Monday, November 5, 2007

Skeptic Talks About His Nobel Prize

If you haven't read John Christy's piece in the Wall Street Journal, you should. Christy explains that as a contributor to the IPCC report, he is also part winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. But Christy explains that he is just one of many scientists who don't see global warming as the catastrophic threat to life on our planet that Al Gore claims it is. The full article is open to subscribers only, but I did note they are offering two free weekks with if you sign up for a subscription. You can read an excerpt here.

It reminds us that there are other scientists, whose expertise and knowledge was sought out by the IPCC but whose bottom-line opinion on athropogenic global warming doesn't match that of the official opinion expressed in the Summary for Policymakers (which as we know, was edited and compiled mostly by bureaucrats and not scientists). Chris Landsea, prominent expert on hurricanes and North Atlantic hurricanes particularly, resigned from the IPCC (read his open letter to the IPCC here) when he realized that the official statements regarding increased hurricane activity being a result of global warming was not supported by the data. Had he not resigned, he could have had his own 0.0001 piece of the Nobel Prize.

6 comments:

libhom said...

Nearly all of the "skeptics" are funded by CO2 emitting industries and the politicians they have bought.

Andrea said...

Well, that's the usual response. If you can't dispute the science, just say it was funded by big oil. It doesn't have to be true, just has to be repeated a lot.

But when James Hansen of NASA whose global warming rants and "whistleblowing" are put before the public daily without any mention of the over $700 thousand dollars in funding he received from a liberal political organization, that's okay.

When Al Gore exaggerates and makes claims in his movie that are not backed up by the scientific data, that's okay. He's lying for a good cause.

When Michael Mann invented the Hockey Stick Graph so prominently displayed in the Gore film, using a computer program designed to filter out any data that did not fit into the hockey stick pattern and in so doing produced a completely false picture of the historical data, that was okay too. The graph has been discredited and is no longer touted as the ultimate proof of global warming, but no one from the global warming camp has ever retracted any statement based on its false implications.

When the media actually report both sides of the argument instead of just the opinion of the global warming alarmists, it is called "information bias" or as Gore complained, the media is so balanced it is biased.

Ask yourself one question - if the skeptics are completely wrong and they are just a handful of paid stooges for the oil companies whereas there is a huge consensus on the anthropogenic global warming side, then why is there so much effort made to discredit them and throw mud? Why is the global warming camp so afraid of them if they are just cranks and puppets?

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the "global warming camp" is afraid of anyone, in fact the stance is; ok big oil cronies, go ahead and run your mouths...mother nature has proven to the pro-oil quacks, who obviously didn't base their evidence on any emperical data more like just discounting others' work, by heating things up a bit...lets just wait and see how the naysayers denie beachcombers north of the arctic cirle. Oh wait...ther're already there.

Andrea said...

Actually, that's not the stance. Many skeptics have been denied funding and even received threats.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to the entire transcript of the John Christy interview on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/se.01.html

What are the effects of global warming? said...

Most skeptics are indeed funded by CO2 emitting industries, and politicans treat most votes like children. But we must put our differences aside and learn how to get along and use our teamplay to prevent the next natural disaster!