Perth engineer claims huge climate change discovery

Oct 5, 2015
Rose Donohoe Reporter

Dr David Evans says he can prove climate change is occurring much slower than we thought.

A Perth-based engineer claims to have de-bunked the popular mathematical equation used to model climate change.

According to Dr David Evans, the popular modelling of climate change is far more dramatic than the truth.

• AFL star’s pub burnt down
• Shooter’s links to mosque

Dr Evans, who holds six degrees in mathematics and is a former climate modeller for the government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, claims to have found an error in the application of the equation.

If he is right, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has overestimated the global warming we will experience in the future by ten times.

According to the engineer, the actual physics of the modelling in correct, while the application of model is where the mistake lies.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he told Perth Now.

“Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is.”

“CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans believes the warming we have experienced in the last few decades is the result of “solar warming”, or the waxing and waning of the reflected radiation of the sun.

Dr Evans became a climate change ‘skeptic’ in 2006, despite being a ‘warmist’ during his time working for the government.

In 2012, he wrote in a piece for Fairfax that cloud and humidity actually cause two thirds of global warming, a fact he claimed was not well known by the public.

Ben Hammett

From what I have read, the IPCC has based its predictions upon not one model but many models. Look up publications by, for example, Dr. Benjamin Santer of The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Ben Hammett
- Messiah
  
  Many models based on the same warming assumptions will give you one outcome-guess?
  - mulga mumblebrain
    
    Do you have any children? If so, why are you doing your paltry bit to destroy their futures, and, if not, why are you working to destroy all our children’s lives?
  - Awake
    
    And you, being the Messiah, have a responsibility, no, a God Given duty to tell the truth.
    And if you can’t do that you must be Lucifer in dis-skys.
    Think about it oh great one on high: Dr Evans right, almost every other scientist wrong.
    It don’t add up.
  - Sam Vaughan
    
    I think the models are based on the observable world rather than assumptions
- Gary Kerkin
  
  Have your read the appropriate section of the 5th Assessment Report? You will find comment on the models, their attributes, and shortcomings.
Foniks

He can’t, Dr Evans is a well known climate skeptic and everything I have read on his work until now (which includes the basis for his argument here) is based on logical falacies, and misunderstanding of climate science. I suggest you stop giving people like this any print time.
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  This sort of rank denialist garbage is nowadays virtually unknown outside the cess-pit of the Right in a few Anglosphere dystopias.
Messiah

I applaud you Rose Donohoe for this article on Dr Evans. It is refreshing to read something so interesting from someone so brilliant. I also applaud your referring to Dr Evans as a ‘skeptic’ rather than the other title given to such brave people with all its holocaust connotations. Bravo Bravo
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  The climate destabilisation Holocaust denialists are not ‘sceptics’. They are the exact opposite. Real sceptics keep their opinions tentatively, always ready to change them when presented with new evidence or better theories. The denialists hold their ignorant, obscurantist and ideological opinions tenaciously and reject all science and rationality, and the increasing mountain of direct evidence. The Holocaust that they are fanatically working to create, and to thwart all efforts of decent humanity to avert, will kill one hundred times as many humans as all 75 million victims of WW2, and these are people who might yet be saved, so long as the denialist industry is vanquished.
  - Messiah
    
    Five hundred years ago you believed the earth was flat – a self evident fact and that blood leaching was a scientifically proven method of healing. Anyway, if ‘climate change is coming’ why will it be bad? Because academics with no real jobs tell us so? The earth’s climate has been changing for eons and IT WILL AGAIN and AGAIN and we humans have adapted and we will again. Chill dude!!!
    - Athinker
      
      Messiah – precisely why did you write “Five hundred years ago you believed the earth was flat”?
      - mulga mumblebrain
        
        He imagines that I am very, very, old.
mulga mumblebrain

What in the name of decency is this garbage being given the oxygen of publicity? The wondrous discovery of some amazing ‘factor’ that all the world’s scientists have failed to observe, or have rejected, is one of the denialist industry’s lowest scams, fit only for the worst and most gullible dullards.
Athinker

Who is this Dr Evans? (Can find nothing about him in Wikipedia.)

Why is he right and hundreds of others wrong?

At this stage, I’ll stick with the majority of qualified scientists.
- David Overton
  
  Here is some info about him, and his many misunderstandings: http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
  - Athinker
    
    Thanks David. A very revealing article about what a fraud Evans is.
    
