Day: Thursday, July 31, 2008

Four good reasons not to believe in human induced global warming

Posted by – 31 July, 2008

An excellent article from David Evans, a prominent green house defector to skepticism. A quick bio:

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

Those credentials are good enough for me. Evans notes in the following article that the science of climate change has, well, changed since the UN IPCC first touted human induced global warming back in 1998.

First, the new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says that the carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises, and that there are more powerful forces on global temperatures than atmospheric carbon levels.

Second, there is now 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.

Third, the satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, that 1998 was the warmest recent year, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980).

Fourth, we looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the atmosphere the warming occurs first. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is a hotspot 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

The hotspot is central to our understanding – if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we don’t understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway.

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hotspot whatsoever.

Maybe its time the politicians and their socialist and activist mates caught up with the latest findings.

Who to pick?

Posted by – 31 July, 2008

For those following the US elections, here is a good article about the problems facing voters, by popular US radio host Glenn Beck:

One thing that I have decided is that Democratic contender Sen. Barack Obama isn’t the guy for me. If you watch my show on Headline News, you may have picked that up already. Don’t get me wrong, I want hope and change just as much as the next guy, but I think Barack and I are hoping for different kinds of change. To me, his vision for America appears to be somewhere between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx. Being a conservative, that’s definitely not what I’m looking for.

While I like Republican candidate Sen. John McCain on certain issues, he’s not really a conservative. He’s put his name on too many pieces of legislation that are downright antagonistic to the right. McCain-Kennedy on illegal immigration. McCain-Feingold on campaign finance reform. McCain-Lieberman on global warming. He’s massively frustrating on far too many things to make voting for him anything other than an excruciating-eating-a-spider-Fear-Factor type of experience. You close your eyes, you pull the lever and you cringe when you think back about it.

Some of my friends say that McCain is simply the lesser of two evils. He’s not great, but he’s all we’ve got. And when you’re up against Barack Obama, not so bad looks really good. While, by my standards, I don’t doubt McCain would be less damaging for the next four years, he might be worse for the next four decades.

The scenario that keeps running through my head goes like this: John McCainsomehow wins; the major problems we’re likely going to face regardless of who is elected kick in; McCain gets blamed; and conservative ideals take the fall for McCain’s decidedly nonconservative policies. Plus, it’s always been my theory that you should be voting for something, not against something. Trying to win an election by just being against something is usually fruitless; see John Kerry.

I think voters here would be facing a similar problem if Turnbull become opposition leader.