Who is 'Rocket Scientist' David Evans?

Tue, 2008-07-22 14:27Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Who is 'Rocket Scientist' David Evans?



So we decided to compile a backgrounder on 'The Top Rocket Scientist."

Here's the research database entry on David Evans:

No peer-reviewed articles on climate change



Evans also published a "background briefing" (pdf) document for the Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group, a global warming "skeptic" organization with close ties to the mining industry.

"I am not a climate modeler"

From 1999 to 2006 Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says (pdf) that "[he] know[s] a heck of a lot about modeling and computers," he states clearly that he is "not a climate modeler."


David Evans lives in Australia and gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, No Smoking Hot Spot was published in The Australian in June, 2008.The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of "a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics." Evan's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.



In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.


The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.

Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.






The original discussion on the real AGW "signature" (tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling) is at Real Climate.


By the way, the mistaken claim about the missing AGW "signature" tropical hotspot is one of the last refuges of the skeptics. See for example the SourceWatch critique of the Fraser Intitute ISPM:



Tim Lambert has and good for him.


Desmog is a smear site. It all they do.
Desperation is now clear at the house of cards collapses.

Get used to it.

And where is the smear here?

Evans has provided us with his definition of a 'rocket scientist' and I have added it to the article.


Looks like Evans' main contribution has been to write scientifically clueless editorials.




1) David Evans' background is clearly written in:

Looking at that description, I'd call him a mathematician and software engineer, in which case labeling him a "top rocket scientist" is really weird, both for "top" and "rocket scientist".

Maybe he is a "top Fourier analysis expert". It's hard to assess the impact of a book he's been writing since 1990, so he might be an author. Maybe if it's ever published people can evaluate that.

2) His use of the term "rocket scientist" is ludicrous. I don't understand why he just doesn't say "consultant and software engineer" or whatever. There's nothing wrong with that.

a) There are people who really can be called rocket scientists. I've worked with some [i.e., like NASA, which really does employ people legitimately called rocket scientists, although they more likely call themselves aerospace engineers, or other titles.]

b) A certain set of computational folks on Wall Street have sometimes been called "rocket scientists". Some came from my old employer, Bell Labs. No one in Bell Labs called anyone else there rocket scientists - at least, in 10 years there, I never heard that even once. Actually, we never called anyone "Doctor", because that gets old. I rather doubt anyone on Wall Street would have put "rocket scientist" as their job description.

c) Used colloquially, somebody smart and technical (but not a)) might be referred to by the term "rocket scientist", but rarely by other people who are equally smart and technical.


I've lived within 5 miles of Stanford for 25 years,

Real top people use business cards that say things like:

VP Engineering
Chief Scientist
or maybe just Consultant (usually after retiring from the above)

"Rocket scientist".


Re: Rocket scientists
Poor humorless warmists. I suppose that your dour outlook is fitting for those whose raison d'etre is preaching cataclysm and catastrophe. You should get a life, Kevin.



All the following scientific organizations presented a joint statement, called the Joint Science Academies' Statement, to each head of government who attended, and to the host Prime Minister of Japan, at the G8 recently:

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
Science Council of Japan,
Deutshe Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina Germany,
Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Indian National Science Academy India,
Academie des Sciences France,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy,
Royal Society of Canada,
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias Mexico,
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, Brazil, and the
Academy of Science of South Africa

The statement called out to all world leaders that they "limit the threat of climate change" by taking "prompt action", which was stated as limiting emissions of "greenhouse gases" "to the net absorption capacity of the earth" It is here:










Your comments to the effect that the Mises Institute is a right-wing think tank are deceitful. It is a Libertarian website with unabashed support for what unarguably works: free-markets. Furthermore, have you given consideration to better qualified doubters of the so-called global warming hysteria rather than Evans? Finally, I don't see you countering Evans' arguments but rather sidestepping them by trying to discredit his credentials in the field. What's next, a critique of Julian Simon's succesful attacks against past "scientific" blunders because he was an economist?

We'd behappy to see your list.

Amazing isn't it how David Evans' credentials were never dissected when he was in the climate alarmist camp. But let him utter a heresy and the warmies sets the hounds on him. Have Desmoggers ever considered issuing fatwas?

Evans was not part of the debate before he burst onto the scene as a "rocket scientist". If anyone truly believes he was ever in the so-called "alarmist camp", could they please please supply evidence of it - a blog entry, a letter to the editor, anything? No? Nothing? Oh well. I thought so.

The moral of this story is that if you don't have the expertise or the experience, don't pretend you do, because you'll look like a goose when it's pointed out.




It shouldn't matter if the guy was a burger flipper if he has a good argument, you troll.

This is not a case of Kevin trying to undermine an argument by attacking its proponent. Evans doesn't have an argument - at least, he is not making a case based on evidence.

If he really was a burger flipper (and weren't we all, at some point?) and he came up with an important and compelling evidence-based point, that would be peachy. But Evans is asking that we accept his judgment on climate change on the basis of his authority - on the credibility that we might accord to "rocket scientists."

So he says, "You should listen to me because I am a top rocket scientist." And Kevin reads the guy's unimpressive resume and says, "Ah, no you're not. And if you're lying about the rocket scientist thing, why should we listen to any other thing that you're saying?"

That's a fair question. 

That is one of the funniest, in the "guffaw-and-spit-coffee-on-the-screen" sense definitions that I have ever seen in science or engineering:


how writing a word processing program contributes to one's status as a "top rocket scientist," or in any way qualifies one to claim authority in the field of climate science. It's a legitimate question, n'est-ce pas?

Fern Mackenzie


Among the sites I'd recommend for such analysis, at least for those with some scientific literacy are a small sample:

Tim Lambert is Australian, and hence watches the Oz scene closer than most here in US or Canada. Here is a week-ago debunk of Evans' latest, including a pointer to a June 2007 piece at Lavoisier Group:

John Cook is also Australian, and his site is different:

- explains the argument
- explains why it's wrong
- gives references to peer-reviewed articles in credible journals
- gives examples of people using the argument

Hence, it is a nice reference, as opposed to an immediate specific response, but it doesn't get updated quite so often, and it doesn't every *every* new argument ... although most dumb arguments get repeated endlessly, even if the science was known 20 years ago.

In 5 minutes there, I found most of Evans' comments covered:
#32 empirical
#30 troposphere
#19 uhi
#10 co2lag

Remember, that's a blog, but each article references real science articles, unlike Evans. His Lavoisier piece has similar stuff.




- Go off into fervent belief in pseudoscience
- Pontificate in OpEds, letters to editors, white papers , websites, E&E ... but not peer-reviewed science journals
- but have reasonable technical backgrounds
- and so should be able to study and learn the science
- and ought to know better
- and isn't one of those scientists at end of career going off the rails into a field outside their own
- and in this case, a reference to Stanford EE degree

That is, if someone poorly-educated believes silly things, it's no surprise, but I have psychologist friends that help me understand odd behavior patterns :-), who long ago pointed me at the Dunning-Kruger Effect as a useful explanation.

Rob...if you shake your head do loose parts roll out your ears?

How is not working for Microsoft relevant? Lots of people write Windows software who don't work for Microsoft. You know, like everyone who isn't developing *nix or Mac software.

The commenters are right...when data contradicts models, trust the top scientists who say the models must be right and that any other scientists in their field who disagree are merely engaging in pseudo-science.

Science, welcome to the postmodern age. It was nice knowin' ya.

Even if his background is legit then where is his proof to support his opinions. Everybody has an opinion. nothing wrong with that. I just want to see peer reviewed articles on his work that has been accepted by the science community. Being a consultant doesn't mean $hit. Idiot think tanks in washington DC are consultants and look at the mess they've turned this country into.


I'm all for hard facts, and I certainly believe that to get the US economy moving again banks, corporation and the gov't will push a green agenda to create the next economic bubble.

