Les Jones: "Why David Evans bet against Brian Schmidt over global warming"

May 02, 2007

Environment > "Why David Evans bet against Brian Schmidt over global warming"

David Evans, a former carbon accountant on Australia's FullCAM project explains why he's no longer confident of the greenhouse gas theory of global warming.

This evidence was good enough: not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm, and actions started to happen. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 -- with the aim of curbing carbon emissions.
And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we 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!

But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed.

Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Tim Blair.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack

Comments

God bless those that can reason. This is the greatest witch hunt since the time of Salem.

The human race does not have the power to destroy the climate. Is this the greatest hubris of mankind?

Posted by: Number9 at May 02, 2007

I don't reject the possibility of the greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming, but I'm not convinced it's the only cause or even the primary cause. Even if it is, there are other conditions that would have to be met for something like Kyoto to make sense.

Posted by: Les Jones at May 02, 2007

"The human race does not have the power to destroy the climate."

Thermonuclear war. Game. Set. Match.

Posted by: Metulj at May 02, 2007

"The human race does not have the power to destroy the climate."

Thermonuclear war. Game. Set. Match.

Are you following me around metulj, to keep the world safe from dangerous ideas? Flying solo today I see. Perhaps you are just a scout for the "pack".

I don't want to disappoint you so here is a little gift. I now have serious doubts about the "Nuclear Winter".

That's right I said it.

That "theory" was developed in the 1980's and it had the same "consensus madness" as Global Warming. So seeing the failure of the Global Warming "consensus" it would only be reasonable to now have doubts about the "Nuclear Winter".

Your move.

Posted by: Number9 at May 02, 2007

I don't reject the possibility of the greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming

Translation: even Les thinks you're an idiot crank, nine. Are you going to start posting links to copyrighted material here, now?

Posted by: Mykhailo at May 02, 2007

Translation: even Les thinks you're an idiot crank, nine. Are you going to start posting links to copyrighted material here, now?

I appreciate that you miss me. Aren't you a little far away from the echo chamber?

Please understand that water vapor is also a green house gas and is much more prevalent than C02. Is humankind creating water vapor Mykhailo? Or could it be the large object in the center of the solar system?

I also don't reject the greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming. It is the difference between what is possible versus what is probable. Is it possible? Of course. Is it probably? No.

You do understand the difference don't you?

Posted by: Number9 at May 02, 2007

A very good read here that Les has linked before:

http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2005/05/climate-change-questions.html

Posted by: Number9 at May 03, 2007

So many bright minds, wasted on arguing inconsequential points. So... what is the cause of global warming? What will happen if the water level rises? Is any of this good for the environment? Does siphoning the oil from huge cavities in the earth create more earthquakes. Is gasoline the best fuel? Instead of supporting the argument to keep the oil men in business, how about helping to transform our industries to use cleaner technologies regardless of the cause of GW? Put all your brains into that...

Posted by: Jeffm at July 21, 2008