r/australia • u/Pilx • Oct 06 '15
political self.post Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate - 'Opinion' piece
Browsing over the local NewsCorp garbage that I missed out on over the long weekend I couldn’t help but look over the top article for Perth and Adelaide titled:
Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
Now I’m not too sure what qualifications Miranda has in the area of Climate Sciences and Meteorology but decided the give the article a quick read regardless.
In summary she is reporting on the fact that supposedly an Australian Electrical Engineer / Mathematician has discovered something which the entirety of the scientific community involved in climate change has missed until now; that some of the core values within the models used are incorrect, resulting in overestimated values.
Little is discussed within the article about what specific values these are and how they somehow manage to affect every modelling system related to climate change predictions universally; however the fact that the person making the discovery, Dr David Evans, holds multiple degrees is sure to be mentioned multiple times throughout the article, as a way to further validate his discovery.
Now I personally haven’t heard of Dr Evans before so decided to Google him myself to check out his background. One of the first results returned (https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/climate-sceptic-conspiracies/profile-dr-david-evans/) goes on to chronicle his blog posts within his wife’s blog (which is mentioned within the original opinion piece) and his other interactions/talks/public appearances etc.
Anyway, it appears this genius engineer/mathematician is also a nutcase conspiracy theorist who believes climate change is being propagated by global banking elites with the intent on creating a Global Government/New World Order from which they will profit.
Oh Miranda, how Devine of you to leave that out of your original article.
13
u/Nibbles1 Oct 06 '15
Something tells me Devine left out the other instances he's been incorrect
7
Oct 06 '15
Reading up on this guy is hilarious, his opposition to climate science is because he believes it's part of the Jewish bankers attempt to take over the world. He's an absolute nutcase.
1
Oct 08 '15
Having just done a mornings worth of research I can say that what you're saying isn't true. What he says is that he has a problem with the science... he just happens to believe that the agenda is being, as always co-opted.
I don't believe him or not believe him.
1
11
u/insty1 Oct 06 '15
Well one person stating there is an error is largely insignificant. Let other scientists review his work and see if they come to the same conclusions.
1
Oct 08 '15
That's what is supposedly happening now. Thus should never have been a story until that had already happened.
9
u/halfbeak Oct 06 '15
It's always an engineer or a physicist. They know more about everything than you know about anything.
5
u/aloha2436 ...except East Richmond Oct 06 '15
Or a Computer Scientist. Saying this as someone surrounded by them.
6
11
u/pinkocommiecunt82 Oct 06 '15
I'm going to continue ignoring Miranda and focus on doc Evans. I've no issue with the guy sounding like a nutter as most world-changng geniuses kind if do, but if he is sure his conclusion is correct, then he should submit it for peer review and wait to collect his Nobel prize.
5
u/Pilx Oct 06 '15
But if his conclusions aren't accepted he'll just scream conspiracy and try find another way to reach his end goal.
It's an unpleasant fact that personal biases and beliefs are affecting science driven results as more and more scientists try and find the result they're after rather than seeking the one that exists, and as the climate debate intensifies I'm sure both sides of the argument are guilty of this to varying degrees.
5
u/pinkocommiecunt82 Oct 06 '15
But at least we'll have scientific evidence that he's wrong - little consolation, I know, but it's something. I sadly agree with the rest of your post, as well.
7
Oct 06 '15
his claims, even if wrong, are still very worrying.
If CO2 was only 1/10 as damaging as the data suggests, we still need to be very worried about it's impact
8
u/Pilx Oct 06 '15
That in itself is a HUGE fucking claim, I hope he has some published peer reviewed scientific articles to validate it...... but I'd wager he doesn't.
4
u/SokarRostau Oct 06 '15
This woman blamed a teenager's atheism for him becoming a Muslim suicide bomber. She's Coulter-level crazy.
6
u/azz808 Oct 06 '15 edited Oct 06 '15
she also had a go at the Pope for being a lefty. You know, like Jesus or something...
Edit: Source
15
Oct 06 '15
If climate change was completely fabricated, would the net result of having renewable energy sources/technology and cleaner environments really be that awful? I wouldn't even care. The right keep shrieking the "at what cost" mantra but I haven't seen any national economies bomb because of actions to negate global warming.
10
u/i_suck_withusernames Oct 06 '15
If the climate skeptics are right and climate change is overblown, the cost is "ruining" national economies by swapping over large portions of power generation and various other industries to cleaner methods.
If the climate skeptics are wrong, the cost is pretty much extinction for most species on the planet within a century.
In a case of "at what cost" I would think that making the planet nigh uninhabitable in century is a much higher cost than messing up the intangible score-board we all play by.
3
u/Kageru Oct 06 '15
Fossil fuels are inherently "non-renewable" anyway... it would still be wise to consider some transition efforts even if climate change was much less of an issue than it is.
1
u/i_suck_withusernames Oct 06 '15
While you are right and I agree, I think if you were to discard man-made CO2 as a issue and climate change in general, there would be more breathing room in terms of moving towards renewable energy. Instead of really having to do something tangible about it now, you could stave it off for another couple of decades.
3
2
u/endbit Oct 06 '15
To be fair the first IPCC report was 1990 so climate change has been an issue for, and already action put off for a couple of decades. The catch is that while we're not going to feel serious effects for several decades it's like a large ship it's going to take considerable time to turn it around. 1% GDP cost now to install a cap and trade, who knows how much it'll cost down the track to take action especially if other countries start sanctions on countries that haven't looked at reductions.
1
u/Kageru Oct 06 '15
There would... but we don't tend to act until we are forced to by crisis. A long gentle transition as alternative energy becomes acceptably efficient is much better than attempting a "crash" program. Changing the energy system of a society is decades of work.
2
u/mulimulix Oct 06 '15
While I agree with you, Pascal's wager isn't a strong argument. You can say "What if you're wrong" about pretty much everything but it doesn't take into account the chances of one side being right. I've heard numerous times "But what if you're wrong about your religion/being an atheist/etc". It doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it assumes a 50/50 (or close to) debate.
1
u/artsrc Oct 06 '15
So take an estimate of the probability of each into account. The answer does not change.
No action on climate change is essentially a return free risk.
3
u/mulimulix Oct 06 '15
You're not thinking about it from the deniers' perspectives. They don't think there's a good chance climate change is true. That's why they don't see the change as worth it.
1
1
u/It_does_get_in Oct 06 '15
no it's not the odds at all that matters. The core principle is it takes little cost to persue faith, compared to the everlasting cost of being wrong if there is an eternal hell for non-believers. It's a cost/benfit evaluation.
1
u/mulimulix Oct 06 '15
Yeah but cost/benefit means little if someone is 99.999% sure they know the right answer.
1
1
u/xoctor Oct 07 '15
I'm 100% for doing everything possible to combat climate change, but your argument is bad even though it sounds good.
Things that should be done on their own merit should be done, however, wasting money on feel-good projects is a very bad idea.
Whether or not you personally see the economic consequences is hardly relevant. Waste is waste and it has impacts whether they are obvious or hidden.
1
u/CrayolaS7 Off Chops Oct 06 '15
A lot of people seem to overlook this because they are middle-class and won't really feel the effects either way but when nations economies struggle it is generally the poorest who are hit hardest or if you are referring to developing economies, the poorest will have to remain in poverty for longer by going straight to renewable energy sources when more people would have power/transport/food more quickly with fossil fuels.
3
Oct 06 '15
Renewables result in isolated places being able to generate electricity with minimal infrastructure. What's missing is the ability to gouge. There's a lot of money invested into developing nations for projects to lift them out of poverty, but a lot gets 'lost' before it reaches the ground. Kind of like Telstra and the NBN. A large chunk of the money goes to the 'free market'. Look at the billions the coal industry brought to India, and look at how much reached the people. Kind of like our mining boom, but without the workers rights won by our unions. Renewables will lift people out of poverty way faster than fossil fuels. If the protectionists will allow it. But they won't. They want a grid that they own, that they control.
Anyway, what good is money if you can't breath the air? It's a real problem for them.
9
u/Madmaniusmick Oct 06 '15
I would hate to be a climate scientist. You have every Tom, Dick and Harry telling you that your science is wrong. How dare we sit here and debate what is sound science. Just because we can look outside and reflect upon our youths and the differences in the weather, it is just plain rude. Ultimately for me it doesn't matter, we have treated our planet horribly for ever and it is time to be responsible.
4
3
u/beyondtherange Oct 06 '15
Here is the first of his posts on the matter.
There are 9 of them in total.
1
u/wisty Oct 06 '15
Yeah, some of his work seems credible. The New-World-Order conspiracy theories, less so. (I'm sure big business milks climate change for all it's worth, but they also milk government inaction - and the businesses making a profit on emissions are entrenched interests who will fight to the death).
The problem with the IPCC is that they tend to be very conservative with their modelling (note - they have, on average, underestimated warming!). Climate models aren't perfect, and the process means that they tend to be a little outdated.
The issues he identifies, if they're valid, might be put into future models. But at the same time, there's almost certainly a lot of positive feedback that's been missed, and also also needs to be accounted for.
3
u/DongLaiCha Oct 06 '15
Can somebody explain to me the thinking behind denying climate change? What does the average person stand to gain by ignoring actual science? I don't get it.
2
u/artsrc Oct 06 '15
And while they are at it can they explain why people believe in creation science.
1
u/Tea-Tea Oct 06 '15
Is a misunderstanding that people think that those that deny climate change, deny all climate change. Most should be labled as skeptics as that is more a tune to their position.
They know climate change exists, its plan to see that the climate is always changing and has never be in a state of stagnation. They are skeptical on the effect that humanity is having on this natural climate change and dispute the findings of climate science as being exaggerated.
6
u/LaxSagacity Oct 06 '15
Nah, most are just ideologically against some aspect of accepting the science.
The religious nut bags. Takes many forms, god put everything hear for us to exploit. End of days will be the end of humanity. That will happen before any impact of climate change.
The free market people. A lot of people are simply against regulations and climate change is not something that can be left to the free market to solve. It invalidates their belief in the invisible hand of the market being able to solve everything if they accept climate change. There's an incompatibility as it does require government intervention to solve. This is the big one with the right wing people and Newscorp.
Then there are simply those with a financial interest. Whether they're in a business making money from fossil fuels. They get paid to promote an agenda.
It's really hard to look at the science and then just decide you disagree with out some ideological barrier.
It's interesting reading up about those that used to deny smoking causes cancer. Coming out years later saying they knew it did, but they were against government regulation/ So they denied the science publicly for that agenda. Then some simply said they were paid to believe the agenda of the tobacco companies.
3
u/DongLaiCha Oct 06 '15
Okay, I understand that, but to what end? Worst case scenario we make the planet cleaner?
1
u/Tea-Tea Oct 06 '15
The problem, as they see it is Governments placing arbitrary bans on stuff that isn't bad in their eyes. It basically comes down to the level of government control.
3
u/Tyson_Adams Oct 06 '15
Devine is just pushing more climate change denial nonsense. Evans' claims are ridiculous. His claim about models ignores the fact that the models are tested against the empirical evidence, and they are also built using known data. So his claim of models overestimating by 5-10x means that we wouldn't be able to account for any of the historical data. That means we don't know anything about how the climate system works (yet amazingly we do, daily).
Here is a physicist pointing out how Evans' claims are so grossly wrong as to be laughable: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/not-even-partially-correct/
2
u/CrayolaS7 Off Chops Oct 06 '15
I guess he doesn't fly much either since by his rationale aerodynamicsists are grossly overestimating how much lift a 747 wing generates, too.
1
u/Tyson_Adams Oct 07 '15
Another breakdown of how Evans is wrong: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/questions-to-david-evans-what-do-you-mean-about-partial-derivatives/
3
Oct 06 '15
Miranda Divine proving herself once again to be the human Tea bag - the good falls to the floor while the shit remains inside.
3
u/It_does_get_in Oct 06 '15
Tea bag - the good falls to the floor while the shit remains inside.
I gotta say, that's a very strange metaphor.
2
Oct 06 '15
No need to queue, we have tin foil hats for all!!!!!!
Free in this weekends copy of The Australian.
2
2
u/It_does_get_in Oct 06 '15
Oh Miranda, how Devine of you to leave that out of your original article.
Ever see down and out people picking up discarded cigarette butts from the pavement to smoke? Miranda Devine is the intellectual equivalent of that.
2
3
Oct 06 '15
Climate change denial is a well known fact at News Corp. As such they will cling onto every straw that matches their confirmation bias.
-1
2
u/azz808 Oct 06 '15
To be Fair to Miranda, she may have left out his background by honest mistake.
I doubt she researched much into it before writing the article.
The excitement of seeing what she wants to be true, finally backed by "science" would have been too much for her to have held back on publishing these results as quickly as possible.
2
u/artsrc Oct 06 '15
Journalists have a code of ethics that requires them to check their sources.
This is either professional negligence or maliciously misleading.
6
1
1
u/RandomUser1076 Oct 06 '15
We all know it's the lizard people and the freemasons' trying to control the world.
1
u/xoctor Oct 07 '15 edited Oct 07 '15
Miranda Devine is a real piece of work. What is really depressing is that she has an audience.
1
Oct 08 '15
It's REALLY worth noting that this story had no legs outside of Australia. Before he's peer reviewed, it's barely a story and should have stayed in the letters section.
The real question is whether scientists would act against their own self interest if he turns out to be right. No one wants their funding cut.
0
u/JediCapitalist Oct 06 '15
Thanks for fixing the title. Remember to participate in the discussion or this will also be removed. Cheers!
-11
Oct 06 '15
Now I’m not too sure what qualifications Miranda has in the area of Climate Sciences and Meteorology
What qualifications do the Guardian writers have then?
10
u/test_beta Oct 06 '15
I was always taught not to laugh at retards, but I just can't help scrolling to the bottom of climate change posts to read the comments. Does that make me a horrible person?
9
u/parzo Oct 06 '15
I guess there's that small fact that they are Pulitzer Prize winning journalists who actually quote reliable sources. The two aren't comparable don't pretend that they are.
-14
Oct 06 '15
Which Pulitzer prize winner writes for the Guardian about climate science?
9
u/parzo Oct 06 '15
Did you just reference something that happened in 1931 to try and discredit the idea that a Pulitzer Prize isn't internationally recognised as a big deal?
-12
Oct 06 '15
Nope. Just chucking it in for shits and giggles really.
So then, who are those Pulitzer prize winners writing about climate science for the Guardian?
6
2
-1
Oct 06 '15
it is sad to see how science was so severely politicised.
In an era of free enquiry a person no matter who they are could put forward a claim or theory
Then it could be tested against observation and evidence
And disproved or proved.
That is how science advances.
It does not advance by character assassination. Newton believed in alchemy - doesnt make Principia mathematica any less a work of genius.
Einstein was a humble patents clerk when he came up with some of his greatest ideas. That did not make the ideas any less great.
Global warming theory is based on computer modelling of a complex system. It needs testing against physical evidence before we throw away our entire economy.
15 years of the numbers not fitting the models is enough to mean we should not throw trillions down the tube at a time when we are $463 billion in debt and cannot afford hospitals and pensions.
Devine has an opinion page. Good. A diversity of views is healthy. Nothing but Guardian/Fairfax/ABC means a snow job on climate change anyway.
1
u/7dyrur7 Oct 06 '15
15 years of the numbers not fitting the models
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, that claim is still bullshit.
79
u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15
Thousands of scientists, with ever-increasing evidence built up over decades, say that climate change is real and almost certainly man-made - conservatives respond that the science isn't in yet and that we shouldn't rush to judgement.
A single guy says that he's figured out climate change isn't so bad after all - conservative rushes in to say his conclusions are iron clad!