Archive for the ‘statistician/economist’ Category

David Evans, Rocket Scientist.[] a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”] Is married to Jo Nova – blogger of denial site jonova, has his own website sciencespeak has written 1 science peer-reviewed paper back in the 80s not related to climate change science.

The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate – rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans – completely reversing his position. [Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, July 22, 2008]

Writing in the Australian he proclaimed his scepticism after years of being a warmist.

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

David Evans reasons are  1/ No Hot Spot 2/ no evidence that CO2 is causing increased warming 3/it stopped warming in 2001 4/co2 rise lags warming

Slight change in opinion in 2011 Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

David Evans conclusions are challenged here. What is not dealt with is David Evans’ references to the AGW ‘gravy train’ and links to banking.

David Evans has written up a paper that describes just what kind of Octopus we are dealing with, and it’s bigger and more insidious than almost anything you can imagine. It’s a long paper, but if you are not aware of how our currencies are created out of thin air, backed by nothing, and why the Global Financial Crisis was not a surprise to those of us watching the money supply, then stand back, hold onto your hats and take a deep breath.

It’s like living in The Matrix. (Jo Nova)

Bankers and conspiracy theories have been around for centuries with ‘Protocols of Elders’ being key to New World Order paranoia. His language and insinuation is dealt with here, it makes for disturbing reading.

There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have. 

What are the paper aristocracy going to do in the aftermath of the current huge bubble? The course and end of the bubble are quite foreseeable, so they must have a plan. Manufacturing Money and Global Warming 2009

When did David Evans turn from warmist to sceptic?

As a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 he seems to be a strong authority on the basis he has changed his mind given ‘new facts’ but when did this change happen, and did it happen at all?

Back in 2005 he wrote a paper claiming no hot spot for the The Lavoisier Group  an organisation based in Australia that promotes scepticism of current scientific consensus on global warming. In a presentation to the group [pdf 2007] he says he was in fact a contractor to do computer modelling. He goes on to say that he is not a climate modeller and was modelling carbon in the human and natural environment. Despite being a contractor he says he resigned in 2005 but not because of his scepticism, this he says developed after 2000 when new evidence emerged [he only started to work for the GH office in 1999].


Express headline 2010

GLOBAL warming is set to become global cooling this century, a leading analyst claimed yesterday.

Professor Michael Beenstock said theories of climate change are wrong. He warned climatologists have misused statistics, leading them to the mistaken conclusion global warming is ­evidence of the greenhouse effect.

He told London’s Cass Business School that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is “spurious”, adding: “The greenhouse effect is an illusion.” The economics professor from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that just because greenhouse gases and temperatures have risen together does not mean they are linked.

He claims that the real cause of ­rising temperatures is the sun, which he says is at its hottest for over 1,000 years but is “beginning to stabilise”. Professor Beenstock said: “If the sun’s heat continues to remain stable, and if carbon emissions continue to grow with the rate of growth of the world economy, global temperatures will fall by about 0.5C by 2050.” Citing predictions by climatologists in the 1970s of a new Ice Age, Professor Beenstock said: “I predict that ­climatologists will look equally foolish in the years to come. Indeed, it may be already happening.”

The Met Office said the first ­decade of this century is the warmest since records began 160 years ago, and 2009 the fifth warmest year.  It maintains that rising carbon dioxide levels increase temperatures. Since the Industrial Revolution CO2 levels have risen 37 per cent.

Michael Beanstock is currently Professor of Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Research Interests: Research interests: spatial econometrics, econometric evaluation, time series econometrics,
economic geography, drug addiction

Teaching Interests: Macroeconomics (2nd year), Project Appraisal and Evaluation (3rd year), Econometric Analysis of Time Series (MA) ,Financial Econometrics (MA).

Public Activities: Pinchas Sapir Chair of Economics

Professional Affiliations: Honorary Fellow, Institute for Economic Affairs, London

His paper that debunks the AGW scam can be found here

His lecture tour included Cardiff University where this article comes from.

