Evidence Speaks – It’s a Scam
The term global warming is used to describe the rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. But as Dr David Evans argues in his speech at the "No election" rally at Langley Park in Perth on Sunday 18 Sept, it has wrongly become synonymous as an indication of man-made climate change.
Global warming has become a scam. Let me explain how it works.
It has superficial plausibility. Yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and levels are rising. And yes, every molecule of carbon dioxide we emit causes some global warming.
Many non-scientists think that proves the case, but it doesn’t. In particular, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that carbon dioxide is merely a minor or insignificant player, and that something else is the main cause of global warming.
Here’s a clue: the world has been in a warming trend since 1680, the depth of the Little Ice Age. It has warmed steadily since then, at half a degree per century. Within the trend there is a pattern of 25-30 years of warming followed by 25-30 years of mild cooling. We just finished a warming period that started in 1975, so chance are we’ll have mild cooling for the next couple of decades.
But there were no SUV’s in 1680. Human emissions of CO2 were miniscule before 1850, nearly all come after WWII, and a quarter since 1998. Yet the warming trend was as strong in the 1700s and 1800s as it was in the 1900s.
The theory of man-made global warming doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things.
There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made. None. If there was, we would have heard all about it. Billions of dollars have been spent looking for it.
Climate scientists readily concede that there is no direct evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide. Instead, they say that our knowledge of how the climate works is embodied in their climate models, and the climate models say that global warming is man-made.
Models are logically equivalent to someone punching in numbers and doing sums on a calculator – models are calculations, not evidence. The problem is that the models contain many guesses and assumptions about how things work, and some of them are wrong.
Here are four bits of evidence that prove that the climate models are fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, they have a track record of greatly exaggerating temperature increases. The global warming scare was started by James Hansen in his presentation to the US Congress in 1988, and comparing his predictions then to what actually occurred, the actual temperature rises are about a third of what he predicted. Remember, they have been saying the “science is settled” since the early 80’s, and the models now are essentially the same as they were then.
Furthermore, Hansen’s models predicted the temperature rise if human carbon dioxide emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was not rising at all. But in reality, the temperature did not even rise that much. That proves the climate models don’t have a clue about the effect of carbon dioxide on world temperature.
Secondly, the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system. In ARGO, a buoy duck dives down to 2000m, slowly ascends and reads the temperatures on the way, then radios the result back by satellite to HQ. Three thousand ARGO buoys patrol the oceans constantly. They say that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been basically flat. Again, reality is very different to the climate models.
Thirdly, the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming. In particular, the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the so-called ‘hotspot’. But we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures by weather balloons since the 1960s, and millions of weather balloons say there was no such hotspot during the last warming from 1975 to 2001. The hotspot is integral to their theory, because it would be evidence of the extra evaporation and thickening of the water vapor blanket that produces two third of the warming in the climate models – the carbon dioxide itself produces only one third of the projected warming, but is amplified in the models by water vapor. But in reality there is no hotspot, so there is no amplification, which is why the climate models have exaggerated temperature increases.
By the way, this became known by the mid-1990s, so the theory of man-made global warming should have been abandoned then, but there was too much money, bureaucracy, ideology , bank trading profits, and renewables action for the gravy train to be shut down.
Lastly, satellites have measured the outgoing radiation from the earth and found that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who would have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite – that the Earth gives off less heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively. Again, the climate models are violently at odds with reality.
These are four independent pieces of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed. Any one of them, by itself, disproves the theory of man-made global warming. Remember, there is no direct evidence that man causes global warming, so if the climate models are wrong so is that theory.
There are also more pieces of evidence that the models are wrong, but they are too complex.
Now let me explain how they prevent the scam from being revealed.
The trick is that they never put any alarmist climate scientist in a position where they have to answer to a knowledgeable critic.
To defend their theory in public, the alarmist climate scientists typically send out people like Tim Flannery or Tony Jones who know next to nothing about how climate models work. Then, when confronted with evidence, these believers immediately just say “but the climate scientists say”. They argue from authority. It has the same structure as the celebrated argument between Galileo and the Pope – evidence on one side, and massive political and religious authority on the other. Note that the Pope had ‘scientists’ on his side too, in fact the overwhelming majority, and they were ‘the consensus’. It’s easy to manufacture a consensus with that much money and power.
Alarmist climate scientists do make public appearances, but never in a situation where they come under sustained questioning or criticism from anyone who understands models. They have avoided any real debate in public for decades – these alarmists have never been held accountable, they’ve never had to answer to people who knew the problems with their theory. They have never faced an audit, an enquiry, a Royal Commission, or even a hostile interview – yet they get paid megabucks and presume to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
The alarmist government climate scientists say they only respond to what is in the peer-reviewed journals. But that cover was memorably blown in the ClimateGate scandal of 2009, which revealed in their own words that they rig the journals to prevent publication of anything critical. That’s why they go on and on about peer-review – it’s their mechanism for keeping out criticism.
