Thursday, July 17, 2008

Say can you see...

... what Tom Nelson calls "That ever-crumbling concensus" when quoting a piece by David Evans in The Autralian. [Emphasis mine.]
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?"

David Evans goes on to list the problems with the CO2 and greenhouse effect theories as applied to said warming and it is an illuminating article. He uses a lot of technical terms—like "radiosonde" and "thermometer"—which many of the eco-loons won't understand; however, I do hope that paragraphs like this one may spell it out clearly enough for them to get their pea-sized, liberal-Arts-and-Social-Sciences brains around. [Emphasis mine. Just in case it still isn't clear enough.]
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.

I have said it before and I shall say it again: there really isn't anything to worry about and human emissions are not the main driver of climate change.

Scepticism being the default position for any decent scientist, some of us have been following the evidence and adapting our understanding rather than clinging to the same, faulty premise as though it were the Holy Book of some Green religion.

If you are an utter moron (naming no names) you will just carry on as before and—if you are a total fucking arse—use words like "denier" to equate AGW sceptics—those who question a scientific theory, the parameters of which are pretty fucking massive, and which has so far failed to predict future events with any accuracy—with those who dispute the existence or extent of the Holocaust (which is historical fact established from evidence collated from events that have already happened).

In the meantime, we deniers will try to adapt and try to stop the loony religionists spending all of our cash on this idiocy.


Umbongo said...

Perhaps now one of our more eminent warmists who sullies the post of President of the Royal Society will learn that the practice of science is less about trying to shoot the messenger and more about healthy scepticism.

Mark Wadsworth said...

My favourite factoid: UK human contribution to total greenhouse gas in the world is 0.0025%.

TheFatBigot said...

The new Monckton paper is also getting a lot of coverage and there are already signs that the loons who have taken over Australia are getting cold feet about bankrupting the country.

I've long found it quaintly ironic that those who create the most hot air get very worked up about a threat of hot air.

John B said...

This article refers.


The holohoax is by no means a "fact"since scientific investigation is forbidden.

Anonymous said...

Scientific investigation is welcomed and widespread. You just don't agree with the results.

Anonymous said...

When has questioning the Holocaust story ever been accepted or welcomed? It is illegal in many countries and in Britain you would be in danger of being persecuted for inciting racial hatred. I see much of it as wartime propaganda. In fact I see little evidence for the idea that there was a programme of mass extermination. There is no contemporary documentation of the names of the individuals who were supposedly gassed and most of what we believe comes from eyewitness testimony.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"There is no contemporary documentation of the names of the individuals who were supposedly gassed..."

Actually, there is. This is why the Nazi Holocaust inspires such horror; the Nazis -- unlike, for instance, Stalin, who was also a dab hand at murdering millions of Jews -- kept meticulous records, you see.


Anonymous said...

From the Yad Veshem website:

"Why the lack of clarity? Didn't the Nazis keep meticulous lists?

"Actually, in most cases they didn't. Most German Jews were registered, but not all; to a limited degree this was also true in other Western Europe countries. Almost none of the Jews shot in the territories conquered from the Soviet Union were registered; Jews who perished from starvation or epidemics in all but the largest ghettoes were not listed; individual Jews hunted down in fields and forests were not recorded; and most significantly, the millions of Jews who were simply pushed off trains and into gas chambers, in most cases, were not listed. Not by the Nazis, that is. Then again, many Jews were listed in pre-war documents, or were recorded at one point or another during the war, perhaps by ghetto authorities, or other organizations; after the liberation various projects counted survivors. Many of these lists can be found on this website, at the Shoah Related List Database."