JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

John Christy on “the Big Picture”



Geoff Derrick writes: The John Christie talk is one of the best I have seen for a long time, keeping things simple but very very effective in the message. It should be compulsory viewing while still in holiday mode to take 1 hour off and watch the main event.  It is just simply excellent, logical observation at work here.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (72 votes cast)
John Christy on "the Big Picture", 9.5 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zol8xxw

99 comments to John Christy on “the Big Picture”

  • #

    John Christie is as gracious as he is brilliant. I have nothing but respect for the man.

    This will be the year that we witness the beginning of the global warming death spiral. If Trump can’t drive a stake into the heart of this monster then it probably can’t be done.

    Would a climate scientists recant for a million dollars? You probably would half to pay him another half million to stop attempting to destroying the greatest scientific scam in history!

    It is all about the money. It won’t even cost thirty pieces of silver to see these fair weather “scientists” change their collective tune.

    Next scare?

    351

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      As I’ve remarked before, nothing stays around longer than a bad idea. So I wish everyone good luck in driving Eddy’s stake into the heart of this monster. I’ll even help all I can. But I no longer predict chickens before the eggs hatch.

      252

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And you’re welcome to call me cynical if you want to.

        150

        • #
          Tony Porter

          Unfortunately Roy, I can’t and won’t call you cynical even if I wanted to, because you have every reason to be…
          I have to be even more cynical than you and suggest that if anything, the opposite of what we’d all love to see happen will occur instead: The scaremongers with their destructive campaigning and propaganda which is already rampantly increasing of late, will drive a wooden stake into firstly Trump’s heart, then our collective sceptic hearts.
          Hate to say that, but I’m prepared for and expecting much worse to come yet, from the green filth.. But my GOD how I hope I am 100% WRONG!

          132

          • #
            Glen Michel

            We are generally older,wiser than these intellectual Lemmings(Lemming myths aside) that we must strive to ensure that we do not fail in trying to turn this around.They control the institutions for sure but I believe that some change has begun.Quitely and reservedly confident.

            100

        • #
          RoHa

          You’re cynical.

          And very probably right.

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            You’re cynical.

            And very probably right.

            That is the long and the short version of it all rolled up together.

            I’ve been accused of always seeing the glass half empty instead of half full. But no one ever asks if the water level is rising or falling. It has been falling for a long time. If anyone can make a counter argument, lets hear it because no matter how we expose their myth, they just add more nonsense, more guilt and more anger on top of the pile of nonsense they already have. Climate change is showing up in movies and TV series and the characters appear to take it seriously. I can’t see how that’s a win for skeptics.

            70

      • #
        Manfred

        A bad idea can indeed loiter about. The British Society of Phrenologists wasn’t formally disbanded until 1967, although a damning review of the practice had been published in 1823. Its inculturation led to a prolongation of its persistence in the face of scientific dismissal.

        More than a year ago (Oct 2015) John Christie gave this presentation ‘The Science and Politics of Climate Change’ at a University in Massachusetts (?), though I was unable to determine the host institution. The address was clear and disarmingly free from polemic. I was disappointed to observe that attendance appeared low. The caliber of the questions was very broad, and ranged from the inane, what would happen to future modeled temperature projection if the World ceased all emissions? to the insightful, why is there ‘consensus’?

        Regrettably, Christie omitted to define ‘climate change‘. To have done so would have clarified most succinctly why the definition can neither be falsified nor can it survive a test of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ and therefore why it is NOT essentially a scientific issue but a monumental scientific distraction and a colossally wasteful travesty. Christie rightly points out the political and moral dimensions of the issue but I think falls short of demonstrating that these are in fact the key theaters of a scientifically demonstrable non-problem that have been used to aggressively further the ends of a globalist Agenda by an eco-Marxist UN.

        The election of Trump has been identified to be the grand tripping point for the climate charade in particular, and climatism in general. This alone is evidence of its solely political MO. Tragically, the debasement of empirical science to its post-modern precautionary incarnation has facilitated the politically correct engagement of ‘scientists’ as paid, useful idiots. John Christie however, stands out among one of a small band of exceptional survivors, beacons of the scientific method and indeed, beacons of humanity.

        50

        • #
          Manfred

          It is lamentable that #1.1.2 is landed in ‘moderation’.

