From E & E News
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
Climatewire: Friday, February 1, 2019 
John Christy, director of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, Earth System Science Center, will join EPA’s Science Advisory Board. Michael Mercier/University of Alabama, Huntsville
The Earth will benefit from burning more fossil fuels and regulations on greenhouse gases must be challenged, one of EPA’s newest science advisers said yesterday.
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Hunstville, was one of the first to push the federal government to conduct a “red team, blue team” debate on climate science. That was a decade ago. Now he wants to use his new perch on the agency’s Science Advisory Board to challenge climate science consensus.
“There’s a benefit, not a cost, to producing energy from carbon,” Christy said in an interview yesterday, after EPA announced his membership on the board.
Christy, who is a frequent critic of EPA regulations, said he will use his position on the 45-member board to question the results of climate models. He’s a frequent speaker at conservative think tanks that promote the notion that worldwide temperature increases are largely unrelated to human activity.
So how did Christy get a seat on the board?
EPA officials asked him to apply, he said.
“In a fair, open, and transparent fashion, EPA reviewed hundreds of qualified applicants nominated for this committee,” acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. “Members who will be appointed or reappointed include experts from a wide variety of scientific disciplines who reflect the geographic diversity needed to represent all ten EPA regions.”
When asked what his first priority would be as a member of the SAB, Christy said he would try to convince his colleagues that nature is responsible for rising temperatures, not people.
“I think it would be to demonstrate to the board what we know about climate and its variability and what’s really going on,” Christy said. “And secondly is our inability to characterize it well with our models.”
The Trump administration has been stacking EPA’s science advisory boards with researchers and consultants whose work is often funded or promoted by industry. It has reached out to critics of climate science and air pollution regulations to serve on the boards.
Most climate scientists would say that Christy is wrong when he asserts that climate models overestimate warming. The models match up well with real-world observations, said Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Christy and other critics have focused on a particular version of climate satellite data when arguing that planetary warming is less severe than scientists have stated, Schmidt said. An examination of surface temperature data, ocean heat content, sea ice trends, sea levels and more shows that the Earth is warming at a rapid pace and setting historical records, he said.
You win some and you in some.
Congratulations Dr. Christy!
Yes, some common sense, FINALLY!!
Congratulations, AMERICA!
And THANK YOU, Dr. Christy!
(The article is a mess, though, and the headline is worse.)
With our Carbon Capture utilization System, we turn CO2 into money.
https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo
Except, it is crazy to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. CO2 is plant food!
Au contraire James. Farmers pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into money all the time. :>)
Nonsense.
farmers work hard to allow and foster crops to grow. Preventing Mother Nature from consuming/destroying substantial portions of the crops is not easy nor is it very profitable.
sid needs to prove their carbon capture claims are genuine, without taxpayer grants, subsidies or taxes.
I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s saying. Farmers turn CO2 into crops, which are sold to a hungry nation.
Making electricity more expensive in order to solve a problem that never existed is beyond stupid.
Mods: how much longer is this site going to allow Sid to pump for investors for his ponzi scheme?
Wow a “saving of over 900%” . How does that work?
Saving 50% , I can understand; saving 99% I can understand but you can not “save” more that 100%.
Anyone making claims like that is either a con merchant or simply innumerate. Either way they don’t get to play with my savings.
@Greg: That quote just made me LOL… really.
Thanks!
Two sentences in Sid, and the lies and BS are already thick.
“…climate change, better known as global warming”.
“Scientists have determined that CO2, especially CO2 that CO2 which comes from using coal to produce electricity, is a leading cause of climate change.”
No need to listen any further when the intro starts out so completely fact-free and deliberately misleading.
In fact it is the reverse of the first statement which is true: “Global Warming” has been successfully rebranded as “Climate Change” But both mean much more than what the words are saying. It is a given that when these phrases are used what is really meant is not simply that the globe has warmed, or that the climate has changed. What is meant is that humans are doing it by adding CO2 from the air, and it is bad, all bad, and will destroy the Earth and cause the extinction of humanity.
All of this is false.
Made up nonsense.
Lies.
Complete hogwash.
Demonstrably untrue.
The second statement is equally fallacious and misleading and purposefully so.
It states that some CO2 molecules are different from others. And some burning of coal is more harmful than using it for other purposes.
And that CO2 has been shown to be causing the globe to warm and the climate to change, which when added to what is implied by these phrases, means that burning coal is destroying the Earth.
It may be the most densely packed steaming load of stinking horseshit lies I have ever seen.
