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.