Dr David Evans claims new climate change discovery

[Aractus]

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

I'm not interested in watching a video about American climate policy.

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.

Are you sure you understand how peer-review works? Peer review works by having your submitted article sent to your academic peers by the Journal editors for review prior to publication. Your article gets accepted and published only AFTER it has been peer-reviewed.

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.)

Oh bullshit. NASA has a whole section of their website devoted to press releases. Did you hear they "found flowing water on Mars"? You didn't learn that from peer-review ... the claim was published on their website. What about something more recent: Scientists discover new rat species in Indonesia (source). “We knew immediately it was a new species and then the only question was rather [whether] it was a new genus or whether it was related closely to anything already described.” Here's a video of them making this claim:

http://youtu.be/gZPUDUKuCNI

I guess they're not real scientists - according to you - since they made a press-release about their findings instead of writing a journal article and waiting for it to be published?

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/)

Your graph ends in the year 2000, so how does it tell anything about the accuracy of prospective climate modelling?

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).

Great an unlabelled graph. You do know that the RED line is CO2 and the BLUE is temperature, right? There is an 800 year lag - difficult to see on that compressed graph. This is discussed in dozens of Journal articles, only one of which in recent years has claimed there's a problem with the data suggesting that there is not an 800-year lag.