Congrats on that.
And it’s tremendously expensive. The energy and specialized infrastructure required to do this negates all the benefits of the fuel.
It would be fun to see Christy debate Gavin, well-known Climate Liar. I’ll bet he’d wipe the floor with him.
Gavin wont debate Christy, or anyone else who doesnt agree with CAGW
In the true style of Al Gore. Say no more.
Hooray. I’m puzzled, but happy, Christy was chosen. I hope he can enlighten other members of the board and the EPA.
That would be like shining a light through concrete
Using lasers to see through objects
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/feb/20/research.highereducation
Using lasers to drill through concrete
https://www.industrial-lasers.com/articles/2005/07/between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place.html
Well if anyone can do it, Christy’s the laser for the job.
Does Christy reject warming or human-induced warming? Headline should be clearer on this I think.
Agreed: I think that the headline is misleading. John Christy does not reject warming or even some warming from CO2 increase. It needs to be corrected.
Anyway congratulations to John Christy, certainly adds some integrity to the EPA.
That’s the title on the original article.
Not surprising, any chance to misrepresent those they disagree with.
And the original article couldn’t be more slanted against rational thought.
Jeremy
I suspect Christy rejects nothing. He just follows the science.
Christy’s own dataset shows warming. It simply shows how little understanding and integrity Waldman has that he would use that title.
I would say that everything about that quote is oversimplified. As it stands it is completely false unless you add a whole bunch of qualifiers.
Does Schmidt say that all the models match real-world observations? Not a chance. Here’s what RealClimate says: link Some of the models match some of the (heavily adjusted) temperature records. The models don’t do a good job of matching the satellite records. The site honestly depicts that fact.
If you said that the models run hot when compared with the satellite temperature record, I strongly suspect that the majority of climate scientists would agree if you cornered them in a court of law. They would, of course, bend themselves into pretzels explaining why it doesn’t matter. 🙂
The BS-technique employed here is the straw man response. Here’s the full quote from the article:
“Most climate scientists would say that Christy is wrong when he asserts that climate models overestimate warming. The models match up well with real-world observations, said Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Christy and other critics have focused on a particular version of climate satellite data when arguing that planetary warming is less severe than scientists have stated, Schmidt said. An examination of surface temperature data, ocean heat content, sea ice trends, sea levels and more shows that the Earth is warming at a rapid pace and setting historical records, he said.”
Christie’s arguments were that the models quantitatively overstate warming. Schmidt never actually denied that. He tries to shift the focus to something else. Note that saying that models “match up well” with observations does not contradict the assertion that they overstate warming. He’s probably referring to something vague, like spatial patterns of warming or some other squishy standard. And the second paragraph only deals with the observational data alone without comparisons to models.
Gavin Schmidt is an overpaid Federal bureaucratic weasel.
I also have come to the conclusion by choosing these words means they fully understand that the real world and science is not matching. They fully understand that their science is wrong. Using these words means they convince themselves that they have not actually lied. Scientists using sophistry rather than facts.
I think the headline is misleading on purpose. Maybe to make “Trumps EPA” look stupid.
The EPA had no need of Trump to make itself look stupid.
“The Trump administration has been stacking EPA’s science advisory boards with researchers and consultants whose work is often funded or promoted by industry.”
But John Christy isn’t one of them. Why is this comment-cum-smear in the article, Mr. Waldman?
Here’s Christy’s grant from DOE: https://www.uah.edu/news/research/climatologists-obtain-grant-to-develop-new-climate-sensitivity-information
None of the other scientists appointed by Trump are funded by industry.
That’s just another ad hominem from those who have already admitted they can’t produce a real argument.
Dr. Chrsty has produced a graph showing temperatures for the mid troposphere in the tropics as measured by weather balloons and satellites. Overlaid on the graph are the temperatures predicted by models for the same region. The average of the models is much higher than the measured values. That seems like strong proof that the models are predicting way too high. If there is other data that shows agreement between the models and measurements where is it?
This might be the graph:
That’s it. Thank you.
And we get Gavin Schmidt’s weasel-wording, non-response to Dr. Christy’s observations that the models run way too hot in the tropical troposphere; exactly where climate theory states it is supposed to warm the most, where it should then force warming at the surface.
Trivial truths about past warming do not prove CAGW. Gavin knows that UN IPCC climate models (some of which he produces) fail on all climate metrics in hindcasts and forecasts; tuning can get you close on averaged global temperature ANOMALIES over the late 20th Century, though. The fact that models’ average surface temperatures vary by over 3 degrees C between them is sufficient proof that they are using different physics; as in “its just basic physics driving the models.”
