<p>Evans has been making predictions of this nature for a while, for example, from 2014:</p>
<p><a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;It’s already baked in the cake; we can see a few years into the future.&quot;</a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/N3KK0.gif" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/N3KK0.gif" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>The prediction isn't looking too good so far</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/xaSXR.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/xaSXR.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-21T13:32:18.737Z
@Pont Indeed, and also worth pointing out that there was an El-Nino last year.  As I pointed out to Evans on the blog, he really needs some indication of the uncertainty of the prediction and ideally for him to give a concise definition of the model (e.g. so that it can be replicated unambiguously).
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-21T11:38:47.110Z
From the linked article: "The delay could be as much as 20 years, in which case the drop could be as late as 2024." Come 2024, he will doubtless have revised his calculations to show that an ice age is due in 2030, or possibly 2050.
Pont
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-03-21T11:04:32.873Z
2022-05-24T14:32:59.490Z
2022-05-24T14:32:59.490Z
Dikran Marsupial
<p>I gave a longer answer linked to a similar question in the comments above, I'll give a quick one here:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>There's a story going around the low-grade news factories that one Dr.
  David Evans . . .</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Everyone knows there's a fair bit of "I know you are but what am I" in the climate change debate (if you can even call it a debate), but whichever side you agree with, David Evans is without question, actively arguing the skeptic side.  His position has been consistently in disagreement with man made climate change for nearly a decade, so anything of his you read, keep that in mind. </p>

<p>He's made two climate "denier lists" <a href="https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/climate-sceptic-conspiracies/profile-dr-david-evans/">here</a> and <a href="https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/dr-david-evans/">here</a> and he has been called out by skeptical science, <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html">here</a>.    In another article related to yours, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1227555674611">here</a>, it says his work is "undergoing peer review", so for now, his calculations aren't publicly available or verified.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>. . . has predicted that the world will start cooling down in 2017</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One problem here.  We're currently in an <a href="http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/strong-el-nino-noaa-update-october2015">El Nino</a> and 2014 was the warmest year on record (38% probability to some, but lets not go there) with 2015 likely to break that record and 2016 - too soon to say but the El Nino is expected to extend into 2016, so 2017 is an ideal year to predict cooling.  The global temperature often drops within a year after an El Nino ends, but this is a normal cycle and temporary and it has nothing to do with man made climate change.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What would be the best way to show that he is wrong?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well, a personal favorite, I'd go with something like: </p>

<p><em>"He's just using a mathematical model to predict the future.  I thought you people hated mathematical models to predict the future. -</em> </p>

<p>You could also bring up this <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm">list</a> of examples where David Evans has been wrong in the recent past.</p>

<p>But the more scientific answer to your question is that until his research is available and peer reviewed, then there's no way to disprove it, but there's also, no good reason to agree with it.   Without peer review and transparency, it's not science.   It's just a blog.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-21T14:36:33.840Z
+1 for reference to playground comeback
Restioson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-10T22:54:39.290Z
2015-10-11T01:39:05.323Z
2015-10-11T01:39:05.323Z
userLTK
<p>There's a story going around the low-grade news factories that one <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Evans_(mathematician_and_engineer)">Dr. David Evans</a> has predicted that the world will <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down">start cooling down in 2017</a>. One source reports:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been included in the 'standard models' and this has led to inflated mathematical - and therefore temperature - predictions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/">Googling</a> <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/">finds</a> a <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/">number</a> of <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thp-1227555674611?nk=559efafea17bd10a7aeb25966cdfffc6-1444481823">other</a> <a href="http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6?nk=559efafea17bd10a7aeb25966cdfffc6-1444481794">sites</a> with the <a href="http://technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/09/top-climate-scientist-says-global-cooling-starts-in-2017/">same</a> <a href="http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/engineers-discovery-could-change-climate-change-debate/">story</a>. Some identify Dr. Evans as a "former climate modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office", others as an electrical engineer. None seem to provide any skepticism about Dr. Evans' statements.</p>

