Skeptic of Climate Change Finds Himself a Target of Suspicion

New York Times ^ | July 15, 2014 | By MICHAEL WINES

[Oldeconomybuyer]

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama here, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

“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.'  ”

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.

Dr. Christy has drawn the scorn of his colleagues partly because they believe so much is at stake and he is providing legitimacy to those who refuse to acknowledge that. If the models are imprecise, they argue, the science behind them is compelling, and it is very likely that the world has only a few decades to stave off potentially catastrophic warming.

He says he worries that his climate stances are affecting his chances of publishing future research and winning grants. The largest of them, a four-year Department of Energy stipend to investigate discrepancies between climate models and real-world data, expires in September.

“There’s a climate establishment,” Dr. Christy said. “And I’m not in it.”

[Pagey]

bttt

[GeronL]

They consider him a threat to their grant money

[capt. norm]

settled science is as non-existent as a unicorn.

The word pair is an oxymoron.

[Cuttnhorse]

Yes I can say there is no association with CO2 and climate change; the geologic record is full of data showing large swings in atmospheric CO2 and zero correlation with global temps...the earth has been historically warmer with low CO2 amounts and colder with highly elevated CO2.

The fact is, there is no direct correlation between CO2 and climate. Global climate change, (a rare occurrence on a global scale) is caused by a number of complex events and the most important atmospheric greenhouse component is water.

The enviro scam artists chose the wrong molecule.

[Justa]

"Professor Christy doesn’t know what he is talking about...there is NO, NONE, ZERO, association with CO2 and “climate change” and human activity is not involved at all...there is NO proof that CO2 has anything to do with global climate cycles."

Actually CO2 is strongly correlated with climate. But the warmists are looking at atmospheric CO2 rather than oceanic Co2. There is vastly more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere. However, CO2 concentration follows temperature change. It is a response to climate change it does not cause it. Atmospheric CO2 changes are mostly due to changes in the amount of CO2 held in solution in the oceans. Cool oceans mean more CO2 in solution. Warm oceans mean less CO2 in solution. Think of the pressure of a warm (unopened) soda bottle vs. a cold (unopened) soda bottle -or beer.

When water warms it releases CO2 held in solution. When it cools it absorbs more CO2.

CO2 does not cause climate change.

[edwinland]

“Yes I can say there is no association with CO2 and climate change; the geologic record is full of data showing large swings in atmospheric CO2 and zero correlation with global temps”

Can you post a link to a graph showing that? Most graphs I have seen show correlation, but unfortunately for the climate alarmists, there is evidence that temperature changes precede CO2 increases:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/a-new-paper-in-nature-suggests-co2-leads-temperature-but-has-some-serious-problems/

Yes, water is the most important molecule, which is why the crucial point in the debate is whether there is a feedback mechanism whereby small changes in temps caused by CO2 increases feed back into increases in water vapor. The link above offers one of many arguments that there is no feedback mechanism. Others have argued that it’s minimal or perhaps even negative (dampening).