You bloated, fat-***, CO2 pumping, disgusting, vile, contemptible excuse for a *****. John Christy is a Ph.D. in climate science. What about his credentials? Take a look at this informative NYT article:
In interviews, prominent scientists, while disagreeing with Dr. Christy, took pains to acknowledge his credentials. They are substantial: Dr. Christy, 63, has researched climate issues for 27 years and was a lead author — in essence, an editor — of a section of the 2001 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the definitive assessment of the state of global warming. With a colleague at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer, he received NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991 for building a global temperature database.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/...isty-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html
He created the graph. But you then claim that the graph is not reliable because it was included in an article written by a guy with a B.A. in philosophy, so the author is not to be trusted.
In other words, the graph comes from somebody VASTLY more credentialed and experienced and more knowledgeable about climate science than you, and indeed the substantial percentage of climate scientists. Do you need me to further explain to you how stupid you sound? Are you trying to sound like a buffoon? If so, congratulations. If not, then sit on a street corner with a cardboard sign, raise $5 in donations, and buy a clue.
This is the logical fallacy known as "ad hominem." Address the argument, not the proponent. Further, the claim is demonstrably false. CATO is not Exxon. CEI is not Exxon. CATO is a think-tank. You are simply lying when you claim he has been affected by money from energy companies. Skeptical Science - one of the most ardent, pro-AGW sites in America (something even you will have to agree with), wrote the following about Christy and other climate scientists who don't think "the science is settled":
By far the three most prominent and most frequently referenced climate scientists who are "skeptical" of the dangers of human-caused global warming are Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, and Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). These are not your typical unqualified "skeptics", like so many others (i.e. computer programmers, politicians, and former political consultants). No, these are genuine climate scientists who receive government research grants, publish peer-reviewed studies, and have not received any funding from fossil fuel companies in recent years. Thus their arguments are well worth examining. Is there scientific validity to their skepticism?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html
So stop with your lying, bullshit, false ad hominem attacks.
Fat-***.
elfiePoloLiar said:
Liar. Christy has always said (1) yes, the climate is warming, (2) yes, CO2 plays a role, but (3) not nearly as much as climate alarmists claim, and (4) the climate models are consistently and inherently wrong in their projections and demonstrably overstate the temperature increase due to CO2.
Here, for example, is more from the interview in the NYT in 2014:
Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.
But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.
Oh, and additionally, climate alarmists do not dispute Christy's graph, and instead take exception to the conclusion that the models are wrong or flawed. From the same NYT article:
“Almost anyone would say the temperature rise seen over the last 35 years is less than the latest round of models suggests should have happened,” said Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a California firm that analyzes satellite climate readings.
“Where the disagreement comes is that Dr. Christy says the climate models are worthless and that there must be something wrong with the basic model, whereas there are actually a lot of other possibilities,” Dr. Mears said. Among them, he said, are natural variations in the climate and rising trade winds that have helped funnel atmospheric heat into the ocean.
I know that any literate person with a 3rd grade education can process that information, but given your stunningly limited intellect, I thought I should state (explain) the profoundly obvious to you: The dispute is not about the graph, but about what is causing the flawed projections on the climate models.
Get it? Yeah, probably not because you are so stupid. Once again, have a 3rd grader explain it to you.
So, to sum up:
(1) You mock the graph because the author of the article is not a climate scientist, and in the process stupidly avoid the fact that the graph was created by a credentialed, praised Ph.D. in climate science.
(2) You accuse Dr. Christy of "changing" his position, when in fact he has stated for years that the climate is warming (and has been for centuries following the Little Ice Age), and that CO2 plays a role - but nowhere near the role that alarmists claim, and further that the climate models overstate the effect of CO2 on the warming.
(3) Christy's graph is accurate and climate scientists do not take exception to the data in the graph, and instead dispute the reasons why the climate models have been wrong and the reliability of such climate models.
(4) And finally, as usual, since you have no legitimate argument, you wobble back into the logical fallacy of ad hominem - "Oh, he works for Exxon." Right. And climate alarmists get paid very good money for studies and trips and conventions to tell us, "Don't worry about global warming"??
Hey, Bill Paxton has something to tell you about the debate:
