David Evans falls off the Global Warming Woo Wagon too!

[kallsop]

No smoking hot spot

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.
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).
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.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.


Oops. Another unhappy Global Warming customer.

 

[casebro]

As only one component of "The World Wide Consensus", I've got to say Evans sums it up in a nut shell.

 

[Moochie]

Well, GW or not, I still smoke. But I give it up before bedtime every day.


M.

 

[mhaze]

No smoking hot spot .

Oops. Another unhappy Global Warming customer.

Good article.

David Evans | July 18, 2008

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.

....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. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.


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. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
​

 

[lomiller]

Hot on the heels of your other drive by thread that proved to be 100% false you present us with this one. Evans is a long time denier so the only way he would be “off the woo” is if he bothered to read a science journal. Like most of his ilk, Evans has not relevant credentials in climatology, he’s basically just some guy writing his opinions on the itenrweb.

Since I addressed that very quote in that other thread, I won’t bother to do so here. Perhaps while you are over there reading my post you can address the questions of why you posted something so blatantly untrue.

 

[lomiller]

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

Here's the research database entry on David Evans:

No peer-reviewed articles on climate change

And

According to his bio, Evans claims to be a 'Rocket Scientist' and one article claims that he is a 'Top Rocket Scientist.' While Evans background does show that he has a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.

Nothing to see here folks, just like the last thread the OP started…

 

[mhaze]

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
…

A new Low in pathetic "references" , Lomiller cites Desmogblog. Thanks, very revealing . Who is Desmogblog and what are their financial interests?

Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada)

"So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.

One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.

There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells.
​

Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.

Hoggan, paid PR man, no background in science, Lomiller's reference for the smear on David Evans.

 

[David Wong]

Wow, so with the 50,000 scientists in the other thread, this makes 50,001!

It's a good thing I only read the thread titles and don't actually follow up to find out if they're factually correct!

I bet there isn't a single scientist left who believes in this global warming silliness!

 

[ksbluesfan]

David Evans is an electrical engineer. He's not a geologist, climatologist or a rocket scientist.

I knew I should have started a new thread rather than putting the David Evans article in an existing AGW thread.

 

[lomiller]

A new Low in pathetic "references" , Lomiller cites Desmogblog. Thanks, very revealing . Who is Desmogblog and what are their financial interests?

Don’t confuse my post with your own garbage links where you cite people completely unqualified in the field they are discussing. The author of that particular site is as qualified as anyone to comment on the background and qualifications of David Evans.

I also find it interesting that you presume the site is “unreliable” not on credentials, citations or material being discussed but where the author stands politically relative to yourself. Not that we needed any further proof, but this really does show clearly that you base your views not on the science but on your politics.

 

[Megalodon]

It's funny that mhaze, who linked to a ID website as a global warming reference, would have the gall to complain about anyone's choice of source.

Wait, funny is not the word... depressing, that's it

 

[varwoche]

since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming

What evidence, one wonders?

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

<loud guffaw>

So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.

<louder guffaw> For sure huh? Now it can be said with some confidence that he's a clueless pseudo skeptic.

There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

<loudest guffaw> And now it can be said with some confidence that he's a whacked out zealot, due to these ludicrous absolute statements.

the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year

Even if this were true (I don't think it is), year to year fluctuations are insufficient to draw conclusions from given the multi-decade trend.

 

[technoextreme]

Oops. Another unhappy Global Warming customer.

Can we get someone who is actually a climatologist who changes his mind? This has just as much relevance as George W. Bush's opinion on rocket science.

David Evans is an electrical engineer. He's not a geologist, climatologist or a rocket scientist.

Ahhhh..... I wonder if Australia has the equivalent of a PE license. He could probably lose it for fraud. Though now that I think of it his explanation does make a bit of sense because one would have to be an expert in twenty disparate fields in order for one to qualify as a rocket scientist. Would that be aerospace engineering? On third thought rocket scientist is a loaded term.

Wow, so with the 50,000 scientists in the other thread, this makes 50,001!

Technically it depends on your opinion whether or not engineering is even a science.

 

[mhaze]

David Evans is an electrical engineer. He's not a geologist, climatologist or a rocket scientist.

An electrical engineer is an excellent choice for someone capable of writing computer programs describing the noise, positive and negative feedback loops, etc related to climate.

Let's see....what was the job of David Evans? Writing computer programs relating to climate.

 

[jj]

An electrical engineer is an excellent choice for someone capable of writing computer programs describing the noise, positive and negative feedback loops, etc related to climate.

Let's see....what was the job of David Evans? Writing computer programs relating to climate.

Computer scientists write programs. Electrical engineers model circuits, do DSP, and other things, none of which are related to highly nonlinear, noisy climate models.

