User:Camille89/Carbon dioxide – theory or evidence?
 |
This article has been assessed not ready for publication. When these things have been done, and the article is ready to be reviewed and fact-checked, Submit for review by changing the |
| This article has been assessed not ready for publication. Please see the review comments on the collaboration page. {{tasks}} tag to {{review}}. |
 |
This article is incomplete and has not been edited recently, and is considered abandoned. It is to be deleted on May 27 (545 days ago), if work on it does not resume. Please edit it so it becomes un-abandoned. If you feel that this article is ready to be reviewed by a peer reviewer, please add {{review}} to it. |
| This article is incomplete and has not been edited recently, and is considered abandoned. It is to be deleted on May 27 (545 days ago), if work on it does not resume. Please edit it so it becomes un-abandoned. If you feel that this article is ready to be reviewed by a peer reviewer, please add {{review}} to it. |
May 21, 2011
“The debate about global warming in Australia 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.” stated David Evans, former worker of the Department of Climate Change recently.
Carbon dioxide is believed to be the main cause of the recent global warming, However as Evans suggest this theory is based on a guess that was proved false by experiential evidence during the 1990s.
The issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but by how much. The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide which changes everything, in the 1980’s alarmists believed that the extra warmth increased the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
Weather balloons proved that the carbon dioxide theory is fundamentally flawed. The theory predicts that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop, during the warming of the late 1970’s, ‘80’s and ‘90’s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. This theory greatly overestimates the temperature increase due to carbon dioxide.
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. If theory and evidence disagree real scientists scrap the theory”, said Evans.
Official government department of climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory. In order to maintain their positions in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, the political alarmists have chosen to ignore the truth to enable government bodies the power to impose and introduce new taxes.
Sources
edit- Bruce McQuain. "Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science" — Hotair, May 15, 2011
- Bruce McQuain. "Richard Lindzen: AGW movement driven by money, power and dubious science" — Quando.net, January 17, 2011