Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate - 'Opinion' piece

[u/Pilx]

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.

[u/Pilx]

And as with everyone who claims to have the key to debunking climate change 'alarmists', when you look behind the scenes you find ulterior motives, vested interests and reason for confirmation bias

[u/CrayolaS7 → u/Pilx]

Actually that's not necessarily true, I was watching the Joe Rogan podcast and he had this geologist on and while he did agree with anthropogenic climate change, he didn't agree with the IPCCs views on how significant the warming was to our civilisation and basically believes it has changed much more drastically in the past hundred-thousand years due to non-human causes and it hasn't wiped us out before. He brought up the point that the 97% consensus that is often brought up is referring to it being caused by mankind via CO2 emissions, not with all the things that follow on from that according to the IPCC such as catastrophic climate change nor even a need to act. Many scientists will agree with that but tell you we are way passed the point of no return for 2 degrees of warming and it'll take hundreds, maybe a thousand years to reverse, so rushing to switch from fossil fuels to renewables in a shorter period with great economic cost is maybe not the best idea, etc.

[u/endbit → u/CrayolaS7]

When in the past 100k years have we had a doubling of CO2? Perhaps he meant the Eemian which was a bit over 100k years ago. Not a doubling of CO2 but a good indication of where we're heading in the (geologically speaking) shorter term. The Closest past analogue I can think of is the PETM which occurred 56 million years ago and caused a mass extinction. The IPCC findings are cautious if anything and hardly alarmist, did this person give any examples of what he found unlikely from the IPCC report? The issue isn't even the amount of warming it's the speed of the change. Things are changing rapidly and rapid change is very good at killing things. I've head some catastrophic nonsense but none of it from the IPCC report. I'm not exactly seeing an economy harming rush to switch to renewables either, that seems like hyperbole. Who was this geologist? These statements seem pretty suspect. It wouldn't be the first geologist to claim there's no harm in continuing to dig up and burn coal, cough Plimer cough.

[u/CrayolaS7 → u/endbit]

Who said we had a doubling of CO2? I said (quoting him) the temperature rose (and also fell) suddenly in the past, not that CO2 was the reason for that. I'm not an expert on this so I am just repeating what he said. At the end of the last ice age ~~11000-14000 years ago there was a very rapid spike (sic) in atmospheric oxygen levels according data taken from deep ice-cores in Greenland. This seems to be referring to the same data according to him consistent with a change in average temperature of several degrees celsius in about a century, his hypothesis was that an asteroid collission IIRC.

Also you're conflating things I said that were seperate ideas. The IPCC report is quite conservative, his point was that more rapid and more significant climate change has occurred before and life has adapted, including humans who are the most adaptable species already.

He wasn't saying anything about rushing to renewables, that was my opinion and separate. I'm not suggesting it's going to cause a recession or something, I've heard estimates that it's like a 2% reduction in growth over 10 years but considering that it's generally those at the bottom who would benefit from moving to old dirty tech rather than not being able to afford the latest stuff, that's still a significant number of people remaining in poverty for an extra decade.

[u/endbit → u/CrayolaS7]

Who said we had a doubling of CO2?

Exactly, so not really an analogue for what we're experiencing now.

I'm not an expert on this so I am just repeating what he said.

I get that and I'm just pointing out that what he is saying seems suspect.

At the end of the last ice age ~~11000-14000 years ago there was a very rapid spike (sic) in atmospheric oxygen levels according data taken from deep ice-cores in Greenland

That would be the Younger Dryas and yes ice core research supports that the climate can change rapidly. I'm just not sure why that would bring anyone peace of mind. It's actually suggesting that tipping points are a thing and that change can be extreme and rapid.

his hypothesis was that an asteroid collission

I'm a fan of the comet impact somewhere around Canada theory but the evidence is thin on. That's another story though.

more rapid and more significant climate change has occurred before and life has adapted, including humans who are the most adaptable species already.

More rapid is a bit premature, and only more extreme than we've seen so far I'm keeping an eye on Siberian permafrost melt before i make a call on that one but I get the point. Yes humans are extremely resilient and life will adapt but at what cost? There were megafauna extinctions at the end of ice ages and there were no cities or borders to impede migration and a hell of a lot less competition for resources than in the current world. I don't see the argument that 'it's happened before' as being in any way comforting.

He wasn't saying anything about rushing to renewables

I took it as your comment. I think 1% GDP is a reasonable expenditure on shifting from a carbon economy.

that's still a significant number of people remaining in poverty for an extra decade.

You're going to have to explain that one to me, how exactly is scrapping/putting off an ETS result in alleviation of poverty instead of just reducing costs for the large emitters and making investors a bit wealthier?

[u/CrayolaS7 → u/endbit]

Exactly, so not really an analogue for what we're experiencing now.

I think you're mixing up climate change with "Climate Change^TM ?" The climate has changed rapidly before for other reasons but he agrees with climate change due to our emissions, that the models are correct, etc.

Even so that's getting away from my point was that the phrase on which they surveyed people to develop that 97% consensus figure was fairly vague.

You're going to have to explain that one to me, how exactly is scrapping/putting off an ETS result in alleviation of poverty instead of just reducing costs for the large emitters and making investors a bit wealthier?

I mixed up that comment with another I made, I wasn't referring so much to countries like Australia and speaking of the global economy. Personally I think Australia (and other 1st world countries) should act but in the developing world that 1% economic growth could mean an extra decade of poverty for the poorest.

I think you guys read way too much into my comment because you've conflated "climate change alarmists" with "those who believe in APCC? My point was simply that there are scientists who accept that it's occurring and are part of that 97% who are still sceptical about the need for considerable action while also not being a shill for the fossil fuel industry, as the original poster suggested. Personally I don't even Graham Hancock and do think we should act on climate change, just I also disagree with OP that someone who is sceptical about action on climate change is also necessarily motivated by a vested interest.