This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is apparently a new category that has been created. Can we please establish that Christy really is a sceptic who has formerly been a supporter first? Otherwise that part is WP:OR. I agree that Christy is somewhat sceptical - but i don't think (from what i've read) that he has ever been anything other. -- Kim D. Petersen 15:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"Christy and fellow University of Alabama professor Roy Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study based on extensive data from weather satellites. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. As The New York Times reported, when their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere."
In his speech at the circa 2003 AWMA conference in Perdido Beach Resort at the FL/AL border, he admitted the Earth might be warming a little, but avoided the question of if global warming was man-made or not. He mainly concentrated on pointing out that an ice age is a lot worse and that the U.S. shouldn't be penalized by kyoto thinking because we "produce more of what the world needs" by looking at GDP per CO2 emitted. The error in that reasoning is that $1 buys 5 times more in the 3rd world than it does in the U.S. So if you measure the philippines GDP in USD, you need multiply by 5 before comparing it to equivalent U.S. production. For example, $1 buy a full meal there...and better tasting too. Another way to look at it is that many 3rd world countries have a net USD export and yet we have a deficit, so it's more accurate to say "We consume 5 times more energy per capita and yet we have a negative net production."
If anyone wants to check the following John Christy quotes and add to the article, have at it.
May, 2004 UAH press release by Dr. John Christy:
Over the past 13 years they have made several corrections to their dataset as different problems have been identified. The satellite sensors, which have been in service since late November 1978, show a long-term lower atmosphere global warming trend of about 0.08 C (0.14 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade in the past 25 years. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=636
Before Committee May, 2003:
Over the past 24+ years various calculations of surface temperature do show a rise of about seven tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. This is roughly half of the total temperature change observed since the end of the 19th century. In the troposphere, however, various data, including the satellite dataset that Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and I produce, show much less warming, about three tenths of a degree (??) or less than half of the warming observed at the surface. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/vr_13may2003.html
Before Committee May, 2001:
Over the past 22-years various calculations of surface temperature do indeed show a rise between +0.52 and +0.63 °F (0.29 and 0.35 °C depending on which estimate is used.) This represents about half of the total surface warming since the 19th century. In the troposphere, however, the values, which include the satellite data Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA and I produce, show only a very slight warming between +0.00 and +0.15 °F (+0.00 and +0.08 °C) - a rate less than a third that observed at the surface (Fig. 1). New evidence shown in Figs. 2 and 3 continues to show the remarkable consistency between independent measurements of these upper air temperatures. http://epw.senate.gov/107th/chr_0502.htm
UniSci Daily Jan 2001: ...satellites shows global warming in the atmosphere from Earth's surface up to approximately five miles to be about 0.045 degrees Celsius per decade, a trend confirmed by data from "radiosonde" thermometers lifted through the troposphere by helium balloons. http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0109014.htm
NASA Space Science News: August 1998: The updated trend is now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected warming rate). http://spacescience.com/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
Same article as above but referring back to 1997: Our Adjusted Satellite Trend: -0.01 deg. C/decade.
NASA website, March 1997: The lower tropospheric temperature trend has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade. http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd12mar97_1.htm
Before Committee March 1996:
The trend in the time series is slightly downward (-0.05C/decade or -0.09F/decade). It is this relatively flat trend when compared to surface data (which show warming trends since 1979 of +0.09C to +0.19C/decade, depending on which data set is cited) that has attracted attention to the Spencer-Christy MSU data set. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/jchristy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.120.227 ( talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this information exists for an article on a scientist.-- Zeeboid 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The section I'm refering to is this:
(associated image)
-- Zeeboid 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the satellite data is JC's major work; and its what he is known for. It would be weird to have a page on him without mentioning it (comtrast, for example, the Fred Singer page which doesn't really spend any time on Singers actual work) William M. Connolley 09:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Quick answer to why not: not Wikipedia:Notable, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and finally you shouldn't add a movie link to all cast-members.
If we had to add every appearance of someone in a movie/documentary/whatever to a section called 'Appearances' - then it would very quickly fill up articles on people.
Now there are of course some movies/documentaries etc. that should be mentioned for people such as John Christy - but i fail to see that this movie would fall into such a category... Its a television movie (albeith controversial) that has been shown on one television channel in the UK - how does this make it notable for John Christy? Or Patrick Michaels? Or Paul Reiter? Or .... any of the others that you've added this to?
For Christy there is already a mention of this movie - which makes it even stranger to put such a section in.
