« Hype: The Obama Effect | Main | Obama Nation World Tour Souvenirs »
July 21, 2008
Another Wheel Comes Off the Global Warming Hoax
David Evans pokes yet another hole in the Goracle's fictional consensus:
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?"
If you're an unrepentant hoaxer, what you do is ratchet up the hysterical rhetoric about how we have only 10 years to remake society more radically than the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or the planet is doomed.
Evans explains the simple tactic used to dupe millions of fools into sheepishly buying into the hoax, and asks a question that ought to be obvious:
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?
Evans also presents an excellent argument for cowardly "conservatives" not to play along with the liberal hoax. Plans are underway to deliberately wreck Western economies as a price that must be paid for acquiring totalitarian power in the name of the environment. But despite the media's complicity, it is becoming increasingly common knowledge that the climate change crisis does not exist, nor would it have anything to do with human activity if it did.
If our liberal overlords manage to plunge the world economy into depression based on a "crisis" understood to be a lie, the villagers are going to come for them with torches ablaze. However, this won't be much benefit to so-called conservatives who didn't have the spine to stand up to the hoax before the damage was done.
On a tip from Smoke TNT.
Posted by Van Helsing at July 21, 2008 9:09 AM
Comments
Flaming torches not allowed anymore. Too much carbon emissions.
Posted by: CoderInCrisis at July 21, 2008 10:26 AM
You conservatives kill me! Just because something isn't true and it's been co-opted by radical "progressives" as a way to kill capitalism and the U.S. economy, and just because a bunch of people have been duped into adopting it as their new religion, and just because implementing all the proposed changes would do infinitely more harm than good...right away you start talking like it's a BAD thing.
Thank goodness for the brave 'conservatives' (and even the Pope), who've also been dupe...I mean, who've also seen the light. With their help, the economic, political and social damage will be complete.
(This was pure sarcasm. I'm matt and I approved of this message.)
Posted by: matt at July 21, 2008 10:28 AM
He mentioned "mulch" and I remembered (and double-checked) that mulch DOES create CO2 as part of it's process! This must come as a blow to Liberals who are iinto "greening", because part of it is making a MULCH PILE!
You "global warming" loveing greens! Mother Earth HATES YOU!
Posted by: KHarn at July 21, 2008 2:32 PM
How many wheels have to come off this wagon before it grinds to a halt?
Posted by: Lyle at July 21, 2008 2:57 PM
Oh Dr. Evans you silly boy.
Shouldn't be long before the leftard elite paint Dr. Evans
as a religious nut or someone who has genetic ties to the
uni-bomber or heaven forbid, he's perhaps politically conservative. He's done himself in by revealing truth and committing heresy against the new global harming god. Leftard priests might burn him at the stake were it not for all the carbon emissions released. Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: fellowes at July 21, 2008 3:43 PM
poor doctor evans. we hardly knew ye. better get someone to start your car and taste your food dude. i am sure an enviro-fatwa is being written right about now and guess whose name is on it? couldnt you have just drawn a cartoon of the enviro-nutbags or something?
Posted by: fred at July 21, 2008 3:55 PM
I must admit the Evans commentary is intriguing if not damning. But somehow I can't help to think perhaps Mr. Evans has swallowed the corporate oil Kool-Aid. Especially now when suddenly Bush decides to presure congress into drilling oil off our coastlines and in ANWAR and proposes shale oil extraction in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. I would call that interesting timing.
First of all it is the argument that human activity in general is the cause to an increase in global warming beyond its usual norms. This would include CO2 emmissions as well as carbon monoxide emmissions and in fact thousands of other pollutants we spew out in the millions of tons annually. If anyone has any doubts that carbon emmissions do harm, just drive through downtown Los Angeles with your windows down on a hot given day and check out the visible cloud of poison. Then read the papers to see how many elderly and sickly people died from those fumes because they couldn't afford the electric bill to run their air conditioners.
Personally I do not consider myself an alarmist. I do know however that areas where oil is processed into gas, the highest cancer rates in the nation can be found. Houston Texas for one example. I also know that drilling for oil destroys the local environments. Getting oil out of shale in the rockies will devastate that area, pollute streams and rivers and wipe out the woodlands. And more importantly, the gas we get ten years or more down the road will do nothing to lower gas prices.
OK let's say Mr. Evans is right, that there is no hot spot. He says he couldn't find one. Does that really mean it doesn't exist and does that mean that carbon emmissions have absolutely nothing to do with global warming and the odd and ever destructive ways mother nature is acting? Even Evans won't say it has nothing to do with it.
Whether Mr. Evans is right or not, spending a trillion dollars a year to import oil vs spending a trillion a year to get away from oil is the question. Spending a trillion getting away from oil will not destroy the economy as Mr. Evans suggests. It all boils down to who should be sacrificed? The oil corporations and their CEO's who are bleeding us to death, creating wars and polluting the environment or alternative energy. The same goes with nuclear energy vs windpower and solar. Do we want to stockpile dangerous nuclear waste we can't get rid of to get our energy or do we want to eliminate that danger and go wind and solar which is actually cheaper than nuclear? These options will not hurt the already reeling economy which is now based in oil and literally killing us. They would supply millions of jobs and give us a safer alternative that will last as long as the wind blows and the sun shines.
Posted by: Michael Shaw at July 22, 2008 10:55 AM
Yes Michael except that even if our cars could run on air with our homes heated via solar & wind energy exclusively, we would still be oil dependent. Most everything we touch is a direct or indirect product of petroleum. We're stuck. Everything from petrochemicals (virtually all plastics) to asphalt to building materials to instrumentation to medical tubing/devices to computers to clothing to vehicles. The list is almost endless. What do you suggest concerning these? Paper bags at the grocery store and corn-based bio-degradable containers aren't going to cut it.
True, harvesting shale for oil is nasty and environmentally unsound, so other methods are preferable. True, health effects are well documented from folks living in close proximity to oil drilling. The nuclear waste disposal problem has been receiving ongoing research to address the issue and there's reason to believe this will be fruitful. Nuclear is still much cleaner but again, we need petroleum for our material goods and even clean energy can't help solve this conundrum. To force the world (the western world) to imagine that carbon emissions are THE main causative factor of warming is unfounded. Evans took 6 years to research this topic. He might be wrong but I've not read of anyone yet who's disputed his data. Am sure the data wasn't collected in a vacuum, that it was under strict review from his superiors and examined by a board consisting of other scientists. Like most folks, I'm interested in the facts even if I have to put aside my own opinion. Evans collected data that by all accounts is unbiased. Time and other research may corroborate it or defeat it. We'll see.
Posted by: fellowes at July 22, 2008 3:55 PM
I heard Dr Evans being interviewed this morning.
He confirmed what most of us already knew, the scientists are in it for the money, the power and the prestige (as well as job security). All the things that are guaranteed to inspire the smart people of this world into thinking of ways to better humanity.
Posted by: aussie-john at July 22, 2008 7:50 PM
I'm all for better scientific data that Dr Evans requests before we all create another economic bubble like the US housing collapse, except this time based around greening the planet. However, I read opinions and no hard data to prove those opinions. Maybe CO2 isn't eh cause of greenhouse gases, but I think we can all agree the pollution around big cities can cause severe cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. So to hell with CO2, but let's try and do something to reduce the smog and clean up our clean water supplies.
Posted by: gopsux.com at July 30, 2008 3:30 PM
