Comments on: Dr David Evans: born-again ‘alarmist’?

By: rob clarke

rob clarke — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:33:31 +0000

(Comment deleted)
MODERATOR
BNC no longer posts or discusses comments denying the scientific consensus of AGW/CC. Please check the Comments Policy on the About page for further information.

By: NewLife56

NewLife56 — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:05:53 +0000

(Comment deleted)
MODERATOR
BNC no longer posts or comments on climate change scepticism.See BNC Comments Policy on the About page.

By: Are we in danger - Page 8 - Club Cobra

Are we in danger - Page 8 - Club Cobra — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:27:11 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Ross Martin

Ross Martin — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:20:05 +0000

(Comment deleted. BNC no longer posts or discusses denialists arguments on the scientific consensus of AGW/CC. Please check the Comments Policy on the About page before commenting again.)

By: Ross Martin

Ross Martin — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:15:11 +0000

(Comment deleted. BNC no longer posts or discusses denialist arguments against the scientific consensus on AGW/CC.)

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:48:08 +0000

Ah Sheldon, you really do lack social skills – don’t you.

By: laurentien

laurentien — Tue, 17 May 2011 20:09:51 +0000

Perhaps, this Dr. David Evans is genuine but he needs to get his views published in at least an International peer-reviewed conference and later into a scientific journal. Without, this his ideas can be crap.

By: No acceleration in Sea level rises

No acceleration in Sea level rises — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:39:17 +0000

[...] So? Evans' doctorate is in Electrical Engineering. But if you want to play that game, Here's another by Barry Brook, Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of [...]

By: Henry Buttal

Henry Buttal — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:27:51 +0000

To paraphrase Gavin Schmidt “The (my) models aren’t wrong – it is reality that is wrong…”

By: Prof vongollum

Prof vongollum — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:34:53 +0000

“The bottom line is that the observations may well be closer to the model data than preliminary analyses suggested but that the structural uncertainty remains high. Coming to dramatic conclusions based on any of this remains unwise.

and

“The new analysis adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that these discrepancies are most likely the result of inaccuracies in the observed temperature record rather than fundamental model errors.”
http://www.realclimate.org/ 8th Dec 2009

Climategate over and over again.

By: Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:21:40 +0000

[...] Dr. David Evans ignoring the facts? Quote: [...]

By: Wick

Wick — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:26:10 +0000

If global warming is real then it stands to reason that all nations should at the very least look into plans for coastal evacuations and updating and maintaining storm warning systems to be able to adequately warn of impending storms due to warming oceans, much as we have now and at least have a contingency plan for taking care of the masses. If however climate change is just not standing up to scientific debate then what. I have worked in the coal fired power generating industry for 14 yrs and I can safely say that these places are not the pinnacle of industrial cleanliness. I hope that we can agree that there is a better way than coal, oil and natural gas. With the intellect that you men have it seems to me that while you may disagree about wether or not global warming is real you can surely agree that to look to nature and harvest the energy of the sun is something that everyone should be able to agree on. Coal receives billions in tax incentives to off set its cost and this is not propaganda, this information comes straight from the DOE. If not solar then maybe something else, just don’t throw the momentum of unseating coal out the window, please believe me when I say these places are horrible and the mark that they are leaving on our world is just that horrible. Please debate climate change until the cows come home, it seems to be a hot topic, just please remind people that wether or not this issue has real merit it is still smart to do whatever it takes to conserve energy. I think its safe to say no matter what you do to protect our economy we are hell bent on having more than we need or can pay for, so you might as well be moving toward energy independence and if you think Jesus won’t stand behind that i’ll eat my own hat.

By: The Heartland Institute’s Skeptic Handbook - Get Out the Shovel… | FollowGreen.com

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:45:38 +0000

[...] some excellent critiques of these old and erroneous talking points see the blog of Dr. Barry Brook, an actual climate scientist from the University of Adelaide, and Dr. David Karoly at the [...]

By: MattB

MattB — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:19:29 +0000

Just to keep this thread alive… months and months ago I posted about a mate of mine who was all about AGW being a global conspiracy to introduce carbon as a new FIAT currency with the demise of the rest of the currency and the Great Financial Crisis (which gore et al knew about in advance of course). (I can;t find the post BTW but some comments said it sounded a bit CEC – Larouchian).

Anyway – lo and behold today poster gal of the sceptical set, partner of the Rocket Scientist, and soon to be Heartland conference presenter, Jo Nova, delivers this :”Carbon Credits: Another Corrupt Currency?” http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/04/carbon-credits-another-corrupt-currency/

I should have guessed that their side line in gold trading (goldnerds.com) was anchored in financial conspiracy.

Anyway I think it is a good read if you are interested in this angle of sceptical basis.

By: MattB

MattB — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:37:12 +0000

Just following that train of thought led me to what I found to be a most entertaining and informative read:

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/12/19/david-evans-greenhouse-sceptic-debates-his-views-on-troppo/

There is some really interesting discussion between Evans and the fellow from Deltoid whose name escapes me, and Chris O’Neill who I’ve seen posting here I think (he gets moderated a bit at CLub Troppo).

For mine Evans is shown the error of his ways, but I’m sure sceptics think he comes out looking like AGW is a hoax of course, with Jo Nova proving a sidekick of sale of the century proportions…

By: MattB

MattB — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:38:36 +0000

I just noticed Evans had a piece on ABC “unleased” in mid December:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm

“The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics”

“no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2] ”

“Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.) ”

“the occasional claims that appear on the Internet that the hotspot has been found are simply wrong.”

“Politics says AGW is correct; science says it is wrong. ”

Anyway personally I think it is a much better written article than the August one, but created much less of a splash.

Anyway just thought I’d post the link to track the esteemed career of the rocket scientist…

By: Gaz

Gaz — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:20:15 +0000

Charles,

“Radiant energy can be absorbed and reradiated ad nauseum, but that does not
constitute heating.”

I’m dying to know how you think adding something to the atmosphere that absorbs heat will have no effect on the atmosphere’s temperature.

Charles, why is the air hotter during the day than the night? Does this puzzle you at all?

By: perps

perps — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:41:29 +0000

Charles Higley @ 95
Go to the latest post on this blog to get the facts re tropospheric heating.
BTW – in which peer reviewed journals do your scientific articles, on this matter, appear? Please give references so we may follow them up.

By: Charles Higley

Charles Higley — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:37:02 +0000

There is no way an upper troposphere at -80 deg C can warm the lower troposphere at 15 deg C.

The second law of thermodynamics holds and well hold.

Radiant energy can be absorbed and reradiated ad nauseum, but that does not constitute heating. The fact that the IR is absorbed and reradiated indicates that this is a cold gas. Only, if, while the IR energy is absorbed for a slight instant, there is a rare collision with another molecule, can this energy become heat. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas. Radiant energy is not temperature.

Statistically, collisions are rare and doubling of CO2 might, just might at most produce 0.01 deg C of warming. This is it. Go panic all you want.

This is not orthodoxy, this is science, this is real science. We are not warming, it is stopped, so why are you guys panicking?

Capt. Higley

By: James Haughton

James Haughton — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:19:43 +0000

He’s got no excuse not to be a born-again alarmist now.