|
|
Post by gdfernan on May 14, 2009 20:47:14 GMT
John Christy has been interviewed very favourably in the Fortune magazine, and it is now featured on CNN Business report. money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009051412This seems to me to be a momentous moment. Not only is the article very favourable to Christy, but it takes a huge swipe at Jim Hansen. Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades." Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.Time to break out the bubbly? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 15, 2009 9:33:11 GMT
Since John Christy has been arguing against the consensus for 20 years (and most of the time he was using his satellite data analysis that has now been shown to be wrong), his contrarianism is not news.
The CNN article is bunk in other ways though. I have never seen a claim in the "blogosphere" that he takes oil money - he's just pretending to be a victim. On googling just now, the only link I could find between him and "oil" was not in the blogosphere, but in that he contributed a chapter to a book called "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths" written by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is a lobbyist for big business (5 new from $17.94 19 used from $2.15 from Amazon if you're interested).
|
|
|
|
Post by gdfernan on May 15, 2009 13:56:42 GMT
Since John Christy has been arguing against the consensus for 20 years (and most of the time he was using his satellite data analysis that has now been shown to be wrong), his contrarianism is not news. What is news though is that the liberal MSM is giving a favourable hearing to a gloabl warming realist. Generally, even when they would quote a realist, it is after devoting several paragraphs to the opinion of a warmist, followed by a brief mention of the opinion of a realist, and then immediately quoting another warmist to contradict the realist. In this case, the opposite MO has been followed, with Hansen being belittled by the article's own research, and Christy asked to comment on Hansen's contradictions. The very fact that Hansen is being mocked by an MSM source is momentous news. The CNN article is bunk in other ways though Finally a global warming advocate calling an MSM article regarding GW "Bunk" must be quite unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on May 15, 2009 14:07:22 GMT
In agw speak, bunk means not predicting the end of civilization as we know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 15, 2009 14:29:23 GMT
Since John Christy has been arguing against the consensus for 20 years (and most of the time he was using his satellite data analysis that has now been shown to be wrong), his contrarianism is not news. The CNN article is bunk in other ways though. I have never seen a claim in the "blogosphere" that he takes oil money - he's just pretending to be a victim. On googling just now, the only link I could find between him and "oil" was not in the blogosphere, but in that he contributed a chapter to a book called "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths" written by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is a lobbyist for big business (5 new from $17.94 19 used from $2.15 from Amazon if you're interested). It’s funny. You claim originality in what you post, yet most everything comes straight from the AWG script.” Contrarianism”? Don’t you think that term is a bit worn out? Let’s call your views “Idiotism”; that fits well, and is fresh. Now you say and most of the time he was using his satellite data analysis that has now been shown to be wrong Wrong? What has been shown to be wrong? By whom? Put up or shut up. After all the poetic gibberish lo these many past months, you’ve yet to provide one shred of observational evidence in support of the CO2 AGW “greenhouse” effect. The indisputable fact the tropical troposphere is not warming as your beloved manufactured consensus predicts, should at least cause a sign of electrical activity in the brains of even the most casual observer, yet it does not in the minds of True Believers. Instead, the purveyors of the CO2 AGW cult come up with excuses and make up new rules to form a perpetual irrefutable hypothesis. As you haven’t revealed your source of income, but have inferred an apparent disdain for capitalism, I’d wager it’s likely to be sucking off the government sow (taxpayers) in one form or another since Big Business is apparently an evil tool of Contrarianism in your world view. Be careful of blurting out Freudian slips. Tell us steve, where did Al Gore get $300,000,000 for his latest propaganda campaign? Ah, I see, Big Green is good, everything else big is bad. Tell the millions of laid off Big Business related employees of the Big Green jobs waiting for them. You know, the jobs that don’t exist and never will, save for Big Government taxing the hell out of those of us left working to support these phony “Green” industries. Yes, we'll all be part of one big happy Collective. I work for a big business not yet taken over by the government, and yes, am proud of it. We enjoy the fruits of our labor through the benefits of capitalism. Environmentalism is anti-capitalist, anti-growth and against anything to do with free market concepts. It is born out of socialism and fascism, and unless stopped, we shall very soon witness the death of prosperity as we’ve known it. California is the perfect model to gage what happens when Environmentalism mixed with Big Government runs amuck. Obama will drag the rest of the country down with Kalifornia. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 15, 2009 14:31:07 GMT
Since John Christy has been arguing against the consensus for 20 years (and most of the time he was using his satellite data analysis that has now been shown to be wrong), his contrarianism is not news. What is news though is that the liberal MSM is giving a favourable hearing to a gloabl warming realist. OK. I don't know what MSM is, and I don't watch CNN, so I'll take your word for it. It's a pretty soft interview if it can focus so much on the fact that Hansen's predictions have been reduced from a catastrophic 4.2C down to a catastrophic 3C while failing to point out the errors in John Christy's satellite data analysis that were resolved by other people because they disagreed with the models that Christy appears to dislike. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 15, 2009 14:48:01 GMT
