False Science and Lies – What a surprise!

By Murray Allatt


Some weeks ago I was trawling the Internet and came across an article on global warming that rang very true. It was short, sharp, and logical and perhaps best of all written by one whom was a convert from the human caused Global Warming camp and therefore in the eyes of some, a heretic. The kind of heretic you can admire. This author had left the “global warming” industry a few years earlier and was now safely ensconced in other employment relevant to his scientific training. Perhaps the biggest testament to the truth of what was contained in this article is the fact that, unlike when the movie “The Great Global Warming Swindle” came out a couple of years ago, there has not been the baying for blood and poisonous denunciation of this “heretic” as was the case with the maker of that documentary movie and the scientists who participated. In other words, the facts claimed in that movie, that we will see are now endorsed in the article I came across, are, as the author says, now not disputed. But you won’t find any of those desperate global warming alarmists issuing any apologies for their attacks on the character and credibility of those who can now rightly claim vindication.


The article I came across was titled “No Smoking Hot Spot” and appeared on the Science and Public Policy Institute website.


The author was Dr. David Evans. His article was also published in The Australian newspaper of 18 July 2008.


Evans was also interviewed on Sydney radio and if you can link up the podcast below of the interview it is well worth a listen.


In his article Evans describes himself facetiously as “’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 went on, “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. (My emphasis throughout)

“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”


Evans notes however that since 1999 the evidence has moved on such that by 2007 it was conclusive, so far as he was concerned, that carbon dioxide was not the main cause of global warming and played only a minor role. He noted a famous quote from Lord Keynes thus, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"


Evans listed several salient points that put to the sword the theory of man made global warming due to industrially produced carbon dioxide, and for that matter flatulent cows, sheep and even humans.


Firstly, he notes that the greenhouse signature is missing. He says, “We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.” What he means is that the theory of greenhouse gas driven global warming, if true would show increased temperature in the atmosphere at about 10kms altitude at the equator. Hundreds of weather balloons sent aloft to measure the temperature at that altitude and location over decades has failed to detect any relevant rise in temperature.  Evans says this fact was confirmed only after the publication in 2007 of the latest IPPC report.  That is not quite correct. It has been known for years and was a major point made in the film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” released in 2006.  It may be recalled that this film was met by howls of horror by the global warming fraternity and regarded as so heretical that when finally shown on Australian television by the national broadcaster, ABC, it was felt necessary, after showing a heavily edited version of the film, to convene a “discussion” panel of scientists loaded with pro human caused global warming advocates. The resultant denunciation of the film by the majority of this panel was virulent – but politically correct.


Evans concludes this point with this comment: “Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde (weather balloon) thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.”


Secondly, Evans says, “There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.”


Thirdly he makes the undisputed point that since 2001 all measurements of global temperature, both land based and satellite, show no increase in temperature at all and recently that there has been cooling of the planet. It can be said in passing that there is a multiplicity of anecdotal supporting evidence of cooling. Witness for example the record cool summer in Alaska this year among many other examples.


Fourthly, Evans points to another key fact highlighted in the “Swindle” movie and for which the moviemaker Durkin, was pilloried by the Global Warming faithful. This fact, now accepted by Evans as fact, was then and is now, incontrovertible.


Why was this fact so devastating and threatening to the Global Warming industry?


It was the new ice core data. Al Gore had cited the old ice core data findings in his “inconvenient” movie. It was wrong. The “evidence” Gore had cited from the old ice core data had been wrongly interpreted due to poor resolution analysis. It had been thought that carbon was the driver of temperature. That belief had been shown in 2003 to be absolutely incorrect. In fact it was the other way around. As was noted back in the 2006 “Swindle “ movie, it had been known since 2003 from the then “new” ice core data that an increase in carbon in the atmosphere followed about 800 years AFTER a rise in planetary temperature. The temperature produced the carbon, not the other way around. It did so by the heating of the oceans by the effect of the Sun, thus releasing stored CO2.