The climate scientists and their believer acolytes, by the way, are more than happy to argue with unknowledgeable critics – critics who know something is wrong, but don’t quite have the background or understanding of the models to know where the weaknesses are in the alarmist case. The climate scientists delight in being more knowledgeable and all ‘scientific’ against uninformed criticism, because it makes them feel like real scientists instead of charlatans, and is great PR for their cause.
There is something very religious and medieval about all of this. Galileo’s case led to the Enlightenment, in which evidence came to triumph over political authority. In enlightened society, people did not have to believe something just because some political or religious authority said it is so – the evidence determines what is considered true.
But on climate, our society is reversing the Enlightenment, slipping back towards the middle ages. Sure we have smart phones, but our means of determining truth has reverted to political authorities and their pet scientists declaring what is true, denying the evidence, and reviling the unbelievers.
It gets worse. Not only we reversing the values of the Enlightenment, we are de-industrialising. These scam artists, led by those technological buffoons the Greens, want us to close down our cheap and reliable sources of power and go back to using unreliable and intermittent windmills. Like in the middle ages, we would be at the mercy of the breeze, using muscle power where possible. These people pride themselves on being progressive, which, like everything else on this topic, is a fully sick parody of the truth.
This corruption has to end. We have repeatedly called for a Royal Commission into the science before taking action, but were of course ignored.
So now I am calling for a debate.
Professor Andy Pitman is the leading climate scientist in Australia. Andy has about 20 PhD students working for him, has had millions of dollars of researching funding, and holds lots of prestigious positions in the climate establishment. He recently refused to debate William Kininmonth and me, in the usual dismissive way “I won’t debate people who don’t believe in gravity”. Kininmonth was head of Australia’s National Climate Centre for 12 years, and spent 38 years at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
So Andy, come and debate us. Your side says the evidence for man-made global warming is overwhelming, so it should be easy for you. What’s the problem? The Australian taxpayer looks after you extremely well, so the least you should have to do is explain yourself once in a while.
The government and the ALP might find such a debate very interesting. As I said in The Australian newspaper in 2008:
“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. 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.”
Dr David Evans is 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. He devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Dr Evans has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He also researches mathematics, in the areas of Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials.
Fergus Neilson
October 17, 2011 at 12:41 am
Strong case for anthropogenic climate change
David: When my father was born in 1902 the world’s population was 1.6 billion. When I was born in 1949 it was 2.5 billion. It is now 7 billion. Over the same time the global average GDP per capita has increased five fold (doesn’t that imply an increase in overall impact of close to 22 times?). Clearly, the world has become more crowded and a lot more polluted. I have to say that my own empirical observation of environmental and technological change over the last 60 years, when combined with the robust contributions of 2,500 climate scientists to the most recent IPCC report, suggest a very strong case for anthropogenic climate change. A whole lot stronger than the counter argument presented by yourself, Kinninmonth, your fellow traveller, the geologist Ian Plimer and a handful of other ‘deniers’. I hope I am wrong; but I doubt it. I doubt it very much indeed. Even if I am wrong, I have no problem at all with a $23 per tonne disincentive to avoidable pollution. Fergus Neilson.
Fergus Neilson
October 17, 2011 at 12:43 am
Oh, and one other thing,
Oh, and one other thing, David. A quote from Wikipedia (from wence doth all instant wisdom emerge): National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. The last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
May I suggest that you don’t use the Galileo defence on this one. The Catholic Church has never had peer reviewed science on its side.
Wayne.Colless@ag.gov.au
October 19, 2011 at 12:01 am
The dilemma of Joe Ordinary
Most of us mug punters do not hold the qualifications necessary to sift through the available evidence in order to determine for ourselves the causes of climate change. Just as most of us do not hold qualifications enabling us to carry out brain surgery, or maintain our own cars (unlike the good old days), or fill a tooth, or fly an A380 to London or even fix that PC or the plumbing. No, we rely on the most experienced people we can find to do those things. And most experienced people tend to understand the situation in the same way and their courses of action are more or less the same. Thats usually good enough for me to give me confidence that what action is being recommended is probably for the best. Get a few quotes, find out what they would propose – that kind of thing. When I see that 90% or more of expert opinion on the subject of climate change is saying the same thing, how am I supposed to handle that? Do I ignore the opinions of all the major expert bodies in the world who have looked at this stuff? Do I say "I’m going with a different rule set on this one, thanks very much."? No, I’ll stick with the weight of evidence and a lifetime of experience. Should that 90% of expert opinion turn out to be wrong we may well take a big knock on the chin as far as the economy goes. But if we ignore their advice and they turn out to be right, we may well be on that slippery slope David doubts has ever existed, and our descendents will have every right to condemn us for what we had the chance to stop but chose not to, despite knowing all about it. I’d have a bit of trouble talking to my future Grandchildren about that one.