Here
is what people are saying about Christy. Take it for what it is worth. Seems like he has been wrong and had made some mistakes
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3314301/scurvy-wrong-john-christy-climate/
Just a couple key notes. Christy and a colleague screwed up data involving climate change, they sat on the data for 10 years believing they were right even though other scientists debunked them.
Christy attempts to debunk climate change in a book in 2002. The book was bought and paid for by EXXON Mobile.
seems to me the righties are saying money is a
hey factor for climate change scientists when it appears to me there are groups funding out $$$$ to scientists on the other side
Here is more on anti climate change scientists
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...b/21/nazis-climate-contrarian-credibility-gap
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...b/21/nazis-climate-contrarian-credibility-gap
Well that's fine it posts FACTS about Christy. These articles I would agree are from the lefts but the info isn't editorial. It is factual information.
I would encourage anyone to google Christy and read how wrong he was when it comes to climate change and screwed up 10 years of data and was so stubborn he wouldn't change it but now his data was corrected and he is laughed at by majority of scientists. You can also read how he was a paid contributer by Exxon mobile for a book denouncing global warming. After reading what I have read I have become more convinced in man made climate change. The fact that the righties on this site disagree increases my confidence.
Do the research on the scientists
After more than 25 years reporting and commenting on this topic for various media organizations, and having started out alarmed, that’s where I have ended up. But it is not just I that hold this view. I share it with a very large international organization, sponsored by the United Nations and supported by virtually all the world’s governments: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself.
The IPCC commissioned four different models of what might happen to the world economy, society and technology in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century and what each would mean for the climate, given a certain assumption about the atmosphere’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide. Three of the models show a moderate, slow and mild warming, the hottest of which leaves the planet just 2 degrees Centigrade warmer than today in 2081-2100. The coolest comes out just 0.8 degrees warmer.
Now two degrees is the threshold at which warming starts to turn dangerous, according to the scientific consensus. That is to say, in three of the four scenarios considered by the IPCC, by the time my children’s children are elderly, the earth will still not have experienced any harmful warming, let alone catastrophe.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/19/ipcc-climate-change-warming/
The IPCC commissioned four different models of what might happen to the world economy, society and technology in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century and what each would mean for the climate, given a certain assumption about the atmosphere’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide. Three of the models show a moderate, slow and mild warming, the hottest of which leaves the planet just 2 degrees Centigrade warmer than today in 2081-2100. The coolest comes out just 0.8 degrees warmer.
Now two degrees is the threshold at which warming starts to turn dangerous, according to the scientific consensus. That is to say, in three of the four scenarios considered by the IPCC, by the time my children’s children are elderly, the earth will still not have experienced any harmful warming, let alone catastrophe.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/19/ipcc-climate-change-warming/
You are right consensus is not science. I was referring to what a very smart man wrote. He writes 97% agree. Should I believe him or believe you? Should I believe what 97% predict or should I believe what 3% predict. Considering some of the 3% have been proven to provide false data regarding other studies they have done.
see my thoughts are based on what I have read by scientists, not what Obama says. You base your opinion on pure politics.
Yeah you're good. Until Surgeon Manslice enters the room.
Nice day in the Philly Burbs. Temps 10 degrees below what you'd expect for late June
Day Jun 21
Partly Cloudy
Chance of rain:10% Wind: ENE at 4 mph Humidity:47% UV Index:8 - Very High Sunrise: 5:31 am Moonset: 3:09 pm Moonphase:Waning Crescent A mix of clouds and sun. High 77F. Winds light and variable.
It is factual information.
Yes, to get to these "facts" you have to go from think progress to a "skeptical science" blog
he was a paid contributer by Exxon mobile for a book
^ That is an absolute lie.
i take that back he gives expertise to a book funded by Exxon weather he was paid I do not know
Yeah you're good. Until Surgeon Manslice enters the room.
Nice day in the Philly Burbs. Temps 10 degrees below what you'd expect for late June
Day Jun 21
77[SUP]°F[/SUP]High
Partly Cloudy
Chance of rain:10% Wind: ENE at 4 mph Humidity:47% UV Index:8 - Very High Sunrise: 5:31 am Moonset: 3:09 pm Moonphase:Waning Crescent A mix of clouds and sun. High 77F. Winds light and variable.
What's your point? What will you post she the weather is 10 degrees above normal?
Christy makes a lot of sense herr
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/03/20/4093680/john-r-christy-climate-science.html
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/03/20/4093680/john-r-christy-climate-science.html
Nice day in the Philly Burbs. Temps 10 degrees below what you'd expect for late June
Day Jun 21
77[SUP]°F[/SUP]High
Partly Cloudy
Chance of rain:10% Wind: ENE at 4 mph Humidity:47% UV Index:8 - Very High Sunrise: 5:31 am Moonset: 3:09 pm Moonphase:Waning Crescent A mix of clouds and sun. High 77F. Winds light and variable.
This is the first undeniable set of facts in the entire thread.