    I like this quote – “…he is not a climate modeler nor has he published a single peer-reviewed article on climate change.” So why does he keep getting published in the popular press?
- GeorgeH
  
  Athinker: Aren’t you following the “a million flies on that pile of s___t can’t all be wrong” school of scientific thought? Just looking at an 18 year hiatus in average global warming while the CO2 level grew from 365 PPM to 400 PPM would seem to suggest that CO2 is NOT the driver! And that’s per 4 out of the roughly 5 major global temp databases–not including the other one that until last year reflected the same results–until NOAA/ NASA GISS zealots tinkered with the data to force it into supporting the desired outcome. Now that database, along with New Zealand’s, England’s and several others are virtually useless for any scientific purpose. They cherry picked and maintained hot sites, dropped cold sites, and adjusted temperatures upwards throughout many of the remaining to yield worthless results. Not worthless, I guess, from their point of view looking at the increases in taxpayer funding they managed to justify! Your side lacks answers but insists on imposing economically disastrous solutions with no cost benefit analysis anyway.
  
  So what’s the problem with giving folks a heads up that what they are hearing 24-7 from every government and academic mouthpiece reliant on taxpayer support doesn’t sound right either? There is no debate going on because the climate alarmists can’t take the heat and have no proof–just anecdotal stories taken out of context and repeated ad nausium –and with no reporting of the other side of the argument–until the public comes to believe The Big Lie!
  - Athinker
    
    I am NOT following the “a million flies on that pile of s___t can’t all be wrong” school of scientific thought.
    
    Since 1980, long before those economically threatened by their findings started fighting back and when it was all simply science, I have followed the published climatologists with decent qualifications.
    
    Please explain how a climatologist suggesting that global warming was happening would have got any taxpayer money out of our federal government in the past two years, or from the Howard government.
  - Calvinius
    
    The claim of “an 18 year hiatus” is false.
wjfox

Pure denialist garbage.

What’s really warming the world?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Cris Cassity

Numerous others have stated the IPCC models run “hot” by about5-8 times CO2 a actual ability. Warmists want the earth to be in dire trouble, it’s what they desire. Read below.
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  Vicious projection of the lowest type. The truth-tellers and believers in science are the ones trying to save humanity, in the face of fanatic Rightwing opposition by creatures like you, the real enemies of humanity.
Μιχάλης Βρ

It’s all a cover. Cthulhu is melting the ice caps to raise the sea level to take over the world, and the democratic party is trying to hide it by blaming it on human action while funneling millions of human sacrifices yearly through planned parenthood; Cthulhu cares not how old they are…
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  As one observer has noted, the brief Anthropocene will shortly be followed by the Cthulhucene, sans uptight, upstart, upright apes.
Athinker

Evans is not a climatologist. He has published nothing in that field.

There is no rational reason to pay him any heed at all.
- Lindsay
  
  He is clearly well qualified – his qualifications are outlined in the article. A rational response would be to read the papers that are written by suitably qualified experts in response to Evans’ assertions.
  - Athinker
    
    The article simply says he has six degrees in mathematics, which sounds very weird, but mentions no qualifications outside that field.
    
    It casually mentions that he is an engineer.
    
    He is not qualified in climatology.
    - wremo
      
      One doesn’t need to be qualified in climatology to detect a mathemathical error.
Lee Tinson

I know a guy called David Evans. He used to sing with AC/DC. Could this be the same guy? Or is this just a scientist’s sense of humour? Good on ya, Dr. Dave.
Steve

One question for climate change enthusiasts. We know from geology and history that there have been several ice ages, including the Little Ice Age within recorded history, as well as the Medieval Warm Period just preceding the Little Ice Age. Both of those changes occurred prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine or the coal fired electrical power plant. And no one has a peer reviewed reason for those changes. If fossil fuel use wasn’t the cause of the change, and nothing else has been identified, then why should we accept that CO2 is the current culprit, and not the unknown mechanism from the last millennium?
- Athinker
  
  Oh FFS, you’re talking nonsense. Go away and study eight years of tertiary Maths, Physics, Meteorology and Climatology. Then come back and tell us that even your claims in that post are wrong.
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  Steve, your ignorance does you proud. Both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well understood. And the temperature increasing potential of greenhouse gases, CO2, methane and nitrous oxide in particular but also including such exotic novelties as CFCs and HCFCs etc, is settled science. Increasing these greenhouse gases guarantees more heat being trapped in the Earth system. For this forcing not to cause increased warming and increased climate instability (plus positive feedbacks like rising levels of water vapour, another greenhouse gas)other forcings like the solar radiance, which varies, or the Milankovitch Cycles that send us into proper Ice Ages, or ‘global dimming’ from sulphates injected into the stratosphere by large volcanic eruptions of in the lower atmosphere by pollution and aircraft con-trails etc, must be acting negatively, and against the positive forcing of greenhous gas levels. The whole process is better and better understood, and I suggest visiting Skeptical Science where it is all explained quite simply, if you have the nous to understand it, or if your Rightwing ideology does not forbid such Thought Crime. At the moment your contribution is less than worthless.
Pingback: BizzyBlog
Pingback: Press Ignoring Unsettling News For Global Warming's True Believers | Conservative Junction
jamie leigh

on the oil/mining companies payroll?
Fred

I note comments that Evans has not “published any peer reviewed papers”. Peer review is an utter joke, and is killing science. Warmist journals will not publish papers which contradict the warmist mantra. Papers published in warmist journals are “reviewed” by a small circle of apparatchiks, “pal review” is more apt. As for Dr Evans not being a “climate scientist”: can anyone here list the requirements and qualifications to be a “climate scientist”? Many that publish are merely statisticians- and they get their statistical methods wrong. Having taken weather readings professionally for 4 decades, it irks me considerably that the guardians of the various climate databases see fit to alter readings; it’s amazing that the record for most stations have the past cooled and more recent records warmed, with alterations occurring on the basis of comparisons with stations hundreds of kms away. CAGW is a joke, a religion, and some of the comments here by warmists show how fervent belief in sky fairies can twist the mind.
- Athinker
  
  Fred – your penultimate sentence makes no sense
  - Fred
    
    Read it again, it’s quite clear. Heard of “homogenisation”?
Calvinius

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change-26012015/
mulga mumblebrain

A concern troll-how touching. The science is settled. The US National Academy of Sciences says so, as do ALL the other Academies of Science on the planet and ALL the learned scientific societies and 99.9% of published climate science research published in 2013 and 2014. All research is investigated-it’s called ‘peer review’, and it does NOT include subjecting research to the lies, disinformation, misrepresentation and sheer ideological viciousness of Rightwing thugs who are prepared to destroy their own species in pursuit of their eternal hate campaign against the Left, and in defence of the fossil fuel industry trillions. Only a total moral imbecile does not become ’emotional’ when the very future of humanity is being destroyed by evil imbeciles.
mulga mumblebrain

It’s the expression used by the US National Academy of Sciences. That you are either too pig ignorant to understand what it means, or reject it because it contradicts your omnicidal Rightwing ideology, is a matter of no interest to sane, decent, rational human beings. And your puerile arrogance in pontificating on what science means, while rejectings its findings, in the context of the greatest threat to human existence ever, is sickening.
mulga mumblebrain

No-the first thought of decent, sane, moral human beings. Unsurprisingly, a sentiment that your type simply cannot comprehend.
Athinker

What corruption?

Sigmund – it’s actually a bit hard to tell from that post who you’re criticising.
Athinker

Melinda – I’m apparently not allowed to say what I first wrote about that post. I was careful to make sure it wasn’t a personal attack, but I did suggest the post wasn’t very smart one.

When all you can do is copy my words, and try to re-use them in a way that doesn’t actually work, you don’t achieve much here.

Perhaps try using your own words…..
Fred

Fascinating that you would lump me in with the right side of politics merely because I am in (using your pejorative word) the “denialist” camp, then offer a lecture on the Enlightenment. On most issues I am a confirmed centrist, it’s this one issue which splits the world into two camps, largely because the CAGW mantra is seen as a socialist means of gaining power, especially since the abject failure of the Soviet Communist sphere. Highly amusing too, that “denialists” are said to be given to religious fervour, given that belief in global warming and all its iterations has many of the indicators of religious belief, at least to this confirmed atheist.
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  You claim to be ‘centrist’, always a sign of a Rightwinger attempting to disguise his real persona, then launch into a bizarre rant of pure Rightwing gibberish about ‘socialism’ and ‘..the abject failure of the Soviet Communist sphere..’ . Then you invert reality and accuse those who accept the science and the observable facts of ‘religious beliefs’. No wonder Tony Abbortt was PM!!
Sigmund

Read the article. Consulting in the US alone is around 900 million. Like anything it stands to get corrupted with big cash floating around. Check the link

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/global-warming-a-1-5-trillion-industry.php

I find both sides questionable. Thanks for your rely and good luck.
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  Fake ‘even-handedness’ in the face of human extinction. Nauseating!
Sigmund

Not even talking about renewables. Nearly 900 million is US just on consulting. I may be too cynical but I believe this kind of money can lead to corruption. Check the link and thanks for your reply.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/global-warming-a-1-5-trillion-industry.php
- mulga mumblebrain
  
  Doubling down on dumb-the Dunning-Krugerites cannot help themselves. Let’s say I accept your 900 million figure. That is a mere 0.09% of a trillion, and you spoke of ‘trillion plus’.