General Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
If you liked that story then you might love this one. The Australian scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector says that 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?"
His main argument that is if carbon caused global warming you would find hot spots in the atmosphere over the tropics and the equator. Scientists around the world have searched for these hot spots without success, and Dr. Evans says that in light of this empirical evidence carbon emissions have to be rejected as the main cause of global warming and other sources considered. He laid it out clearly.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
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.
No doubt Al Gore and other fear mongers will do one of two things, completely ignore the evidence and continue his rage about carbon emissions being the undoubted cause of global warming, or simply wet their pants and fade into a richly deserved oblivion.
It is a really cool article. Here is the link.
The Global Warming Nazis will be all over you Pink Pather. They can't stand open debate of facts. They will simply call you a nutjob for posting this crackpots ideas. They will ignore the fact he is a PhD with a long career working for the Australian government with irrefutable facts.
Facts are things the global warming Nazis just can't handle. The fact that the earth has actually cooled since 2001 just blows away their whole hypothesis.
Thanks for posting dude.
Here's a rebuttal to the Evans thesis by Tim Lambert:
This essay apparently written by Evans (undated) seems to be a bit older than the one you posted:
It shows Evans changed his opinion in one part: in the newspaper article he says that satellite data is the only reliable source. In his older position he inludes data from 1940 to 1975 which obviously didn't come from satellites. He also says that he has a bet running with somebody else about how the earths temperature will change in the future.
This is Evans' bio:
No author and date are included so I don't know if its authentical. But if it is, it shows that Evans' main part in the Australian government study was to do the computer programming.
I'm not saying that Evans is wrong or right. Many great ideas have come from individuals who thought differently than the mainstream (e.g. Kary Mullis). I just want to say that just because he wrote this article (and you posted it) doesn't mean it has to be the way he says. There's no need to triumph and to praise the Republicans continued ignorance of our current environmental demise.
Expert Fantasy Advice
A look into yet another hugely disappointing game from Tom Brady while examining the rest of the Week 4 action … More »
Forget sitting out the year: Blake Bortles has legitimate fantasy value right now. … More »
Teddy Bridgewater's ankle has improved, according to head coach Mike Zimmer. Keep him in your waiver plans. … More »
Blood, guts, stiff-arms, touchdowns. Steve Smith Sr. is a reborn star. … More »