          10

        • #
          John of Cloverdale, WA

          “I was disappointed to observe that attendance appeared low”. So was I Manfred, but at least Dr. Christie was allowed to express his view without being either banned from the campus by the University, or, shouted down by protestors, which would happen in Australia.

          100

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      This is just like a game of chess! The next few moves will be critical if we are to win.
      GeoffW

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Chess has rules. I know exactly what I can and cannot do and so does my opponent. We agree to those rules when we learn chess. But this game seems to have rules that apply to only one side of the board. We stay honest and they don’t.

        I don’t know what game that is for sure but it looks more like war than chess.

        50

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Dr Christy.

    Someone should ask him how old he thinks the earth is :-)

    133

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Does anyone know where the original video is? I don’t like giving cut n’ paste YouTubers views, they have not earnt them.

      131

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      It is an old video. October 2015.

      (There is a video right there at the top of the blog post, watch it then comment on that instead) CTS

      130

      • #
        farmerbraun

        Great comments ; very informative. :-)

        122

        • #
          Glen Michel

          We can assume Twitotter thinks Earth is as old as his memory. Christy the believer in creation is to be ridiculed.What is important Twiotter is refute the evidence.You won’t because as the man says- the numbers speak for themselves.Unlike the contrivances of the Land/surface data which seeks to enforce a political message.

          142

    • #
      Yonniestone

      So a scientist who is actually qualified to comment on earths systems is derided by warmists because of his faith…is there nothing you lot wouldn’t complain about?

      On one side we have people that repeatedly contradict themselves via hypocrisy where the basics of science is concerned while demanding money for doing so and displaying an underlying dislike for humans in general.

      On the other we have people like John Christy who through sound scientific reasoning want to find actual answers regardless of career and personal attacks launched by people that couldn’t predict their next breath (ironically).

      292

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Yonniestone.

        “his faith”. Yes.

        Considering the anti-left vitriol I see in this blog, it is ironic that someone who believes in invisible beings and the supernatural gets a free pass.

        Ironic, indeed.

        I just dare someone to defend this irony to me – it will be interesting.

        (What I see is your typical evasions in being on topic developing,watch the Video,then you will have something to say about it) CTS

        229

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor Twotter, we are STILL waiting for some sort of technical argument against the video.

          Tick-tock.. crickets chirping

          Your EVASION of the actual topic is quite funny, in a dopey clown, sort of way.

          223

        • #
          AndyG55

          WATCH THE VIDEO, Twotter.

          Create rational, coherent arguments.

          144

        • #
          James Bradley

          Harry,

          Put your money where your mouth is and make a public declaration against the existence of Allah under your real identity.

          232

        • #
          Glen Michel

          What a weakling.You lefty chaps started this bilge and part deconstructing the name of science in the process.Leftie social engineers who know little about the realities of life but wish to impose some “enlightened ” template on the rest of us.O we are so loathesome and materialistic and warmongering we are told.You lot are the modern day Robespierres.I have yet to meet an impressive Left- winger as my experience dictates that you are ALL hypocrites .

          192

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I will defend this irony which you see.

          You believe God is not real. You even deride such belief by calling it “invisible beings and the supernatural”. However, you have only your own faith that there is no God. You haven’t gone to God and asked what he thinks about it. You would refuse to such a thing.

          For those of us to do believe in God; we fall into one of two categories. Category 1, those who chose to believe in God for whatever reason they choose to do so. Category 2, we have challenged God to reveal himself to us, which he did.

          For those in Category 2, it’s not a faith issue but and understanding that it is indeed true.

          Does this answer your irony?

          152

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Greg Cavanagh.

            So you are saying you have seen an invisible being? What did he look like: Zeus, Anglo with a brown beard, or dark with curly hair?

            “However, you have only your own faith that there is no God”

            Classic Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

            One thing about Dr Christy that is not ironic. First he boasts about being a missionary. Then he starts to talk about money – par for the course to be interested in tithe.

            321

            • #
              AndyG55

              WATCH THE VIDEO, Twotter

              Rational, coherent ON TOPIC discussion

              waiting… waiting.. !!

              92

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Harry never lets the facts get in the way of his biases. It is probably his only point of consistency.

                Have you answered my questions about the formulae used in the climate models, Harry? If you need to swap, I can offer the formula for calculating the attenuation of VHF radio signals over marshland. Would that interest you?