Your reference to "positive and negative feedback loops", I think, summarizes your understanding. There is feedback. Positive and negative are just descriptions of the transfer function of the feedback.

A network that has positive feedback at one frequency may be negative at another, or vice versa.

EE's in general MAY be good at writing computer programs, or they may not be. It's an orthogonal qualification to programming ability.

Some EE's know how to run perceptual experiments. I do. Many haven't a clue.

Some EE's can still design with vacuum tubes. I can.

Some EE"s can still design with transistors. I can do that too.

Some can tell you how the human cochlea is a transmission line filter. Some can't.

Some can write good nonlinear models, some can't. Again, orthogonal.

Some may know basic acoustics, some advanced acoustics, some may even know acoustics well enough to start to be able to model weather. Some may not.

Oh, and yes, I'm an EE.

His being an EE is irrelevant. What has he published in refereed scientific journals?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I just wonder if the title of this thread is meant to convey "fact" or "satire"

 

[mhaze]

Computer scientists write programs. Electrical engineers model circuits, do DSP, and other things, none of which are related to highly nonlinear, noisy climate models.our reference to "positive and negative feedback loops", I think, summarizes your understanding. There is feedback. Positive and negative are just descriptions of the transfer function of the feedback.A network that has positive feedback at one frequency may be negative at another, or vice versa.
EE's in general MAY be good at writing computer programs, or they may not be. It's an orthogonal qualification to programming ability.
Some EE's know how to run perceptual experiments. I do. Many haven't a clue.
Some EE's can still design with vacuum tubes. I can.
Some EE"s can still design with transistors. I can do that too.
Some can tell you how the human cochlea is a transmission line filter. Some can't.
Some can write good nonlinear models, some can't. Again, orthogonal.
Some may know basic acoustics, some advanced acoustics, some may even know acoustics well enough to start to be able to model weather. Some may not.
Oh, and yes, I'm an EE.
His being an EE is irrelevant. What has he published in refereed scientific journals?

His being an EE is not irrelevant, as you have noted, some of them may be well suited to the job. What has he published, etc? Is that relevant? Judge the guy according to what he said he did, etc. What did he say he did?

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 that's what he did. There is no assertion that there are or are not peer reviewed articles. He's been on the inside of the "carbon accounting industry". Got disgusted with it, left, and writes about it.

Take it or leave it.

An interesting question is whether it takes a "climatologist" to make the four points that David Evans makes, which are noted in the OP. Or are they self obvious? Evans goes on to make numerous points about the implications of bad public policy for society, in a newspaper article. These are not exactly issues one would expect to hear from a "climatologist", and neither are they issues that one evaluates the merit of the speaker on based on some type of peer reviewed publish record.

Asserting that someone involved in "climate accounting office" for six years has nothing meaningful to say about the likely impacts of bad public policy and crude implementations of taxation schemes based on poorly understood science seems ridiculous.

 

[blutoski]

An electrical engineer is an excellent choice for someone capable of writing computer programs describing the noise, positive and negative feedback loops, etc related to climate.

Let's see....what was the job of David Evans? Writing computer programs relating to climate.

That's one of the dumbest statements I've heard in a long time. Think about it: it would mean that software developers are universally qualified to be an expert in any field, since anything can be modelled in a program. A truly ridiculous premise.

Any hacker can write a program. What they're not qualified to do is verify if the model constructed has any validity within its field of focus.

ie: as a software developer, I can write a program to model chemical bonding. But a chemist would be appropriately qualified to verify whether the model is accurate. Even if the model is accurate, is the input data valid? How would a programmer know without consulting with experts in the relevant field?

There's an expression in programming that applies here: "Garbage in; garbage out."

The question about his publishing history is precisely relevant, since we're asking a scientific question. Have his models been reviewed for accuracy by scientists? Apparently not.

It's easy to interpret this as a situation where a contractor code monkey found conflict with his employer because he had a political axe to grind and/or just didn't understand the nuances of an unrelated field of knowledge.

Happens all the time.

But if he wants to persuade us that he's right, he's going to have to support his sweeping statements, he's welcome to submit his findings to his choice of many peer-reviewed journals instead of basically issuing a screed/polemic via press release.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans



And



Nothing to see here folks, just like the last thread the OP started…

If you read is bio

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.

He's an applications programmer, for a business application monitoring the use of a commodity. He knows no more about Greenhouse science or modeling than I do. But he's got his 15 minutes of fame.

 

[a_unique_person]

So that's what he did. There is no assertion that there are or are not peer reviewed articles. He's been on the inside of the "carbon accounting industry". Got disgusted with it, left, and writes about it.

That's right, it's an industry just like any other, the commodity is CO2. I'm sure he could move right into any other applications programming role quite comfortably tomorrow.