United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Former moonbat Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) kool-aid drinker now says it's all bullshit
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/ ... ng-agw-based-on-false-science/
Published: May 16, 2011
Author: Bruce McQuain
Post Date: 2011-05-16 13:20:05 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 2523
Comments: 6
David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said: The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public. The politics: The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false. The science: But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much. Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century. The disagreement comes about what happens next. The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine] But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd. The modeling: This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide. That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. What did they find when they tried to prove this theory? Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s. Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing. For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached: At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters. And why will it continue? Again, follow the money: We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class! Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy. While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
this article is originally from 2007, and has been refuted (or refudiated if you prefer): scienceblog s.c om/deltoid/...ans_war_on_science_16.php ------ http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228 David Evans gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, "No smoking hot spot," which was published in The Australian in June, 2008. The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of "a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics." Evan's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales. No peer-reviewed articles on climate change According to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed research papers on the subject of climate change. Evans published one paper in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change. "I am not a climate modeller" From 1999 to 2006, Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says that "[he] know[s] a heck of a lot about modeling and computers," he states clearly that he is "not a climate modeler." Not Actually a Rocket Scientist According to his bio, Evans claims to be a "Rocket Scientist," and one article describes him as a "Top Rocket Scientist." While Evans's background does show that he has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist. When DeSmogBlog contacted Evans regarding his claim of being a rocket scientist, Evans replied that "In US academic and industry parlance, 'rocket scientist' means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions." Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft and they have confirmed that he does not work for them. Evans and the Levoisier Group Some of Evans articles appear on the website for the for the Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group. The group was founded by Ray Evans when he was an executive of the Western Mining Corporation. John Quiggin, an Australian economist, has described the Lavoisier group as "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry." He further describes the purpose of the group as being to "promote the views of those who question the scientific consensus on global warming." Evans and the Ludwig von Mises Institute Evans published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing, free market think-tank. The Institute describes itself as "the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics." Evans and the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change Evans made a presentation titled "Carbon Dioxide Not Responsible for 20th Century Warming" at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland describes the conference as "a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory that global warming is a crisis." Sponsors for the conference have received over $40 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations such as Koch Foundations and Scaife Foundations.
"Thats because your basically and idiot." Ooooh, go56- our local dingbat environMENTAList, is NOT gonna' like this article...! LOL.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: LOL. What's really hysterical is that this is the only poster with whom you seem to see eye to eye. And he's another Eric too..hmmmmmm
Only on the global-warming scam. NGT (Dondero) wholeheartedly believes in the neocon fantasies, and worships at the feet of Herr Dumbass. In this way, he's as much of a loon as the hard-core socialists like Ferret Mike, go56, skippy and the other intellectually lazy posters on this forum. NGT relies on faith- faith that those who align themselves with the "R" crowd will do as he wants, the same as those on the left who think ob@m@ is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Objectively, both sides are wrong... Because the overlying agenda remains the same, regardless of which shit-bug sits in the oval office. IF the agenda remains the same, it logically follows that the elections are a sham, the two-party system is a sham, and the followers of such political factions are hoodwinked with the same lies. You'll not hear this sort of thing from dondero, any more than you'll get it from skippy, ferret mike or the rest... because they're going on faith, developed through a very sophisticated propaganda campaign, which is communicated through MSM. ALL who challenge the propaganda are attacked, usually using the Alinsky "Rules for Radicals." The facts themselves are NEVER addressed, because Alinsky methodology actively avoids facts, and plays on emotions (which is why the socialists love it so much- the Rules for Radicals are designed to motivate the stupid and ignorant). The propaganda continues, regardless of who sits in the WH, who sits in Congress. It will continue, until the whole government collapses under its own weight.
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: blah, blah, blah
------------------------------------- In your case, it's "baah, baah, baah..." Keep chewing your cud: List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car:David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, Kafir, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list...? PISS OFF.
#3. To: Capitalist Eric, no gnu taxes, go65, (#2)
(Edited)
Ooooh, go56- our local dingbat environMENTAList, is NOT gonna' like this article...!
#4. To: mininggold (#3)
(Edited)
What's really hysterical is that this is the only poster with whom you seem to see eye to eye.
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, Kafir, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list...? PISS OFF.
#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#4)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#6. To: Biff Tannen (#5)
blah, blah, blah
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, Kafir, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list...? PISS OFF.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]