                72

            • #
              Len

              “Fools say to themselves ‘There is no God’ Psalm 14 & 53. ‘They are all corrupt’.

              72

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              You failed to see the irony.

              You have your belief that there is no God, Yet you have never sought him out. The irony that you are missing, is that you ridicule others who have a different belief, those who have sought him out and gotten an answer back.

              So, who then is the more ignorant? The one who believes but has never looked, or the one who looked and has become a believer?

              This is the true irony.

              132

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                ED.

                “[You should thank us for not publishing this. According to the wisdom of Harry, only Democrat Atheists are qualified to be Climate Scientists. Hmm pretty sad Harry. Have you considered the amount of dirty black coal that could be mined from your own heart? ] ED”

                I have read this twice, and I still cannot for the life of me understand your reasoning. I will leave it up to the readers of this blog.

                17

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Harry, Greg believes that there is “a something” that gives a point to life, and our being here to have this discussion. If that “something” did not exist, we would not be able to have this discussion.

              Who created the laws of physics? It certainly wasn’t Albert Einstein, or Richard Feynman. They both admit to only discovering, or finding them. In fact Feynman claims that Science is all about the discovery of the laws laid down by some higher force.

              But on the other hand, you are not really interested in discovering the laws that exist in nature, are you. You are more interested in ignoring the natural laws, and making stuff up to suit your political narrative. That is why you are despised on this site, just in case you were wondering.

              81

        • #
          tom0mason

          Harry,

          So you can not fault Dr. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
          Alabama in Huntsville on scientific grounds, you like a vicious lefty go for his religious beliefs.
          Yep, usual lefty tactic go for the man, not for the science knowledge he brings.
          You are truly pitiful!

          283

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          There is a great deal of discourse on the “death of civility” and the fact that the Left has murdered civil discourse.
          Hairy Twobeavers offers spectacular examples of the phenomenon here every day.

          172

        • #
          TedM

          While I was watching the video one of the thoughts foremost in mind was this. With John Christy presenting sound observational data, just who will be the first troll to distract from the data by attacking the messenger.

          Well Harry Twotter wins the prize. First prize goes to the bottom of the barrel.

          141

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          Twitter, his religion is no more unbelievable than yours and the rest of the 97%.

          81

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Well I’ve been a life long athiest since I was seven and I don’t have a problem with Christies empirical facts.

          The use of Ad-Hom attacks are a logical fallacy.

          Please lift your game, we chucked out appeals to authority in the Renaissance and replaced them with appeals to evidence and reason.

          It would be nice if you could try thinking like someone who wasn’t stuck in the 16th century.

          21

    • #
      AndyG55

      YAWN!!

      You really are getting BORING and over the top stupid.

      You are just trolling with meaningless yabber… STILL.

      203

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      It is a small and atrophied mind that cannot grasp that there are multiple ways of viewing a subject.
      http://www.mygroovyday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bunny-opticalillusion.jpg

      161

    • #
      AndyG55

      ZERO technical arguments from you, hey, Twotter.

      Nothing unusual about that.

      133

    • #
      AndyG55

      Twotter.. WATCH the video.

      It will do your mind a lot of good, you may even understand some of it.

      If you have arguments, do try to present them is coherent, rational way… just once. !!

      154

    • #
      bobl

      Who ever said God counts in earth years Harry? I have to say your discriminatory comments targeting John Christie’s religious belief system is obnoxious and rampantly off topic. I could belittle you as an amoral atheist too! It has NOTHING to do with Christie’s competence as a scientist.

      194

    • #
      el gordo

      Just because he believes in a supernatural entity, doesn’t suggest he thinks the world was actually created in seven days.

      92

      • #
        TedM

        If any one watching the video actually took note they would have heard Christie say that the oceans have been rising for 18,000 years. He referred to ice ages. it just demonstrates how someone with their own confirmation bias, (Harry twinotter) can not listen objectively to someone else who they presume believes in something that they do not.

        Yes John Christie is a Christian. Yes he believes in an act or acts of creation. So do I.

        Here’s your chance to have a go at me Harry.

        171

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          TedM.

          “Here’s your chance to have a go at me Harry.”

          It would explain why you like Conspiracy Theories then. They, like religion, require no evidence.

          211

          • #
            AndyG55

            “They, like religion, require no evidence.”

            Just like the religion of “CO2 forced Global Warming”, hey Twotter.

            You have STILL produced no evidence

            waiting, waiting.

            102

          • #
            Uncle Gus

            And atheism, I suppose, is evidence-based?

            There are reasons besides the scientific for believing something, and they generally apply where conclusive evidence is not to be had. Religious belief is a case in point.

            And yes, atheism is a religious belief. It was proved long ago that a conclusive proof of the existence of God is impossible with the data we have. That the same goes for the non-existence of God is a corollary few seem to be aware of.

            92

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              The opposite of belief is agnosticism. It is a perfect counter balance to research into science.

              62

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Uncle Gus.

              “And atheism, I suppose, is evidence-based?”

              Yes it is. If there is insufficient evidence for believing something, then there are no reasonable grounds for believing it.

              110

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Yes it is. If there is insufficient evidence for believing something, then there are no reasonable grounds for believing it.”

                Yet you “believe” in the scam that is “anthropogenic global whatever”.

                Zero evidence.. so, in your own words, no reasonable grounds for your belief.

                You need to get your mind fixed, Twooter.

                It keeps directing your feet to your mouth.

                52

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Harry , it’s your religion that seems to think climate only began a hundred years ago ! Do you really want to go back a few billion years then take the average ? I thought not .
      For a troll you’re not very good at it and does your mummy know that you’re playing troll on the internet when you should be asleep ?

      81

  • #
    doubtingdave

    If you understand the climate change movement as being part of an attempt to create global population control by a new world order elite , then you know what they are attempting is to ” fool all of the people all of the time ” what 2016 has shown , with Brexit and the Election of Trump etc is that they have only managed to control ” some of the people for some of the time ” via the MSM , that’s why they are trying to shut down the free thought media through censorship of the internet , they’ve lost and they no it

    232

  • #
    doubtingdave

    sorry , KNOW IT

    130

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Of course, we knew that.
      :-)
      So many good comments here on things ranging from science, pseudo SCIENCE (tm age iccccp), religion, civility, then a cartoon with a duck that is sometimes a dog just to remind us that things aren’t always what they seem to be and a lot of it, inspired, if not directly attributable to the efforts of Harriette Twintwots who has been subjected to, what appears to be undeserved name calling and well deserved denigration for his efforts to bring rational thinking to the world.

      The world is indeed a strange place when enlightenment can be so triggered by innocent ignorance.

      KK

      52

  • #
    Sean

    Given the current politics in Washington, it pretty clear that climate science funding is about to take a pretty big hit. Lindzen is recommending an 80-90% reduction in funding. Whether or not that level is appropriate or not I’m not in a position to judge but when the money gets tight, people have to defend their work. For way too long, the consensus scientists have gotten away with snubbing anyone who would disagree with their position. They simple refused to debate. Why should they, there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I suspect the shoe is now on the other foot and they have nothing to lose by debating. I hope that skeptics like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr. or Jr. and Judith Curry would welcome an open debate on the issues with consensus scientists.

    I recall Kenneth Trenberth and Roy Spencer exchanging positions on satellite measurements of long wave length measurements of the earths emissivity. They both made very good points and it became pretty easy to see how two different people with different points of view can make good rational arguments for different conclusions covering the same data sets that they were both familiar with. They demonstrated what a difficult problem understanding this aspect the climate really is.

    So as the US ushers in a new administration, lets hope to see a proper debate develop and I hope John Christy participating if not leading this effort.

    250

    • #
      Reed Coray

      I agree 100%. The consensus scientists have done more than snubbed “…anyone who would disagree with their position,” they have viewed it as immoral to debate skeptics. I expressed it this way (comment 37 at http://joannenova.com.au/2016/12/trump-appoints-even-more-skeptics/).

      Post Trump Election Win CAGW Mantra:
      We must publicly and vigorously debate AGW skeptics so that the truth can be communicated to all unenlightened fence sitters.”

      My interpretation of the Post Trump Election Win CAGW Mantra:
      It looks like the chief deplorable and many of his appointees (deplorable minions) will soon have their hands on our major money flow faucets; and all indications are that those faucets are about to be closed. Although public debate will expand the public’s awareness of the weakness of our arguments, that is no longer important. What is paramount is that we put pressure on the money-faucet controllers. We’re going to lose general credibility, but we just might reach a few faucet controllers. Therefore, public debate is no longer immoral, it is virtuous.”