They’ve been able to tune their models to somewhat track historical data.
This isn’t as big a victory as they make it out to be. With the number of variables they have to work with, if the models were even close to accurate they ought to be able to tune the models to match temperature, precipitation and everything else, exactly. Not just approximately.
Including make the elephant wag its trunk.
Gavin Schmidt is a weaselly Federal government bureaucrat/politician. He smears multiple different climate model runs across his cherry-picked periods of surface temperature anomalies and assures us that models agree with observations. Pure B.S.
He is a mathematician that plays numbers games with physical processes he does not understand. He believes that his mathematics, as reflected in his mathematical models, reflect reality.
He is on record as stating that the 3+ C differences in global average temperatures, as reflected in the various UN IPCC climate models, doesn’t matter in describing future climatic states. He believes that it is the differences in the model-calculated anomalies that rules the future of our planet. Physics be damned; my (anomaly) math rules!
Gavin Schmidt is a lot smarter than you Mr. Dave Fair.
Bet me, David.
ROTFLMFAO @ Dave.
…
…
…
Tell us what organization you run.
…
Better yet, show us your CV
….
I won’t bet you, I don’t need your money.
OK, David, just one: I was CEO/GM of a generation, transmission and distribution electric utility.
Now show me yours.
OK Dave Fair, in other words, you have no experience in climate. Thanks for informing us.
Uh, the bet was about my intelligence vs Gavin Schmidt’s, David. Your comment seemed to imply that Gavin’s experience as head of a Federal sub-bureaucracy gave him some sort of an intellectual cachet. My response was intended to show you that I have at least an equal intellectual cachet.
Climate is a non-linear, chaotic physical phenomenon. Gavin’s guesses are no more creditable than mine.
If you can present Gavin’s IQ score, I’ll show mine. My bet is the same.
“David Dirkse February 2, 2019 at 5:30 pm
OK Dave Fair, in other words, you have no experience in climate. Thanks for informing us.”
Neither does Schmidt and Mann.
You moved the goal posts David Dirske. You were asking for smarts.
And I got them.
There David goes again. His original claim is shown to be false, and rather than be a man and own up to his mistake, he moves the goal post.
David, your original claim was that Gavin is smarter than Dave based on nothing more than the fact that he runs an organization.
This has always been David’s tactic, and soon he will slink away again waiting for his next chance to smear someone who disagrees with him.
Once again, David demonstrates the left wind desire to label smart as agreeing with me.
Then again, when it’s the only argument you have left, it’s not surprising you use it so often.
Mark, David’s argument about intelligence is a variation on the old argument using authority. I think he is actually arguing that Gavin Schmidt has access to more climate (weather) information, climate models and analyses than I. He seems to be arguing that, since Gavin has a responsible position in the Federal Bureaucracy, Gavin knows more about the relevant climate metrics than I.
Well, one must be able to work through all the myriad confounding information to find that which has import. One also has to separate oneself from political influence.
It is clear that Gavin Schmidt uses partial information to mislead others. He knows his models are imperfect, but uses them to further his agenda without providing relevant caveats. He is a weasel. He is the product of a politicized Federal bureaucracy. I know the type well and have no respect for their lack of integrity.
Also, I suspect that Dave Fair’s experience as CEO of an electricity utility gives him quite an insight into the practical aspects of weather, given that load prediction and management must be quite important to the efficient supply of power.
Gavin might be smarter on an IQ test but that does not mean that he is not a weasel.
Robert, I seriously doubt that Gavin Schmidt is smarter than I on an IQ test.
It seems that David Dirkse doesn’t understand that I have access to all the relevant temperature data that is available to Gavin. It is sad that all of Gavin’s modeling cannot replicate historical global average temperature anomalies outside his late 20th Century tuning period.
Need we ponder the misses of Gavin’s models when it comes to atmospheric humidity? Misses on other metrics, including Arctic and Antarctic ice? Gee, he is SO intelligent!
Gavein Schmidt tried to make the case on Real Climate that modeling the climate was similar to rolling balls down an incline plane, and determining the result through numerical modeling. This was when the Arctic sea ice was reaching record lows leading up to the 2008 seasonal minimum.
