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.
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