For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
The Global Warming Gravy Train
Written By : John Hawkins

It almost seems unfair to lay a kick into the side of the global warming alarmists when they’re down, but this column from David Evans, formerly of the Australian Greenhouse Office, is full of way too much sweet, juicy truth to ignore.

I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

….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.

…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.

…We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

If you want to know why the whole idea of manmade global warming hasn’t already been completely discarded as a scientific theory, it’s because there is a staggering amount of money and political pressure being applied to keep it alive.

The theory fits the agenda of a lot of liberals, environmentalists, bureaucrats, and power hungry politicians. So, they savagely attack anyone who opposes it and ensure that massive amounts of money go to scientists who support it.

Most people, scientists included, follow the money. If there’s a lot of money to be made saying global warming is happening right now and saying otherwise will lead to public scorn from your peers, most scientists will just go with the flow.

It takes a lot more courage and integrity to step off the gravy train and tell the truth, even if you’re going to be attacked for it. Most scientists, like most people, don’t have that kind of courage and integrity. We should be glad that David Evans does.

0
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JYR4WLKJZYFC4LAMKERJ6NLNHQ DrEvil

    Man-made Climate Change or whatever the term du jour is this week is all about politics and has nothing to do with science any longer.  We hear about consensus all the time as if that has anything to do with science.  We hear about appeals to authority like 5,000 Phds., none who actually study weather or climate, all agree (consensus, again) that man made climate change is real so if you don’t agree than you are ignorant and hate science, etc., ad naseum.  Consensus and appeals to authority (experts) are simply political tools which are the opposite of science.

    If you want us to believe in the theory then present real scientific research which supports the theory.  They don’t because they can’t because it doesn’t exist so they substitute the worse aspects of politics, blacklists, ad hominem attacks, derision and redicule to stifle debate.  This may work for some ignorant people but anyone with any understanding of the world will not buy into their purely political scheme. 

    Have an Evil day
    Have an Evil day

    • Anonymous

       Look evil one. Can you possibly supply the reference that shows 5,000 PhDs agree with global warming?

      It is also the case that oil reserves are not infinite and that unless we find alternative sources of E, we may find ourselves in trouble up the line, especially when China and India industrialize fully, and competiton for oil and gas creates shortages at home.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lochemya-David/100002249359450 Lochemya David

         Necessity is the mother of invention. I welcome the day when oil runs out, for what wonders will mankind create when our main source of energy disappears?

        In reality, what will likely happen is that we’ll see the construction of thorium reactors and a flurry of research into electric cars and batteries, all of which will occur without government intervention.

    • Bill Dalasio

      Excellent commentary.
      I’ll also note something that shocked me.  The actual “community of scientists” that arrived at these conclusions is relatively small.  The rest of the scientific community that we hear so often referenced to add legitimacy to AGW hasn’t tested or even examined the hypotheses and essentially signs off as professional courtesy.
       

    • Bill Dalasio

      Excellent commentary.
      I’ll also note something that shocked me.  The actual “community of scientists” that arrived at these conclusions is relatively small.  The rest of the scientific community that we hear so often referenced to add legitimacy to AGW hasn’t tested or even examined the hypotheses and essentially signs off as professional courtesy.
       

  • Anonymous

    Just how certain is Evans about his contentions. His own words suggest uncertainty.

    I would like to bet against carbon emissions being the main cause of the current global warming. But I can’t bet on that directly, because all betting requires an unambiguous and measurable criterion. About the only related measure we can bet on is global temperature. So I accepted Brian’s bets about trends in global temperatures over the next 10 to 20 years. Basically, if the current warming trend continues or accelerates then Brian will win; if the rate of warming slows then I will win. Even if carbon emissions are not the main cause of this global warming, I can still lose:

    * Global warming might be due to a side-effect of industrialization other than carbon emissions. Possible causes include atmospheric reactions of industrial chemicals that hinder the rate of low cloud formation.

