Carbon Models go cold

This isn’t at all surprising, but watch the warmists desperately try to ignore it. A former warmist writes about the problems in climate science.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

Yes let’s.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

Cheating, lying and hiding the decline.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

Yep there is no point is doing anything, certainly it is a waste of effort, resources, time and most importantly money in trying to halt that which cannot be halted.



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • David Evans has zero credibility, he has links to industries and organizations with a denial bias, and his banging on about the “hot spot” is total bollocks.

    Do a bit of research before basing your ill-informed opinion on this poser. A bit of judicious Googleing is adviseable.

    • Didn’t take long for a warmist cock to show up.

      • Dave

        “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

      • FijiDave

        It’s like taking a dump on the mountaintop – you wonder where the bloody flies come from!

        “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

  • Andrew

    well, it’s after 5pm here now, so it’s cooling down on Canterbury anyway.

  • JK carries a nice photo of the battle against climate change in Burundi.
    The EU paid 300 million Euros for this fight.
    Our ETS collects funds that are also being send to those who require them most: War lords, corrupt politicians and arms dealers all happily joined in to make sure that the climate will be halted and will not change. Yeah Right…

  • So just where does the carbon tax collected go to & how is it saving the planet?

    • Gazzaw

      Al Gore would have a far better idea on where the money goes to after he’s clipped the ticket on the way through.

  • Joes

    Doesn’t it suck when simple facts get in the way of a good story?

  • Apolonia

    Instead of taxing carbon why not put a tax on water to stop the tide coming in.After all taxes change behaviour.

  • Spam

    Joes: Accurate measurement of sea ice has only been available by satellite since the late 70s. Lowest “most probably” in 8000 years? Based on what, exactly?

    And its not even the lowest in the last 10 years. And if you actually want to see for yourself, then fortunately all the satellite data is on-line for anyone to see.
    Suggest you start here:
    Oops – it didn’t get as low as 2007, and is recovering.

  • Chris

    You could check this out too, which methodically explains the arguments David Evans uses in his article:

    Whichever side you’re on, it’s always useful to rely on the best science available.