Earth's future? Or where theories go to die?

From, a stunning abjuring of Climate Change — in fact, by far the most damning statement we have read yet, quoting Dr. David Evans, a scientist with six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University.   Dr. Evans was a full-time consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products.  Said the doctor:

The debate about global warming 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.

Why is that?  Essentially, Dr. Evans describes in some detail how steadily accumulating data during the last decade has refuted, not confirmed, the CO2 theory promulgated by the climatologists.  He then concludes:

Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory.

We will be interested to see how, or if, the climate change folks respond to this.  We suspect they will pursue their usual practice of “pretend he didn’t say it and maybe it will go away.”  But here’s a guy from the inside of the tent now pissing in, with the very powerful statement that the data simply does not support the theory.  Hard to ignore that.  Read the whole thing.