Utsläppsrätter, vetenskapligt visat meningslöst

Lär gärna artikeln The ETS: Completely unnecessary av David Evans i ABC.net.

Evans är en på området meriterad forskare, med sex examina från Sydney och Stanford, och arbetade mellan 1999 och 2005 med klimatmodeller på Australian Greenhouse Office.

Evans riktar sin artikel till Australiens premiärminister Kevin Rudd. Jag skulle gärna se att Fredrik Reinfeldt tog sig tid att läsa den under jullovet!

Några bitar ur Evans längre artikel, som inleds med följande stycken (min fetstil):

Rudd has failed to see through the vested interests that promote anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human emissions of carbon cause global warming. Though masquerading as "science based", the promoters of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is innocent, and the political class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is.

The Renaissance began when the absolute authority of the church and ancient texts was overthrown. Science then evolved as our most reliable method for acquiring knowledge, free of superstition and political authority. Suppose you wanted to know whether big cannonballs or small cannonballs fell faster. In medieval times you argued theoretically with what could be gleaned from the Bible, the works of Aristotle, or maybe a Papal announcement. In the Renaissance you ignored the authorities and simply dropped cannon balls from a tower and observed what happened - this was science, where empirical evidence trumps theory.

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause's "signature".

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect...

Sedan beskrivs hur en bit upp i atmosfären en "hot spot" från uppvärmning från CO2 saknas. Lite längre fram nämns ett par saker -- nu motbevisade -- som anförts som bevis för AGW-hypotesen. Bl a detta, som Al Gore använde felaktigt:

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth's temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone's satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes - a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing.

Evans tar vidare bl a upp de stora kostnader som utan bevis lagts ned på klimatpolitik. Vidare tas upp hur forskning avancerar och dess beroende av finansiering från staten.

Science is like a courtroom - protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades.

Och (min fetstil):

AGW was always promoted as being supported by nearly all scientists (though polls and history do not support this). Counting numbers of supporters and creating a bandwagon effect by announcing you are in the majority is a political tactic.

AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was always weak, and now the evidence contradicts it. It's like a return to medieval times, where authority rules and evidence is ignored.

Läs hela artikeln här.


Jag håller med Evans om att forskningen är politiserad beträffande anslag och annat.

Apropå att motbevis mot koldioxidens betydelse ändå finns i peer reviewed forskning kan inte den FN:s klimatpanels slutrapport som sammanställs av en liten grupp personer (som inte minst rensar bort bättre förklaringar än CO2) vara det enda som politikerna går efter. Det bör vara deras ansvar att informera sig om läget, där bevisligen nämnda personers editeringar gagnar hypotesen att CO2 styr klimatet (se t ex denna studie med synpunkter på IPCC:s arbete från de forskare som är IPCC-författare).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tillbakalänkning om klimatet: SvD; DN; Sydsvenskan; Kristianstadsbladet; MiljöAktuellt; HD
Andra bloggar om: samhälle, politik, ekonomi, miljö, klimatpolitik, klimat, klimatet, klimatfrågan, media, mediekritik, Reinfeldt, Australien