      For the CAGW crowd, money Trumps morality.

      60

  • #
    tom0mason

    A good addition to this video is House Testimony of Prof. John Christy, Feb. 2016 [2.8MB pdf], where he says (along with much else also covered in the video) —

    The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of “argument from authority.” Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written testimony for several congressional hearings (e.g., House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus.

    The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals – I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the “experts” called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    As outlined in my previous testimonies, these “experts” become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. This becomes an obvious conflict of interest. But with the luxury of having the “last word” as “expert” authors of the reports, alternative views vanish. This is not a process that provides the best information to the peoples’ representatives. The U.S. Congress must have the full range of views on issues such as climate change which are (a) characterized by considerable ambiguity (see model results) (b) used to promote regulatory actions
    which will be economically detrimental to the American people and, most ironically, (c) will have no impact on whatever the climate will do.

    Hopefully, soon to be President Trump will have watched and listened to Dr. Christy’s voice of sanity, and understands what action is urgently required.

    171

    • #
      Robert O

      I like Dr. Christies comment (c) that will have no impact on whatever the climate will do.

      Irrespective of whatever the models predict so far their success rate is so low as to render them useless; and yet those espousing their virtues, Drs. Karoly, Steffen, Flannery et. al. are still enjoying the benefit of wide acceptance in political, media and community arena.

      Every comment about climate change on the ABC is usually accompanied by the smokestacks of some UK coal station silhouetted against a darkened sky. Herr Goebells would be proud of his legacy in educating the masses.

      140

  • #
    Eric Simpson

    The first 20 minutes of this Christie video are the best.

    Indeed, I was thinking that if you were trying to put together a very short group of key videos to show a warmist friend or relative I would lead with this Christie video.

    But clip out just the first 20 or 19 minutes. I start with that video because if you’re unfamiliar with the failure of the climate models .. Christie, who sounds very reasonable and logical, brings that point to the fore and makes it clear that in the failure of the models we see that the central part of the warmist theory has been totally repudiated.

    Next, I would show them this awesome 23 minute video: Physicist Lawrence Krauss Bombs (gets it all wrong) out on Climate Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw6YMJd-tw

    In the above Krauss video a tough skeptic narrator in a very compelling and satisfying way takes apart, point by point, all the major warmist talking points. The Krauss video provides the most anti-warmist bang per minute that I’ve ever seen!

    140

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    I know it’s OT but can’t help but notice their ABC almost everyday runs a story on CAGW and how it’s affecting oz .
    The latest is some scientists studying ring neck parrots and they conclude the tail feathers have grown in length by 5 mm and the yellow colour is a bit brighter , they have reached this conclusion by comparing birds from Perth to Kalgoorlie with long dead stuffed ones .
    Is it just me or does anyone else think “what the” ?

    111

  • #
    Amber

    Everyone in the MSM writing about climate would benefit by taking an hour to consider Dr. Christ’s overview .

    What have they got to lose ?

    You will never ever see Al Gore or his pupil DiCaprio debate people like Dr. Christy . In fact
    NASA scientists won’t even appear to discuss the evidence provided by Dr.Christy and others .

    Governments have wasted $Billions on a complete overblown global warming fraud .

    Would a cancer drug be allowed on the market if the modeled results were over 100 % wrong compared to reality outcomes biased
    in one direction as is the case with climate models ? Yet $ Billions are taken from tax payers and future generations.

    Why ? When people are being fleeced they are not allowed to pursue their rights to life ,liberty and happiness .

    When I talk with some people who realize the science isn’t settled and global warming isn’t a bad thing
    the one thing they very often fall back on for justification is their strongly held view that there are too many people in the world .
    Fuel poverty kills people ensuring the rich survive . As Dr . Christy says the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income towards fuel costs and a carbon tax hits them the hardest. Less money = poorer food , education etc . etc .

    91

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Amber I agree; the argument against the climate alarmists is so clear and simple that one can only conclude that the purpose of the AGW lie is control! World control by an elitist minority for their own devious ideology and purpose. They have to be defeated!
      GeoffW

      71

      • #
        Tony Porter

        Viv Forbes covers that very thoroughly HERE.
        That’s what we should be worrying about: the real agenda that their CAGW scam is actually masking. We could argue the science (or pseudo-science) proving the reality of CAGW, or climate change until Hell freezes over and I am now convinced that’s all part of their evil SOCIALIST plan too: While everyone’s busy squabbling over whether or not the science is settled and if 97% of scientists agree etc. etc., the people are not seeing the huge elephant in the room.

