Skepticism akin to threatening the life of ‘a little girl’: NYT Profiles ‘Outlier’ Dr. John Christy: ‘Skeptic of Climate Change Finds Himself a Target of Suspicion’ – Portrays him as roadblock to ‘staving off potentially catastrophic warming’
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama here, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.
“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”
Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither.…
More Heat about Ocean Heat – another nail in the AGW coffin
Anthony CoxI have previously written about the fact that the heat in the ocean isn’t there. A Facebook commentator produced some excellent graphs based on the ARGO data which showed NO heat accumulation at any level in the world’s oceans. This lack of warming contradicts completely (Anthropogenic Global Warming) AGW theory as put forward by such AGW stalwarts as Trenberth and England. It also has Hansen scrambling for weird and whacky explanations.So it is plain in the ARGO era that the oceans are not warming and this contradicts AGW.In my articles I noted that NODC graphs were shown in joules which allowed a steeper slope compared to a temperature trend. Mischievously I suggested an ulterior motive for this. Alarmism.Another blogger has taken me to task. Rob Ryan has defended the NODC graphs and pointed out that they do indeed have temperature graphs. Indeed they do:Thanks Rob. By way of comparison here is the same graph in joules:Well to me the trend slope in the joules graph looks steeper and more alarming than the temperature graph. But Rob doesn’t like OHC as a measure of the energy; it is poor terminology according to Rob. Hey Rob, don’t blame me, argue with NODC and indeed AGW in general; they’re the ones using and relying on it.What really is poor is the notion that by any measure the oceans are heating. The estimable Bob Tisdale does a comparison of all OHC measures and produces this graph:Plainly Hansen’s model on behalf of AGW is off with the pixies while the MET and the NODC show the opposite trend!A couple of things about this. Firstly the ARGO data is adjusted before it is presented. Obviously NODC and the MET adjust it differently. In fact in another post Bob Tisdale examines the NODC adjustment procedure:At the 700 meters range NODC have increased the trend by 19%. The NODC adjustments increase the trend at 2000 meters by 36%!Secondly the ARGO data, even though it is the best we have ever had, is vastly insufficient. Willis Eschenbach notes:The sampling of the oceans is by no means as uniform as I had expected. Part of the ocean is under sampled, sometimes badly so, compared to other areas. Half of the global ocean has been sampled less than 20 times per 10,000 sq. km, and 14% has …
Insane claim from @environmentca #climate scientist: “The one thing that doesn’t exist anymore is normal weather” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/tornadoes-of-fire-in-n-w-t-linked-to-climate-change-1.2706131
BBC Wobbles: Climate Sceptics ‘Must Be Heard On The BBC’, Editor Says
BBC shouldn’t “squeeze out” climate change sceptics just because scientists say they’re wrong, says editor of Today programme
The BBC must air the views of climate change sceptics even though they are in the minority, the editor of Radio 4’s Today programme has said after he was criticised for allowing Nigel Lawson to feature in a debate.
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, now heads a think tank casting doubt on the science of global warming.
Appearing on the programme in February, Lord Lawson questioned whether extreme weather events – including flooding in the UK – had any link to climate change. Some listeners complained, and the BBC’s editorial complaints unit ruled that his views had been given undue prominence in the debate.
Lord Lawson claims the “quasi-Stalinist” BBC has now banned him from appearing on the programme because his views clash with the corporation’s “own party line”.
But Jamie Angus, editor of Today, said Lord Lawson deserved to be heard despite holding a minority view.
“The BBC can’t say, ‘We aren’t going to put that point of view on air because scientists tell us it’s not right’,” Angus said.
“People always raise flat earth at this point, but if you go into a pub on Oxford Street you won’t find anyone who says the earth is flat, but you will probably find a couple of people who are unconvinced by the science of climate change.
“Clearly the BBC has to reflect what is a relatively settled view of the majority of scientists… but absolutely should not squeeze out alternative points of view, and we haven’t.”
A BBC spokesman insisted Lord Lawson had not been banned, but said implying that his views were on “the same footing” as those of the climate scientist who featured in the debate had created “a false balance”.