Lo is one of Burma's biggest heroin operations, but through Singapore he has been able to legitimatise his activities. Lo's son Steven Han is married to a Singaporean Cecilia Ng. He is also denied permission to enter the US because of his drug links, but they travel without restraint in Singapore. Given the link between Singapore an the heroin trade you might wonder why the USA has not applied more pressure on Singapore to cease and desist in its relationship. Tay Za was last year celebrating the launch of his new airline, Air Bagan, in the company of the Singapore head of aviation.
The question is why is the US and other western governments not pressuring Singapore to end its support for Burmese military junta and drug lords? I think the reason is they don’t do anything without provocation. Otherwise they would have to account for why they didn’t act sooner. You might think that a regime change might end the drug trade, but I suspect they are might conclude it might be worse with private operators. Anyway it will be interesting to see if they act.
I support military intervention in Burma. I think the job could be done quickly. I just don’t see it happening.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?
