Professor John Christy is one of the most important scientists in the global warming debate. View it here: Interview - Professor John Christy - YouTube Don't be put off by the start being in German, the rest of it is in English and he deals with the science in a very understandable way. He needs to reach a much bigger audience. His original lecture can be seen here:
John Christy: Climatologist - Science, Politics and Morality - YouTube
John Christy is a climate denier through and through. Read through the material on him and there are many places where he is just plain wrong. Being that he is an atmospheric scientist, this means he knows what's really true. Another words he is lying when he purposely strays off the mainstream science. Its possible to go through every one of the examples in here one by one and show where he is wrong and why.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.desmog.com/john-christy/
March 29, 2017
John Christy was a witness in a house committee hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” chaired by Lamar Smith. The hearing also featuring testimony from Judith Curry, Michael Mann, and Roger Pielke, Jr. DeSmog reported that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearings “have officially turned into theater to stage climate science denial,” noting that Michael Mann was the only witness on the committee to represent the 97% consensus view that humans cause climate change. [41], [42]
It is simply not true that Prof. John Christy is a "climate change denier". He is a highly qualified climate scientist who readily accepts that the climate can and does change. He also accepts that there has been warming of the surface. After all he is responsible for the UAH satellite data set which shows a warming trend of 0.13 degrees C per decade.
ReplyDeleteScientists do not work by "consensus". That is how politicians tend to work. As Dr Christy says in his lecture, "science is about the numbers". He has demonstrated in court that the policies to reduce emissions will make no practical difference to the surface temperature of the Earth.
Michael Mann, by contrast, has been shown to be guilty of producing a fraudulent hockey stick graph by using tree rings from a cherry-picked tiny set of pine trees.
ReplyDeleteMichael Mann, by contrast, has been shown to be guilty of producing a fraudulent hockey stick graph by using tree rings from a cherry-picked tiny set of pine trees.
The strength of multiple studies is that do they agree with others in the data or are there significant differences to discuss. Multiple studies using methods similar to Micheal Mann's reach the same conclusion. MM's paper does not stand on its own. It stands amongst many other science papers. This is part of what develops science consensus.
https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
ReplyDeleteQuote from John Christy
"We are finding that the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 and those kind of gases"
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
CLimate sensitivity is slightly below 3*C for a doubling of co2 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Clearly John Christy is wrong on this and intentionally so. Another words, being a professional scientist, he is lying. No way around that. He doesn't that statement above to be true as a well informed scientist.
Prof Christy has no motive to lie, he does not have any link to any oil or gas company and refuses any finance from them. In fact he has received many threats for speaking out and has even had shots fired at his office. It would be far easier for him to keep quiet. He speaks the truth as it is seen in the evidence. He shows you the evidence in his lecture, such as the projections made by climate models compared with the actual measurements, proving that the models exaggerate the warming. His calculation, shown in court, was so accurate that even James Hansen was unable to challenge it
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
ReplyDeleteLets do this again and a little bit deeper. In this link are 50 statements about the science of climate by John Christy that are false. I doubt that you have even opened up the link. In turn, there are 50 different rebuttals to John Christy's public statements on climate based in science. All of these statements are wrong by John Christy. I doubt that you have the skill to defend Christy based in science. At the same time, you can't unsee this.
There is no reason for James Hansen to rebut John Christy. If Christy has something to say based in good science, it needs to go into a science paper that criticizes Hansen from that platform. I'm sure Hansen would welcome such a simple challenge.
Your link gives simple rebuttals with no specific scientific details. When Christy faced Hansen in court Hansen could not dispute the figures provided by Christy, figures which showed that new legislation would have no effect on the temperature of the global surface. So, of course Hansen had a reason to do so.
ReplyDelete[Your link gives simple rebuttals with no specific scientific details] Your statement.
ReplyDeleteEach blue response in the rebuttals is a link to the deeper science. Click on the blue rebuttal and a new page will open up.
John Christy said
The small rate of warming that the planet is going through and the fact that energy production and CO2 might be related to a part of that, there is not much you can do to reverse whatever the climate is going to do whether is man caused or or not."
Blue link rebuttal
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-urgent.htm
The link opens up an explanation of a full page rebuttal based in science. This is done 50 times to John Christy's false statements. This is what I will come at you every time you try to justify his lies paid for by fossil fuels.