I pointed out the non-linear aspects of sunlight landing on land vs ocean vs snow and ice, the effect of clouds, and changes in albedo from snow, sea ice, and problems with the comparisons of temps averaged from different remote locations and different methodologies. And the relative short duration of our knowledge of sea ice extent in the Arctic.
He made a appeal to authority and then blocked me.
He has no interest is discussing the full picture of what we know, what we can surmise, and what we don’t have a clue about.
He promotes an agenda that maintains his funding, and anything that questions the “urgency of action” is by definition a threat that he will attack.
a hit piece….disguised as an announcement
E&E News claims to present from an unbiased angle, but seems to weave alarmist propaganda into every story.
I think the EPA would do well with someone who thinks the warming is mostly man-made, but also exaggerated, and who says the models are mostly doing a poor job.
where do you have any supporting data for “mostly man made” vs there likely is some component of human activity?
Studies by Nick Lewis and by Lewis & Curry are touted up in WUWT because they indicate climate sensitivity around 1.4-1.5 degrees C/K per 2xCO2, much less than “IPCC center track” (my words) but enough for increasing CO2 to mostly explain the warming since 1950.
Dr. Roy Spencer recently said he thinks climate sensitivity is about 1.0 degree C/K per 2xCO2, less than the studies by Lewis and Curry indicate, because those studies come up with their figures on the assumption that the warming studied was caused by increasing GHGs, while lately Spencer thinks about 60% of it is, at least as I understand a recent post of his in his blog. Spencer used to say he thinks most of the warming was natural but he wasn’t sure. (He still says he isn’t sure how much of the warming was man-made and how much was natural.)
The latest I heard from Christopher Monckton in WUWT is climate sensitivity of 1.0 degree C /K per 2xCO2, or 3.35 from 4.828 ln 2 IIRC) W/m^2 per 2xCO2, before feedbacks, and the latest I heard from him on feedbacks in WUWT are that they’re slightly positive although a fraction as positive as IPCC thinks. With his low figure for W/m^2 and zero feedback, increase of CO2 since pre-industrial accounts for .55 degree of warming including warming in the pipe, which he thinks is not much. Plus warming from other anthropogenic GHGs such as methane, nitrous oxide and halogenated hydrocarbons.
Scientist, who is skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypotheses and predictions, is named to advisory board.
Keep it in the near space and time, and avoid conflating the logical domains.
Progress. Some may qualify it as positive.
Yes, for me AGW is irrelevant, protecting the environment comes about from wealth, which comes about from fossil fuels.
Congratulations to John Christy!!!!!
Sincerely,
Bob
That sounds very like Roy Spencer. They should invite him too
Christy is Spencer’s boss at UAH 😉
Double the impact!
Spencers a luke warmer bull-schitter.
have a nice day.
Excellent
Gavin Schmidt is delusional if he believes the IPCC models follow temperatures.
The magic of the use of temperature anomalies and model tuning! But tuning over the late 20th Century period comes back to bite you in the ass, as most recently shown by Bob Tisdale’s study of the 1916 to 1945 period.
It is difficulty at best, and very likely impossible, to discern what Mann actually thinks or believes.
Ditto for much of the rest of his warmista ilk.
I think it is almost certainly the case that he knows enough to be aware that his statements are “inconsistent with the truth”.
I think he, along with other government employees, “believe” whatever keeps them in their job and allows them to get to their retirement.
“The Trump administration has been stacking EPA’s science advisory boards with researchers and consultants whose work is often funded or promoted by industry.”
“Stacking”? Hardly the right word.
How about this:
“The Trump administration has been adding to the EPA’s science advisory boards researchers and consultants whose funding is not dependent upon reaching the conclusion that CAGW theory is ‘settled’ science.”
Or, How about this:
“The Trump administration has been unstacking EPA’s science advisory boards with researchers and consultants whose funding and/or political goals are dependent upon promoting CAGW.”
1 out of 45 is hardly “stacking” .
(Once again, I miss the edit function but I understand why it’s gone.)
Or, How about this:
“The Trump administration has been unstacking EPA’s science advisory boards with researchers and consultants whose funding and/or political goals are NOT dependent upon promoting CAGW.”
Slightly off-topic – the Guardian currently has wonderfully self-justifying article by Michael Mann on the Big Freeze, and how it supports the CAGW Hypothesis.
He has a follow up article explaining how the color votrex proves black is white.
Scientist who rejects warming named to advisory board
Scientist named to advisory board
There. Fixed that for you Charles.
This could be deleted if it offends. I know it’s not your headline, Charles.
Another small President Trump and team step in the right direction. Good news.
Rud,
President Trump has large “hands” by his own admission.
Nice first step, now we have to go through the entire agency and gut out the leftist activists. Then go through EVERY USG agency and bureau and gut out the leftist activists. America first, f**k everyone else.
In reducing the influence of anti-western civilisation activists in the US government, Trump is putting us all first, not just the USA.
Scientist who rejects warming named to advisory board
Scientist named to advisory board
There. Fixed. (I don’t know Scott Waldman’s qualifications *, but the headline is kind of dumb. It puts a target on Christie’s back needlessly.)
* Scott holds a master’s degree in journalism from Syracuse University and a bachelor’s degree from Earlham College.
I wonder how many years of Leftist indoctrination that adds up to.
I love the “rejects warming” propaganda. Dr. Christy DOCUMENTS warming.
“Christy, who is a frequent critic of EPA regulations, said he will use his position on the 45-member board to question the results of climate models.”
==================
A 45 member board………..good luck agreeing on the lunch menu 🙂
I suspect it will be 44 tofu salad wraps and a steak
“And secondly is our inability to characterize it well with our models.”
Was will der Künstler uns damit sagen –
dass 2.ens
is our inability
to characterize
it well with
our models.
but 1st
to demonstrate to the board what we know about climate and its variability and what’s really going on,
Johann,
Sie wissen bestimmt, daß es heißt:
unsere Unfähigkeit, das Klima mit unseren Modellen zu charakterisieren.
What part of that is unclear or that you find objectionable?
Reicher Davis,
The part
why is this suicide comploteure after 40 years still alive
is unclear.
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/holocaust-leugner-horst-mahler-neonazi-bleibt-trotz-schlechten-gesundheitszustandes-in-haft/23884150.html
Was hat das um Himmels Willen mit Christy zu tun, mein lieber Johann?
Are you seriously comparing Christy to a holocaust denier?
I didn’t think you were an unhinged climate cultist.
Davis,
our inability
to characterize
it well with
our models.
_______________________________________________
maybe your granddaughter explains to you the not difference.
“… for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
– Eher geht ein Kamel durch ein Nadelöhr, als dass ein Reicher in den Himmel kommt.”
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&q=eher+geht+ein+Kamel+durch+ein+Nadel%C3%B6hr+english&nirf=eher+geht+ein+Kamel+durch+ein+Nadel%C3%B6hr+englisch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDm4D5xZ7gAhXPxqQKHXjVBBcQ8BYoAXoECAsQAw&biw=360&bih=560
I see what you did there Johann. Very clever and quite right that a camel will make it through the eye of the needle before a “Rich” man will make it into the kingdom of heaven. Not quite sure what’s got you so upset with my innocent question, though.
A hole in one.
In fact, it’s probably two holes in one.
Anythong more enthusiastic will probably attract attention from Google’s notoriously smart AI gorithm.
Now he wants to use his new perch on the agency’s Science Advisory Board to challenge climate science consensus.
Sounds like he’s the first honest scientist in the bunch. When you hear ‘consensus’ used as the Voice of Authority, that’s the opposite of the scientific method at work.
Good scientists are supposed to challenge the consensus. If the consensus is based on science, it can withstand being challenging.
It’s only when the consensus isn’t based on science that the consensus has to be protected from challenges.
Perhaps Christy can infuse some intelligence into the EPA.
Sustained warming stopped in about 2002-2005 as shown here:
TPW UAH & CO2 thru Nov 2018
Excellent!
Maybe we even get that moronic endangerment finding rescinded.
This is very good news. Congratulations to Dr. Christy.
Wait a minute…
is it April 1st today?
Glad to hear this news of a spot of sanity.
Let’s hope that, with so much free money gone missing and spoiled business plans, the forces of the green cabal won’t turn the next presidential election in civil war.
“In earlier research, Christy and a colleague claimed that the Earth was cooling. That’s been proved false. In fact, the past four years have been the warmest on record …” (Scott Waldman).
============================================
That’s at best a half-truth or at worst an out-and-out untruth intended to denigrate Dr Christy and probably comes from an article in the Guardian by John Abraham 11 May 2017 stating:
“They [Dr Christy and an unnamed associate probably Dr Spencer] rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming …”.
According to the UAH5.6 series back in the mid-1990s the satellite trend from 1979 was cooling:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:1994/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:1994/trend
The other surface and satellite series show ~0.1C warming over that period.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . People of Earth !!! . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Our bacterial overlords, have a message for you. . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
People of Earth !!!
Our bacterial overlords, have a message for you.
A normal human body is made up of cells. 90% of the cells that make up a normal human body, are of bacterial origin.
That’s right. Only 10% of the cells that make up a normal human body, are of human origin.
If life was a democracy, then bacteria would control what you watch on television (and we wouldn’t watch the latest Star Trek series. We would watch “Game of Thrones” (we can’t wait for the next season to begin)).
We are concerned that humans have started using chemicals, which kill 99.9% of bacteria. Don’t you realise that 99.9% of bacteria are harmless, or actually beneficial to humans?
Bacteria of the world, are about to take an important vote. Should we start using body-wash, which kills 99.9% of humans (we don’t have hands to rub the chemicals into our “skin”, so we have to use body-wash).
Humans are stupid. And don’t get me started on global warming. We bacteria like temperatures to be about 5 to 10 degrees Celsius warmer than current temperatures. Then we can reproduce at our optimum rate. Splitting in 2, once every 20 minutes. Even the way that you humans reproduce, is disgusting. Why there are so many of you vermin, we don’t understand.
Once we have mastered using TV controls, then the thermostat is our next goal.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/people-of-earth
“That’s right. Only 10% of the cells that make up a normal human body, are of human origin.”
No, that is not right.
It is wrong.
Almost certainly.
It is based on one assertion, made by one person and decades ago, which was entirely guesswork to begin with.
More recent work on the subject has shown it to be almost certainly false, and also that it is not only a highly variable ratio no matter what the actual value may be, but that in no individual is the number anywhere close to 10:1 non-self vs self.
For one thing, it includes such entities as virions and phages, which are not by any definition “cells”.
It also seems to imply that there is some significance to how many particles of something exist in some place, as opposed to the effects they exert, the size and proportional volume of them, etc.
There are more ants than people on Earth.
There may be more ants of a single species in Florida alone, than people on Earth, or who have ever lived.
Does this mean anything in particular?
I think not.
The actual ration may be much closer to 1:1 or even less but, in any case, what does it matter, or mean, or imply, to note it to be so?
And by the way, bacteria do not vote, and even if they did, they are mostly conservative.
They kill 10 of their own for every one of us they kill, after all, so why should they want us dead?
The progression of evolution of infectious organisms is to become less virulent and less deadly over time.
The optimum strategy is likely for an infectious organism to become more symbiotic over time.
Predation becomes parasitism becomes symbiosis.
Most human cells have mitochondria in them, which were once free living organisms.
They used to feed on us, now we employ them to become more productive and successful.
Interestingly, most of the cells in a human being’s body are red blood cells, which have no mitochondria.
“That’s because the endangerment finding is bulletproof, Schmidt said.”
The endangerment finding is not bulletproof. It only succeeded because Obama told the EPA to rule on it based on climate model predictions. If the Endangerment finding was subjected to a thorough null hypothesis process, it would fail. It is a most important logjam to this whole scam and truly endangers every citizen in the US. It must be challenged.
The Endangerment Finding dates to GW Bush Admin.
The NRDC-WWF-EDF cross-over mafia was firmly in control of all the bureaucratic career GS/GM positions at EPA by the mid 2000’s. Bush didn’t do anything to rectify that take-over.
Well for me I’m quite pleased to see someone of Dr Christy’s caliber join that EPA AB.
Now we can sit back and hope some of the alarmist pseudoscientist hacks on that EPA advisory board will and make room for some more actual scientists.
A good thorough house cleaning at EPA is long overdue.
What happened to my html bold insert in the above?
….will resign in protest and …
I would like to sincerely thank John Christy for his service. He is courageously walking into the lion’s den for the rest of us. The media cannot write a single article without adding false accusations, slander and an ‘appeal to authority’. It takes guts to serve when you know that vested interests will do their best to destroy you.
Please, watch your back, Mr. Christy!
+1
+42
John Doran.
The models match up well with real-world observations, said Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Well, sure. If “matching up” means running two to three times hotter than observations.
Earth to Gavin! The only model to match up with real world observations is the Russian! [I know, I know, I know; its not that simple.]
The models say it should warm.
It warmed.
Ergo, the models match the real world perfectly.
The fact that the models predicted 3 times as much warming as actually happened is just an insignificant detail.
If you keep your standards low enough, it’s easy to meet them.
Christy resigns from EPA board amid rumors of . . .
Can’t see this one lasting.
Geen industrial complex won’t stand for this?
The only resignations will be from climate alarmism hacks who’ve sat on that EPA adv board for years and have never been challenged by another board scientist to defend their claims.
45 member board?? How do they ever accomplish anything? Let’s hope Professor Christy can start opening the eyes of some of his compatriots.
How could he hope to ever accomplish anything? Good question.
The point that’s being missed is that there is one reason, and only one, why this appointment is controversial: In the recent past, the EPA scientific advisory panels included people receiving (collectively) immense grants of taxpayer dollars courtesy of the EPA to underwrite their research. Now, the rules have been changed so that positions on the EPA scientific advisory panels can no longer be awarded to people who are simultaneously receiving taxpayer-financed grants from the EPA; in other words, vetting of the science underlying the EPA’s regulatory activities can no longer be done by people on the EPA payroll.
Somebody got a problem with that????????
Apparently the alarmists do.
Grants from the EPA minuscule compared to NSF and NHS R01 grants. Most EPA grants go to organizations, like the American Lung Association, and not an individual researcher. The ALA can then hand-out its own grants for things like particulate 2.5micron studies to favored researchers, free from any EPA conflicts.
The ALA also then turns around and does lobbying of Congress which the EPA is forbidden to do.
Gavin tweeted this today. Maybe he should be commended for this. He also doesn’t block people just for taking a skeptical view and he attempts to reply reasonably to questions that are presented respectfully.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1091812387466956800
Even his Twitter handle is offensive and egotistical.
But also somewhat revealing: Climate Of Gavin may be a tacit yet subliminal admission that he is not attempting to elucidate The climate, but merely HIS climate.
I don’t think you looked at the chart he posted. It agrees that the models are not tracking reality. Don’t be a knee jerk.
BTW Albert,
Commended?
For not auto blocking anyone who disagrees with him?
That is an extraordinarily low bar for commendation.
Personally, I do not find it praiseworthy to not be as blatantly biased as a human can possibly be.
Christ, people! Even Gavin Schmidt’s blog shows that the models run hot in the troposphere, where GHG forcings are supposed to be of most influence.
Also, any “95% confidence interval” for model aggregations is physical nonsense. “Hot” models have nothing to do with “cold” models. Models that differ from each other by over 3 C in average global temperatures are not modeling the same physics. Classical statistical methods do not apply in this situation.
I did like the comment from Steve the chemistry teacher in response to the shocking false allegation of rape and abuse by one Sarah Jane Parkinson against her husband Dan who was presumed guilty until proved innocent and jailed pending Court until something didn’t sit right with a female police officer and further investigation unravelled the vexatious truth. Anyway the complete saga is paywalled in The Australian but here was Steve’s take on it-
“Every year I begin my chemistry classes with a short reading assignment. Students read a paragraph and answer four questions about it.
They have to do this silently. Then, we’ll have a class discussion.
What they don’t know is their papers are not identical. Similar, but not the same. Half of them have a para’ about the dangers of argon. It causes cancer. It’s extremely poisonous etc.
The other half have a para’ about the benefits of argon. It helps fight cancer. It’s beneficial to breathe etc.
One question is “What three words would you use to describe a person who gives free argon to children?” Half of them use words like murderer, monster and evil. The other half use saint, healer and kind. The arguments erupt pretty quickly. I sit back and watch.
After a bit, they figure out they’ve been had. Then I ask them about the last question: “On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not very confident and 10 is incredibly confident, how confident are you about the dangers (benefits) of argon?” There are plenty of 10s. I ask them who is right? Is argon dangerous or helpful? More arguing. I sit back and watch again. They want to know the truth. Which is it? Is it helpful or harmful? It’s neither.
Argon is inert. It makes up 1% of the air you have been breathing since you were born. I have created a false dichotomy — and my students have fallen into the trap, every one of them. The ease a person can be convinced of something without any evidence at all becomes the theme for the year. Class motto?No Data, No Truth.
We know nothing without data, without experiment, without evidence, without repetition and confirmation. It doesn’t always work — but for the most part, it changes student perspectives in one very important way: They become skeptical.
Skepticism is the foundation on which science is built. Question everything. Have faith in nothing. Slowly increase your confidence if the evidence supports it but never plant your feet in certainty.
Above all: No Data, No Truth.”
Sound familiar?
I might try that, I help with my kids forensics class and there is a disturbing tendency to accept anything formatted as a journal article as if written by the hand of God.
