Australian Government Climate Scientist: Carbon Warming Too Minor to Be Worth Worrying About
By Mary Theroux • Monday May 30, 2011 3:28 PM PDT • 3 Comments
A self-described former climate alarmist, now skeptic, Dr. David Evans served as a full-time consultant for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time from 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a Ph.D. from Stanford University in electrical engineering.
Dr. Evans recently proclaimed:
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
Among other questions Dr. Evans poses: “Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?”
As the work of Independent Institute Research Fellow Dr. S. Fred Singer also shows, Dr. Evans notes that it’s to conceal the truth of actual change in global temperatures:
One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.
Further:
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.
When the carbon dioxide theory was posited in 1980, scientists guessed that every bit of warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide would be “multiplied” up to three times by creating extra moist air. Yet although this “multiplier effect” has been proven as flawed as the Keynesian multiplier, neither theory apparently will die.
Why?
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.
Read his full commentary, here. Bottom line:
Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.
Tags: Economics, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Government subsidies, Propaganda, Regulation, Science 
I wonder how they explain the hole in the ozone layer over the North Pole? Also the mass melting of glaciers all over the world. And the calving of chunks of ice the size of Conn. I think it’s just a little past minor. I also think that there is little that we can do to stop the process.
JMAustin | Jun 2, 2011 | Reply
JM:
There’s a lot of conflicting information on the ozone “hole,” and no clear explanation for what may have caused it, or if indeed it has a “cause” other than being a regularly-occurring natural phenomenon.
National Geographic, in this 2010 story, “Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole?,” claims it’s about to “close”—and questions whether that’s a good thing.
And this article in Nature explores “experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.” While access to the full article requires payment, a synopsis of it is available here.
As far as polar/glacier melting, please see my earlier post, “More Bad News for Climate Alarmists: Ice Melt Is Lower and Its Cause Dates 20,000 Years Ago,” here.
Again, far from being “settled,” there remains a great deal of uncertainty about what is actually happening in these realms as well as causes for changes. However, as Dr. Evans (and others) point out, there are huge incentives—in the form of huge grants—to posit “manmade global warming,” and there are plenty of “researchers” happy to oblige.
Best wishes,
Mary
Mary Theroux | Jun 3, 2011 | Reply