Scientific American, apparently following the lead of E&E News, headlined its report of Dr. John Christy’s appointment to the federal Environmental Protection Agency “Scientist Who Rejects Warming Is Named to EPA Advisory Board.”
The truth—which E&E News and SA undoubtedly know, is that John Christy most certainly doesn’t “reject warming.” He manages the NASA satellite data that are our best source for truly global, all-latitudes, all-longitudes, all-altitudes atmospheric temperature, and he openly reports that warming has indeed happened. He also accepts that human action has contributed to that warming, perhaps being the primary cause, though he thinks natural causes probably outweigh it. He denies that human action is the sole cause and that the warming from human action is known to be dangerous to catastrophic–and that curbing warming is more cost-effective than adapting to it.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone’s scientific opinion. It’s another to lie about it.
RAKooi says
The UAH Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. John Christy
—-> BOTH having predicted that Global Warming would End around 2000,
and
—–> it would end with the solar minimum of 2007-2009
and
——> it would end around 2015
….
the Earth would return to its falling temperatures toward the next Glaciation.
.
HOWEVER
— THEY reported/admitted just a few months ago,
that UAH data NOW agrees with other satellite data,
an “ Upward Global climate temperature trend SINCE Nov.16, 1978
[of] +0.14+ C / decade [1/4F]/decade.”
* * *
THAT amounts to a rate of 1.4C / 100 years.
NOTE, Human Measurements of temps.had risen 1.05C over the last century!
Gunter Thompson says
Timothy Ball is not credible:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/14/judge-dismisses-libel-claim-sceptic-tim-ball-not-credible-enough-take-seriously
Gregg Prewitt says
One hypothesis i have never seen addressed is that maybe the earth is seeking it’s normal. The Glaciers have been receding since the end of the Ice Age, which is long before alleged human influence and carbon emissions. Look at all the formations just in the U.S. that were formed by glaciers that are now thousands of miles from an originating glacier and those formations were not near glaciers when discovered. What if the problem is that we are forming all of our scientific hypothesis on what WE think is the earth’s normal….maybe we were not here when the earth was really NORMAL. Just food for thought.
S.MacLaren, BSc (Hons) Biology / Systems engineer, UK says
It is clear from the Word of God, which the Lord Jesus quoted, and taught that the Noahic Flood was a worldwide all encompassing event; a catastrophe which must have preceded the ice age, and from logic alone – which of course includes looking at the effects of the ice – cannot have occurred after the ice age. This means that the ice age was necessarily quite recent, and that the Earth may well be moving towards a warmer equilibrium, as some suggest (I.e. Seeking its ‘normal’). This of course, has to be tested against the long term trend evidence which we largely lack, since measurements started about 100 years ago.
The Church worldwide must be very clear on the causes of division of what is, still, effectively strong opinion, on climate change/warming:
1) The science is not unequivocal, based on standard approaches to statistical analysis, which gives rise therefore, to bias, based on prior assumptions.
2) The assumptions made are largely generated by a person’s world-view; evolution (all life developed over 100’s of millions of years of pre-historic time and the earth is billions of years old), or creation (Life is an explicit gift of God, and resulted from an intentional creative series of acts. Man is made in the image of the Creator. The world’s processes are not accidentally arranged, but for the benefit, largely of mankind, and we are stewards of the Earth, as revealed in holy scripture).
3) There are significant self-interests (as well as the inherent biases) involve on both sides of the argument; both for acting to reduce the causes of what some perceive as the main risk, and for those who favour some action of a different kind.
To the evolutionist, the requirement of billions (or at least millions) of years in the climate modelling is essential; but for those who accept the catastrophist position of God’s revelation and of (as I believe) the evidence of the deep, global, rapidly formed, fossil-filled sedimentary rock deposits, the modelling is flawed, as it is based on assumptions from the aforementioned bias, which cannot depend on science alone in making any conclusions.
The peddling of evolutionism amongst the evangelical church, damaging the correct understanding of Genesis, especially of the effects of The Flood, is a continual increasing fact in some sectors of the Church – Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and even many others that would see themselves as evangelical. This damage is seen in the confusion and ignorance of many in the Church on the relevance of the entirety of the Bible, and of the specific revelation of the creation, since what is taught in every school text-book, almost every ‘mainstream science’ broadcast and in other media is diametrically opposed to the views of the world that Christ himself held – according to all the New Testament writers.
This state of affairs was predicted by the Lord, and warned of by other N.T. writers, who foresaw that there would be a great falling away from sound teaching. The question is: What is the solution, if Christ and His revelation are to be upheld as relevant today, as they were in the past? The writer to the Hebrews tells us “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.”; from which we may only take it, in faithfulness to the Christ of the scriptures, that all of God’s Word is as true today as it was understood to be then. But how to apply that word, and argue for the truth, in scientific thinking, and socio-economic policy today, is our challenge. Let us speak our truth firmly, respectfully and clearly. If we are shouted down, let us not be discouraged, for so they treated those who spoke and interpreted the Word of God in former times.
The one thing we must not do, is generate inter-Nicene division over climate change understanding in the Church, since this will never be resolved, as we have seen, using the flawed scientific thinking of those whose models are at best, estimates. We would be better to start with discussions on foundational things, such as the trustworthy revelation of God, and what that revelation is. Having done that, we avoid wasting time attacking each other’s positions on climate change, when the causes of our differences are actually determined by our understanding or otherwise of scripture, which affect our world-view.