    * Global warming might be primarily due to a non-human cause, such as something related to the sun or to underground nuclear reactions. If this cause persists over the next 20 years as it has for the last 30 years then I will lose, but if it fades in the next decade then I win.
    I emphasize that we are making a bet involving odds and judgment. The evidence is not currently conclusive either for or against any particular cause of global warming. I think that it *is* possible that carbon emissions are the dominant cause of global warming, but in light of the weakening evidence I judge that probability to be about 20% rather than almost 90% as estimated by the IPCC.
    I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might be under pressure to repay the taxes, so it might in turn put a lot of pressure on scientists to provide justifications for the taxes. Or the political system might reject the taxes and blame science for misinforming it, which could be a terrible outcome for science because the political system is powerful and not constrained by truth.
    Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue that is subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. The cause just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is. Looking back in another 40 years, we will almost certainly know the answer and Brian and I will be in agreement on the issue.
    Given that betting is thus possible on this issue, it seems strange that some people who take strong positions and profit by those positions are not prepared to bet even a small amount of their own money. Betting something of one’s own money adds, shall we say, credibility. And people whose own money is at stake try a little harder — a well known advantage of private business over public. A good side effect of widespread betting would be a market in betting that would represent a community-wide best guess. Such markets exists in sports betting, and are the best predictors of game outcomes.
    Let’s hope for the planet’s sake that I win the bets :) Meanwhile let’s do more research, and take cheap measures to curb carbon emissions!

    (Editor’s update: a shorter url that David created for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3dbbrb.

    So Evans is so certain that he has to use a betting analogy and concedes that under a variety of conditions his theory will lose. More research is needed, he claims. If so, he is acknowledging the uncertainty of his claims.
     

  • Anonymous

    Just how certain is Evans about his contentions. His own words suggest uncertainty.

    I would like to bet against carbon emissions being the main cause of the current global warming. But I can’t bet on that directly, because all betting requires an unambiguous and measurable criterion. About the only related measure we can bet on is global temperature. So I accepted Brian’s bets about trends in global temperatures over the next 10 to 20 years. Basically, if the current warming trend continues or accelerates then Brian will win; if the rate of warming slows then I will win. Even if carbon emissions are not the main cause of this global warming, I can still lose:

    * Global warming might be due to a side-effect of industrialization other than carbon emissions. Possible causes include atmospheric reactions of industrial chemicals that hinder the rate of low cloud formation.

    * Global warming might be primarily due to a non-human cause, such as something related to the sun or to underground nuclear reactions. If this cause persists over the next 20 years as it has for the last 30 years then I will lose, but if it fades in the next decade then I win.
    I emphasize that we are making a bet involving odds and judgment. The evidence is not currently conclusive either for or against any particular cause of global warming. I think that it *is* possible that carbon emissions are the dominant cause of global warming, but in light of the weakening evidence I judge that probability to be about 20% rather than almost 90% as estimated by the IPCC.
    I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might be under pressure to repay the taxes, so it might in turn put a lot of pressure on scientists to provide justifications for the taxes. Or the political system might reject the taxes and blame science for misinforming it, which could be a terrible outcome for science because the political system is powerful and not constrained by truth.
    Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue that is subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. The cause just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is. Looking back in another 40 years, we will almost certainly know the answer and Brian and I will be in agreement on the issue.
    Given that betting is thus possible on this issue, it seems strange that some people who take strong positions and profit by those positions are not prepared to bet even a small amount of their own money. Betting something of one’s own money adds, shall we say, credibility. And people whose own money is at stake try a little harder — a well known advantage of private business over public. A good side effect of widespread betting would be a market in betting that would represent a community-wide best guess. Such markets exists in sports betting, and are the best predictors of game outcomes.
    Let’s hope for the planet’s sake that I win the bets :) Meanwhile let’s do more research, and take cheap measures to curb carbon emissions!

    (Editor’s update: a shorter url that David created for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3dbbrb.

    So Evans is so certain that he has to use a betting analogy and concedes that under a variety of conditions his theory will lose. More research is needed, he claims. If so, he is acknowledging the uncertainty of his claims.
     

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lochemya-David/100002249359450 Lochemya David

       Meaning that unlike climate fascists he is a real scientist. Climate fascists claim that everything is due to carbon emissions. Heat, cold, more storms, less storms, flood, drought… That is a scientific impossibility. Evans uses real science and states that research needs to be done. Climate fascists claim that the science is closed, which isn’t science.

      • Martin Hale

        Ssssh – you’re likely to make that melon sitting atop Mr. Britton’s neck explode!  Next you’ll be wanting him to acknowledge that the MMCC “theory” isn’t even a theory but an unproved hypothesis stating that increasing atmospheric CO₂ results in corresponding increases in mean global temperature.  That would darn near kill him, eh?

      • Martin Hale

        Ssssh – you’re likely to make that melon sitting atop Mr. Britton’s neck explode!  Next you’ll be wanting him to acknowledge that the MMCC “theory” isn’t even a theory but an unproved hypothesis stating that increasing atmospheric CO₂ results in corresponding increases in mean global temperature.  That would darn near kill him, eh?

