working for the Austrian government doing carbon accounting.
He is not a scientist and shows in his lack of knowledge.
I will now debunk his 3 claims:
SNIP from Dave Evans
http://www.mises.org/story/2571
________________________________
2. Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
3.
The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
4. There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.
____________________
#2 is well known. The temperature of the earth cooled slightly from 1940 to 1975. It is now belived that it was cause by global dimming, the blocking of sunlight due to heavy smog and particulate pollution. This global dimming is still present but global warming has overshaowed the dimming effect. This effect does not in any way diminish the reality of global warming.
#3 is also well known and has NOTHING to do with present warming. Previous warming was driven by orbital changes and naturally CO2 FOLLOWS the temperature. Today's warming is driven by industrial pollution and the CO2 level is rising at the same time as the temperature. It really takes a REAL BUREAUCRAT to have missed this simple explanation considering that he worked 6 years on carbon accounting. Obviously he had done no science work what so ever.
#4 WAS a sensation a few years back, but had Dave Evans follow up on science, he would have known that the cosmic ray/cloud theory was not verified and most scientists have given up on this theory.
Fluxon
: I was on the payroll of the global-warming industry
: Jeffrey Tucker
: A version of the article linked here now appears on Mises.org
: front page.
: Fascinating article here: "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... evidence...fell
: away or reversed."
: http://www.mises.org/story/2571
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
