Dr. John Christy responds to allegationsPosted By Doug Peterson |
Dr. Christy,
I have been an admirer or your work and Dr. Spencer's. On a global warming forum, an alarmist meteorologist named Robert Pasken has repeatedly attacked the two of you. I copied a sample below. If you would like to make a response, I would be glad to post it to the forum.
Doug Peterson
http://www.astromart.com/forums/list.asp?forum_id=914
Did you bother to look at John Christy's reputation as a climate scientist? Maybe you didn't notice that the research he publishes in journals and at conferences, and talks he gives at scientific meetings all support global warming. Did you notice that he and SInger have published several papers that document a rate of warming that is VERY VERY close to that of Hansen and other researchers. Did you notice that he and SInger have published in scientific journals and conference proceedings that their earlier results were wrong due to simple math errors? Did you also notice that when he or SInger published in SSEI, SSPI or speak at Heartland Institute sponsored events, or speak at meetings sponsored by fake conservatives that both he and SInger both deny that global warming exists? Did you notice that SSEI, SSPI and the Heartland Institute received the majority of their funding from ExxonMobil. Maybe nobody really cares what both he and SInger have to say because they seem to contradict themselves when money is involved. Oh! I wonder if people like SInger, Christy and Avery are the ones you fake conservatives keep talking> about when you say climate scientists are in the business for the money. To move on to you reference to the article by Christy in JC you might want to look at later issues of JC, EOS and to BAMS where the glaring errors that Christy et. al. made were documented. Like SInger and Christy's simple math errors in their analysis of satellite data, Christy made glaring errors in the analysis of the California central valley temperature data. It seems that when you fix the mistakes their cooling rate of -0.25± 0.15°C decade-1 disappears. Once more the scientific method proves it worth. Christy et. all thought they found something interesting, published their findings, some one else looks at the results, finds a flaw and corrects it. Science is working as it should. My problem is that Christy et. al. are always making math errors and their errors are never in a random fashion, but always seem to be such that their results disprove global warming.
CHRISTY'S RESPONSE
Doug:
I don't engage in these types of discussions. I do not know a RobertPasken, so I would treat his accusations with indifference.
For your own benefit, attached is a response (published) to the criticisms mentioned below on the California paper. The basic point is that I actually performed several rigorous tests for the trends we published (the controversy dealt with only one of 16 trends by the way). In any case Id emonstrated the validity of our method and the fact the data used by the complainers has never been tested for validity and indeed even the authors of those datasets do not recommend them for trends. There were absolutely no "glaring errors" in our paper.
I'm not certain about the other complaints - our satellite dataset has passed through more independent evaluation that others and has been shown to be the most consistent with independent data in the published literature (attached is one of several papers showing this). A new paper will come out soon demonstrating this point again. I suspect Pasken is not reading the literature, but reading blogs and listening to assertions that fit his biases - that gives people great comfort, but it is not the way science is done.
John C.
THE PAPERS ATTACHED WERE:
Reply, John R. Christy and Wiliam B. Norris, Kevin P. Gallo, Journal of Climate vol 20.
Satellite and VIX--Radiosonde Intercomparisons for Diagnosis of Nonclimactic Influences, John R. Christy and William B. Norris, Journal of Climate, Sepatember 2006
I can copy Christy's letter and the two pdfs to anyone who is interested.
