Favourite climate myths by David Evans

Below are many of the climate myths used by David Evans plus how often each myth has been used.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm

As Iam no expert I will await the outcome of his paper.

To me it seems a pointless argument to have over whether the advent of global warming is a natural cycle which would seem obvious and how much if any modern man adds to this. 

 The real discussion in my book and Lomborg's is whether billions of dollars of wealth of the world should be spent on renewables or whether the money could be better spent on lifting the poor out of poverty and combatting disease ,  Governments use the blunt instrument of higher tax to discourage behaviour they disapprove of. Higher Tax on tobacco , higher tax on fuel and higher tax on electricity .  In the case of higher electricity prices it means we are exchanging a higher standard of living now for a potential effect of Co2 on the planet in the future . It does nothing for the natural cycle . The real advance is this area will not come from govt edit but from advances in technology by the private sector .  The largest one for the future of our standard of living will come from storage of energy at a local level . This has the potential to eliminate remote generation and transmission and will make todays investments obsolete .  If we combine this with falling populations , already underway in the wealthier countries it makes even more sense to invest out money into the poorer societies to raise them up . 

Western Power, the state-owned company that operates the grid in the south-west corner of Western Australia, is looking to take small communities completely off grid so that it can save money on costly network upgrades and extensions.

Western Power this week called a tender for up to ten stand-alone power systems, using solar plus battery storage, with back-up diesel, to cater for small communities around the Ravensthorpe region, around 500kms south east of Perth.

The network operator said it was looking to take small groups of customers – between five and ten – off grid as an alternative to “network replacement or significant refurbishment”  at end-of-grid locations. More could follow depending on the success of the pilot program.

I prefer to look at the credentials of the scientist and whether their papers have been peer reviewed.
In this case David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician.
He is not a climate scientist.
His wife Joanne Nova is a climate skeptic who runs a large skeptic website and has made money writing books on climate denial.

Why should I believe someone who seemingly does not have the qualifications when 97% of climate scientists say the opposite.
The claim about funding of universities is unproven as the real funding comes from mining companies who wish to keep polluting as that means dollars to them. You only have to look at who is profiting from the greenhouse gases and it certainly is not true scientists.
I feel many make their opinions or decisions based on their political beliefs and not on scientific fact.
Are all the scientists really wrong and this electrical engineer right ???

Evans has great difficulty in understanding basic climate science, not only that he is very confused as to where the earth’s hotspot is, he thinks we are still recovering from the mini ice age which started in the 1600s.

He keeps putting out his ridiculous claims without any real scientific way of backing them up, but like everything else there are those people who will believe him because they are alarmists like him and don’t give any examples and concrete reasons why they believe him. Evan’s article the same one he has been pushing for years has been debunked so many times, he should be embarrassed, but he appears not to be and to think he still wants intelligent people to listen to him.

This is a bit I copied from NASA  “In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.”

Yep I think I will stick to believing those scientists and continue to ignore Evans.

"... concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.”

"PROBABILITY" !!!  

Hardly scientific fact ... Quite the opposite.  

And to what extent is the anthromorphic influence?

Not meaning to insult you, but it’s quite obvious you have not got a clue as to what you are asking. To begin with there is no such word as “anthromorphic”. I believe the word you are searching for is “anthropomorphic”.

You are getting mixed up with two similar words: Anthropomorphic and Anthropogenic

Anthropomorphic means: ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing which is not human.

Anthropogenic : relates to environmental pollution and pollutants.

So therefore if we are going to speak of climate change, I believe we have to use the word “anthropogenic”. Right??

Now we come to doing research. In research statisticians may use words in the way they may not be used colloquially.  It is quite clear  you have not done  scientific research nor do you understand science or you would know what is meant by “probability”. Research does not set out to prove “facts”, nothing is fact, everything is a probability.

In research the scientist may put up two hypotheses (a) the null hypothesis and (b) the alternative hypothesis. Null means there is no significant difference to whatever is being tested and alternative means there is a significant difference. Since they both can’t be right, then the scientist might conclude a “probability”. In doing so, he/she does not have to go back to prove or disprove the entire research.

If a scientist concludes a 90% probability of something, you can be darned sure that it is a very clear yes, if 1,300   scientists conclude a 90% probability you can rest assured it is b****y darn conclusive!

End of story, amen.

I follow the climate change debate but do not have the scientific knowledge or ability to throw my hat in the ring in support of either camp at this time but the one thing that does concern me if human activity is the problem will there be a tipping point where it will be too damn late to do anything about it.

We do need some sort of insurance against a runaway situation I feel.

SD