Al Gore's theory on global warming should be accepted, but NOT John Christy's...another Nobel awardee??

Question

Dr. John Christy...also a Nobel awardee, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he criticized Gore's dire predictions about the impact of global warming. The Nobel committee thought Christy was worthy of an award for his works on global climatology...and he is credentialed in this field, I might add. Why should we dismiss his opinions in favor of Gore's who has not had any formal training in this area?

I listen to Christy and other's like him, because he actually has the credentials to back up what he is talking about. As to the "consensus" you are referring to in the IPC report. The contributing authors ONLY SIGNED OFF ON WHAT THEY CONTRIBUTED TO. They did NOT sign off on the conclusions. In fact, a number requested to have their names removed when they saw the final product.

Answer 1

al gore is a lawyer/politition not a scientist. he's also a hypocrite who lives in a mansion that consumes 12 times the energy of the average household. he flys around in his own private jet. his being awarded a noble peace prize is a slap in the face to every noble lauret who came before him. that being said he did win a peace prize, not a scientific prize!

Answer 2

Christy "received a Nobel" for his work on the IPCC, whose conclusions he mostly disagrees with. It's a bit of a stretch to equate that with Gore's receipt.

Anyway, the problem with Christy and other "scientific" skeptics is that their positions have been slippery. Early on it was "there is no warming." Then, when there clearly had been warming it is "the warming is due to something else besides greenhouse gases." Now that there is little hope of finding anything else responsible for the warming is it "the effects won't be severe." That shifting rationale for why they should be believed makes me wonder if they truly understand what they are talking about. Guys like Hansen and Mann and Wigley have been monotonously consistent in their assessments, and, most importantly, monotonously correct in their predictions.

Christy also loses points for championing his own results demonstrating a problem with satellite temperature measurements. However, the problems were largely due to his own mishandling of corrections, and these problems have been reconciled. However, Christy *still* will claim there are problems.

Why do you feel someone who has been consistently wrong is believable?

Answer 3

Christy was awarded a Nobel Prize for contributing to the IPCC, along with all other scientists who contributed to the IPCC report. The IPCC report concluded that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming, and is one of Al Gore's main sources of information.

How about this - ignore both Gore and Christy and just listen to the IPCC's conclusions. Thousands of minds are better than one. Why are you listening to one of the few IPCC Nobel Prize winners who's skeptical of the consensus instead of the thousands of IPCC Nobel Prize winners who agree with it?

Answer 4

Well, I read John Christy's op-ed in the WSJ, and I didn't find a theory in there at all. I didn't even find a hypothesis.

For example, how does Christy explain the observed increase in surface temps during the late 20th century? He doesn't.

How does Christy explain the observed decrease in stratospheric temps during the late 20th century? He doesn't.

How does Christy explain the observed decrease in diurnal temperature range in the 20th century? He doesn't.

So, on one hand, we have the consensus of scientists who easily explain all of these observations by increased greenhouse effect. And on the other hand, we have Christy, who explains nothing and has no hypothesis.

It's easy to see why, as even Christy admits, most other scientists don't agree with him.

Answer 5

Just some sources in reverence to your Q.
as to Christy I don't know he looks pretty "published" to me, way more than Gorester.

He doesn't appear to deny AGW just the catastrophic scenarios and exageration's of Algore.

Algore qoute
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is"

I find it odd that Dr Christy is or was an IPCC official yet now dosnt have no numbers for backup, are there other scientist in the IPCC like that?

Answer 6

Forget Al Gore. He's not a scientist, and he has no "theory" of his own.

Christy disagrees with the mainstream view of the IPCC. But he has no data to support his case, while the hundreds of scientists who wrote and reviewed the IPCC reports have a massive amount of data.

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

All Christy has are words, not data. Which is why people should accept the judgment of the vast majority of the IPCC scientists instead. Their theories are numeric, or quantitative, in scientific terms.

Science is based on numbers. Which is why:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 7

I think the stark contrast between Al Gore and Dr Christy's conclusions on global warming are strongly in favor of Dr. Christy. Any mathematical calculations I have done do not lend ANY credibility to Gore's assertions.

Answer 8

If you don't understand a question, DON'T ANSWER IT! How hard is that to do?