Yes, Let's Meet David Evans

From the editorial page at today's Tribune-Review:

It's most unsettling to the cluckers of climate change when one of their own leading adherents, who formerly toed the line, becomes skeptical and drop-kicks the "science."

Meet David Evans.

A scientist with six university degrees, Mr. Evans consulted for the Australian Greenhouse Office (today's Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005. He studied carbon in plants, debris, forestry and agricultural products.

The remarks Scaife's braintrust uses come from this column at the Financial Times.

The thing you should've noticed in the op-ed is how the braintrust describes Evans - "a scientist with six university degrees." But which six? You'd think one of them is in climate science.

But you'd be wrong.

Here's the description from the bottom of the FT column:

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, 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. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

Given that the Trib cut and pasted whole phrases from this description, they had to know that he wasn't a climate scientist. But still, it's a PhD in electrical engineering - and that's nothing to sneeze at.

But you'd think that were he an expert in the field, he'd have some peer-reviewed publications under his belt, right?

Um, no. According to this "skeptic watch" page, Evens published one peer-reviewed paper. In 1987. And it wasn't about climate change. Interesting.

Also the material in the presentation Evans made at that Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, that became the FT column that the braintrust used to "debunk" climate science was itself debunked.

In 2007.

Nice going, guys. You made this one easy.

What In The World Is Going On??

Get a gander from this paragraph from the Trib's Op-Ed page:

To Major League Baseball's arbitration process. Pirates right-handed pitcher Ross Ohlendorf was paid $439,000 last year. He was plagued by injuries and posted a record of 1-11. Even with that, the Bucs offered him $1.4 million for this season. Mr. Ohlendorf took the matter to arbitration. On Tuesday, arbiters awarded Ohlendorf $2.025 million. Good work if you can get it, we suppose, but it shows what's wrong with baseball economics.

And then there's this from Tony Norman's column today:

I'm not a baseball fan, but I am an American. This alone gives me some insight into what it means to fail and to be rewarded for it.

This week, arbitrators in Major League Baseball ruled that the annual salary of Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Ross Ohlendorf deserved a bump from $439,000.

Despite one win and 11 losses in 2010, not to mention two stints on the disabled list during what turned out to be yet another miserable Pirates season, Mr. Ohlendorf just knew he was entitled to a large salary hike.

Mr. Ohlendorf, a Princeton University grad who majored in something called Operations Research and Financial Engineering, knows that there is an inverse relationship between reward and failure in this country.

The Pirates made a more-than-generous offer to him of $1.4 million. After researching the salaries of MLB starting pitchers he considered "comparable," Mr. Ohlendorf argued that $1.4 million didn't account for his true value to the Pirates.

After pressing on with the kind of dogged determination the Pirates would love to see on the field for once, Mr. Ohlendorf was awarded a substantial raise to $2,025,000 by the arbitration panel. The panel obviously felt Mr. Ohlendorf's pain and gave him financial parity with his rivals, regardless of whether it represented a fair value to the team.

"I looked at the marketplace the past two years, but more specifically last year, and felt that was a fair number," Mr. Ohlendorf said afterward.

I didn't see PG sportswriter Colin Dunlap's reaction after getting that quote, but knowing him, I'm sure his face registered something akin to bemused resignation.

When Tony and Scaife's braintrust find common ground on something (ANYTHING), something is very very wrong in the universe.