The Co2 Debate Is Not Over

0
Share

“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.” David Evans, AGW scientist

Back in the 70’s, the meteorologically challenged spread the warning that we were facing an imminent threat of a new ice age. In the interests of full disclosure,  the alarmists did often admit they could be off by 10,000 years or so. The difference between then and now is average people didn’t accept extremism on the face of it and the power was not in the hands of those who would see us return to caves before abandoning their ideology.

Now we have global warming or climate change or carbon footprint or poisonous CO2 – so many choices.  I am not claiming that global warming does not exist.  What I am saying is we don’t know if global warming is caused by man nor do we know if we can effectuate any change. How arrogant to assume we can. We don’t even know if it is the natural course of things (the hockey stick theory which allegedly traced the global warming back hundreds of years has been proven false). We do need to be careful about  how we treat our planet and we need to take steps to address what might be a threat. However, it’s not an immediate need unless you are seeing it from the perspective of the lunatic fringe.

So why are we rushing into a lowered standard of living for a cause that has been hijacked by people who are making tons of money from it?  Al Gore is the best example of this and then there is the corrupt windmill situation in Europe (but that is for another article). While we are destroying the gas/oil industry, China, Russia, India and others are polluting the air with their frenzied use of resources we refuse to build, cultivate, develop in our own country. Not only do we refuse to develop our own resources, but we end up buying more and more from the polluters at far greater expense.

Then there is the “air you exhale is poison” EPA declaration. One scientist who was on the alarmist gravy train now has his doubts:

“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 Australia’s 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 politics:

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.

The science:

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 planet’s 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.”

Read more here: Another scientist flees the global warming alarmism

Share