Academics Fall Out Over Climate Change

Geraint Talfan Davies reports on another blast at climatologists delivered in Cardiff last night by economist Michael Beenstock .February 3rd, 2010

The current row over the alleged weaknesses in the some of the arguments advanced by the International Panel on Climate Change had an echo in Cardiff last night when Professor Michael Beenstock mounted a wholesale attack on climatologists while delivering the annual lecture of Cardiff University’s Julian Hodge Institute of Applied Macro-economics.

In a talk that was a mixture of statistical argument and political polemic, Beenstock, a former UK Treasury official who is now Professor of Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, attacked climatologists, and the International Panel on Climate Change in particular, for not being statisticians. This, he said, is what has led them to them making a ‘spurious correlation’ between greenhouse gases and global temperatures.

There is nothing like a row between different disciplines in the academic world, and there was certainly an edge to Beenstock’s lecture, entitled Global Warming: the Greenhouse Gas Illusion.

According to Beenstock climatologists are naïve data analysts and more volatile than the climate. “They don’t understand statistics,” he said. Global warming was “a fluke”. The panic about global warming was the result of a “doomwatch psychology” initiated by the Club of Rome 40 years ago. IPCC predictions are “unfounded” he declared, adding that there was “no need for carbon abatement”. The Stern report was “much ado about nothing”. It was “fortunate that Copenhagen had failed”. European carbon policy was a “white elephant”.

His argument was that data from the 20th Century does not support the greenhouse theory, but that when carbon emissions accelerate, global temperature increases temporarily, but not permanently. “Global warmers have made the simple error of confusing a temporary effect with a permanent one”.

He was asked why no-one else had spotted this fundamental statistical error. In response he referred to the “tendentious” nature of climatology, and claimed that he was “99.8 per cent” sure of his conclusions – always a dangerous contention. He said he had been attacked for his views “as a simple economist who had strayed out of his area”.

This was an altogether a more no-holds-barred, and political, performance, than Colin Robinson of Surrey University delivered at the same event in 2008, although even he spoke of the climate change lobby as a religious movement that regarded sceptics as heretics. Robinson even quoted the same 1975 Newsweek article that Beenstock cited, worrying about prevalent fears of a new ice age. Both espouse a benign view of the capacity of markets to deal with issues.

The Hodge lectures have often provided a valuable contrast to economic orthodoxy, especially valuable in social democratic Wales. But do I detect a trend in these lectures, and perhaps an orthodoxy of view within the Institute of Applied Macro-economics? Discuss.

Geraint Talfan Davies is Chair of the IWA.


Criticism of the paper was fairly limited at the time and a search produced this from RealClimate [Response: Somebody else who thinks that statistics triumphs over physics. Or in other words, someone who thinks that the planet has to respond in some neat statistical way to a forcing. It doesn’t. Since this appears to be a working paper, I would advise that they do some more work – for instance with the AR4 archive to demonstrate that their methodology is able to distinguish causes in much simpler (though realistic) cases. – Gavin

Richard Tol- economist, political sceptic rather sceptical of the science .

Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. He is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy and Integrated Assessment.

With the IPCC ,Tol is involved as an author in all three of its Working Groups. He is also an author and editor of the United Nations Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. He is also a mover and shaker in the prestigious European Climate Forum. He takes global warming seriously and has dedicated his professional life to making a contribution for the better in climate policy and related fields.

Tol on the Stern Review, led Tol to view Sir Nicholas’s conclusions as “preposterous.” Tol’s conclusion: “The Stern review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.” Tol’s view is : Global warming creates benefits as well as harms, and in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced. He accepts that warming is real and measures should be taken to mitigate it but is optimistic in human abilities to adapt to change. Believes we have time to research before we act

There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously,” he explains. “We’ve got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into ‘actionism,’ which then becomes very expensive.”

Tol’s conversation with Judith Curry reveals a thoughtful sceptic.

Dr. Edward Wegman–“former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.” Not a climate scientist and the ‘hockey stick’ has been duplicated several times. Issues of plagiarism, see-