In Sunday night’s program, Tara Brown based her assertion that there is still substantial doubt about the science of global warming on one interviewee, whom she used extensively: David Evans. She introduced him by implication as an “eminent scientist”.
A quick Google search would have shown that David Evans is not a scientist, let alone an eminent one. He is a software engineer.
He describes himself (in jest?) as a “rocket scientist”, by which he simply means he has an impressive maths-based degree (in Electrical Engineering in his case) from a prominent US university. He is not a climatologist and has published nothing in climate science literature. His role at the Australian Greenhouse Office was writing computer software.
He has presented to the Lavoisier Group, a right-wing lobby group known for their denial of climate science.
Interestingly, the Lavoisier Group was founded by Ray Evans, Executive Officer of Western Mining Corporation, while David Evans’ views have been cited by Richard Evans of the Australian Retailers Association to support his own opposition to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Are the three Evans related? I’ve no idea, but if I were a journalist running a story about David Evans, I’d make it my business to find out.
Everything David Evans said on the program has been resoundingly refuted, and this is also easily found online. Tara Brown could have interviewed any one of a number of real Australian climate scientists for the counter-arguments. And more fundamentally, if David Evans had a scientific case, he should publish it, not on 60 Minutes, but in a reputable scientific journal. He hasn’t, and he couldn’t, because his argument is full of holes and wouldn’t make it past peer review.
Ordinarily, this kind of sloppy journalism would be par for the course for 60 Minutes. But when the world is facing a genuine climate emergency (see climatecodered.net), this is unforgivably irresponsible.
I expect a written response to these questions:
- Will Channel Nine investigate this complaint?
- Does Channel Nine agree that David Evans is in fact not a scientist, let alone an eminent scientist?
- Does Channel Nine agree that he was misrepresented as an eminent scientist on your program on 17th August?
- Will Channel Nine publish a correction and an interview with a genuine “eminent scientist” (such as Michael Raupach, Barry Brook or Barrie Pittock)?
- What action will Channel Nine take to ensure this kind of mistake is not repeated on your news and current affairs programs?
For references on most of the above, see SourceWatch.
JamesK, I didn’t mention Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Planck or Fred Hoyle. They have NOTHING to do with my prediction of the trajectory of an egg to 2 significant figures. For the same reason, I ignored air resistance, the centripetal force of the earths rotation, and the possibility of pixie dust.
Others far more talented than me have proven global warming exists, and refuted denials. To paraphrase Galileo, and yet, it melts!
What have you got against Tiny Tim anyway?
John, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a theory which eventually was proved wrong. Subsequent scientific measurements 150 could not be explained by it and it was supplanted by the Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
The point is that present day measurements are not explained by IPCC computer generated model predictions. AGW is not a fact just because you say it is so. Provide at least an argument!
But you are correct in at least one assertion: Tom is wrong!
Tom#4, with the greatest respect, you are wrong.There are many people who _don’t_ believe what their doctor says.
Climate change deniers are similar to HIV deniers (and they are still about – despite the success of antiretroviral treatment). When powerful people like Thabo Mbecki are part of their ranks, you get the result that AIDS spreads faster than otherwise, people die sooner, and terrible things happen like the rape of virgins at all ages due to the mistaken belief that this is a cure. The arguments used are even the same. see http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256&ct=1
JamesK, sometimes there is no second opinion. If I drop an egg from 1m it will hit the ground at a speed of 4.4 metres per second 0.45 seconds after I drop it. This will happen whether I know the physics or not and indeed if I believe in gravity or not.
Climate change is real, the evidence is overwhelming, and no amount of obfuscation will do a thing about it. Tiny Tim had it right 40 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PBWxX9QAmI
Is this arguement that we take the word of a Physics and Astronomy trained scientist over that of a Computer Engineer…
What sort of argument is that?
A quick google search proves any argument is wrong – depends on what sort of search terms you put in…
Google isn’t the truth…
Critical Analysis would get us towards Facts – but we seem to be in a the middle of the biggest drought of critical analysis since the last Ice Age, maybe even since the middle ages when the tempratures on Earth were significantly higher than now…
It’s getting increasingly difficult to have a rational argument with anyone concerning the Climate Change Theory – please remember it is not a fact, only a theory…
And it’s more like the theory of intelligent design than the theory of evolution …
One of Hansen’s research interests is the analysis of radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth.
It’s becoming increasingly apparrent that the Climate Change Theorists are not capable of appropriate analysis…
Good effort Jonathon. Yours is the first response I’ve come accross to the shameful and pathetic effort of Sixty Minutes. Normally one could count on a quick response from science blogs like Deltoid. This time they were missing in action. Recently the Sunday programme tried something similar. What is it about Channel Nine? While Bolt and his fellow flat earthers applauld, efforts like Sixty Minutes make it that much harder for goverments to reign in carbon pollution. Best of luck with your five questions, though some how I doubt they’ll turn up in Peter Harveys mail bag.