Dr David Evans claims new climate change discovery

[TheRocketSurgeon]

When I see a "scientist" publish papers like that who is a known proponent of big business, I have to hesitate.[/url]

The two scientific papers pertaining to this discovery are undergoing peer-review as reported by PerthNow. Whether that means they have been written and submitted for publication, or (more likely) he has a team working with him to write the papers, they will be the first scientific papers to bare his name as author since 1989. I think people get confused about what peer-review is and isn't. Some people are prolific peer-review writers and write several papers all on the same topic. Then later those papers get counted individually - ah 5 or 6 papers in support of the current theory of CO2 leading climate temperature. In reality it's only one original paper, really, it's just been updated and re-submitted 4 or 5 times.

I can't tell you how annoying this is when I do research for different topics. It makes it very difficult to determine what the balanced view or range of views are on any given topic.

So I'm not surprised many scientists feel frustrated at the process and at the way papers are handled.

The claim is [url=http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html]prominent on David's website.

Also take note of the 20-year bet between David and Brian Schmidt. "So my goal was to engage in a bet where if I lost money overall, then that would suggest a real problem with the science of climate change. Certainly if I lost every single one of these bets, with temperatures consistently increasing at a rate of less than 0.09C/decade over 10, then 15, and then 20 years, that might not disprove the climate change theory but it should leave some heads scratching." - Brian in 2007. "The Rashomon aspect comes from whether the bet looks like good news or bad news depending on your focus. I'm winning the first two months of the five year period from 2015 to 2019, which is good for me but not all that definitive. Prior to 2015, comparing years that didn't count, I was losing the bets, and prior to 2014 I was losing them badly." Brian in 2015.

Submitted for peer review is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. However, if they are found to be supported after the peer-review process, I'll take note of them.

It disturbs me a little that you don't know the difference. I could submit 100 papers for peer review, and even if they are accepted by the journals for publication, every one, it doesn't matter until other papers about my paper come out, citing my methodology and/or anything I may have missed in my evaluation and/or experimentation. Granted, I'd rather cite a paper by someone who has written 100 peer-reviewed articles than one who has written only ten, but it's still no guarantee that the papers will be of scientific accuracy or value, in either case.

The real measure of a scientist's accuracy, in the peer review process, is how many other scientists make reference to that person's work when doing their own work for peer review. Whether they are duplicating the results of the original paper or working to do better work using other methodology, good science quickly shows by who takes note of the work.

What scientists typically don't  do is put out a press article about their findings, or work with their "Global Warming Skeptics" blogger wife to put this data out there prior to peer review. With mathematical modeling, it's very easy to miss factors and get highly-skewed results, even if that's your main profession (as apparently his once was), which is why we even have peer-review. I'm not saying he's wrong, but some of the things I've seen in the articles, presumably being presented by him, are claims of a highly-dubious nature. (By "dubious", I mean that they seem to parrot many of the claims of conservative organizations I've been seeing for years, in some cases word-for-word.) For instance:

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.

Except NASA says the opposite: (Source = http://data.giss.nasa.gov/)

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

Except they do. There are other factors at play in determining global temperatures, to be sure, but we know what they are and can account for them (this is part of why NASA is involved in the climate research field; their satellites are one of the major methods of gathering data not impacted by being on/near the surface).



I think you should watch this video, about how these deniers operate: