3 ms·

Highly recommend people read Dr. Christy's congressional testimony from 2016 [1]. It gets disparaged as "climate denialism," but if you read it (or watch the re

Highly recommend people read Dr. Christy's congressional testimony from 2016 [1]. It gets disparaged as "climate denialism," but if you read it (or watch the recording), you'll see that he's arguing from a factual basis; not some kooky hyperbole. [1] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG...

wredue 3y ago
“Climate change is not real because a specific model I chose to run from spotty 1950s data over cooks the atmosphere.” Misapplying models, in this case through the intentional omission of proper data for said model cause it didn’t exist at the time, is a commonly reoccurring theme from climate change deniers. What this person did is tantamount to when PHDs carbon date an object known to be millions of years old, land on 6,000 years, then say “see earth is actually young.” Carbon dating doesn’t work on extremely old objects, so this is a misapplication of carbon dating with the intent to deceive and mislead. In other words, it’s shit tier science created specifically to mislead.
ryanjamurphy 3y ago
It doesn't respond to the 2016 address, but this site [1] has a table of many of Christy's claims and evidence against them. A central graph in the 2016 address (found on page 2) has numerous visualization issues (e.g., misalignment of the lines on the graph to exaggerate differences, no uncertainty ranges are provided, averaging data sets in the curves, leaving out data) [2]. [1]: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm [2]: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
beders 3y ago
If this guy has any actual evidence he should publish it in peer-reviewed journals. Others should be able to reproduce his work. Everything else is just noise.

wredue 3y ago

“Climate change is not real because a specific model I chose to run from spotty 1950s data over cooks the atmosphere.” Misapplying models, in this case through the intentional omission of proper data for said model cause it didn’t exist at the time, is a commonly reoccurring theme from climate change deniers. What this person did is tantamount to when PHDs carbon date an object known to be millions of years old, land on 6,000 years, then say “see earth is actually young.” Carbon dating doesn’t work on extremely old objects, so this is a misapplication of carbon dating with the intent to deceive and mislead. In other words, it’s shit tier science created specifically to mislead.

ryanjamurphy 3y ago

It doesn't respond to the 2016 address, but this site [1] has a table of many of Christy's claims and evidence against them. A central graph in the 2016 address (found on page 2) has numerous visualization issues (e.g., misalignment of the lines on the graph to exaggerate differences, no uncertainty ranges are provided, averaging data sets in the curves, leaving out data) [2]. [1]: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm [2]: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

beders 3y ago

If this guy has any actual evidence he should publish it in peer-reviewed journals. Others should be able to reproduce his work. Everything else is just noise.