Is the Carbon Emissions /Global warming thing B.S.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
DIV><DIV class=Section1><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-AU style=
<o:p>Here's something for the silent majority to consider... confirmation that this global warming/carbon emissions scare is just that; it's BS. This guy is for real! It's a great read that explains how we are being conned by goverments, greenies and some scientists who want to protect their jobs.</o:p>
<o:p>No smoking hot spot<o:p></o:p>
David Evans | July 18, 2008 <o:p></o:p>
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.<o:p></o:p>
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. <o:p></o:p>
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. <o:p></o:p>
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists 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. <o:p></o:p>
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" <o:p></o:p>
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: <o:p></o:p>
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. <o:p></o:p>
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. 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 hot spot. Whatsoever. <o:p></o:p>
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. <o:p></o:p>
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. <o:p></o:p>
Recently the alarists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. <o:p></o:p>
2. There is 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. <o:p></o:p>
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. <o:p></o:p>
4. The new ice cores show 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 something important about which was cause and which was effect. <o:p></o:p>
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. <o:p></o:p>
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. <o:p></o:p>
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. <o:p></o:p>
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. <o:p></o:p>
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. <o:p></o:p>
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? <o:p></o:p>
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. <o:p></o:p>
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. <o:p></o:p>
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. <o:p></o:p>
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Seems to me from what I've read its a pile of crap...just a money and power grab. It would be interesting to see what plants, trees and lots of other foliage would live on if the co2 is cut way back. I guess we don't need the oxygen they produce.
By the way, here in the states its now called "Climate Change", that way they can say they are correct no matter which way the temperature goes. I like to call it "Global Alarmism".
It sure helped a lot of this bogus science get funding.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Hi Phil, the same subtle change from "Global warming" to "Climate change" has happened in Australia also.
Our new Prime Minister Keven 747 Rudd, is forever rabbiting on about it,
wanting to dream up more ways to Tax business and the individual by charging for Carbon emission. Someone even suggested taxing flatulent cows:furious:.
I'm convinced for a long time that we (human) can't be blamed for drastic climate changes. Did we also create the Ice age and the temperature rise afterwards? I don't think so. Everything in nature goes like a sinus wave, up..........and down.

Hey Pete, didn,t you Aussi's had something for rabbits??:laugh:
Even if we, as humans, in the course of living as we do, aren't the cause of climate change, you certainly can't argue that we are polluting the heck out of the planet. Besides the fact that someday fossil fuels will probably run out, looking at alternate forms of cleaner, renewable energy isn't really a bad idea in the long term.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Tim I agree that we are polluting the planet, and should do all we can to clean it up. But creating an industry trading carbon credits based on flawed computer models and enabling Governments to raise tax's based on such a premise is not the way to go about it.


There's no doubt we pollute and we should all try and do better, but the religion of Global Climate Change is BS. Though I have to tell you, I am regsitering my car this month, though it is not yet road worthy, as I do not want to be bitten by the new adminstrations knee jerk policy changes.
Ask any Greenie :"What is the proper temperature of the earth, and how do you know it?"
You'll likely get a reply, but you won't get an answer.
The temperature cycled long before homo erectus arrived and it will cycle long after we've gone. The independent variable is solar output NOT CO2, but it's so much easier (and profitable) to regulate the human production of CO2 than a solar flare.
Bless 'em, they'll soon be shivering in the dark.
Tim I agree that we are polluting the planet, and should do all we can to clean it up. But creating an industry trading carbon credits based on flawed computer models and enabling Governments to raise tax's based on such a premise is not the way to go about it.
Pete, I do agree with you that the governments way of going about cleaning up the environment is pretty sad, at least here in the States. Used cars are emissions tested and new cars are regulated on their levels of emmissions, which is fine, but the major polluters, big industry, somehow manages to negotiate their way out of being regulated. The refineries and others are allowed to pump their waste into the Great Lakes, but as long as no one complains too much, the government looks the other way.
...wanting to dream up more ways to Tax business and the individual by charging for Carbon emission. Someone even suggested taxing flatulent cows:furious:.

Not a dream over here Pete...

