--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train
> By David Evans
> Posted on 5/28/2007
> [Subscribe or Tell Others]
>
>
> [A version of tihs article was previously blogged on Mises.org
here,
> and inspired a spirited debate. The author reworked the piece for
the
> Mises.org front page. The blog item remains the same.]
>
>
>
> I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the
> Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use
> change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence
> that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty
conclusive,
> but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now
> skeptical.
> In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon
> emissions caused global warming:
>
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a
century
> ago.
>
> Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations
of
> atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is
not
> causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
>
> Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985,
> allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back
> hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global
> warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then
available
> (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon
> and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together.
Talk
> about a smoking gun!
>
> There were no other credible causes of global warming.
>
> This evidence was 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. Research increased,
> bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and
> eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon
> emissions.
>
> "Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like
a
> fit."
> The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific
> community. By the late 1990s, 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; there were
> international conferences full of such people. We had political
> support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly
important
> and useful (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 above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> There is now no observational evidence that global warming is
caused
> by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of
intense
> investigation we would have found something. For example,
greenhouse
> warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere
> faster than the lower atmosphere but until 2006 the data showed
the
> opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In
> 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except
> in the tropics.
>
> The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are
> scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory
> observations). Historically, science has not progressed by
> calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some
> theories held by science authorities have turned out to be
> spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun
> orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more
> confidence in observations by several independent parties than in
> models produced by a small set of related parties!
>
> Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By
2000
> the political system had responded to the strong scientific case
that
> carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of
> bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing
> carbon emissions.
>
> "Science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by
> repeatable observations."
> But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got
> weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At
> what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the
> political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause
of
> global warming?
>
> None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are
> definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good
> science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message
> wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention
of
> the political system. What has happened is that most research
efforts
> since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and
the
> alternatives get much less research or political attention.
>
> Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled.
> Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions
> become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple
and
> less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly
> blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.
>
> The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end,
> following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the
> effect of the political climate is that most people are
> overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main
cause
> of global warming.
>
> I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in
> the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause
of
> global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than
> the 90% the IPCC estimates.
>
> 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 pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes.
>
> $15
> Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some
warming,
> maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is
> mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its
> course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping.
> In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of
climate
> scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small
> warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural
> warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb
> carbon emissions.
>
> Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the
> unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high
priests
> with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are
> raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability
> occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The
> current situation is characterized by a lack of observational
> evidence, so no one knows yet.
>
> Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But
> the cause of global warming is not just another political issue,
> 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. It just physically is there, and after sufficient
research
> and time we will know what it is.
>
>
>
Saving the planet
by the Master , through Benjamin Creme
When mankind realizes how serious is the ecological imbalance of
their planetary home, they must take the steps so urgently needed to
remedy the situation. If men were to fail to respond with sufficient
resolution they would be guilty of surrendering the planet to slow
but inevitable destruction. What, then, the legacy to hand on to
their children? That this self-destruction should not prevail all
must act together, and make the necessary sacrifices. This will
entail a complete change in attitude to the integrity of the planet
and what are seen as the needs of men today.
It will not be easy for some to countenance the changes needed but
only by such change can the life of the planet be assured. Already,
deep inroads have been made into the essential stock of trees on
Earth. De-forestation has caused a growing loss of oxygen and the
rise of carbon gases. This is now at a critical stage and requires
immediate action.
Dawning
The reality of global warming is now dawning on the minds of
millions, yet, despite the overwhelming evidence some still deny that
the actions of men are the cause.
We, your Elder Brothers, can say with full conviction that the
actions of men are responsible for eighty per cent of global warming.
Maitreya, you will find, will not be long in bringing this urgent
problem to man's attention. He will face men with the alternatives:
the beneficial results of action now, on the one hand, and the
destruction which would ensue from doing nothing, or too little, on
the other. Thus, the decision is man's alone.
Rally
When men understand this they will indeed rally to the cause. They
will see that the future for their children depends on action now,
and will elicit from Maitreya and His group the necessary steps to
take. Maitreya will advocate a simpler form of living, one more in
keeping with the reality of the planet's situation. When enough
people are convinced that this is necessary there will be a growing
movement to simplify throughout the planet. This will proceed with
quite unusual speed, so inspired by the need for change will millions
be. Thus will the gravest dangers facing planet Earth be somewhat
countered. This will encourage many and boost their readiness for
further changes.
Faced with the dilemma of necessary change men will come to realize
the inevitability of accepting the principle of sharing. Only sharing
will make these changes practical and possible. Only through sharing
can the bounty of Planet Earth be successfully used. Only through
sharing can this bounty be correctly husbanded. Only thus can the
Planet itself live in harmony with its environment and with its
inhabitants.
http://www.shareintl.org
