: working for the Austrian government doing carbon accounting.
(Australian, not Austrian.)
: He is not a scientist and shows in his lack of knowledge.
(Honestly, you coulda gone all day without saying that. He _is_ a mathematician and computer guy, which suggests perhaps a greater familiarity with the intricacies, and failings, of computer modeling than scientists who are otherwise occupied with other lines of thought.)
: I will now debunk his 3 claims:
(Or try to. :)
: #2 is well known. The temperature of the earth cooled slightly
: from 1940 to 1975. It is now believed 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.
Sorry, I don't think that's knowable. The model would equally support, "The planet has self-adjusted," or, "We're wrong about the pollution thing and, honestly, we don't know what's causing these variations, yet."
: #3 is also well known and has NOTHING to do with present
: warming. Previous warming was driven by orbital changes ...
(I don't think that's knowable; certainly no controlled test could have been done to prove it out.)
: ...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.
(Correlation is not causation.)
: 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.
(Hey - no need to be snide.)
: #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.
...which is not proof of anything whatsoever, except that it's deemed more productive to work on some other theory - productive in terms of funding, among other reasons.
In my view you have failed to debunk. :) Rather, you've reasserted the consensus theoretical view while sneering at someone else's view because of his 'failure' to "be a scientist".
--hobie
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
