AGW: Fact or Political Lie?
Anthropogenic Global Warming has been a hot button topic over the past several years. The concept, as “settled science”, has been a major factor in the worlds political climate, the regulatory structure of many countries, as well as being the subject of much debate within the academic and scientific communities.
Over time, some former AGW alarmists have begun to change their positions on the issue. David Evans, a former full-time consultant for the Australian Department of Climate Change from 1999 to 2005, who modeled Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products, is the latest scientist to discount the affect of carbon dioxide on our climate.
“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 once on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic…
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.”
Evans says that he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas” and if all things were equal then more CO2 in the air would mean a warmer planet. He asserts that the science goes wrong when it fails to account for the planets reaction to that increased CO2 in favor of computer models which have been proven false.
“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.”
He says that the official climate models are based upon the premise that the extra moist air would amplify the level of warming by a factor of three, while carbon dioxide accounted for one third of their projections.
“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….
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.”
Most of our recent cap & tax initiatives, investment in green energy, demonization of carbon based energy production, and our enhanced regulatory environment is based upon this flawed climate model and the results it predicts.
We’ve had every reason to doubt it since the mid 1990’s. I wonder what makes us continue on that path?