Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann notes climatologist Dr. John R. Christy as a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate. Dr. Christy, a pioneer in measuring global temperatures by satellite, discusses challenges to understanding data from satellites, balloons, and terrestrial weather stations. He also examines the impact of CO₂ and the practical problem with climate models driving energy policy worldwide, especially in developing nations. Distinguished professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the Alabama state climatologist, Dr. Christy talks with Dr. Jed Macosko, academic director of AcademicInfluence.com and professor of physics at Wake Forest University.
See Dr. Christy’s profile at https://academicinfluence.com/people/…
Interested in pursuing your own research in climate change? Check out the best research universities for the Earth Sciences: https://academicinfluence.com/ranking…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
STORY TIP
Future of UK fossil fuels at stake in test case
If she wins, then she loses – her emissions will also have to be considered, and she and everyone else in the UK will have to stop using proper fuels immediately.
You know how much fun the Reformation was? Well, it’s coming back, have a nice life.
surely the plaintiff has to prove what they are claiming is accurate? That I think will be very difficult.
That said have judges the knowledge to understand the technicalities and when bodies like the Climate Change Committee say the illogical and untrue statement that to protect consumers from high electricity prices we need to invest in renewables and not fossil fuels. I would doubt that the judges would know that is wrong.
The net zero law by 2050 is another hurdle.
The judiciary have been co-opted just like every other institution. Just one example of the process, clearly not a neutral information event, supported by the likes of then Prince Charles.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.html
In the US, and I would not be surprised if it isn’t similar in the UK, judges have the option of declaring certain things to be a priori true and therefore the court not need to spend any time or bother with evidence about them.
The story shows a leading example of the insanity that has come to dominate political life in the UK. This is climate insanity.
There are several other ones working their way through UK society… But this one?
The climate impacts in question – called ‘downstream emissions’ – are the greenhouse gas emissions released when the oil is used. Ms Finch says these are estimated to be 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over 20 years.
Take it at face value. Over the same 20 years, with or without this project, global emissions will amount to about 20 * 40 = 800 billion tons. And that is probably a low estimate.
And she wants to reduce emissions by 20 million, by blocking this project, and similar ones of the same scale, ‘because climate’? The results will be too small to measure. But that will not stop the idiocy.
The photo at the top of the BBC article captioned: “The test case could have implications for the future of fossil fuel exploration in the UK” is a stock photo.
In its earliest versions it is titled: “System of a torch on an oil field. burning through a torch head” and is probably in the Russian Federation as the author and copyright information are in Cyrillic.
Nothing remotely like it is ever likely to be operating in the UK let alone Surrey, the purpose of the photo is purely manipulative.
One of the many tiny gripes I have about the BBC web-site is its frequent use of stock images. Stock images can’t be documentary. They are chosen to evoke a response, like mood-music. They are used to put you in a frame of mind to be receptive to the words. It is a propaganda technique, plain and simple.
Any time they decorate a news story with emotional prompts and cues it annoys me. When it is an important news story it enrages me.
At least they credit the images; they’re easy to spot if you know you should look.
Near where I am in North Notts, inside a 4 mile radius of my house are at least 4 gas wells and a couple of oil wells.
You would never know they were there unless you came upon them by accident.
The only thing giving away one of the oil wells is the constant squeak squeak squeaking of the belt that drives the nodding donkey.
Else hidden among trees inside little fenced-off areas of no more than 50metres a side
The fence is not to be fooled with = 10 foot high chain-link, topped with razor wire and the big bright yellow signs warning of ‘24hr CCTV with instant response‘ for unauthorised entry.
wtf is anyone gonna do with crude oil if they did break in there?
There again, Tax Collection is a Very Serious Business and not to be interfered with – ain’t that a fact ‘Hunter Biden‘?
Well, it would be if your name was Trump
Then Brandon snr accuses China’s Xi of being a dictator..
https://apnews.com/article/china-biden-xi-jinping-dictator-c1fe17f72e2d37fcc840575eea1b78d2
Get rid that ‘thing’ before it gets the lot of us killed.
Xi’s hands are too small to be a dictator.
Kudos to Professor Christy.
I only wish he had said more in regards to a policy that would allow developing countries to use fossil fuel but restrict developed countries to wind, solar and nuclear. He was absolutely correct stating that wind and solar are not capable and therefore are not a replacement for fossil fuel. He was also right when he said nuclear is an alternative but there is a political hurdle blocking that choice.
I think where he missed the mark is with the developing countries. China and India are listed as developing countries and are major CO2 emitters currently with plans to emit more, much more. Having said that we haven’t even talked about Africa, the rest of Asia, South America, Central America and places like Indonesia. I believe the developed countries could eliminate their CO2 emissions and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference because the non developed nations would equal what the developed nations contributed and surpass it.
That’s not even addressing the issue that CO2 emissions are not over heating the planet in the first place.
“”Michael Mann notes climatologist Dr. John R. Christy as a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate.””
The other side of the debate?
“”All of the noise right now from the climate change denial machine, the bots & trolls, the calls for fake “debates,” etc. Ignore it all.
Deniers are desperate for oxygen in a mainstream media environment that is thankfully is no longer giving it to them. Report. block. Don’t engage.” (Michael Mann)””
https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/debate-not-assume-climate-crisis/
A Disgrace to the Profession.
Those of us who have an understanding of physics and studied engineering or science based disciplines in general, shake our heads in disbelief at the ignorance displayed by political decision makers, with regard to climate and energy policies.
