So what does the Bingle bump have to do with David Evans, Fairfax and climate science? The pond patiently explains ...

Here we go, here we go, here we go.

A temperate bit of scientific discourse gets loose and runs like a hare in Fairfax under a calm decorous refined header?

You've got to be dreaming. The ratty header Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong gives the game away.

As soon as anyone frames the debate with that sort of language - serious sceptics versus deviant warmists - you know you're in the company of a player worthy of a spot on the pond.

Once upon a time, Evans turned up in Fairfax by way of proxy. You could find Paul Sheehan enraptured back in 2011 here:

Because this subject has attracted such religiosity, I am drawn to rigorous technicians and sceptics like David Evans, who used to work for the CSIRO and now runs his own consultancy. He has a sophisticated grasp of computer modelling and loves to challenge the more zealous claims made within the climate debate.

Uh huh, that'd be because Evans isn't a zealot, and isn't inclined to zealous claims. He's inclined to sophisticated language like hot air, and warmists, and for all we know, bunk and bunkum, in honour of Henry Ford.

Actually Evans is a familiar figure around the traps, routinely repeating things on which he's been challenged.

To cherry pick just one - Evans himself loves to cherry pick - in this latest piece for Fairfax piece he asserts once again that data in relation to oceans prior to 2003 is useless.

And here's a response to that claim on Skeptical Science: David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise.

This is a classic cherry-pick by Evans. Some of what he outlines about the collection of ocean heat content data is correct, as is detailed in this SkS post, however he gets critical issues entirely wrong. There is perhaps a clear reason that Evans wishes to dismiss data prior to 2003, and it's shown in the figure below from the NODC, and based upon Levitus (2012) - the oceans have undergone considerable warming since 1955.

Figure 2 -Global OHC for the upper 2000 meters of oceans (NODC)

If one wanted to hide from this inconvenient truth, summarily dismissing the data before 2003 would be a simple way to accomplish this. Finally, the claims that the data before 2003 are "almost worthless" is simply not true. For example, Church (2011) showed that the sea-level budget (which depends on ocean temperature data) can be closed as far back as 1972.

Never mind. There are better qualified people to engage in the debate, hopefully using less extreme, more temperate language than loon-pond qualifying language such as "warmists" and "hot air".

The real question is why Evans has suddenly turned up on Fairfax, and with a fine flourish of credentials and a resounding set of initials, as in Dr David M. W. Evans, with seemingly impeccable government credentials and no mention that he might be a controversial, contentious figure?

The pond has been around long enough to realise that a paranoid is someone in full possession of the facts.

Evans would usually be more at home in the world of The Australian and the outer fringes of the climate madness campaign (0r perhaps on a bad hair day, in The Punch, or The Drum - where he scored three pieces back in the day - or the Daily Terror).

Evans provides reliable fodder for people willing to engage in a debate as he goes about the business of peddling FUD about warmists - you can find another example in David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold.

But why Fairfax? Why now at this moment in time? Since Evans has been buzzing around like a gadfly for yonks ...

Well the paranoid conspiracist says 2 + 2 equals 4, or Gina Rinehart + Jack Cowin. It's an irresistible theory to the pond, though no doubt the Fairfax editorial team might have an alternative feeble excuse.

Like we only want to debate the controversy (a 101 guide to debating the controversy can be found here).

Now it might be that Fairfax is only wishing to stir the debate, continue the controversy, maintain the rage, and tomorrow they will be publishing a richly detailed refutation and thoughtful rebuttal of the thoughts of Evans (in a tone which doesn't once mention warmists and denialists).

But why are they emulating the tricks of The Australian, which has always relied on the logic that says you can write a legitimate scientific story about creationism and intelligent design ... because it just keeps the scientific debate with the theory of evolution going?

Teach the controversy is such an old routine.

If only the pond was a subscriber to Fairfax, so it would be possible to demand a refund.

After all the sort of tosh peddled by Evans is freely sloshing around the full to overflowing intertubes - if you can be bothered, google will overload your in-tray in a trice. Why would you pay for another re-hashing? Why would Fairfax pay?

So is there are any good news coming from the world of Gina Rinehart?

Well yes there is. It turns out that this week Being Lara Bingle shed 300,000 viewers, dropping to 463,000 under the weight of the Olympics. And not just the Olympics, but also up against Seven's Once Upon A Time. (thanks to mUmBRELLA here)

The pond shared the deep concern of one of the commenters:

It is hard to imagine that people are deserting such challenging, stimulating, and aspirational television like this. What is the world coming to ...

Ten is now a disaster zone. Breakfast hopeless, evenings useless, new programming with the depth of a paper towel, Lachlan Murdoch's reign the beginning of a death spiral, and the board which contains Rinehart hopelessly out of its depth.

Remember the good old days of Rinehart to Corbett: fix share price or quit? Ten's share price is now more than 80% below its peak in 2004, and its market capitalisation is a joke (go on Roger Montgomery, dump on them here).

Now you might think that as a proud supporter of the Bingle bump, the pond is having its cake and eating it and the choc chip topping too, but that would be to assume that the pond actually watches the show, as opposed to skimming through an avi file to capture a few samples ...

Truth to tell, Bingle is to television what David Evans is to climate science, and Fairfax had better watch out it doesn't experience a sudden Evans bump.

Which will keep them down in the cellars with the level of profit currently being managed by Ten and The Australian ...

(Below: yes you've guessed it, this is really a chance to run a few images from the latest Bingle outing, with the hope that David Evans might hereafter be co-joined with Bingle in Google image search for all eternity. As always we turn to the obligatory exploitative piece at show's end with the cheering news that there's only one episode to go. Thanks be unto Gina Rinehart, saviour of Ten and now ... Fairfax ... and quite possibly warmists full of hot air).