Postred 15 November 2010
Dr David Evans, a scientist formerly with the Australian Greenhouse Office 1999-2005, has completed a paper that exposes the corruption behind claims of man-made "global warming'. It's simple and pictorial, with a minimum of words, perfect for lay people. It answers the usual objections of warmists, and focuses on the corrupt behavior of the climate change establishment. Download pdf here
WHY DR EVANS WROTE THE PAPER
Dr David Evans explains:
We skeptics are in a war of credibility with the western climate establishment, and we have been losing it consistently, for many years.
Here's how it works. The public debate typically pits an establishment scientist against a skeptic scientist, in print or live, together or one after the other. From the point of view of a layperson (politician, journalist, or public), both just say "bla bla bla" (the lay person cannot be bothered making the effort to understand the points, really). So the lay person thinks to themselves "well I suppose the establishment guy must be right, because he has the important position and title". A mental shortcut, like stereotyping. We lose, every time, and the content of what we say is irrelevant.
I have seen this played out over and over, and have been the skeptic scientist myself. It simply doesn't matter what you say or how right you are, the establishment guy simply exaggerates or even lies, and they believe him. The audience is just not interested in chasing up enough details or references to figure who is right -- and you only have 30 seconds or 200 words to make your whole case, usually with no diagrams. So long as the establishment guy never admits to making an error, and other establishment figures back him up, they always win.
To win the political aspect of the climate debate, we have to lower the western climate establishment's credibility with the lay person. And this paper shows how you do it. It simply assembles the most easily understood points that show they are not to be entirely trusted, with lots of pictures and a minimum of text and details. It omits lots of relevant facts and is excruciatingly economical with words simply because the lay person has a very short attention span for climate arguments.
The strategy of the paper is to undermine the credibility of the establishment climate scientists. That's all. There is nothing special science-wise, and there is nothing in it that most skeptics haven't heard before. It's aimed squarely at lay people, and answers the usual objections they have to listening to us or believing us.
At this stage, I believe this is approach is necessary to win the remaining public debate, such as here in Australia where the Greens are in government and will enact a carbon trading scheme by July 2011 unless we can turn their Labor Party partners or the public revolts. The climate establishment has the ear of the Greens and Labor, so unless we point out their un-trustworthiness we will lose.