... since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
As always, if it's a peer-reviewed scientific paper, take note; if not, don't. You can find this guy's CV at his company's website, www.sciencespeaks.com -- just click on his name. Three items to note: First, he lists his occupation as "Rocket Scientist", a self-aggrandizing attempt at humor; second, his PhD is in electrical engineering and his two peer-reviewed papers date from the late 1980's and have nothing to do with climate change; third, his current gig seems to be a subscription service which attempts to predict changes in gold stock prices. A perfect opportunity for those who find him credible to back their faith with money.
ReplyDeleteA correction to my last comment: In fairness to Evans, I should clarify that his service does not predict gold stock price changes; instead, it provides and organizes data on those stocks.
ReplyDeleteHi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI don't think questioning a person's motives is the best way to advance an argument.
As to the peer-review question, well, fine if you mean that only peer-reviewed articles should be admitted as evidence in the debate. The American Physical Society's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, Lord Monckton's paper challenging the IPCC's conclusions regarding CO2 emissions was peer-reviewed.
Regarding Evans's piece:
1) the rocket science reference seems an obvious case of cracking wise; 2) the hot spot has either been found or it has not; my understanding is that it has not; 3) no temperature increase has been recorded since 1998.
I would also point out that the logical framework of the global warming debate ought to arouse some suspicion. If you walk into your house and the temperature inside is noticeably hot, the first thing you investigate is the heat source. In the case of global warming, that would be the sun. And indeed elevated temperatures have been recorded throughout the solar system. William of Ockham would no doubt suggest that that tells us a great deal.
To quote Sir David King, former chief science adviser to the UK government, and Gabrielle Walker, former climate change editor at the journal Nature, in "Hot Topic", their book on climate change: "As with everything else in life, when you're deciding who to trust, one of the best ways is to look at what they have to gain."
ReplyDeleteWhen I read David Evans' column in your link, I took his statements seriously and did a Google search to see if I could find more detail about his arguments. A search on "David Evans climate change" directed me to a commercial (repeat, commercial) website, which offered no further explication of his views, but did offer a link to his three-month- old gold stock venture. I think I have every reason to question his motives.
Regarding solar temperatures, Foukal, et al, in Nature: v433, pp161-6,(2006), reach the opposite conclusion.
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWell, there's also this and this.
Elevated temperatures on Mars and Neptune have been recorded. This cannot be anthropogenic. That a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature has also been demonstrated. I remain agnostic on this question because I think the data are woefully incomplete, as does Freeman Dyson and others far better qualified than I. I am also old enough to have lived through the predictions of the new ice age, and the devastating worldwide famines that were supposed to have occurred during the 1980s. Science is not about predicting the future. Finally, the money connection you point to regarding Evans would seem nothing in comparison with the financial support James Hansen has got from George Soros.