      • Bill Dalasio

        If I’m not mistaken, it’s long been established that solar activity has a lot more explanatory power in predicting climate activity than CO2 levels.  Of course, there isn’t much political capital in trying to regulate solar activity. 

    • Anonymous

      Imagine that. He admits more research is needed to support his claim, and he welcomes that research. He won’t take an absolute positiong without absolute proof.
      Imagine that.
      And you think that discredits him.
      Silly girl. 

      • Anonymous

        Kind of explains why they think screaming “the science is settled!” over and over again constitutes proof. 

      • Anonymous

        Kind of explains why they think screaming “the science is settled!” over and over again constitutes proof. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

      Just a little FYI commie….

      The CONCENSUS here is your are an isufferable fool, retarded, a loser, dumb, and a imesuarble pain.

      Therefore IT IS A FACT……

      See how a CONCENSUS works dummy??

      Soooo that means we dont need ANY EVIDENCE just our opinion makes it FACT.

      Doncha just hate when I use your own rules to prove how much of a twitt you are?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

      Just a little FYI commie….

      The CONCENSUS here is your are an isufferable fool, retarded, a loser, dumb, and a imesuarble pain.

      Therefore IT IS A FACT……

      See how a CONCENSUS works dummy??

      Soooo that means we dont need ANY EVIDENCE just our opinion makes it FACT.

      Doncha just hate when I use your own rules to prove how much of a twitt you are?

      • Anonymous

        I don’t mind your labeling me a commie, but collecting this cast of fools together and then claiming that their opinions constitute fact is ridiculous. How’s business by the way? 

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

          Not true dummy…. As usual !

          The goracle and your other climate commies are CONSTANTLY out in force bemoaning the consensus of the globull hoax so ITS YOU RULE…

          Im jus adapting it to use against you moron.

          WHERE IS MY MONEY, fork it over, share the wealth commie.

  • Anonymous

    The so called “Climate Science” is a SCAM, always has been a SCAM, always  will be a SCAM; and its all intentioned to force the World’s Governments to accept World dominance by a few fat cat Billionaires that finance the SCAM specifically to make huge profits through redistribution of wealth schemes by buying off Governments and Politicians to intentionally promote and Legislate the SCAMS to steal their individual Nations’ wealth. If CO2 is a dangerous substance, anyone that has ever dared to drink a carbonated beverage would be dead; and that doesn’t even begin to tell the true story of CO2; but, I must stop because I’m getting aggravated and that causes be to breath faster and that causes me to exhale more CO2 into what must be a very fragile atmosphere. Let me finish by saying that CO2 is one of the compounds necessary for all life as we know it to exist on this Planet, and just by coincidence, the same people wanting to reduce CO2 are the same people that think there are way too many people living on this Planet…think about it!

  • Anonymous

    AlGore has made how many millions from the huckstering of MMGW? Awful lot of money. 

    • Anonymous

      Actually, he recently bought a gorgeous beachfront property. Does that make sense? 

    • Anonymous

      Actually, he recently bought a gorgeous beachfront property. Does that make sense? 

    • Anonymous

      Actually, he recently bought a gorgeous beachfront property. Does that make sense? 

  • Anonymous

    AlGore has made how many millions from the huckstering of MMGW? Awful lot of money. 

  • Anonymous

    More of these stories will come out as the who mess continues to unravel.

    In a decent world we could expect to see criminal investigations for fraud in the near future. 

    Although I am less than optimistic on that front.  

  • Anonymous

    More of these stories will come out as the who mess continues to unravel.

    In a decent world we could expect to see criminal investigations for fraud in the near future. 

    Although I am less than optimistic on that front.  

  • Anonymous

    More of these stories will come out as the who mess continues to unravel.

    In a decent world we could expect to see criminal investigations for fraud in the near future. 

    Although I am less than optimistic on that front.  

  • Anonymous

    More of these stories will come out as the who mess continues to unravel.

    In a decent world we could expect to see criminal investigations for fraud in the near future. 

    Although I am less than optimistic on that front.  

  • Anonymous

    More of these stories will come out as the who mess continues to unravel.

    In a decent world we could expect to see criminal investigations for fraud in the near future. 

    Although I am less than optimistic on that front.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_P5ZBHJHBW7M7J22I3K4Y3OYHUI ron

     Which means? The Climate Scam group will be very, very hard to get rid of. Since Obama and his ilk support it, no amount of reality will ever set  in. The last thing you want to do is feel any pity at all for them.

  • Pingback: Daily Dive-18 May 11 | adeliemanchot

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info