<p>I'm sure this is a sham, as otherwise it would be an enormously important story that would be reported everywhere. If so, I'm a little surprised that I found no "boy is this stupid" responses. Perhaps the real climate experts are tired of playing "climate conspiracy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole">Whack-A-Mole</a>".</p>

<p>If a <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder">climate change denier</a> were to use this story as proof that anthropogenic global warming is a scam to keep earth scientists employed, what would be the best way to show that he is wrong?</p>

<p><strong>Edit:</strong> I just found that Dr. Evans serves on the Board of Advisors of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow">Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow</a>, an NGO that denies man-made global warming exists.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-10T17:43:11.120Z
Related, but no answers yet: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30274/is-there-one-climate-model-equation-or-are-there-many  And I suggest that the discussion is better done over there (although that specific question was put on hold)
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-10T18:58:23.140Z
@JanDoggen, It can be here too. After all, this is where the climate scientists are. ;)
Eubie Drew
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-10T19:07:12.870Z
There is a funded puppeteer industry built around climate change denial. Many of these "news" sites are managed, or at least fed, by the energy industry. And the bulk of the dittoheads that comment approvingly are also hired guns. It is asymmetric warfare because the effort needed for countering each instance of a repeated claim is way more than the effort to create them. More of the very successful (let's admit it) and manufactured "scientific controversy" meme.
Eubie Drew
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-10T22:31:59.513Z
It may not look related, but this is essentially the same question regarding the same "scientist" (and I use the term loosely).   David Evans.    http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/12000/how-much-heat-is-generated-from-waxing-and-waning-of-reflected-radiation-from-th/12006#12006 - my answer gets a bit long and perhaps soap-boxy in that one I'm afraid.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-11T08:26:51.153Z
@Aabaakawad climate denial is generally funded by fossil-fuel extractors specifically, rather than the energy industry generally
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-11T08:30:13.287Z
@EnergyNumbers of course. In fact non-fossil-fuel energy providers would be motivated to support climate change theory.
Eubie Drew
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-21T16:04:38.617Z
What study? All I see is news articles, until he publishes his "research" he is no different from the guy on the street corner in tinfoil hat screaming the sky is falling.
John
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-19T05:00:29.317Z
Well, it's 2017 now, and no sign of cooling yet.
jamesqf
<climate-change><climate-models>
"The world will start COOLING DOWN in 2017"?
Daniel Griscom
# "The world will start COOLING DOWN in 2017"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-10-10)

There's a story going around the low-grade news factories that one [Dr. David Evans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Evans_(mathematician_and_engineer)) has predicted that the world will [start cooling down in 2017](http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down). One source reports:

> He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been included in the 'standard models' and this has led to inflated mathematical - and therefore temperature - predictions.

[Googling](https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/) [finds](http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/) a [number](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/) of [other](http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thp-1227555674611?nk=559efafea17bd10a7aeb25966cdfffc6-1444481823) [sites](http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6?nk=559efafea17bd10a7aeb25966cdfffc6-1444481794) with the [same](http://technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/09/top-climate-scientist-says-global-cooling-starts-in-2017/) [story](http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/engineers-discovery-could-change-climate-change-debate/). Some identify Dr. Evans as a "former climate modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office", others as an electrical engineer. None seem to provide any skepticism about Dr. Evans' statements.

I'm sure this is a sham, as otherwise it would be an enormously important story that would be reported everywhere. If so, I'm a little surprised that I found no "boy is this stupid" responses. Perhaps the real climate experts are tired of playing "climate conspiracy [Whack-A-Mole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole)".

If a [climate change denier](http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder) were to use this story as proof that anthropogenic global warming is a scam to keep earth scientists employed, what would be the best way to show that he is wrong?

**Edit:** I just found that Dr. Evans serves on the Board of Advisors of the [Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow), an NGO that denies man-made global warming exists.

