More of that ManMadeGlobalWarming-Disprovin’
David Evans, a consultant for the Australian Greenhouse Office for several years, has come out and said the evidence is lacking that carbon pollutants are causing a greenhouse effect or, for that matter, global warming:
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Evans lays out four “basic salient” facts about global warming that the public should be aware of:
1. “The greenhouse signature is missing.” In other words, an increased greenhouse effect would leave evidence in the form of a “hot spot” 10km above the tropics.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
2. There’s no actual evidence that carbon emissions “cause significant global warming.”
3. Measurements say the warming trend ended in 2001. In the past year, we’ve dropped .6 degrees Celsius and are at where we were in 1980.
Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. Ice cores show some of the global warming past: the temperature rises generally occur (an average of 800 years before) before the rise in carbon in the atmosphere.
So how do people get convinced?
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
Sure, temperature has gone up (and down). But what’s missing here is the evidence that what we’re doing is causing it. And, after all, shouldn’t our pollution have kept global warming going for the last seven years?
Visit the BPN Political Discussion Boards
Did you like this post? Subscribe to the BipolarNation feed.
You can also receive the latest BipolarNation.com posts delivered to your e-mail inbox! Subscribe here.
The BipolarNation Robots Say You Might Also Like These Posts:
