David Evans falls off the Global Warming Woo Wagon too!

[lomiller]

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.

I happen to be an electrical engineer, so you’ve apparently just accepted my credentials as a subject mater expert in my own right

 

[Megalodon]

I happen to be an electrical engineer, so you’ve apparently just accepted my credentials as a subject mater expert in my own right

Nah, it only counts if you have the right opinion: the wrong one...

 

[lomiller]

Nah, it only counts if you have the right opinion: the wrong one...

Lol too true, anyone who agrees with him is “a valid expert”, anyone regardless the qualifications who doesn’t “is not”.

 

[Megalodon]

One year ago, the delayers were harping about an oceanographer that turned out to be a construction worker.

So the reality-based people are getting used to the tactic... and you have to admit: we get some laughs out of the "experts"...

 

[CapelDodger]

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

That should definitely be clarified.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is no assertion that there are or are not peer reviewed articles.

So there might be peer-reviewed papers he's too modest to mention, and it's all those might-be's that make your world bearable. I understand that. I don't sympathise, but I understand.

 

[Megalodon]

BTW, we discussed this "expert" here before, and I brought up his publication "list" and field of work... let me search for it.

ETA: the search function is driving me insane... I'll try again tomorrow.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

The chemist will poke it till it breaks down, but won't complain if they have to poke really hard.

 

[blutoski]

Take it or leave it.

I'll have to leave it, for reasons cited. There's a need to distinguish between signal and noise. Peer review is part of that.

An interesting question is whether it takes a "climatologist" to make the four points that David Evans makes, which are noted in the OP.

To "make" the points? No.

To be regarded as probably correct? Yes.

They sure seem like summary views about climatology.

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.

Which are not in the OP, and not being addressed by subsequent posts. They sound like politics, and there's no barrier to entry on political opinion. Which is why I ignore political screeds as I consider them less than uninformative.

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.

The words "involved in" is too vague. A janitor in the courthouse is 'involved in' the justice system. I don't pay a lot of attention to his opinions on legal rulings.

Also, the phrase "poorly understood science" is repeating his claim to support his claim, which makes your above paragraph an exercise in question-begging.

 

[jj]

His being an EE is not irrelevant, as you have noted, some of them may be well suited to the job.

In other words, you insist that his EE is relevant, even though you, yourself, admit that it is IRRELEVANT!?!? Could you please make up your mind, and stop claiming that black is white and white is maroon?

What has he published, etc? Is that relevant?

Yes, please show me his mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming.

Not something that demonstrates he can get a computer to add.

It would appear that your own words serve your hero very poorly, and that you, yourself, have indicted him for stepping out of his field.

ETA: And I'm an EE,too. So how come you don't take my word for it?

 

[gdnp]

I will note that Kallsop heavily redacted the original article without noting the places that it was snipped. Here is one of the excluded sections:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

Here is another:

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. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

A nice example of the fuzzy-headed thinking that the deniers use. I do not have the expertise to criticize the substance of his claims, but I can challenge the logic.

In the first quote he claims that the absence of a "greenhouse signature" proves that the greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. Why does he believe that a greenhouse signature would be present if CO2 were causing a greenhouse effect? Is it because we have observed such signatures in prior cases of greenhouse effects? Obviously not: we have no prior history to fall back on. Therefore, I assume this greenhouse signature is theoretical, based on computer models. So it appears to me that he is claiming that AGW has been invalidated because it does not agree with a prediction of computer models.

In the second quote, he looks at computer models and claims that just because observed global warming is predicted by computer models that factor in CO2, this not evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming because "computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory".

So if the evidence contradicts one prediction of the computer model the entire theory is wrong, whereas if the evidence agrees with the main contention of the computer model he denies the use of models is even valid.

Come on, Dale. We expect more from a "rocket scientist".

 

[CapelDodger]

I will note that Kallsop heavily redacted the original article without noting the places that it was snipped.

Drive-by artists cut-and-paste; it's the basic architecture of their world-view, IMO. Some other redactor neglected the ellipses.

 

[SezMe]

kallsop, I'm happy to see you around. I thought you dropped off the edge of the Earth when you didn't appear in the 50,000 satire thread to stand up for yourself.

 

[TrueSceptic]

If you read is bio

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.

For anyone who wants to know what FullCAM is.

 

[TrueSceptic]

In the first quote he claims that the absence of a "greenhouse signature" proves that the greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. Why does he believe that a greenhouse signature would be present if CO2 were causing a greenhouse effect? Is it because we have observed such signatures in prior cases of greenhouse effects? Obviously not: we have no prior history to fall back on. Therefore, I assume this greenhouse signature is theoretical, based on computer models. So it appears to me that he is claiming that AGW has been invalidated because it does not agree with a prediction of computer models.

The answer is much simpler. The claim that a hotspot in the tropical troposphere is a GHG signature is false. The hotspot is a signature of any warming, however caused. The real issue is the accuracy of the measurements.

 

[CapelDodger]

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts

Beggars belief, frankly.

Like the rest of this nonsense, it's just a blank statement with no supporting evidence, argument, or overlap with the observable world. The word "alarmist" pops up right on cue, of course.

No wonder someone as shallow as kallsop feels an affinity for this jerk.

 

[mhaze]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.

Warmers? Oh my, my. They have to jump all over it with some weird type of theory, pull in smear reports from paid PR men, make claims that the individual could not be listened to if he didn't publish, etc, etc,etc. Yep. Small minded radical fringe environmentalists would do that. That is part of the reason that they are called Warmers, a lack of balance, judgement and rationality.

Originally Posted by mhaze
Take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by Blukoski
I'll have to leave it, for reasons cited.

Which makes perfect sense to me given your viewpoint. But making a big deal of a "newspaper article" is beyond belief...

 

[a_unique_person]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

No, the problem is that, once again, the story is not what it is presented as. An applications programmer who has nothing to do with the science of AGW or working on the GCM models, is presented as someone who does both.

Two facts.

Evans has nothing to do with the science of AGW.
Evans has nothing to do with modelling climate change.

 

[Pixel42]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.

Deniers? Oh my, my. They have to jump all over it, gloat about it, start threads on it on boards like this one, post it to existing threads on global warming wherever they can find them *, pretending that it's of enormous significance and "proof" that the previously convinced are abandoning AGW like rats deserting a sinking ship ...

[* http://www.doctorwhoforum.com/showthread.php?t=186721&page=14

Yes that's a global warming thread on the Doctor Who forum, where the resident denier posted this article even before kallsop posted it here.]

 

[JoeEllison]

Wow, kallsop starts another thread with a title that is a flat-out lie. Once again, I am Jacks complete lack of surprise.