"With the economy in bad shape and the possibility of a deep recession looming, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to levy new taxes — on cows and pigs," American Farm Bureau Federation Director of Regulatory Relations Rick Krause told Wyoming Farm Bureau members Nov. 7 at their annual meeting in Sheridan.
"This is no laughing matter," Krause said. "The cow tax and the pig tax are parts of a larger scheme by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
"Under the proposal, if a state charged the ‘presumptive minimum rate’ from the EPA, the cow tax would be $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head for beef cattle and a little more than $20 per pig," Krause explained.
Krause explained that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says that a producer with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would emit more than 100 tons of carbon and be subject to the permitting requirements. "These thresholds would impact 99% of dairy producers, more than 90% of beef producers and 95% of hog producers in the United States," Krause stated.

According to Krause, the EPA has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in preparation to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). "The regulation of automobile emissions automatically initiates other provisions of the CAA," Krause explained. "One of those provisions requires permits from anyone who emits more than 100 tons of a regulated pollutant per year, and there are millions of sources that emit more than 100 tons of carbon."
The Title V permits, which are essentially a cow and pig tax, are supposed to contain provisions designed to reduce or eliminate the emissions of the regulated pollutant. "Cows’ and pigs’ methane emissions come from natural and biological processes," Krause stated.
"The economic costs to producers from the cow and pig tax would be great and could cause the cost of beef, pork and dairy prices to rise," Krause continued. "The cow and pig tax would impose severe penalties on livestock producers in the United States without effectively reducing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere."

If this happens, I will be looking to unload a few cows. No mention of sheep, take note Jac...


Lifetime Supporter
i do believe that we should explore saving energy
i do believe that we should not pollute and move on

i have a theory, please bear with me on this :shy:...
alot of scientists has said "with global warming sea temperatures will rise" well while this may be true, what if we insert a artifical method of heating the sea, would that not be global warming?
back in the days of sail ships and pirates, there was no global warming, only grog, wenches, and pirates :thumbsup:
modern ships use sea water for cooling puropses, pumping out vast amounts of hot water back into the sea :thumbsdown:
therefore modern ships are the cause of global warming :thumbsdown:

(the above theory is a joke i started at my old job to see how quick people would believe anything to do with global warming....... the answere is very :laugh:)
Therefore > grog and wenches do not contribute to global warming and may be enjoyed in limitless quantity without damage to the environment!
The point that seems to get lost in the whole debate is the rate of change. Yes, this earth has had plenty of dramatic climate changes from ice ages to very warm periods. However, these sustained long-term climate changes took place over very long periods of time, perhaps thousands of years (unless you buy the giant meteor theory for the last ice age). The ice cores taken from the poles tell quite a revealing story - we see dramatically more rapid climate change in the last few decades than any other time in history. It's this rapid change - much more rapid than what appears to have happened in prior climate change cycles - that is really concerning. This rapid change just happens to correspond with the same timing of the rapid increase in carbon emissions, hence the presupposed connection. Regardless, even if not connected, the speed of the climate changes that appear to be in motion is of concern. I'd like to think that my small children won't be actually still living when the next ice age or tropical period sets in full force.

OK, you guys that think climate change is all bs can go ahead and blast me. I certainly respect that you have a valid opinion, and it's likely just as correct as anyone elses....

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I certainly respect that you have a valid opinion, and it's likely just as correct as anyone elses....

That is just my point Cliff, the evidence is based on computer models and they depend on who is pushing the buttons, No one really knows, except for real time and the evidence is that right now the earth is cooling, hence the term Global Warming has changed to Climate Change.
Politicians have jumped on the band wagon started by Gore's totally un-scientific movie and are using climate change as a reason to enforce tax's and carbon credit trading.
By all means let us try and clean up pollution but let's do it sensibly without sending us all broke for the benefit of the few.
I'm worried now; I think I agree with you Pete. The earth appears to have gone through various cyclic changes throughout its life. Even its magnetic field has reversed. We warmed up from the last ice age without all the industrial processes and gases that are now being blamed. What caused that warming? I don't think we should ignore pollution, and we should be more neutral in production of goods (ie. plan their recycling, destruction,etc.), but this hyped up climate movement is BIG business. If you want a research grant, or funds for any purpose, get associated with a climate change topic and you have a better chance at the funding. And the excuses for taxes abound.

Basically, however, no matter what we do, however good we are at cutting down per capita emissions, pollution, waste, etc., unless we stop increasing the world population then we run out of viability anyway. Wars (eg. fighting over water supplies), disease, or other "corrective" measures will occur under the pressure to eventually prevent further population growth. Bugger, I'm depressed now. Better enjoy pillaging, wenches, and wild cars while we can. My 2c worth,