It is almost as if a power is operating in the world that has captured the minds of the alarmists, persuaded the decision makers and has even captured control of the media.
This cartoon from the Daily Telegraph (if it loads) is funny but…..??
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/31/alex-cartoons-june-2023/
Disbelief of our political class is not restricted to the learned class. We proles are similarly bewildered at the incompetence of our governments.
“It is almost as if a power is operating in the world that has captured the minds of the alarmists”
good definition of religion
I agree with your response other than this part… at the ignorance displayed by political decision makers, with regard to climate and energy policies. I believe that a large number of those decision makers know that this is merely a scam that allows them to grab control over most of our economy.
Would the auto manufacturers be moving to exclusively making EVs if the government wasn’t dictating it? Because the consumer isn’t demanding them.
I think you should change your statement to: “SOME of us who have an understanding…..”. There are certainly some engineers and scientists who have swallowed the Catastrophic Global Warming Kool-Aid. Take for instance, Mary Barra, the CEO of GM. She certainly started her career as a successful engineer at GM.
Yet her decisions concerning EVs (along with similar ones at Ford), clearly defy engineering and scientific understanding. There simply will not be enough electrical power, storage capacity, grid structure, wind, sun, battery production, rare earth materials, copper, and most of all, buyers, to purchase and use the vehicles she intends to produce over the next decade.
GM blew a couple of $billions producing its first EV, the GM EV, in the ’90s, in order to meet a California mandate requiring “10% carbon free vehicle sales starting in year 2001. The problem was that no one would buy, or even lease them. GM was the only company that even had such a vehicle. So California simply repealed the law. Had GM saved the $2 billion, they probably would have avoided its bankruptcy a couple of years later. Can GM survive another one of these? Can the US auto industry?
Can GM survive another one of these? Can the US auto industry?
No to both. The pursuit of NetZero makes it certain that it cannot. At best it will be taken over by a Chinese producer or aligned with a Chinese producer for Chinese production. NetZero demands de-industrialising.
“Those of us who have an understanding of physics and studied engineering or science based disciplines in general, shake our heads in disbelief at the ignorance displayed by political decision makers, with regard to climate and energy policies.”
If only that were true. But unless there are a lot of engineers & scientists out there who are only pretending to go along with all the climate change and net zero hysteria, then I’m not convinced that it is. And for those who have thought things through and haven’t swallowed all the nonsense, I doubt they will find a company or organisation to work for which hasn’t jumped on the corporate green bandwagon.
I’m sorry people, I am so sorry but:
This one fall off the rails inside the 1st five seconds.
see attached screenshot
We are told that “satellites show earth is warming”
Apart from the semantics that ‘earth’ and ‘Earth’ are entirely different things, the Sputnik shows No Such Thing.
The Sputnik is showing, using a property of Oxygen that only greenhousegases are supposed to have, that The Atmosphere is warming.
The Atmosphere is neither made of earth nor is it = The Earth
The entire theory of greenhousesgases goes to great lengths to draw a distinction between atmosphere and earth/Earth/surface (and water) yet here it is utterly mangled.
This is Bumbling, Utter Garbage and Madness going on here.
My antidote to it all?
A few jars and watching The Wicker Man
It probably was Christopher Lee’s finest.
It was indeed excellent, though Lee had quite a few finests.
Yet, somehow, Britt Ekland always pops up in my memory first.
Peta, all matter (not just GHGs) emits radiation, the frequency of which is determined by its temperature. The Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) on the satellites measure the frequency of oxygen molecule emissions which are a measure of its temperature at various points in the atmosphere at different times.
Pettifogging the meaning of “earth” as it is used in the short internet video is pointless in denigrating the information provided.
John Chrity mentioned a Washington state report on the grid problems caused by wind farms :
Thanks !
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/01/18/wind-energy-of-no-use-in-the-pacific-northwest/
probably not the report you are seeking , but …
😉
Re: the first sentence in the above article:
“Climate
scientistpseudoscientist Dr. Michael Mann notes climatologist Dr. John R. Christy as a compelling voice . . .There, corrected it for you. No charge.
Comparing possible, as at the level of an asteroid destroying Earth, and reasonable is a notable distinction.
Pointing out the misuse of the Precautionary Principle without naming it.
John Cristy is a saint! I would have unloaded on the interviewer’s sycophantic treatment of Michael Mann’s junk science driven ‘hockey stick’.
Excellent interview, Dr. Christy! Rational and clear responses to the interviewer’s questions. He appears to have adopted the pervasive Leftist view of CO2, fossil fuels, and climate change, but tries to be moderate. He asks some odd questions trying to find a way for Mann to be partially right. I don’t know if you persuaded him but your statements were logical and persuasive for those who haven’t locked their minds.
It is gratifying that your interview garnered over 200,000 views while Mann’s two interviews totaled 6,800. In fact yours was by far the most viewed video on that channel. Must have been posted here. If I were the host I’d interview you more to increase my subscribers.
He won’t because Dr. Christy didn’t give him the narrative he wanted. You could see his frustration.
Jed gives credences to Michael Mann. He must be as twisted as Mann when it comes to knowledge on Earth’s climate. And he obviously does not know the difference between a model and data analysis.
Chisty provides proof that CO2 does not change climate in the way expected but still believes it does something because it has radiation absorption bands as if this has something to do with Earth’s energy balance.