Why did Nobel Prize winner reject prize share and denounce environmental alarmism?

Question

John R. Christy refuted his share of the Nobel Prize money and decries alarmism over environment.

Answer 1

He refuted his share of the money? That must have been pretty hard to do, since money typically does not make arguments easily refutable.

Seriously, though, you mean the same John R. Christy who signed a statement from the American Geophysical Union warning that human activities are causing the earth to warm at an increasingly rapid rate? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable

It sounds like he thinks global warming is happening and is caused by humans, just that it will lead to less bad results than most climate scientists think. Uh-oh, stop the presses!

Answer 2

Christy is one of the less than 1% of scientists who refute the consensus of AGW,so his empty gesture just doesn't matter in the slightest.

Answer 3

site your source please?

here is mine:

On 16 December AGU released its new position statement, Human Impacts on Climate, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The statement concludes that human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. The full statement is available on the AGU web site http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html .
On 16 December AGU released its new position statement, Human Impacts on Climate, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The statement concludes that human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. The full statement is available on the AGU web site http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html .
Three members of the drafting panel, chair Marvin Geller of State University of New York-Stony Brook, John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Ellen Druffel of the University of California, Irvine, joined AGU President Bob Dickinson at the press conference and for two briefings on Capitol Hill later that same day. Media coverage included stories in the Wall Street Journal, BBC News ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3325341.stm ), National Public Radio ( http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1551355 ), the San Francisco Chronicle, and others.

The panel briefed staff members in the House of Representatives and the Senate in back to back discussions on both sides of Capitol Hill. Staffers asked what was meant by the sentence "AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined." Panel members replied that the climate response to increasing greenhouse gases is a continuum, and that it is difficult if not impossible to define a single threshold level that constitutes a danger. Staff members also asked what had changed since AGU issued its previous statement on climate change nearly five years ago. Panel members noted the improved modeling capability, a more systematic approach, better data, and incorporation of the oceans, the carbon cycle, and other key aspects of the climate system.

Twelve AGU members worked as a panel drafting the statement for nearly nine months prior to submitting it to AGU Council for consideration. They included: Marvin A. Geller, SUNY Stonybrook, Chair; Andre L. Berger, Catholic University Louvain, Belgium; Anny A. Cazenave, LEGOS-GRGS/CNES, France; John R. Christy, University of Alabama- Huntsville; Ellen R. M. Druffel, University of California-Irvine; Jack D. Fellows, UCAR; Hiroshi Kanzawa, Nagoya University, Japan; William H. Schlesinger, Duke University; William J. Shuttleworth, University of Arizona; Eric T. Sundquist, US Geological Survey; Richard P. Turco, UCLA; Ilana C. Wainer, University Cidade Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Council unanimously adopted the new statement on 12 December at the AGU Fall meeting in San Francisco, replacing the previous statement Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases.

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/asla/asla-list?read=2003-13.msg

Answer 4

Because he did not win The Nobel Prize.
He was part of a panel, and much of his contributions were refuted.
He is envious.
And he teaches down the road from me at UAH.

Answer 5

That the problem GW is turning into a political religion . Seams not to be noticed . It the cart before the horse. Very hubris Of us all !

Answer 6

Wow! There IS integrity in the Nobel Prize after all. Funny how this is the first time I've heard it though, but Al was all over the news. Heck, I agree with Christy and applaud him for doing it, but I would've taken the money.

Answer 7

I agree with A Priori.

Answer 8

Because GW chicken littles are the new blind faithers and he didn't want to be associated with such naive gullible doomsdayers

Answer 9

I don't know. He either simply disagrees, or he is a neo-con and is forbidden to agree.

Answer 10

. . . so?

this isn't another one of those "well, i know of about three scientists who don't believe in AGW, and i ignore the thousands upon thousands of scientists who do" statements, is it?