Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

"In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.

“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “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.”

“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,” he concludes."

---------------------------------------------------

Also whilst we're on the subject on climate change, I discovered this older article too:

Even if you believe the joke that naturally occuring co2 is a pollutant and not a life giver, this article asks other important facts.

Professor: Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda

"Citing the fact that human activity is responsible for just 3 per cent of carbon-dioxide emissions on earth, Hayden said that carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising and falling for 400,000 years.

"We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years," he said. "During the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide."

"About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not humans," Hayden concluded, adding that global warming is being pushed not by grass roots advocacy groups, but by giant corporations who stand to gain from selling concepts such as carbon tracking and carbon trading."

Can't wait to see how Akria, Clippo et al try to spin their way out of this one ! :-)
[Rep]

Not off to a very good start I'm afraid YCHTT. The first link to Infowars can't even get the guy's name right.
(David not Richard and he was debunked here in a recent thread).

As for the second link I notice Infowars included the Bilderbergers and world conspiracy order and the usual cr@p.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
Not off to a very good start I'm afraid YCHTT. The first link to Infowars can't even get the guy's name right.
(David not Richard and he was debunked here in a recent thread).

As for the second link I notice Infowars included the Bilderbergers and world conspiracy order and the usual cr@p.

Is that the best you can do ? - "They spelt his name wrong" :-)

You're not off to a very good start yourself.

"world conspiracy order" ?
This gets better and better... :-):-):-)
[Rep]

Re: 'David' Evans see:-
Deltoid: The Australian's War on Science XV

(it's probably too dificult for you tho')

and stop wasting our time with useless cr@p postings.
[Rep]

and another thing :-
whenever agw contrarians refer to a scientist who spouts anti-AGW views they are always 'top'
e.g Top rocket scientist.
David Evans didn't seem to do much rocketry from 1999-2005 & what's he doing now? - I can't seem to find him on wiki very easily.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
Not off to a very good start I'm afraid YCHTT. The first link to Infowars can't even get the guy's name right.
(David not Richard and he was debunked here in a recent thread).

This is Clippo's definition of debunked

Originally Posted by :
re: David Evans

You might like to read , if you dare, this article from deltoid on hime:-

Deltoid: The Australian's War on Science XV

Fairly shredded him!

As I said at the time if that is your definition of shredded then I'm afraid like your MMGW stance you're completely wrong

and as for debunked you are completely wrong in fact all you have right is the name correction still 1 out of 3 is better then average for you
[Rep]

Congratulations, YCHTT. Perhaps, some day, you will manage to both get a climatologist and perhaps even enough of them to overturn the consensus.
And even then you still have the tough task of actually overturning the hard data.

g hall posted a thread pretty much dedicated to David Evans a few days ago.
Reading his essay, he seemed very reasonable, although he both contradicted himself a few times and also offered his support for the very much battered and bruised cosmic ray theory put forward by Svensmark. I've lost count of how many times it's been debunked.

You keep putting forward the silly claim that CO2 is a lifegiver as if this prevents it from being dangerous.
I reply with a question: do you know of that death known as drowning?

As for the 3% comment, I can't remember whether it's true (it sounds about right), but you make the mistake of not differentiating between emissions and emissions which are balanced by natural sinks.
We've overwhelmed those sinks, which were already busy dealing with the emissions of natural sources.

CO2 has indeed been rising and falling, as have temperatures. We know that feedback mechanisms occur.

The 300,000 years claim is either a misprint or a lie. Proxies show that CO2 levels have not been within almost 100 ppmv of today's concentration during the last 800,000 years at least.
Even assuming he actually meant a far larger time period, it is still disingenuous - the equivalent of saying that temperatures can't be rising because the Earth was once molten.
CO2 levels are at their highest for at least 800k years, and they are rising quite quickly.

'During the Jurassic period'...
Although I'm slightly confused by the proximity of this statement to the 300,000 years claim, as the Jurassic was about 150 million years ago...
You mean the same Jurassic period with CO2 concentrations of about 2,000 ppmv and temperatures 3 degrees Centigrade above those of today?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
and another thing :-
whenever agw contrarians refer to a scientist who spouts anti-AGW views they are always 'top'
e.g Top rocket scientist.
David Evans didn't seem to do much rocketry from 1999-2005 & what's he doing now? - I can't seem to find him on wiki very easily.

