David Evans worked in the Australia Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and wrote the carbon accounting model that tracks Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. When he started his job back in 1999, he thought the evidence for man-made warming was pretty good. Now he says this, “We have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming.”
Here are his four main points.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. The theory of man-made warming requires that “hot spots” be found in the atmosphere. Evans says that scientists have been searching long and hard for those hot spots, but have yet to find one. Evans says that they’ve tried so many times that the possibility that they missed it is statistically impossible.
2. Evans does not dispute that temperatures go up and down and that, theoretically, carbon emissions would raise temperatures. But, he says that there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001 and has started to cool. Land-based temperature readings overstate the temperature because of the “urban heat island” effect created by concrete, cars, houses, etc. In other words, land measurements say it is warmer than than the globe actually is.
4. New ice cores show that during the past six global warming periods, temperature rises occurred, on average, 800 years before a rise in atmospheric carbon. If anything, a warming trend causes increases in carbon, not the other way around.
Computer models and theoretical calculations are just theory, not evidence. Before wrecking the economy, let’s hear both sides of the story.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Last 3 posts by Taylor
- Obama's Second Act - Very Very Scary - July 16th, 2010
- No Politics in the Goldman Sachs Enforcement Action? - April 20th, 2010
- Moral Relativity Reigns...except - April 9th, 2010
Good info, Taylor. It seems that more and more of this is popping up. More and more people are saying that maybe there isn’t a climate crisis. It would be terrible to invest billions of dollars into research about a climate that’s not in trouble and to place countless restrictions on companies for no reason.
In November WSJ published excerpts from a lecture Michael Crichton presented at the California Institute of Technology on Jan. 17, 2003.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html
Crichton talked about the absurd over-utilization of computer models used in efforts to demonstrate the imminent catastrophes that global warming will cause.
“To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: ‘These results are derived with the help of a computer model.’ But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world — increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.”
The models these “scientists” use are compounding prejudices and errors as computer generated data is used to create new data over and over again. This essentially means that any predictions about what the climate will be 25, 50 or 100 years down the road are completely bunk.
I loved Crichton’s closing words:
“Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?”