        71

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    John Christie ; knows the science and he understands the politics of the subject.
    Outstanding presentation for simplicty, clarity & dare I say honesty.
    What was interesting grom the audience of young people was just how naive some of the questions were. Christie however answered without any attempt at point scoring.
    Geoff W

    91

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Yes, GW, I was just about to comment on that myself. I was astounded, at the end of the presentation, to see how few there were in the auditorium and felt how disinterested at least one of them, on a computer, seemed to be. The questions he got were, in the main, facile and one would think that at least some of the questioners really had not understood what he was talking about. But, I agree, he dealt with the questions fully and without condescension. A true scientist.

      70

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    In case you did not notice the cherry-picking going on in Dr Christy’s presentation. He showed the results for the Tropical Middle Troposphere, not Global or surface temperatures.

    This is a better version of the graph with Dr Christy’s “tricks” removed:

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/christy_trop_new.png

    You need to keep in mind Dr Chirsty has an agenda to support the fossil fuel industry.

    Someone else can wade thru the financials stuff, I find that boring.

    116

    • #
      AndyG55

      WRONG.. as usual, Twotter.

      He compare tropical troposphere models vs tropical troposphere real data.

      … like for like.. and showed the models are woefully WRONG !!

      Anything else, Twotter?

      Dr Christy does not receive any funding from fossil fuel.

      YOU ARE LYING, AS ALWAYS.

      He has an agenda to get to THE TRUTH… something you will never accept or even comprehend.

      You find anything that proves you wrong, boring, don’t you Twotter.

      132

    • #
      Annie

      Easily bored I see?! Not the only time. If you can’t be bothered to take a proper interest why are you wasting our time with your ignorance Harry?

      93

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Annie.

        Any comment on the data I posted? I have some more if you do not understand.

        39

        • #
          AndyG55

          Twotter..

          Have you got any coherent arguments against anything presented in the video.

          You, know.. based on facts, rather than you biased imaginations of what think was said.

          So far you are STILL batting zero.. and you have been hanging around for a long time.

          113

    • #
      Mark D.

      Harry says:

      You need to keep in mind Dr Chirsty has an agenda to support the fossil fuel industry.

      With no supporting evidence.

      Harry is always spouting “conspiracy” and with the quote above proves him holding fast to his own conspiracy theory.

      133

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        He stated quite clearly, Trotter, that his only income was from the university. He even refused a fee for providing expert evidence in a court case. You obviously were not listening.

        112

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          PeterPetrum.

          “He stated quite clearly, Trotter, that his only income was from the university..”

          I am amazed that people can dismiss what thousands of climate scientists write in their research papers, but will accept as gospel what others say as long as it confirms a personal bias.

          Yes, indeed… from The Shreveport Petroleum Club.

          http://sgs1.org/events/2015/5/19/monthly-meeting-the-science-and-politics-of-climate-change

          38

          • #
            AndyG55

            So Twotter , where does it mention he is being paid.

            And did you notice the HUGE entry fees.. truly Al Gore levels… NOT

            There is no way that there is any “income” for John Christy coming from those entry fees. That would barely cover venue hire and a nibble of food.

            So

            YOU ARE LYING YET AGAIN

            ZERO proof.. just empty yabbering.. as always.

            82

            • #
              AndyG55

              Looks like John is not charging a speakers fee.

              Wonder how many of the AGW priests would do that, hey Twotter.

              What does Big Al charge again ???? $100,000 + isn’t it. Talk about SCAM !!!

              You can tell which one is in it FOR THE MONEY.

              and which one for the TRUTH. !

              I’m sure that if one of the local Alabama “climate” groups were to invite John to talk..

              … he would do that for free (or travel + accommodation expenses: same thing)

              42

          • #
            Mark D.

            Ha Ha HAA HAhhhhh ha a

            Harry you bust my gut with that!

            Dr. Christy is “proven” to be massively compensated by BIG OIL.

            By Harry Twinotter
            ____________________________________________
            I was too hard on Harry up thread. I think John Christy probably does have an agenda to support the fossil fuel industry.