Evans concludes his article with the following:


None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

“The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.” (Again my emphasis)


For completeness it should be said that Gore, in making his assertion, falsely used the old ice core data dating from 1985 to 1995. He knew in 2005 that the old ice core data had been superseded. Therefore Gore lied. As Evans puts it:


“Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.


In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.


If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?”


The reason there is a problem with the old ice core data is that the “resolution” was only 1,000 to 2,000 years and that made the increase in CO2 appear to precede the temperature rise. The later ice core data taken from about 1996 up to 2003 was analyzed using much higher resolutions down to 100 to 200 years. That degree of resolution revealed the 800 year time lag of CO2 increase to temperature. What known event occurred about 800 years ago? Well, the Medieval Warming Period for one. Now, however, we find articles written by non - scientist GW devotees seeking to cast doubt on whether that known event, hitherto undisputed, (thought to have commenced from 800 AD to as late as about 950AD and lasted till about 1300 AD) happened at all. For example the following from Associate Professor David McKnight of the University of New South Wales who researches media, including public relations, in his article titled, “The Climate Change Smokescreen” where he attacks the GW “deniers” who make the rather obvious comment, “the climate is always changing. It is a theme common to many climate change deniers who talk about a so-called Little Ice Age (1300-1900) and Medieval Warm Period (800-1200).”


In the documentary movie “The Great Global Warming Swindle” eminent scientists in relevant fields reveal that the real reason for global warming has almost everything to do with the activity of the Sun. For example, in the last century the magnetic activity of the Sun doubled. The increase or decrease in cosmic ray activity and the solar wind have a controlling effect on cloud formation and water vapor in the atmosphere, water vapor being by far the greatest “greenhouse gas” at 95% of the total. This is the real cause of warming of the planet.  Dr. Evans now agrees that this is the likely and real cause of recent warming.


Why won’t Global Warming advocates recognize these facts? Well, for one, unlike Lord Keynes, when the facts change they don’t change their minds, rather they dig in. And why would they not? Tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the Global Warming industry. Thousands of research scientists and others in related fields would not have jobs now except for this global warming cataclysm campaign. Vast research funds have been made available, and as Evans correctly states – these scientists feel pretty important. They have the ear of government. They have power and prestige. How bleak to lose all of that. Then many among the uninformed zealotry of the general population have turned it into a kind of fundamentalist religion. Zealots do not listen to reason. They are RIGHT, right? That’s a hallmark of the zealot.


Then there are “environmental journalists” who peddle endless hysterical horror stories of the perils to come. No climate change? No job? No thank you.


Dr. Evans finally says why he has now decided to speak:


“The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The (Australian) Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. “


Here he is referring to the introduction of a carbon trading system in Australia. Europe has already introduced such a scheme and got nowhere.  The United States may well follow that path in the next few years under new leadership. China will not. India will not. The rest of the world will not.  Does anyone think that Russia, happy to trample through sovereign Georgia for no justifiable reason, will hobble itself with carbon trading? No way. Not the Middle Eastern countries nor Africa will give this any more than lip service at the UN.


It seems only the West is hooked on to this crazy, false theory (and religion) of Global Warming. The policies being developed and implemented to overcome this nonexistent threat, such as Carbon Trading, will wreak untold additional economic pain and ruin on already financially shaky economies. When a government, such as the Australian Government, has to run ads with false claims that carbon is a pollutant as part of a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” then you really have to wonder. Has no scientist involved in this deceit the gumption to tell them that carbon is part of the Periodic Table and without it life on earth could not exist. Pollutant? Not likely.


If only the West’s governments, advised by arrogant scientists with an overdeveloped sense of their own importance, could follow Lord Keynes ethos and change their minds when the facts change!  But that would require such a massive climb down by all the players - scientists, zealots and government - to accept the falsehood of the human/carbon caused global warming theory, it is just not likely to happen any time soon.


Breaking News Stories
Go here for the latest news stories on this subject. –news stories added 21 August 2008
Further reading:
Our Commentary
The Global Warming Hoax
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Environmental Movement

Cover of Newsweek Magazine - 13 August 2007