Skip to comments.Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
Posted on 05/15/2011 7:14:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
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 Australias 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 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.
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 planets 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.
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.
Thats 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 doesnt 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 governments control over energy.
While youre listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. Theyre 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.
So if we know of natural means whereby I could be created “from dust” - does that mean that God is not my creator? No, of course it doesn't.
If we know of natural means whereby Stars form - does that mean that God did not create them? No, of course it doesn't.
And if someone comes up with a SCIENTIFIC (thus no miracles) explanation for how life could have plausibly formed via natural means - does that mean that God did not create life? No, of course it doesn't.
Newton was sure to stress that by utilizing natural means to explain the movement of celestial bodies - he was in NO WAY suggesting that God was not ultimately responsible.
Apparently over a hundred years later some people are still under the mistaken impression that unless God pulled out a miracle then HE cannot be said to be the Creator or otherwise responsible party. Ludicrous.
Peter says there were/are three different heaven/earth ages. That is just plain 'natural' to me. Peter also says that the 'first' heaven/earth age was destroyed and this earth is filled with the evidence that there was a global catastrophe that even jolted the earth from her natural axis. I readily await at the end of this flesh age the first grade lessons to the TOErs the literal meaning of that word 'natural'.
These flesh vessels were created for a specific purpose and have a time date expiration already set in motion. That too is just plain natural. It is the soul/spirit intellect that gets a face to face with their Creator on judgment day. That would be called 'supernatural' but no less 'natural'. Why? Because the so called wise are completely and totally obsessed with divining how these flesh bodies came into being and willfully ignore what the LORD God said when He foretold all things.
Yeah, scientists are like TOTALLY obsessed with, like, finding things out about the physical world. They should just read the Bible - because according to justmythoughts if they don't they are following the path of the first rebel Satan - science is the way of Satan to you - but you have no ‘beef’ with it.
Discovering physical means to explain physical phenomena is science and it is the most productive way of learning about the physical world ever discovered. Figuring out (even if “totally obsessed”) how things happen physically doesn't remove God as the ultimate LOGOS behind creation.
But to some with a childlike mind and a woeful lack of education - unless God did magic it wasn't God who was responsible for its creation.
There was a direct instruction given to those that mess with the children. Time will tell whether it is me that will be red faced and embarrassed or the unholy theorists.
How so? Please expound upon your no doubt fascinating point.
And now scientists are “unholy theorists”. Yeah - but you don't have ANY animosity towards science - heavens NO!
Where would I get THAT impression? You only think science is following the path of the first rebel, Satan, and are “unholy theorists” that “mess with the children”.
LOL!!!! How hilarious!
Honey, science is what it is. When the self anointed, so called theorists, well, change that, when the supremes gave them gravitas in the classrooms, and threw GOD out they messed with the children. When a teacher tells a young child they are one and the same as the rest of the 'animal' kingdom, do NOT be surprised when the young act like well worse than animals.
The Creator, created all souls/spirits, and a bunch of self vested, self interested monkey minds that start claiming otherwise, things without foundation are going to get to answer for their claims. Science is not the problem, it is the 'animals' that preach another way that are the problem. I am not sure if the accounting will be individual or in mass.
Can you measure God?
Can you replicate God or the actions of God?
Can you presume to predict God?
No. No. And NO!
So which is it. I hear from some that science promotes Secular Humanism - the turning away from God and the worship of humanity. I hear from others that science promotes the denigration of mankind as ‘just an animal’.
Which is it? It simultaneously worships man - WHILE claiming he is “just an animal”?
Science is YOUR problem - obviously. You don't understand it, you don't seem to care to understand it, you think it is the way of the first rebel and it “messes with the children”.
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!
Oh man of pride, HE who laughs last laughs for eternity.
The Creator is NOT a religion, but reality, HE controls ALLLLLL. And just as HE spoke to Job beginning in Job 38, it would be wise counsel for mere mortals to take a bit of time in processing. But then there have been hard heads from the beginning who deceived themselves they could do it better. The TOE is not going to be a part of eternity, well, except for those who get to snicker at the vanity of the flesh minds.
You seem diligent in cutting and pasting my remarks - to perhaps give the illusion that you are reading them and responding to the ideas and questions therein - but your little rants are so disassociated from what I am saying that you could very well have already typed them out and are just putting them in at random.
God controls ALLLLLLL - including gravity and nuclear fusion that forms stars, including cellular processes involving DNA that make living things, including the selective pressure that novel variations of that DNA will be subjected to, including the mutational changes that the DNA will be subjected to, including the random roll of every dice.
As such your argument doesn't even tangentially touch upon my own.
Do you propose to measure God?
Do you propose to replicate God's actions?
Do you presume to predict God?
If not then there is no way to “include” God in a scientific theory - as such your objection that science “throws out God” is based entirely upon your own ignorance of what science is and what it can and cannot do.
But you seem to think it preferable to be ignorant than to follow the ‘path of the first rebel’ (Satan) and ask questions about the natural world that might lead to an explanation involving natural phenomena!
Won't SOMEONE PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!!!!!!