Skip to comments.No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
Posted on 07/17/2008 10:06:33 PM PDT by Nipfan
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
Australia is literally on the brink of, as he says, wrecking our economy by introducing an emissions scheme which even the opposition supports. We need many more like this to force them to think again.
This guy is no expert..... we all know the Earth is experiencing climate change.... if he were an expert he’d know that, and wouldn’t be using the phrase, “global warming”.
The Lying Libs and the trained-seal public who willingly bent over and greased themselves for the LL's with the snake oil the LL's were selling.
What a joke. These liberal morons should all be sterilized before they further contaminate the global gene pool with more brain-dead lemmings with daddy's chin, mommy's eyes, and Fido's IQ.
In my humble opinion, that is...
The earth has experienced warming in the latter part of the 20th Century which, as you say, is part of the normal cycle. There is nothing wrong with how he expressed it because he makes it clear that he was concerned that it was man made until the facts showed otherwise.
And after CO2, when everybody’s driving little hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered S*boxes, it will be conveniently discovered that water vapor is - surprise! surprise! - yet another “greenhouse gas.”
Yes, in case you were wondering, those ARE in fact sarcasm quote marks above.
What the alarmists/doomists should have said at the start is that there is a possibility that man-made carbon emissions might increase global warming. Instead they said the issue was settled...no further arguments please...WE ARE NOT TAKING ANY MORE QUESTIONS!!! If they had said from the beginning that we are unsure, but we plan to study the issue carefully, many more people might have given them some slack. Now their crusade has been blown out of the water with the acknowledgement that temperature increases have predated carbon increases throughout earth’s history.
Quite a record to determine we have dramatic and historic planet-wide changes and can categorically say that man is causing it. Boneheads!
The really funny part is that we may not have a choice, with all the rules and regulations, not to mention new taxes, in the pipeline.
Fox_Mulder77, I didn’t notice the sarc tag. I guess I’m a bit touchy. I was so pleased to something in the mainstream press (and The Australian certainly is that) that I felt very protective about it.
But your underlying point finally got through. There’s no doubt that the first reaction will be to attack the messenger.
Sarcasm isn’t needed. Water vapor in fact is the largest atmospheric component. It’s a key part of smog, haze and other naturally occuring ‘pollution’. Trees excrete billions of tons of water vapor every day...
Clouds...well, you know what clouds are made from....
The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions.. . . When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.And if the the Republicans (are you listening, Senator McCain?) do likewise in America, they will be no better.The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence . . . [and] Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory . . . for why the changes are necessary.
He’s also got a half a dozen other degrees, including science which, I note, are not shown in the article I linked but I’m pretty sure were included in the printed version. I can check on Monday.
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
The print version of the article showed his qualification as BSc, BE-EE, MA(Syndey), MS-EE, MS-Stat, PhD EE (Stanford)
In the interests of "full disclosure" they should have admitted that they could care less about global warming and carbon emissions, except as a tools to further their socialist/communist agendas against freedom, democracy, and capitalism.
Remember, when Gorby got run out of the former Soviet Union (where he gave not a damn about the environment), he founded "Green Cross" and international organization of watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside).
And lets not forget Green Peace co-founder Patrick Moore (an actual scientist), who broke with his organization because it was taken over by leftists, ceased to be about science and the environment, and became all about socialist politics. Moore also supports the use of nuclear energy, which Green Peace opposes (but only in western democracies where there is no danger of being killed for it).
With these ice cores, I brought up a point to an AGW believer that the level of accuracy of CO2 concentration found in the ice cores has only been validated for 40 years out of the last 650,000 years. That a reasonable person might grant that the same levels of inaccuracy PROVEN over the past 40 years could be EXTRAPOLATED out to 100 years. To assume that those levels of inaccuracy hold steady for 650,000 years is theory.
I pointed out that dating inaccuracies of these cores have already shown to be off by 200 to over 1000 years and that If AGW theorists are going to continue to use ice core samples to show that CO2 levels have increased due to human intervention, then they need to be able to prove two things. 1) The date of a sample with a reasonable tolerance for time (i.e. a sample advertised as being from a certain date would probably need to be from that actual date +/- ten years in order to show human intervention in climate change). 2) The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time of the sample.
I brought up that the CO2 levels in an air pocket of an ice core sample might deteriorate over large spaces of time. The claim is that the levels are frozen in time but this has not been proven because it has not been validated for a long enough period of time. For all we know, the older air pockets could have levels of CO2 that are less than when the air pocket froze.
His answer.......it doesn’t matter.
Apparently, the scientific process does not matter to these theorists. The standards of the scientific process are held up for 5th graders doing science projects for the science fair, but not for these folks. Can anyone imagine a 5th graders explaining his or her project to the judges and when they ask why the measuring devices were not validated for accuracy, the 5th grader saying “it doesn’t really matter”. I’ve helped both my two sons with 3 projects now and even they learned that when you measure data, you must validate it and whenever you change methods, you must validate them against each other and account for margins of errors of both.
With that CO2 we might actually have more and lusher forests and plants.
I'll never understand these pagan, gaia worshipping, idiot environmentalists.
It is, IMHO (always accurate, never wrong), a MUST READ. Here is a guy with credentials that lays out some extremely important and not widely known facts about "Global Warming" and CO2 that shoot giant holes in the Alarmist's arguments. One of the best summaries I have ever read.
READ IT. READ THE WHOLE THING.
Be aware, the alarmists are already shifting to the next "sky is falling" position: Ocean acidification!
Notice the date on the article: July 2008.
Only now, nearly 1 1/2 years later, are details of the “deniers” written articles being taken seriously. And as we examine them, we find how prophetic they were and how convincingly they presented their conclusions. I’m going to add this article to my list that presents the “denier” (actually truthful) positions in a cogent, complete and understandable manner.
Sen. Inhofe needs to call out "commander zero" for a prime time televised debate on this subject.
He has, to say the least, an overly optimistic view of the persistence of peoples' memories.
Good summary bump! ;-)
Please let me know who denies that it is.
If water vapor is not a major greenhouse gas, then the climate-change folks' case falls apart, since water vapor acts to provide a positive feedback to CO2 forcings.
Your link doesn’t work!