Since John Christy has been arguing against the consensus for 20 years (and most of the time he was using his satellite data analysis that has now been shown to be wrong), his contrarianism is not news. The CNN article is bunk in other ways though. I have never seen a claim in the "blogosphere" that he takes oil money - he's just pretending to be a victim. On googling just now, the only link I could find between him and "oil" was not in the blogosphere, but in that he contributed a chapter to a book called "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths" written by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is a lobbyist for big business (5 new from $17.94 19 used from $2.15 from Amazon if you're interested). Christy even called it for Steve's reply. "he (Hansen)did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them." So on que Steve comes back with an ad hominem. How childish! |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 15, 2009 14:55:50 GMT
Since John Christy has been arguing against the consensus for 20 years (and most of the time he was using his satellite data analysis that has now been shown to be wrong), his contrarianism is not news. The CNN article is bunk in other ways though. I have never seen a claim in the "blogosphere" that he takes oil money - he's just pretending to be a victim. On googling just now, the only link I could find between him and "oil" was not in the blogosphere, but in that he contributed a chapter to a book called "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths" written by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is a lobbyist for big business (5 new from $17.94 19 used from $2.15 from Amazon if you're interested). It’s funny. You claim originality in what you post, yet most everything comes straight from the AWG script.” Contrarianism”? Don’t you think that term is a bit worn out? Let’s call your views “Idiotism” Hey icefisher. Magellan wants to teach you about ad hominems. It's common knowledge, and I've seen Christy's colleague Roy Spencer own up to it on TV. Here's an example which resolved one of the errors that was due to the wrong sign being applied to a correction. Science 2 September 2005: Vol. 309. no. 5740, pp. 1548 - 1551 DOI: 10.1126/science.1114772 The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 15, 2009 15:19:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 15, 2009 15:26:27 GMT
What is news though is that the liberal MSM is giving a favourable hearing to a gloabl warming realist. OK. I don't know what MSM is, and I don't watch CNN, so I'll take your word for it. It's a pretty soft interview if it can focus so much on the fact that Hansen's predictions have been reduced from a catastrophic 4.2C down to a catastrophic 3C while failing to point out the errors in John Christy's satellite data analysis that were resolved by other people because they disagreed with the models that Christy appears to dislike. Catastrophe, hmmm... 1. Cancer is a catastrophe; plenty of toxic waste dumps needing cleanup where you live in the UK, Steve, just as there are throughout the industrialized west (and around the world) 2. Malnutrition is a catastrophe; Gore, Hansen et al.'s recitation of damaging climate change diverts attention and dollars from feeding people who, through no fault of their own, were born at the wrong place and time. Four million will die from malnutrition this year, as every year. Not in 2100 from rising sea levels. Now. Today. 3. Malaria is a catrastrophe. Hundreds of millions of cases a year (many reinfections)... By the way, the greatest outbreak of malaria in terms of deaths was in Siberia 90 years ago. 4. AIDS is a catastrophe; millions of orphans in Africa and elsewhere. These catastrophes are real. The catastrophe in your mind and Jim Hansen's mind and Al Gore's mind is in your minds. Do you see the difference?  |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 15, 2009 15:37:24 GMT
What is news though is that the liberal MSM is giving a favourable hearing to a gloabl warming realist. OK. I don't know what MSM is, and I don't watch CNN, so I'll take your word for it. LOL, amusing...in case that wasn't an intentional joke (and there's no shame in not knowing what these fly-by-night abbreviations are...I know I've had to dig through at times to find some) MSM means main-stream media But that's just it, there's been NO fact checking in the MSM for ages now. They just rattle off any old figure anyone cares to quote without any balance at all. They've been bashing everyone over the head with things like..."Hansen predicts it will warm by 4.2C", "sea levels to rise by 6 meters", "Sea ice at the north pole to be gone by 2008" or "Unprecedented melting of ice sheets" when the warming trend is more like .6 or .7C/century, the rate of sea level rise is essentially unchanged, the polar ice is recovering and the ice sheets are losing tens of cubic kilometers per year to be sure...but out of MILLIONS of cubic kilomoters of ice. So the bottom line is...you shouldn't start criticizing NOW just because they let in a possible mistake when they've been spouting outright lies in just about all the articles for over a decade now. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 15, 2009 16:28:32 GMT
Most of the little that I read in the MSM (there - I'm getting with the TLAs) is bunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on May 16, 2009 3:45:39 GMT
4. AIDS is a catastrophe; millions of orphans in Africa and elsewhere. These catastrophes are real. The catastrophe in your mind and Jim Hansen's mind and Al Gore's mind is in your minds. Do you see the difference? I'm with you with 2 and 3. Cardiovascular disease kills around twice as many worldwide as Cancer. AIDS as a catastrophe? IMO it has much in common with our current climate catastrophe scam. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on May 16, 2009 8:07:43 GMT
4. AIDS is a catastrophe; millions of orphans in Africa and elsewhere. These catastrophes are real. The catastrophe in your mind and Jim Hansen's mind and Al Gore's mind is in your minds. Do you see the difference? I'm with you with 2 and 3. Cardiovascular disease kills around twice as many worldwide as Cancer. AIDS as a catastrophe? IMO it has much in common with our current climate catastrophe scam. Maybe if you lived in Africa you'd see this differently. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on May 16, 2009 8:09:18 GMT
Most of the little that I read in the MSM (there - I'm getting with the TLAs) is bunk. So you're saying the public pronouncements of the AGW scientists are bunk. We're getting somewhere at last. |
|
