David Evans
DeSmogBlog thoroughly investigates the academic and industry backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are confusing the public and stalling action on global warming. If there's anyone or any organization, ( i.e. scientist, self-professed "expert," think tank, industry association, company) that you would like to see researched and reported on DeSmogBlog, please contact us here and we will try our best.
If you need something more quickly, please let us know and we can arrange to have the process expedited for a small fee to cover research costs.
Please select from the dropdown menus below:
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."
Background
David Evans lives in Australia and gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, No Smoking Hot Spot was published in The Australian in June, 2008.The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of "a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics." Evan's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
According to his bio, Evans claims to be a 'Rocket Scientist' and one article claims that he is a 'Top Rocket Scientist.' While Evans background does show that he has a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.
Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.
David Evans
The Australian article was published in July, not June 2008. You don't have to work for Microsoft to write software for (ie to run on) Windows. Is David Evans related to Richard Evans, Executive Director of the Australian Retailers' Association? The latter cites David Evans' article in a swipe at the Rudd government's Emissions Trading Scheme at http://www.retail.org.au/index.php/news/Retailers_caution_against_Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme_ARA_says%3A_Show_us_the_science_Wong
Ad hominem attacks
Wow, I'm astonished that this blog exists to simply make ad hominem attacks on individuals who don't believe in man made global warming theory. playing the man, not the ball - it's persuasive proof that the climate alarmists have truly lost the argument, and the scientific debate.
Re: Ad Hominem
What's wrong with knowing more about commentators' backgrounds? It does not preclude substantive rebuttal, and perhaps it provides some sorely needed context. As I see in this piece there is a link in fact to substantive rebuttal from (dare I say it) a real climate scientist!
Re: Ad Hominem
What's wrong with knowing more about commentators' backgrounds? It does not preclude substantive rebuttal, and perhaps it provides some sorely needed context. As I see in this piece there is a link in fact to substantive rebuttal from (dare I say it) a real climate scientist!
Re: Ad Hominem
What's wrong with knowing more about commentators' backgrounds? It does not preclude substantive rebuttal, and perhaps it provides some sorely needed context. As I see in this piece there is a link in fact to substantive rebuttal from (dare I say it) a real climate scientist!
Re: Ad Hominem
What's wrong with knowing more about commentators' backgrounds? It does not preclude substantive rebuttal, and perhaps it provides some sorely needed context. As I see in this piece there is a link in fact to substantive rebuttal from (dare I say it) a real climate scientist!
Re: Ad hominem attacks
One blog attacking a climate change denier is certainly not "persuasive proof that the climate alarmists have truly lost the argument". That is absurd. By that logic every blog attacking a climate change alarmist is "persuasive proof" that the climate change deniers have "lost the argument". Reductio ad absurdum.
Also re: ad hominen
When a person is claiming that their background makes them qualified to talk on an issue (ie. claiming that they have studied something, claiming that they have experience with something) then it is important to know whether or not they are telling the truth. This does not make the content of what they say untrue but it does mean that we cannot rely on their arguments to establish the validity.
Also, when a person does not disclose where they are getting their money from (ie. from vested interests in the climate denial industry such as coal companies and their associates) then there is real value in a process that makes that information public. If George Bush all of a sudden came out and said that there was new evidence in the smoking debate that proved no causal link between smoking and any form of respiratory disease it would be very important to know about the several million dollars that had been given to him by one of the big cigarette companies. There MIGHT actually have been new evidence but the coincidence would have to be questioned.
The information on deSmogBlog does not constitute arguments ad hominen because they are not attacking the persons claims, they are providing information so that the rest of us can decide for ourselves whose claims we will believe.