May 29, 2007


I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (David Evans, 5/28/2007,

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:

2. 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.

4. 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.

The Fraud of Evolution: How science cheats at proving its pet theory (Mark Nash, May 29, 2007, The Trumpet)
Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming from that eruption. It includes the idea that all creatures alive today have, after many varied steps, come into existence from some previously existing creatures. For example, it is claimed that a fish in the past began changing, then, over millions of years and many intermediate steps, became a mammal of today.

Evolution supporters suggest that fish somehow became amphibians and amphibians somehow became mammals. This process is supposed to have taken many millions of years, involving millions of intermediate steps to achieve.

Do not confuse the theory of evolution with adaptation of a species or genetic variation. Adaptation simply means that something changes to fit its environment, not that it changes into some other species. Genetic variation occurs when there are limiting factors in the available gene pool. But again, it does not produce some new species—only changes within the same species.

This can be seen in the different breeds of animals such as horses. Draft horses have been bred to produce size and power; miniature horses for smallness and quarter horses for quickness. No one denies that they have common ancestors, but no one suggests they are no longer horses either. These differences do not represent evolution. Horses are still horses. The evolutionist suggests that perhaps walruses changed into horses, or the other way around.

To investigate evolution, it is necessary to observe the evidence and decide whether the conclusions of evolutionists follow logic and are in harmony with the physical evidence, or if those conclusions are established by conjecture and opinion based on preconceived beliefs. [...]

Another example worth mentioning is that of the peppered moths. “Most peppered moths were light-colored in the early part of the 19th century, but during the Industrial Revolution in Britain the moth populations near heavily polluted cities became predominantly ‘melanic,’ or dark-colored. … [E]xperiments suggested that predatory birds ate light-colored moths when they became more conspicuous on pollution-darkened tree trunks, leaving the dark-colored variety to survive and reproduce” (Wells, op. cit.).

To demonstrate the camouflage of the dark moths, many books, when explaining evolution, have pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks. The dark moths blend in and the light moths stand out clearly. This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

As ridiculous as it may seem, the pictures are themselves faked. Peppered moths do not land on tree trunks in nature; they light on the undersurface of small horizontal branches higher in the trees. One researcher (Cyril Clarke) noted that in 25 years of observation he had only seen one peppered moth on a tree trunk. So where did the pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks come from? Dead moths were glued or pinned to the tree trunks. This fact has been known since about 1980, and still the faked pictures are being published in textbooks as proof of evolution.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 29, 2007 8:27 PM
Comments for this post are closed.