Press Ignoring Unsettling News For Global Warming's True believers.

[TheDaliLama]

On Saturday, conservative Australian columnist Miranda Devine revealed that an Australian engineer claims to have "fixed two errors" in "the basic climate model which underpins all climate science."

The person making this claim was a "climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office," and has "six degrees in applied mathematics." What he found is that "the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought." While some U.S. blogs have begun to relay the news (examples here, here and here), the nation's establishment press is ignoring it.

Ms. Devine reports the following:

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he (Dr. David Evans) says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our cont

... So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity.

Imagine that. The sun might actually be involved in changes in the earth's temperature.

Let's also give Dr. Evans credit for implicitly admitting that he was incorrect in an assertion he made seven years ago. Specifically, he wrote in a 2008 column:

So now is the time for the government to present any evidence they have that carbon emissions cause global warming. I think you'll find they have none, nowadays.
Evans' latest findings acknowledge that carbon emissions are a factor, though a very small one.

Thus, Evans, unlike the "settled science" zombies pushing "global warming" aka "climate change" while shouting down and threatening to prosecute and imprison those who dare to doubt them, is willing to alter his position when he believes that the facts and science point in that direction.

Searches on "David Evans carbon" (not in quotes for relevant news at the Associated Press and the New York Times early this morning came up empty. A search at Google News on the same strong returned only three relevant items. Besides Devine's column, which accounted for two of those three results, there was an Australian New Daily item by Rose Donohoe asserting that Evans "claims to have de-bunked the popular mathematical equation used to model climate change."

If, as expected, the nation's and the world's establishment press fail to give Evans' work the notice it deserves, it will confirm something we really already know: They've taken sides, and it's not the side which genuinely believes in following the science. The more rabid among them already consider Evans a "denier," even though in his positions, accurately stated, "Evans has moved from (being) a 'warmist'" earlier in his career to now being a "skeptic."

[The_Waco_Kid]

i was going to post that article of Freeman Dyson. looks like it's already in another thread going on that. what's left to post here ?



who knew?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

... what's left to post here ?

It's a scam.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

It's a scam.

money scam.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

On Saturday, conservative Australian columnist Miranda Devine revealed that an Australian engineer claims to have "fixed two errors" in "the basic climate model which underpins all climate science."

The person making this claim was a "climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office," and has "six degrees in applied mathematics." What he found is that "the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought." While some U.S. blogs have begun to relay the news (examples here, here and here), the nation's establishment press is ignoring it.

Ms. Devine reports the following:

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he (Dr. David Evans) says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our cont

... So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity.

Imagine that. The sun might actually be involved in changes in the earth's temperature.

Let's also give Dr. Evans credit for implicitly admitting that he was incorrect in an assertion he made seven years ago. Specifically, he wrote in a 2008 column:

So now is the time for the government to present any evidence they have that carbon emissions cause global warming. I think you'll find they have none, nowadays.
Evans' latest findings acknowledge that carbon emissions are a factor, though a very small one.

Thus, Evans, unlike the "settled science" zombies pushing "global warming" aka "climate change" while shouting down and threatening to prosecute and imprison those who dare to doubt them, is willing to alter his position when he believes that the facts and science point in that direction.

Searches on "David Evans carbon" (not in quotes for relevant news at the Associated Press and the New York Times early this morning came up empty. A search at Google News on the same strong returned only three relevant items. Besides Devine's column, which accounted for two of those three results, there was an Australian New Daily item by Rose Donohoe asserting that Evans "claims to have de-bunked the popular mathematical equation used to model climate change."

If, as expected, the nation's and the world's establishment press fail to give Evans' work the notice it deserves, it will confirm something we really already know: They've taken sides, and it's not the side which genuinely believes in following the science. The more rabid among them already consider Evans a "denier," even though in his positions, accurately stated, "Evans has moved from (being) a 'warmist'" earlier in his career to now being a "skeptic."

It's interesting that you don't believe the scientists who state a position opposite of what you believe to be true and yet you immediately believe this one scientist, because he supports your position. Interesting, but predictable.

Six degrees in mathematics. How many in climatology?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Press Ignoring Unsettling News For Global Warming's True believers.

Lama, aren't you the one who starts a "WTF Happened to Global Warming" thread every year immediately following the first blizzard of the winter season?

I always get a kick out of those threads.

Keep up the good work! Ya hear!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Six degrees in mathematics. How many in climatology?

"Modeling" as it relates to historical DATA for the purpose of "speculating" on an condition in the future is based on mathematics. "Modeling" for the purpose of STATISTICALLY determining a PERCEIVED CAUSE or CORRELATION between an existing condition and the "speculation" of the PERCEIVED CAUSE is based on mathematics. Example: 2 + Y = 4.

The "climatologist" relies on mathematics to show trends in the climate. Assigning a "human" cause is not "science" .... The value of "Y" in the mathematical formula doesn't change, but statistically blaming a variable for a result can change ..... particularly when a person desires a particular result.

You should go back to the SCIENCE of evaluating the atmosphere of Mars.

The Martian atmosphere is over 95% CO2. Based on your "climatologists'" conclusions about humans being the CAUSE of an increase in CO2 in Earth's atmosphere .... to the exclusion of any other ..... would result in the "conclusion" that "HUMANS" once inhabited Mars. (REMEMBER: Your "Y" is the EXISTENCE OF HUMANS ON EARTH .. and NO OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSE!)