Well I'll be suprised if you'll find any individuals on wiki that have a fervent anti-global warming stance, but then again I wouldn't trust wikipedia as far as I could throw them, as they're renowned as a disinformation site.

To answer Akria too, I am no expert scientist on global warming so I can't reply with a scientific respose - I am just showing what he has said having been involved in the global warming project.

Should I beleive a "carbon accounting expert" or someone who tells me they know better ? You tell me.

I suspect that you both are either disinformationalists or have either gone so far down your road that you are in total denial mode.

What you must remember is that I am actually trying to preserve your liberty because you will be hurt by the policies that global warming will have on you in the not too distant future if it's allowed to be perpetuated.

Maybe you do not believe your own way of life will be affected ?

I suspect so because I cannot believe that if you knew what is coming around the corner (i.e. carbon rationing as a pretext for control and loss of liberty etc) then you would want your own future destroyed on the basis of a total lie.

So please feel free to discredit me as much as you like because at the end of the day you'll only be hurting yourselves and let's face it, you probably know full well I'm telling you the truth and you realize how corrupt the system has become.

If you don't then you should before you stab yourselves and everyone else in the back.

I was fooled by the mainstream media, until I learn better and had the ability to admit it.

Clippo has said "I am an open mided individual" but Clippo, you are so quick to refute anything you prejudge as "conspiracy" that if you do that, you will never be able to make an informed decision on who is telling the truth and who is not.

Are you able to admit you've been fooled or will you stick to your guns becuase you refuse to admit you're wrong ?

I suspect the latter but I live in hope that you will at least step back and at least examine the other side of the argument.

You see, I don't need to be but I'm being really nice tonight !
[Rep]

My life at the moment seems to consist of looking at the other side of the argument.
It's never lived up to its promises.

I want a worry-free life in which AGW is not the reality that it appears to be. I want a life in which I do not have to worry about it affecting the descendants of both myself and others.
Do you honestly think that I want a life like this in which the worm of worry is perpetually eating away at me?

I hope you're right in claiming that AGW isn't real. I won't be getting my hopes up, though.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Akria:
My life at the moment seems to consist of looking at the other side of the argument.
It's never lived up to its promises.

I want a worry-free life in which AGW is not the reality that it appears to be. I want a life in which I do not have to worry about it affecting the descendants of both myself and others.
Do you honestly think that I want a life like this in which the worm of worry is perpetually eating away at me?

I hope you're right in claiming that AGW isn't real. I won't be getting my hopes up, though.

Akria, please listen to me carefully.

No-one wants to worry about anything becuase it's an awful thing to have an uncertain future, but at the end of the day, we're in the position we're in and the first step in accepting a horrible situation is acceptance

Once you accept something you don't want to accept, the element of fear no longer becomes a weight on your shoulders.

Though I could be wrong, I actually think you're a well meaning individual.

If you are then let me tell you - if you really want something to worry about I can tell you exactly what you should be worried about, but ironically I don't want to worry you becuase you're probably not ready to know the total truth yet - it would be too shocking for you to handle.

I'm not trying to patronise you - I'm just trying to be honest.

If I was a "conspiracy theorist" do you think I would waste my time on this forum ? Beleive it or not I've got better things to do than type all day when I could be enjoying myself, but I can't because I know what's important and what's at stake and if it was pretty then I honestly wouldn't feel the need to bother.

Anyway if you consider yourself to be a patriot/defender of liberty/anti-corruption whatever, all I'll say is that you keep an open mind for the time being, get your ar*e(sorry I'm trying here) over to infowars and examine the evidence to the contrary and come back with any issues/questions etc.

If you then don't believe what you hear then at least you can say you have looked at the other viewpoint with an open mind.

Though I can't say there is nothing in the world to be concerned about, I'll guarantee you one thing.
If you do look at the other viewpoint, you'll never need to worry about the threat of global warming to the earth again.
[Rep]