            The fact is, I have an agenda to support the fossil fuel industry. Why would any sane, rational person not support them?

            It’s damn cold (-15F) right now and the furnace is on more than off. I’m mighty supportive of the fossil fuel industry right now. A little later, when I leave my warm house and get into my V8 powered truck (that has been idling for 30 minutes to warm up) I’ll speed down the road 9 miles to work burning up some more fossils. The office will be warm and the lights and computers will actually work!

            Yes sir! I’m really happy to support the fossil fuel industry. Nuclear is fine too, Dams? I like dams just fine.

            01

    • #
      Dave in the States

      In case you did not notice the cherry-picking going on in Dr Christy’s presentation.

      “Cherry picking” has become a standard accusation. It is almost like a reflex anymore. However, it is meaningless in most cases, because the subject at hand is so vast and complex that it is impossible to be comprehensive.

      Anytime somebody presents an argument that is focused and coherent, and in context, it will leave something that is not in context out.

      101

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Dave in the States.

        ““Cherry picking” has become a standard accusation”

        Well, some may refer to it as an “accusation”, others may refer to it as relevant scientific evidence that was not covered.

        18

        • #
          AndyG55

          “scientific evidence that was not covered.”

          So Twotter can be accused of cherry picking in 100% of his comments…

          …. because he NEVER covers any scientific evidence.

          Still empty baseless rhetoric.. as always.

          81

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Dr Christy explained in the video exactly why that graph was shown.

      Did you not listen to the presentation?

      121

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Greg Cavanagh.

        “Did you not listen to the presentation?”

        To answer your rhetorical question: Yes, I did. I have been familiar with Dr Christy’s arguments for some time. He only presents data from the Tropical Mid Troposphere in this case.

        28

        • #
          AndyG55

          He compared like with like, and showed that the models were absolutely WOEFUL.

          The same comparison in any other place also shows the models are WOEFULLY in error.

          It going to be hilarious watch in the scammers and the worker trolls trying to defend the models once the coming La Nina and sleepy sun start to kick in over next several years…
          … and the divergence between climate models and reality get so bad you could drive a platoon through the gap.

          71

    • #
      tom0mason

      Harry,

      “Dr Chirsty has an agenda to support the fossil fuel industry.”

      You don’t mean like Al Gore has, do you? After all when Al took over the family business he was selling coal before moving into oil.

      [Yes I'm using your tactics] :)

      81

      • #
        tom0mason

        Occidental Oil Shale, Inc., (a former) subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum for instance?

        71

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        tom0mason.

        “You don’t mean like Al Gore has, do you?”

        Warning – subject change. I thought this post was about Dr Christy? Why mention a non-science US politician?

        16

  • #
    Annie

    Why bother feeding that troll…it’s just a waste of time and effort. Goodnight from the Eastern States!

    72

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    I have to say that this is probably the best climate sceptic presentation I have yet seen. Dr. Christy’s matter of fact delivery, his total lack of heat even when he talks about the Congressional investigation of him, is immensely impressive!

    I love the way he handles the questions. I suspect that many of those kids literally have never seen a climate sceptic before!

    82

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    I certainly agree. Comparable to this Muuray Slaby presentation or this Bob Carter presentation. The latter is quite dated now, but still relevant.

    20

  • #
    ImranCan

    I was a little disappointed in the students questions. Apart from the smart black kid at the end, most of the questions were loaded and came from clearly brainwashed individuals who could not even get the their logic straight. The girls asking why we should lumber our grandchildren with problems we create today completely missed Christies main point that there isn’t a problem. Is that really the cream of American academia ?

    31

    • #
      AndyG55

      The question is quite legitimate.

      Why should be lumber our children or anyone else with useless irregular power supplies that decimate avian wildlife. Why have the people of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne been lumbered with the cost of the desalination plants.
      Why have the children of South Australia been lumbered with the continued prospect of regular electricity blackouts and massive unemployment as industry leaves the state.

      This AGW scam will prove to be very cruel to future generations if it can’t be halted pretty darn soon, and if the full Agenda 21 is ever allowed to be implemented, it will devastate the whole planet.

      61

      • #
        ImranCan

        Yes fully agree … but I think the girl was implying that by not limiting CO2 we are creating a problem for our descendents. But indeed it is a shame that Christie missed the opportunity to turn it around and play the question out like you have suggested.

        00