Although the idea of Global warming and Climate change seems to make sense , I'm a little concerned about a theory being put forth as fact. If it is a fact, then why are there so many who disagree?
I think we could all benefit from a televised open debate on this topic. Line up the experts on both sides and let them go at it. Let us, the public, make up our own minds based on how convincing either side makes it's case. The debate must remain on-topic, focusing on scientific fact, and intellectual thought, and not on demonizing the other's belief.

I think we could all learn something.

"The debate must remain on-topic, focusing on scientific fact, and intellectual thought"

If that's what you want then here it is: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

See Naomi Oreskes' "The American Denial of Global Warming":




Real science isn't done in debates, among other things because it's too easy to throw up masses of plausible-sounding wrong things, and it takes way more time to explain why they are wrong.

As a good analogy, regarding cigarettes, in 1964 "The Surgeon General has determined ...", but cigarettes are still legally sold.

Many people over 30 only smoke because they got addicted when they were 12-18, because that's when brain development makes it easiest to "write" for addiction:


Nevertheless, the exact biochemical mechanisms by which tobacco smoke (very complex chemically) causes illness are often far less well understood ... than the physics and chemistry of AGW.

The evidence is compelling in both cases, just different. That for AGW was already good enough in 1989, and it's better now.

Debating AGW science now is like debating cigarette goodness. Policy is still fair game, but the science is certainly good enough to know action is needed, even if scientists don't know everything ... just like they don't know everything about cigarette smoke.



sometimes you just gotta laugh at the irony.


A moment ago I read a posting that said "Line up the experts on both sides and let them go at it." They already have! Have you been sleeping for the last three or four decades?


The time for debate is long past. As potent as fossil fuels are (and they rightfully will never be completely out of the picture), the time for shifting from a fossil fuel-based economy (as we did from a "hay and coal" based economy) HAS come.

David Evans was selected by Lavoisier intentionally because he had been active (on some level) with the scientific community in the scientific explorations of global warming in Australia. Illegitimate "Authority by Association" you might call it.

Let's all divert our personal energies BACK to what matters (helping develop the coming green economies, reducing our eco-footprints, and living healthier lives), AWAY from the guys/gals who want to continue "hitching their team" to oil and burying their heads in the oil sands when they get home.

Tom Neff, KC, MO, USA

Okay you yanks, listen up.
Education time from an Aussie.
In other words IT WAS A JOKE !!!
So either grow a sense of humour or stop writing critiques about literature in a language you obviously don't understand.
You lot are hilarious.



Good onya mate

And Tim Lambert of UNSW should have a talk with Prof Tim Lambert of Uni of Sydney who I'm sure has the skill and training to sort him out.

In other words IT WAS A JOKE !!!"

Pull the other one, mate. He wanted everyone to believe he's better-credentialled than he really is.


Your comment makes us Aussies look even sillier than Rudd's weak carbon policy does.

If Evans had said he'd worked as a computer programmer and had no experience or expertise as a climate scientist, and was never actually an "alarmist", he would have been ignored.

As he should have been.

No... its believing everything you are told and contemplating shooting camels because of it that makes you look like an idiot!

Ding! Thank you for playing.

wow, this article is a joke and does nothing to refute what Evans is saying. First Keynesianism and then global warming, the house of cards is indeed on it's way down and revealing that there are a lot of suckers out there that just don't want to let go of their past beliefs-despite mountains of evidence. It is sad that their egos won't let them see the truth.

You really should delete the last sentence:






And if one is disqualfied from criticizing the climate change orthodoxy for the lack of being an experienced "climate modeler", then why doesnt this same lack of experience disqualify someone from being an expert on the subject of climate change (e.g. Al Gore)?

There is nothing "right-wing" about The Mises Institute. Do some research please. Free market does not equal right wing. The right-wing nutz would not know a free market from a hole in the ground.



Kevin Grandia spends a lot of time saying that Evans is not a rocket scientist and that his degrees are not relative to the climate change discussion and he is not a "climate modeler". He then uses a COMPUTER SCIENCE person to debunk Evan's claims. So you used a person with no climate credentials to debunk someone else you say has no climate credentials?!?!?!?!

and you people wonder why there are still skeptics out there!


