When I started that job* in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects...But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.Dr. Evans gives 4 reasons** why the carbon-based "greenhouse" model for climate progress utterly fails to explain what it is supposed to, concluding with "The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming."
But that makes me wonder, if there is no "actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming," how could there have been "pretty good" evidence back in 1999? What happened to the evidence? Did it get lost in the Katrina flood? Filed away in that big warehouse from Raiders? Is "pretty good" a euphemism meaning the opposite of "actual"?
There was never evidence "for" carbonated global warming then if there is none now: it was either "theoretical evidence" - evidence that needed to exist in order for the theory to work - or it was misinterpreted. What probably happened is that scientists had some facts, developed a theory to explain them, and then assumed the existence of all the missing evidence that was still needed to make the theory work.
Hey, it happens all the time in science. It's just not generally a problem until a politician gets ahold of it.
* Building Kyoto carbon accounting models for the Australian government.
** In an easy-to-chew, layman's format. I highly suggest you read the whole thing.