**Tags:** climate-change, climate-models

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related, but no answers yet: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30274/is-there-one-climate-model-equation-or-are-there-many  And I suggest that the discussion is better done over there (although that specific question was put on hold)  
> **username_2**: @username_1, It can be here too. After all, this is where the climate scientists are. ;)  
> **username_2**: There is a funded puppeteer industry built around climate change denial. Many of these "news" sites are managed, or at least fed, by the energy industry. And the bulk of the dittoheads that comment approvingly are also hired guns. It is asymmetric warfare because the effort needed for countering each instance of a repeated claim is way more than the effort to create them. More of the very successful (let's admit it) and manufactured "scientific controversy" meme.  
> **username_3**: It may not look related, but this is essentially the same question regarding the same "scientist" (and I use the term loosely).   David Evans.    http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/12000/how-much-heat-is-generated-from-waxing-and-waning-of-reflected-radiation-from-th/12006#12006 - my answer gets a bit long and perhaps soap-boxy in that one I'm afraid.  
> **username_4**: @Aabaakawad climate denial is generally funded by fossil-fuel extractors specifically, rather than the energy industry generally  
> **username_2**: @EnergyNumbers of course. In fact non-fossil-fuel energy providers would be motivated to support climate change theory.  
> **username_6**: Well, it's 2017 now, and no sign of cooling yet.  
> **username_5**: What study? All I see is news articles, until he publishes his "research" he is no different from the guy on the street corner in tinfoil hat screaming the sky is falling.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-10-10. Score: 16 | Accepted answer

I gave a longer answer linked to a similar question in the comments above, I'll give a quick one here:

> There's a story going around the low-grade news factories that one Dr.
> David Evans . . .

Everyone knows there's a fair bit of "I know you are but what am I" in the climate change debate (if you can even call it a debate), but whichever side you agree with, David Evans is without question, actively arguing the skeptic side. His position has been consistently in disagreement with man made climate change for nearly a decade, so anything of his you read, keep that in mind.

He's made two climate "denier lists" [here](https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/climate-sceptic-conspiracies/profile-dr-david-evans/) and [here](https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/dr-david-evans/) and he has been called out by skeptical science, [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html). In another article related to yours, [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1227555674611), it says his work is "undergoing peer review", so for now, his calculations aren't publicly available or verified.

> . . . has predicted that the world will start cooling down in 2017

One problem here. We're currently in an [El Nino](http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/strong-el-nino-noaa-update-october2015) and 2014 was the warmest year on record (38% probability to some, but lets not go there) with 2015 likely to break that record and 2016 - too soon to say but the El Nino is expected to extend into 2016, so 2017 is an ideal year to predict cooling. The global temperature often drops within a year after an El Nino ends, but this is a normal cycle and temporary and it has nothing to do with man made climate change.

> What would be the best way to show that he is wrong?

Well, a personal favorite, I'd go with something like:

*"He's just using a mathematical model to predict the future. I thought you people hated mathematical models to predict the future. -*

You could also bring up this [list](http://www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm) of examples where David Evans has been wrong in the recent past.

But the more scientific answer to your question is that until his research is available and peer reviewed, then there's no way to disprove it, but there's also, no good reason to agree with it. Without peer review and transparency, it's not science. It's just a blog.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: +1 for reference to playground comeback  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2017-03-21. Score: 5

Evans has been making predictions of this nature for a while, for example, from 2014:

["It’s already baked in the cake; we can see a few years into the future."](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/N3KK0.gif)](https://i.sstatic.net/N3KK0.gif)

The prediction isn't looking too good so far

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/xaSXR.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/xaSXR.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: From the linked article: "The delay could be as much as 20 years, in which case the drop could be as late as 2024." Come 2024, he will doubtless have revised his calculations to show that an ice age is due in 2030, or possibly 2050.  
> **username_7**: @username_8 Indeed, and also worth pointing out that there was an El-Nino last year.  As I pointed out to Evans on the blog, he really needs some indication of the uncertainty of the prediction and ideally for him to give a concise definition of the model (e.g. so that it can be replicated unambiguously).  

---

