Donspoliticalblog's Blog

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 This is a piece that I was sent and it is an indepth look at the agenda of the far left towards Global Warming. It's a good read if you respect the truth over politics. Don
This is extremely interesting and enlightening. PLEASE
> READ!
>
>
> David Evans | July 18, 2008
>
> I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models
> for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket
> scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM)
> that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto
> Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
> FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils
> and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate
> data, plant
> physiology and satellite data. I've been following the
> global warming debate closely for years.
> When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon
> emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is
> a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
> 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?" There has not been a public debate
> about the causes of global warming
> and most of the public and our decision makers are not
> aware of the most basic salient facts:
> 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been
> looking and
> measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible
> cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in
> the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The
> signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot
> about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have
> been measuring the atmosphere for decades using
> radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio
> back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the
> atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. 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 thegreenhouse signature then I
> would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found
> to be missing in 2007 (after the latest
> IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of
> the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe
> the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet
> hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so
> statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot
> spot.
> Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the
> radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde
> wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run
> the results through their computers to estimate the
> temperatures. They then say that the results show that we
> cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe
> that you'd believe anything.
>
> 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon
> emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is
> plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and
> theory suggests that carbon emissions
> should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly
> disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that
> implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the
> recent global warming.
>
> 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature
> all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the
> temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the
> temperature of 1980). Land-based
> temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat
> island" effect: urban areas encroaching on
> thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the
> thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars,
> houses. 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. The new ice cores show that in the past six global
> warmings over the past half a million years, the
> temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the
> accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says
> something important about which was cause and which was
> effect. None of these points are controversial. The
> alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would
> dispute their relevance.
> The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al
> Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as
> the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause
> global warming. In any other
> political context our cynical and experienced press corps
> would surely have called this dishonest and widely
> questioned the politician's assertion.
>
> Until now the global warming debate has merely been an
> academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we
> should debate the causes of global warming. 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. If there
> really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global
> warming, don't you think we would have heard all about
> it ad nauseam by now?
> The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since
> 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon
> emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of
> observations made by someone at some time that supports the
> idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer
> models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they
> are just theory. What is going to happen over the next
> decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The
> Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy
> in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later
> turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to
> re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes
> to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in
> 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally
> negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen throu
> gh it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of
> their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should
> be on those who want to change things to provide evidence
> for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is
> eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so
> it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
>
> Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian
> Greenhouse Office
> from 1999 to 2005.