John Christy

I haven't read much by John Christy, but the following interview about 'climate change' presents a viewpoint that I accept. He says "yes, the data shows warming" but to take the hysterical IPCC "global warming" doom story is not supported by the facts. He points out that human changes to terrain have more to do with the measured increases, not greenhouse gases. I very much admire him, as a former lead author for IPCC, to admit that the IPCC is not a true scientific body but a self-selected, politically motivated group selling global warming hysteria:



One other comment: this interview was done by the Russia Today network. This is my first encounter with it. I liked this broadcast, but I'm leary of anything connected with Putin and his government. He's not an old-line Communist, but he is a power mad ex-KGB autocrat. I'm always willing to hear anything from any viewpoint and I then digest it by running it against my inner model of "truth" to evaluate how credible it is. This passes the test because it isn't trying to sell Russia. This ends up just being an interview. So I can accept it as face value. There is no hidden agenda here other than "filling time" and "establishing credibility" with news stories for the RT television network.

Addendum:

If you don't trust the Russians, then here is a web posting by good old boys, 100% card carrying Americans, that presents an even more in-depth critique of the global warming hysteria. Here is John Coleman with a special on his TV channel KUSI in San Diego. You can see an interview with John Christy four minutes into part 8. This is excellent. Christy talks about CO2 warming and why the NASA GISS surface-only data set is inadequate and misleading. He clearly states that his satellite-based volumetric data set doesn't show any global warming.

Note: My only quibble is that about 1:40 into part 2, while he is complaining about the gaffs & errors of IPCC in estimating the melting of Himalayan glaciers, he makes a ridiculous claim that the Himalayas represent one-tenth of the earth's surface. In fact it is closer to one-half of one percent. So he is off by a factor of twenty! Other than that error, everything else presented by John Coleman sounds true to me.