Small crowd warms to Evans on climate

Only a small crowd was on hand to hear an address by global warming sceptic David Evans in Perth recently.


(existing subscribers)

The password field is case sensitive.
Request new password


Port Hedland
One would expect what is printed in a good newspaper to be, generally, true. This stuff isn't. Joe says Evans is a "world-leading expert," but in fact he has published a single scientific paper in his life - on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, and never anything on atmospheric physics or anything remotely relevant to it. At the AGO, he was a computer programmer. Joe says Evans says "the contention that CO2 was the main cause of global warming reversed itself between 1995 and 2006 ..." The sloppy English aside, that would be like saying that the recovery of the All Ordinaries reversed itself between mid June and mid July 2009. Which is technically true, but irrelevant. The idea that this cherry-picked temperature trend showed that CO2 is not the main cause of anthropogenic global warming has never been entertained by real climate scientists - it is easily explained by natural variability, changes in solar irradiance and other factors that influence the weather. Evans says "the idea that CO2 is the main cause of global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." Well no, the physical properties of CO2 and indeed all the greenhouse gases are well understood, have been well understood for well over a century, and didn't change in the 1990s. A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the global average temperate by about 1C, all things being equal. "Climate scientists cheat and lie outrageously". Well no, they do empirical research, and publish it in peer-reviewed journals, for journalists and PR spin doctors to ignore, and cheat and lie outrageously. "The issue wasn't whether CO2 warmed the planet, 'but by how much' and if other factors at play ameliorated this. Other things do come into play but Evans pretends they would only moderate the effect. The obvious fact is 'they haven't!' The startling changes in the Arctic for example - it's the fastest warming part of the planet because the ice cap is shrinking, and not reflecting so much heat back into space. That's a positive feedback that will accelerate warming, not ameliorate it. "The alarmists guessed it would increase the height of moist air around the planet." Well actually, the increase in water vapour across the entire atmosphere is alarming, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas too and increasing water vapour throughout the atmosphere will also accelerate global warming. The "core idea of every official climate model ... is that for each bit of warming due to CO2, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air'. Actually no, the 2007 IPCC report practically caused a revolt by the contributing scientist because it ignored all of the dynamic feebacks of rising CO2. They forced the IPCC (which had to get sign off from all countries including George Bush's USA and Saudi Ariabia) to add a footnote explaining that they hadn't considered the dynamic effects of CO2 warming. Another obvious postive feedback is that the warmer it is, the more forests burn, and the more CO2 enters the atmosphere, causing further warming, more burning forests ... get the picture? I won't go on. This is pseudoscientific bunkum that has no place in any intelligent debate about Australia's future.

Add your comment


6th-Australian Institute of Management WA20,000
7th-Murdoch University17,883
8th↓South Regional TAFE10,835
9th-Central Regional TAFE10,000
10th-Training Course Experts10,000
50 tertiary education & training providers ranked by total number of students in WA

BNiQ Disclaimer