Anthropogenic Global Warning is one of those topics that I usually avoid, not because it is not timely or important, but because my science expertise has always been wanting, that, and I figured that those experts in the field should know better than I. But it always bothered me when I heard things like the science is already settled and those that deny AGW are anti science, discounting the need for not only further study but further scrutiny.
Well, it looks like another Indian left the reservation:
David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
“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.”
The entire article is interesting because it talks about the science behind the modeling and how this science has been co opted for political purposes.
Not one prone to wag my finger with pronouncements of phonies, charlatans, and imposters, but it has always been clear that money can buy expertise. As any defense attorney can attest, finding a so called expert in any field willing to say anything on the witness stand, and have the pedigree and credentials to back it up is very easy depending on the money involved. So it really is not a stretch to think that oil companies can find “experts” to provide a voice for their self interests. Ditto that with universities willing to accept grant money from organizations positing a certain premise, then having the studies support said premise, astonishing.
In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory.
And this is where we are today, still gathering empirical evidence.
I’m not prepared to say that AGW is all a bunch of horse poop as I believe that it is impossible for the growing population and it’s resultant pollution to not have a material effect on the planet. But for all those global warming converts who accuse me of living in the dark ages and being anti science, can we at least admit that, aside from greenhouse gases are increasing, that the science is still ongoing, so at this point, very little is actually settled?