Dr David Evans, formerly a full time consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office and a PhD from Stanford, has written a brief Skeptics Case which was been republished recently on WUWT.
It is a succinct and well argued case essentially making many very similiar, if not identical, points to those made by Professor Richard Lindzen in his presentation to Westminster about the exaggeration of CO2 forcings in the CAGW climate models.
Here's Dr Evan's take:
When is the importance of this "feedback" issue in the climate models finally going to filter into the mainstream media and the political consciousness? There is a lot at stake politically in Australia, in particular, on this. The Federal Labor Government have nailed themselves to the mast backing the CAGW scientific models by legislating for a punitive Carbon Tax on all large Australian businesses. The CACW climate model is increasingly looking like it is mistaken but the ALP can't admit that. The science has certainly now been well and truly politicised here.
What will our scientific community now say? Will they be scientists enough to be able to put the science before their politics? Will they be able to communicate to the world that the IPCC models on which the Carbon Tax is predicated, are probably wrong?
Or will they stay silent and just let the ecomonic damage of this Carbon Tax wreak its toll, in lost jobs, reduced competitiveness and lower productivity for Australian industry?
It is a succinct and well argued case essentially making many very similiar, if not identical, points to those made by Professor Richard Lindzen in his presentation to Westminster about the exaggeration of CO2 forcings in the CAGW climate models.
Here's Dr Evan's take:
... This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050, or it doesn’t.
Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree just about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that?...
When is the importance of this "feedback" issue in the climate models finally going to filter into the mainstream media and the political consciousness? There is a lot at stake politically in Australia, in particular, on this. The Federal Labor Government have nailed themselves to the mast backing the CAGW scientific models by legislating for a punitive Carbon Tax on all large Australian businesses. The CACW climate model is increasingly looking like it is mistaken but the ALP can't admit that. The science has certainly now been well and truly politicised here.
What will our scientific community now say? Will they be scientists enough to be able to put the science before their politics? Will they be able to communicate to the world that the IPCC models on which the Carbon Tax is predicated, are probably wrong?
Or will they stay silent and just let the ecomonic damage of this Carbon Tax wreak its toll, in lost jobs, reduced competitiveness and lower productivity for Australian industry?
Comments