There is an excellent rip at the global warming conventional wisdom at Backseat driving. David Evans, a scientist who formerly had a vested interest in promoting climate change sensationalism, makes these points.
Evans also states.
So three of the four arguments that convinced me in 1999 that carbon emissions caused global warming are now questionable.The case for carbon emissions as the cause of global warming now just boils down to the fact that we know that it works in the laboratory, and that there is no strong evidence that global warming is definitely *not* caused by carbon emissions. Much the same can be said of cosmic rays -- we have laboratory evidence that it works, and no definitely contradictory evidence.
So why did I bet against global warming continuing at the current rate? Let's return to the interaction between science and politics.By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions. This was a good and sensible response by big government to what science was telling them.
But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken the carbon emissions hypothesis. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming? None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to recapture the attention of the political system later on. What has happened is that most research effort since 2000 has assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.
Let's hope for the planet's sake that I win the betsEvans cannot shake that conventional thinking. I disagree, I would rather see warmer weather than the return to the little ice age.
HT - Planet Gore