It's most unsettling to the cluckers of climate change when one of their own leading adherents, who formerly toed the line, becomes skeptical and drop-kicks the "science."The remarks Scaife's braintrust uses come from this column at the Financial Times.
Meet David Evans.
A scientist with six university degrees, Mr. Evans consulted for the Australian Greenhouse Office (today's Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005. He studied carbon in plants, debris, forestry and agricultural products.
The thing you should've noticed in the op-ed is how the braintrust describes Evans - "a scientist with six university degrees." But which six? You'd think one of them is in climate science.
But you'd be wrong.
Here's the description from the bottom of the FT column:
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.Given that the Trib cut and pasted whole phrases from this description, they had to know that he wasn't a climate scientist. But still, it's a PhD in electrical engineering - and that's nothing to sneeze at.
But you'd think that were he an expert in the field, he'd have some peer-reviewed publications under his belt, right?
Um, no. According to this "skeptic watch" page, Evens published one peer-reviewed paper. In 1987. And it wasn't about climate change. Interesting.
Also the material in the presentation Evans made at that Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, that became the FT column that the braintrust used to "debunk" climate science was itself debunked.
In 2007.
Nice going, guys. You made this one easy.
You know, if any of James Hansen, Phil Jones or Michael Mann of the hockey stick, or even non-scientist Al Gore were to reverse themselves, that would cause a stir in the climate cjage community. But a mid level bureaucrat in the Australian climate change department doesn't really qualify as a "leading adherent". And there is considerable irony that Mr. Evans talks about a Climate Change gravy train when the Skeptic Watch link you provided indicates that Mr. Evans has affiliated himself with corporate and corporate related interests.
ReplyDeleteSearching online through the Trib produced no mention of Bjorn Lomborg's reversal from Climate change skeptic to active policy advocate. Arguably Lomborg was one of the highest profile skeptics, with more impressive credentials. making his reversal all the more significant. Had no impact on me, I was already pretty reasonably convinced, but it might give some skeptics pause, assuming they actually care about science. The Trib has no articles by or any coverage of Mr. Lomborg since his reversal. I guess they don't want to confuse their readers with pesky "facts".
If Anthony Weiner was a GOP wouldn't you be attacking him by now?? This is like the Obama patriot Act, Deja vu!
ReplyDeleterich, if Newt were a Democrat, wouldn't you have accused him of being a flip flopper by now? This is like when Bush nationalized the US banks, deja vu!
ReplyDeleteMr. Ed, Newt's goof, period!!
ReplyDeleteNewt Gingrich, a man, Mr rich, whom the Republican majority of the House of representatives elected Speaker of the House in 1994.
ReplyDeleteBut a "goof, period".
And y'all talk about liberals/progressives throwing people under the bus.
Way to show to some spine, dude.