Warm is bad, it makes everything thrive and prosperous and in the process destroying the planet as it use to be. Cold is good, particularly the ice age cold, it kills everything, I assume even cockroaches can’t cope with a mile thick ice cover. Green Earth is a continuous never ending battle between plants and animals for living space. Ice covered white Earth, kind of global Antarctic, is a thing of beauty to behold, as a bonus none of those pesky humans will be around to admire it. Let’s work towards it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
John Stossel – Climate Change & Global Greening
13 mins..
Gavin Schmidt runs from debating Dr. Roy Spencer.
Al Gore runs from debating Lord Christopher Monckton.
Dare I ask if incompetents run because they can’t defend their positions/claims?
John Doran.
Schmidt cant help lying.
There is no real evidence to support his “rapid change” claims. He knows this yet keeps lying.
There is a real pathology to Gavin Schmidt.
When a proponent gets hysterical because there are others able to criticize their position, then you know their position is not very defensible.
Schmidt is a mathematician, not a scientist. We already know 1 + 1 = 2. He has never taken a physics course in his life. Why is he even in charge of NASA GISS?
Because he can conjure up models and defend them with a straight face?
Because when a scientist find it difficult to put in words his ideas he turns to maths, devises a formula and hey presto job done. Not easy to explain how nature calculates c^2, but write it down together with m*, you become an Einstein; see power of maths is immense in physics as long as you understand what you are doing.
Problem with my friend Schmidt ( we both got a degree from the same university, and he took my side in a personal attack by gastly Grant Foster aka Tamino), sorry I digress, but my friend Schmidt is attempting to do opposite, i.e. he first creates a mathematical formula expecting that it will turn into physical process, unfortunately things don’t work that way around, but at least he is well paid for it.
I can’t recall how Schmidt did on “Cash Cab”. Does anyone remember?
This is my first post to WUWT. This is likely a lame question from an uninformed, but here goes. Are there any papers that have been able to replicate the output of NASA climate models given their inputs and parameters?
I’m assuming that the sub models use either deterministic or stochastic approaches depending on the nature of the problem to be solved? Is the approach appropriate for the problem to be solved? Is the problem space loosely or tightly bound by the constraints?
What close examination of all the parameters has been done? Are the assumptions clearly identified? Each product of a sub model should be capable of being examined against empirical data. There should be verification that the sub model outputs are properly synced with the receiving models expected input. Have the boundary conditions been thoroughly tested?
Finally has any body done the Quality Assurance on the code and the implementation of the math and science? How well documented is the code, in FORTRAN, I gather. Can the logic be followed?
Yeh, I’ve got an IT background and have worked a lot with hydro models for power generation forecasts.
Thanks for your patience
Learning about the modern supercomputer-run climate models (called GCMs) nd the groups that run them is like Alice diving down the Rabbit hole — It’s madness… everywhere you turn. And nobody in the GCM groups realizes they each are all mad (except the Cheshire Cat).
– There are dozens of GCMs run by groups all over the world.
Very complex subject once you get into them. There is no one set-up.
I would recommend you get the book as a good place to start down the rabbit hole: Climate Change: The Facts, edited by Alan Moran. Chapter 2, by Patrick Michaels, is titled “Why the climate models are failing.” Chapter 3, by Richard Lindzen, is titled “Global Warming, models, and language.”
Thanks, Joel. I’ll take a look at the book. I know it’s complicated but the basics of model validation and quality remain the same no matter the platform, language and computing power. Code is code, logic is logic.
I tried to express the models in terms of a spatial statistic measure of confidence, but kept reaching points where key functional terms weren’t documented. If I had more time, maybe. I think its an area where not enough attention has been given.
I’m not sure. As far as I see it you need to get a curve close to CO2, extended it in similar manner add few wiggles, call them solar and volcanoes contributions and your model is done, and more importantly it fits with the rest of the junk.
Only joking, no idea what they do, but whatever is it ain’t any good.
Congratulations to Dr Christy, and good luck in bringing rationality where dogma rules.
Awful, awful article, mind.
test
The Greens love “Surface data, the facts are that cannot trust surface data, too many other source of heat add to the figure. So lets stick to the proven sources of accurate data, ballons, ARGO and of course satelites .
With 45 other members on the board of the EPA , most appointed during the Obama period, not a good look for a Red versus Blue team contest. Can Pres. TRUMP get rid of the Obama appointments ?
MJE
If the EPA can regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant”; can the USDA encourage (and subsidize) it’s growth?
That is a thought! Get the alphabet soups fighting each other.