Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Scott Ott

Bio

July 15, 2014 - 2:06 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

It’s no longer enough to believe that the climate is changing, and that man’s activities may have a role in it. In order to avoid an Amish-caliber shunning by the AGW cabal, you must set your hair on fire.

This comes from that great slayer of trees, the New York Times, which profiles Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama, a pariah in his profession because he thinks many of his colleagues have overstated the case, and the potential consequences, of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of atmospheric temperatures above the United States with measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.

Of course, the test of any theory is its utility in making predictions. But pointing out the discrepancies between theoretical predictions and actual data is just the kind of thing that gets Prof. Christy in hot water with those who think we’ll all be under water someday soon (or at least that Atlantic City may be renamed Atlantis City).

Christy, a heavily credentialed veteran climate scientist, actually edited a section of the famous 2001 UN report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Now fellow academics rebuff his handshake offer.

“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’  ”

Top Rated Comments   
I believe there are global redistribution schemes.

I believe tying one of those schemes to weather allows for faculty lounge lizards to defraud "haves" out of their accumulated wealth to steal for themselves and pretend to care about the "have nots".

So far, virtually every treasonous scheme has hurt (drastically) the people the Marxists pretended to want to help.

Pretending to be Robin Hood and wearing green...is just a mask for their treasonous intent.

We have weather every day. Most of it falls within the range of normal. The abnormal is not because of...it's just because...that's weather.

The Marxists need to sit down, shut up and beg for mercy for the way they have currently screwed up the world.

6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
The party of science, logic, and reason!

Quite the party of primitivism and tribalism.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just because you have a PhD. doesn't mean you can't act like a six-year old.

Prof. Christy is a threat to a lot of people's livelihoods, what with his pointing out a lot of inconvenient facts. Without AGW as an excuse, there will be a lot fewer papers to grind out and climate panels to attend, studying the ravages of global warming on places like Bali or Tuscany.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (37)
All Comments   (37)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
A minor correction: Prof. Christy is from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Scott, your puppy analogy is good, but it is not quite accurate.

I think the better analogy would be that AGW alarmists want to shoot innocent people today because their computer model indicates that there is possibility that twice that many people may be shot tomorrow.

The plain fact is that the changes that the alarmists want will kill people. The only reason that they want to make these changes are because of computer models that have not predicted the future. Therefore, they wish to kill people today to possibly prevent more people from dying in the future, but they have no real idea what probability is that that future will occur.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I don't want get into the debate about climate change," state Sen. Brandon Smith said, according to Louisville NPR affiliate WFPL. "But I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I'm aware of."

Smith (R) - Kentucky

Yeah, lets leave this to the politicians instead of the Scientific consensus.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is no such thing as "Scientific consensus". Science is defined by producing a theory and seeing if it matches reality. Opinion is irrelevant. The fact is that the theory (AGW) is not matching reality.

What Representative Smith was referring to, is that Mars has had very similar temperature changes to Earth in the last few years, but there is no AGW to account for that. Your quote left out all the context of the statement.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Consensus" is the provenance of politics, not science.

Let's leave this to Hollywood.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Consensus was a strong word, I admit, lets say scientific majority
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
"the Scientific consensus"

Have a read, Brian, not that it will do you much good. I've got lots more, if you're interested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

"The Left uses science like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination."
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe you think we should trust the crowd that also does not believe in Evolution. It is just a little science denying here and there.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Read the 800 pages of covered up/forgotten archeological finds in "Forbidden Archeology"and get back to me. All of it...including the appendices which are substantial. Then we can talk about another area of "consensus".
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are absolutely vicious against those strawmen. Why don't you try that on my uncle, the very devout nuclear engineering PhD?
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
We can settle the science real quickly Brian.

You just prove to me that any temperature, river, lake, atmospheric, glacier, ocean, forest et al and etc. changes whatsoever, anywhere and anyhow in recent decades are a product of human generated greenhouse gases.

After you do that, I'll amend my assessment of you as simply an AGW True Believer.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html?spref=tw

Ok. Here is an article that trashes the article you cite.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Here is NOAA explaining the changes Goddard talks about.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

A 2009 NOAA PDF addressing the same issues.

Maybe You should do a little more digging.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here's one for you:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

It's superfluous to point out that NOAA, a government entity, is not exactly independent from a government that is trying to implement alleged anti-AGW policies.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
NOAA came under a lot of criticism for non random placement of its temperature measuring stations, e.g., hot asphalt at airports and so forth.

But never fear, now, per your link, they've created the Climate Reference Network and "peer review" is functioning to detect and remove bias in measurements.

I'm so not reassured by NOAA's explanations.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's impossible to respect AGW alarmists given what was revealed about their machinations during Climategate (2009) and, more recently, stuff like this from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, aka NOAA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

Stories like this are just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended) as are warmists' convoluted explanations for vast increases in Antarctic sea ice.

It is a redistributionist scheme, not to mention a grow government/control scheme, and all these non-scientists who daily promote warming (most prominently, Barack, the Goracle, Tom Steyer, the billionaire who made his fortune in coal !) should be ashamed of themselves.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
NASA's James Hansen (former) is on record saying something similar about AGW...as in, hey we might be exaggerating but it's for their own good.

Latest from alarmists, the brilliant (not) Tyra Banks has predicted curvaceous women will become a threatened species as the food supply shrinks AND someone else has predicted that red hair will disappear as "the ginger gene" evolved in northern climes to increase susceptibility to low sun and won't be necessary once the unblocked sun in a cloudless sky can pour unimpeded onto human skin.

You can't make this stuff up.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Climate researcher Dr. Stephen Schneider (deceased) started his career in 1971 warning of a coming ice age. He recanted in 1974. In DISCOVER, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989, he wrote: QUOTE “…And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. UNQUOTE.

“…the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Schneider is still (selectively) quoted by AGW hysterics.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
From an article at American Thinker (Darren Jonescu)

To the warmists: do you, or any of your gods of peer review, propose solutions to anthropogenic global climate change which do not involve the violation of property rights, the restraint of individual liberty regarding matters of self-preservation (i.e., jobs and wealth-creation), the weakening of every nation's sovereignty in favor of increased "global governance," and the expanded empowerment of thousands of bureaucrats, think-tankers, and advisors accountable to no one?

Yeah, I thought so.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
The AGW alarmists have done more to cause skepticism about AGW than anyone else has and it's all because of their childish and bizarre behavior.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
jpdemille, "...what with his pointing out a lot of 'inconvenient facts'"... You mean "inconvenient truths", there...I fixed for you. ;)
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Science is NEVER settled. All hypotheses and theories, however solidly supported by the data so far, are tentative and subject to revision in response to new data. Anyone who utters the phrase "the science is settled" should be dismissed as ignorant of the scientific method. A SCIENTIST who utters it should never be trusted again; he's a con man.

The same goes for anyone who invokes the notion of "consensus" in a scientific context. Science does not work by consensus. The truth is not determined by a majority vote, but by following the evidence wherever it leads.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
― Galileo Galilei
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All