Interesting read.

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

quote
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Exactly. Cilmate change and/or AGW has spawned a wordwide industry and its vested interests are making untold financial and political capital out of it.

Snake oil salesmen posing as scientists!  ;D

progressiveslol wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 2:35pm:

Interesting read. Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/ quote The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

David Evans is a software engineer. He has been a climate denialist for many years. He was never a climate scientist, but he labels himself as a "Rocket Scientist" He was commissioned by the Greenhouse Gas Office (under Howard)  to write a computer program for carbon accounting. The specs were given to him. He didn't invent anything.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/60-minutes-climate-change-story-just-plain-irresponsible/

Belgarion wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 2:52pm:

Exactly. Cilmate change and/or AGW has spawned a wordwide industry and its vested interests are making untold financial and political capital out of it. Snake oil salesmen posing as scientists!  ;D

All other sciences undergo a rigorous critical analysis to ensure the theory is sound and the data is valid; 'climate science' however does not; anyone who questions to status quo is immediately labels a 'denier' by the politcal wing and all questions are discounted as heresay.

Bit like the catholic church during the dark ages where doctrine was never to be questioned and deniers were tortured until they recanted.

Just look at the standard reply from the lefty nut bags to anyone who dares question the 'science' which is not so much a theory but a dodgy hypothysis reliant on unquestioning faith.

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:08am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:35pm: Interesting read. Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/ quote The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. David Evans is a software engineer. He has been a climate denialist for many years. He was never a climate scientist, but he labels himself as a "Rocket Scientist" He was commissioned by the Greenhouse Gas Office (under Howard)  to write a computer program for carbon accounting. The specs were given to him. He didn't invent anything. http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/60-minutes-climate-change-story-just-plain-irresponsible/

Is Richard Lindzen a software scientist as well? I could have sworn he was a climatoligist. As for David, are you trying to tell me he knows nothing of what he had to model or consult on. Didnt have to do any study what so ever. Just read from a script. I doubt that very much. He is probably just a piece of paper away from knowing what the person with the piece of paper knows, but he also has real world experience in the field. Richard Lindzen backs up Davids opinion.

progressiveslol wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:37am:

Is Richard Lindzen a software scientist as well? I could have sworn he was a climatoligist. As for David, are you trying to tell me he knows nothing of what he had to model or consult on. Didnt have to do any study what so ever. Just read from a script. I doubt that very much. He is probably just a piece of paper away from knowing what the person with the piece of paper knows, but he also has real world experience in the field. Richard Lindzen backs up Davids opinion.

Check his credentials before swearing on things like that if you like. Actually Richard Lindzen has a different opinion from David Evans. Neither of them have published any scientific papers that refute the current thinking. Lindzen also claims that cigarettes don't cause cancer, and has profitted well from that ruse too.

It doesn't need a climatologist to account for carbon emissions. He designed a database to do that. That's all he did.

Let me explain -  If you wanted to produce a software program to monitor tooth decay in patients based on data provided by dentists, you wouldn't have to be a dentist. You'd just need the data and a way of organising it. Dentists are not software engineers, and neither are climatologists.

Another example - A person designs a software system to account for the consumption of different types of bread at a large baking firm. He doesn't require to be a baker, but if he then starts spouting about how much he knows about bread manufacture, then he's a real masterbaker.  David Evans fits in that category.

What he compiled was an accounting program. He might claim to be a Rocket Scientist, but he isn't.

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans


Quote:

Here's the research database entry on David Evans: No peer-reviewed articles on climate change According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change. Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank. Evans also published a "background briefing" (pdf) document for the Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group, a global warming "skeptic" organization with close ties to the mining industry. "I am not a climate modeler" From 1999 to 2006 Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says (pdf) that "[he] know[s] a heck of a lot about modeling and computers," he states clearly that he is "not a climate modeler."

My god some people are incredibly STUPID.


Quote:

Expert credibility in climate change    William R. L. Anderegga,1,    James W. Prallb,    Jacob Haroldc, and    Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1 + Author Affiliations    aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;    bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;    cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and    dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305    Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009) Abstract Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Ill think ill just add to this from time to time, just to annoy you of course.

Climatology expert
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html

Listen here
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9005

BigOl64 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:23am:

Belgarion wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:52pm: Exactly. Cilmate change and/or AGW has spawned a wordwide industry and its vested interests are making untold financial and political capital out of it. Snake oil salesmen posing as scientists!  ;D All other sciences undergo a rigorous critical analysis to ensure the theory is sound and the data is valid; 'climate science' however does not; anyone who questions to status quo is immediately labels a 'denier' by the politcal wing and all questions are discounted as heresay. Bit like the catholic church during the dark ages where doctrine was never to be questioned and deniers were tortured until they recanted. Just look at the standard reply from the lefty nut bags to anyone who dares question the 'science' which is not so much a theory but a dodgy hypothysis reliant on unquestioning faith.

For every cause there is an effect.
You just can't put billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year
without it doing something.
What that something is , is a matter of debate but I believe most scientists
predict dire consequences.
Can we afford to take the risk of inaction if they might be right?

progressiveslol wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 2:35pm:

Interesting read. Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/ quote The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Bullshiter gets name in papers shock.

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

progressiveslol wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

Ill think ill just add to this from time to time, just to annoy you of course. Climatology expert http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html Listen here http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9005

Thanks for proving my point! ;D I give you a published work from PNAS on expert credibility and you respond with the paranoid rantings of a retired professor of geography who has published a grand total of FOUR papers even remotely connected with climate change (and they were in as dubious publications as Energy and Environment, certainly not PNAS, lol! ;D), the sheer ignorance behind your unintentional irony would be hilarious if not so pathetic.

Look, for crying out loud, your side only has a small handful of genuine, working climate science, you can count them on one had.

Richard Lindzen
Roy Spencer
John Christie

If you want to have even the slightest credibility you would be doing yourself a favour and keeping your arguments confined to those actually qualified to make such arguments, not attention seeking idiots like Tim Ball or self professed 'rocket scientists' (seriously, that should have been your first warning, who the hell gives out PhD's in 'rocket science'. I'm pretty sure REAL rocket scientists are actually 'aeronautical  engineers' or the like. Not rocket scientists..

I believe most scientists predict dire consequences.
Can we afford to take the risk of inaction if they might be right?

Bobby. wrote on May 28^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

I believe most scientists predict dire consequences. Can we afford to take the risk of inaction if they might be right?

MARKET FAILURE IS ECONOMICS 101

TAX OR REGULATION IS THE ANSWER: SIMPLE!!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 4:52am:

Bobby. wrote on May 28th, 2011 at 11:00am: I believe most scientists predict dire consequences. Can we afford to take the risk of inaction if they might be right? MARKET FAILURE IS ECONOMICS 101 TAX OR REGULATION IS THE ANSWER: SIMPLE!!!

No it's not - we don't need a new tax.
All we have to do is force power companies
to pay high feed in tariffs from
people who have electric solar collectors.
That way people could start solar farms with a proven business model.

Bobby. wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 7:10am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 4:52am: Bobby. wrote on May 28th, 2011 at 11:00am: I believe most scientists predict dire consequences. Can we afford to take the risk of inaction if they might be right? MARKET FAILURE IS ECONOMICS 101 TAX OR REGULATION IS THE ANSWER: SIMPLE!!! No it's not - we don't need a new tax. All we have to do is force power companies to pay high feed in tariffs from people who have electric solar collectors. That way people could start solar farms with a proven business model.

... so you want regulation instead!??! What for: to fix a market failure perhaps?!??!  :o

oh, wait, ........... subsidies!!!!!!

geez loise!