A problem you have (as well as other like "minded" HUMANS), other than wanting a conclusion and pointing to "facts" to support it, is you confuse the "statistical" study of CLIMATE CHANGE with the politics of "GLOBAL WARMING" .... since there is evidence found in geology and paleontology that suggest there were changes in CLIMATES on Earth LONG BEFORE any "industrial revolution" by MAN ... and the measure of those fluctuations is only based on speculation, which also includes some more "recent" measurements of "climate changes" in the past 500 years ... which is a pimple on a gnat's ass in the time continuum of this planet....JUST LIKE IT IS ON MARS.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Modeling" as it relates to historical DATA for the purpose of "speculating" on an condition in the future is based on mathematics. "Modeling" for the purpose of STATISTICALLY determining a PERCEIVED CAUSE or CORRELATION between an existing condition and the "speculation" of the PERCEIVED CAUSE is based on mathematics. Example: 2 + Y = 4.

The "climatologist" relies on mathematics to show trends in the climate. Assigning a "human" cause is not "science" .... The value of "Y" in the mathematical formula doesn't change, but statistically blaming a variable for a result can change ..... particularly when a person desires a particular result.

You should go back to the SCIENCE of evaluating the atmosphere of Mars.

The Martian atmosphere is over 95% CO2. Based on your "climatologists'" conclusions about humans being the CAUSE of an increase in CO2 in Earth's atmosphere .... to the exclusion of any other ..... would result in the "conclusion" that "HUMANS" once inhabited Mars. (REMEMBER: Your "Y" is the EXISTENCE OF HUMANS ON EARTH .. and NO OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSE!)

A problem you have (as well as other like "minded" HUMANS), other than wanting a conclusion and pointing to "facts" to support it, is you confuse the "statistical" study of CLIMATE CHANGE with the politics of "GLOBAL WARMING" .... since there is evidence found in geology and paleontology that suggest there were changes in CLIMATES on Earth LONG BEFORE any "industrial revolution" by MAN ... and the measure of those fluctuations is only based on speculation, which also includes some more "recent" measurements of "climate changes" in the past 500 years ... which is a pimple on a gnat's ass in the time continuum of this planet....JUST LIKE IT IS ON MARS.

Thankfully, in the age of the internet, once the "crisis" of man made global warming is debunked, all the assholes who scolded us will have to live with their past statements on YouTube for us to enjoy their stupidity and embarrassment.Then they need to be thrown in jail for fraud.

[JD Barleycorn]

I'm always amazed at how stupid NBK can be about simple things. Computers are all about math. You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the algorithmns that make it work. Who designed our rockets at NASA? We had no astronauts early on and, according to NBK logic, only an astronaut could design a rocket that carries men into orbit.

[JD Barleycorn]

About 60, 65 million years ago something happened. The methane that had been collecting on the sea floor in a semi-solid/semi-liquid state turned gaseous. Now methane has more to do with global warming than CO2 does. In fact, about 40 times more effective. 65 million years ago so much methane entered the atmosphere and O2 levels dropped, CO2 levels rose, and the global temperature rose. Thousands of different species perished;


http://news.discovery.com/earth/ocea...ane-141212.htm

[timpage]

David Evans has been a climate-denier for years. He's a nut. Just like you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/davi...goes-cold.html

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

On Saturday, conservative Australian columnist Miranda Devine revealed that an Australian engineer claims to have "fixed two errors" in "the basic climate model which underpins all climate science."

The person making this claim was a "climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office," and has "six degrees in applied mathematics." What he found is that "the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought." While some U.S. blogs have begun to relay the news (examples here, here and here), the nation's establishment press is ignoring it.

Ms. Devine reports the following:

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he (Dr. David Evans) says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our cont

... So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity.

Imagine that. The sun might actually be involved in changes in the earth's temperature.

Let's also give Dr. Evans credit for implicitly admitting that he was incorrect in an assertion he made seven years ago. Specifically, he wrote in a 2008 column:

So now is the time for the government to present any evidence they have that carbon emissions cause global warming. I think you'll find they have none, nowadays.
Evans' latest findings acknowledge that carbon emissions are a factor, though a very small one.

Thus, Evans, unlike the "settled science" zombies pushing "global warming" aka "climate change" while shouting down and threatening to prosecute and imprison those who dare to doubt them, is willing to alter his position when he believes that the facts and science point in that direction.

Searches on "David Evans carbon" (not in quotes for relevant news at the Associated Press and the New York Times early this morning came up empty. A search at Google News on the same strong returned only three relevant items. Besides Devine's column, which accounted for two of those three results, there was an Australian New Daily item by Rose Donohoe asserting that Evans "claims to have de-bunked the popular mathematical equation used to model climate change."

If, as expected, the nation's and the world's establishment press fail to give Evans' work the notice it deserves, it will confirm something we really already know: They've taken sides, and it's not the side which genuinely believes in following the science. The more rabid among them already consider Evans a "denier," even though in his positions, accurately stated, "Evans has moved from (being) a 'warmist'" earlier in his career to now being a "skeptic."

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'm always amazed at how stupid NBK can be about simple things. Computers are all about math. You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the algorithmns that make it work. Who designed our rockets at NASA? We had no astronauts early on and, according to NBK logic, only an astronaut could design a rocket that carries men into orbit.

It's easy to amaze stupid people like you.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by timpage

David Evans has been a climate-denier for years. He's a nut. Just like you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/davi...goes-cold.html

Well, that is Dr. David Evans, isn't it?

So, perhaps he knows more about it than you do?

Additionally, where does he actually deny there is a climate?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by DSK

Well, that is Dr. David Evans, isn't it?

So, perhaps he knows more about it than you do?

Additionally, where does he actually deny there is a climate?

The irony. Is your argument really that perhaps we should all defer to the scientists who devote their lives to the study of the climate?!?!@?

Think about that and get back to me.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

It's easy to amaze stupid people like you.

Answer the question, who built the rockets that took men into space? According to your logic it had to be astronauts but we didn't have any astronauts....until after we had rockets, so who built the rockets...