Well, shazam!
The consensus has been relieved of a few of its numbers. About 50,000 or so actual scientists. Now, in an earlier blog we discussed the difference between "scientists," and "activists." Scientists actually study the phenomena whereas activists simply attribute every bad meteorological occurance to man made global climate change (MMGCC). Thus, with regard to hurricanes, scientists who studied hurricanes said recent events were naturally occurring, cyclic events. Climate Change Activists, including AsshoLe Gore, simply ascribed them to MMGCC. Easiest job in the world.

Anyway...

One point I have been making is that these jokers have been making dire warnings for years. Boldly proclaiming that we need to act now. Hasn't anyone actually bothered, over nearly 2 decades to document or check their claims? Have their models accurately predicted stuff? You know, basic scientific questions.

So, one such person has. Meet David Evans. In his own words:

"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector."

So, what did Mr. Evans figure out from the six years of his life he wasted? four point summary:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

Hmm, sounds like people are finally waking up.

Oh, I have also posted several times about how the NASA team has basically lied about their numbers. That, with respect to point number 3 above, terrestrial temperature stations have had their readings adjusted. Why, you ask, would NASA change its temperature data to make recent years warmer and past years cooler? You know, it's for the kids.

The consensus can no longer expect the American Physical Society to play ball either.

So, with the reports on NASA lying about temperature data, here is another lie that almost came to be repeated blindly by Sheryl Crow and other has beens. When atmospheric balloon based stations failed to detect a rise in temperature as expected in the clouds (where, apparently, MMGCC lives), some activists (not scientists) proposed this novel fix:

"Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything."

Activists don't need no stinking data!