“They’re arguments are s***,” says Dr. Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M professor and director of the Texas Center for Climate Change, in an article by Richard Banks for WBHM about Dr. John Christy’s and Dr. Roy Spencer’s work on global temperatures and climate change models.
Thankfully, Mr. Dessler is not an English professor, or he would have failed the course with such poorly crafted grammar.
Dr. Dessler, a frequent critic of Dr. Christy, is further quoted in the article, “Christy’s arguments have not swayed the scientific community,” in referring to a survey touted by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which states there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about climate change. Dr. Dessler also states, “Virtually 100% of the community agrees with the conclusions – the earth is warming. Humans are largely to blame for that.” You should note the survey is not a study and the survey finds there is disagreement among climate scientists about climate change – not that virtually 100% of the community agrees with the conclusions. Dr. Dessler’s scientific foundation for his conclusions and profane opinion of Dr. Christy’s work is poorer than his grammar.
Dr. Christy is Professor of Atmospheric Science and Dr. Spencer is Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Additionally, Dr. Christy is also the Alabama State Climatologist. Both have been engaged in climate science, global temperature measurements and evaluations of climate models since the late 1980s. Dr. Christy has testified before Congress about 20 times, primarily about his work on climate change.
Mr. Banks, the Morning Edition host at WBHM, a television station in Birmingham, writes, Christy is a “favorite of the political right because of his views that carbon dioxide emissions have very little influence on the climate.” Mr. Banks critiques Christy’s and Spencer’s decades of research by referencing works published in environmentalist advocate blogs such as climateinsidernews.org and criticizes Christy’s and Spencer’s work because their calculations have been adjusted, which showed a slight warming. He also quotes Dr. Dessler again, “These days, Christy’s perspective on climate change … seems to be more of an argument that’s designed to generate soundbites that politicians can use.”
Banks also quotes Dr. Christy, ‘But (it is) clear, from the evidence we have, it is not a climate crisis at all.” Christy says there are record crops every year. Deaths from climate and weather-related events are down 98% from what it was 100 years ago.” Banks contends that both arguments are often used by climate change skeptics and frequently refuted by mainstream media, although he offers no proof of the media’s assertions.
Mr. Banks presents an argument based upon an EPA report that rising temperatures and carbon concentrations may increase some crop yields, but the yields of major commodities such as corn, rice, and oats are expected to be lower without climate change. Further, a World Meteorological Organization report states that the number of weather-related fatalities has fallen by two-thirds in the past 50 years. However, the number of reported disasters has increased by a factor of five over the same 50-year period, which is due in large part, to more extreme weather, which is exacerbated by climate change.
I can’t resist noting that although Mr. Banks criticizes Christy’s positions, his rebuttal seems to support them, with the exception that “crop yields are expected to be lower,” but without any proof they have been or will be worse, and 91% of the weather-related deaths have occurred in developing countries primarily due to the lack of forecasting and local notices.
John Christy has been my friend for many years. He is among the smartest, most humble, and Christian men that I have had the pleasure of knowing. Before John went into meteorology, he served as a missionary in Kenya. He has seen the suffering that poor people experience because they lack access to reliable, cheap energy. I know what he has experienced – not what he believes – is the basis for his support for fossil fuels. He says, “When you think about carbon dioxide emission going up, which it is… it represents people living longer and better lives.”
It hurts me that people with the selfish ulterior motive of changing our society and economy by reducing carbon emissions and increasing the cost of available energy attack good, decent people like John Christy. Mr. Banks’ article has one motive: remove Dr. Christy’s influence and insight from the climate change debate – and there is still a debate on the costs and benefits of Net-Zero carbon emissions.
Mr. Banks goes so far as to quote Ex-Governor and convicted felon, Don Siegelman, who appointed Christy as State Climatologist, “His positions (Christy’s) are not only contrary to my view, but seem to be in direct conflict with the majority of opinion of other climatologists, who are well-respected and their data has not been attacked as his has been.”
There you have it – both Richard Banks and Don Siegelman trying to cancel my friend, John, and his opinions, which are really important to the issues. Please don’t let them. Dr. Christy’s work is still very relevant.
(Steve, I am mad at them this month.)
I hope you have a good month.