Sorry but you are trying to push a POV here - and its quite obvious. -- Kim D. Petersen 23:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kim, I'm not talking about including the appearance of everyone in the documentary, i.e., I wouldn't include the names (if they were known) of the sunbathers on the beach in one segment. Or the students who assisted the scientist in launching a weather balloon in another.
I have clicked on the names of the contributors who participated in the film, and added on their bio that they made an appearance in the documentary. How is that POV? -- Dean1970 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain the fact. Christy contributed to the docu. Who do you think you are to tell someone they can't add that in here?-- Dean1970 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Kim, its wikilinked at the foot of the page! In the reference part! What is the big deal mentioning his appearance in this documentary? If the documentary is as your friends claim "controversial" and the word "propaganda" has been banded about, why would you object to some reference of Christy appearing in it in the article itself? -- Dean1970 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The documentary is notable and relevant. I've added the information. ~ UBeR 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys have got to be kidding.-- Zeeboid 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
included are edits by:
I would like this article to be looked at by an outside observer, as these editors seam to be pretty SP in their edits.-- Zeeboid 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with these, what do you sugguest?-- Zeeboid 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have read that he shares a (half) Nobel Prize with Al Gore: "I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume." [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.224.233 ( talk) 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Christy was a member of the immense IPCC team that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Phil Gentry, May 13, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.155.91 ( talk) 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The UAH website describes Dr. Christy as "the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science" Is there any objection to including this language in his Biography? Showman60 ( talk) 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this in fact need a reference. If so, is there an objection to referencing the UAH website? In regards to puffery, a distinguished professor is one of five tenured tracked levels of professorship recognized and described by Wikipedia under the topic of "professor". If we omit the use of that designation here then are we suggesting that Wikipedia will need to collapse the other five Wikipedia categories of tenured professor into just "professor"?. Showman60 ( talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Distinguished professor is a formal job title within the hierarchy at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Phil Gentry, May 13, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.155.91 ( talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This text needs a citation or it probably will need to be deleted. Cla68 ( talk) 07:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph isn't entirely accurate. As I understand it, NASA publishes raw satellite data available to anyone on the planet. There were two major organizations publishing conflicting trends. One group, UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville), said the climate was cooling while another group, RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Clara), said it was warming. In the Septemeber 2005 issue of "Science", Mears and Wentz of RSS published their discovery of alegbraic errors in the algorithms used by Christy and Spencer at UAH (Christy and Spencer acknowledged the errors in the "letters area" of the same issue). That is why the slopes on the second graph of the "Global Warming" article are almost identical. Check the comments behind that graph for more details. -- Neilrieck ( talk) 14:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed some stuff that G added [5]. deleted one publication on which Christy was not an active (or willing) author is a weird edit comment. If G really does have some reliable insight into Christies mind, err, we'd need to see some kind of sources for it.
Also, I think replacing "cooling" with "showing less warming or more cooling than ground measurements." is dishonest. The ground measurements didn't show cooling, they showed warming; the UAH record started off showing cooling and that was what the "skeptics" all pushed, e.g. [6].
I also took out this [7] because it doesn't look like an accurate characterisation of the paper. Nor is there any evidence of it being one of his "chief interests".
Also, as a gesture of compromise I restored 3 papers that G added. I doubt Christy regards any of them as his finest and would probably wish the E+E one forgotten.
Does William "Danny" Blaswell work with Roy Spencer (scientist) and John Christy of University of Alabama in Huntsville? Christy is on Talk:Richard A. Muller, saw this on Talk:Global warming. 64.27.194.74 ( talk) 20:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The current information claiming a "mistake" by Judge Sessions is not accurate....
In a 2007 ruling in a trial relating to automobile emission regulation in Vermont, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William K. Sessions mistakenly wrote, "Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations." [1] What Christy said in his testimony was, "You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with." and "You saw me pause a long time because — this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago." [2]
- ^ "Case No. 2:05-cv-302" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Vermont. September 12, 2007. pp. 44–45. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
- ^ "Civil File No. 05-302 & 304" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Vermont. May 4, 2007. pp. 46–48. Retrieved March 7, 2011.
I attempeted a correction here but was reverted with the edit summary explanation: That is not a correction, that is deleting what Christy said.
As cited by Judge Sessions in the references above, here is what Christy said during cross examination...
Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007).
145: 15 | Q | All right. Read the -- read the paragraph beginning, "in light of the new evidence" [from the IPCC's third assessment report (2001)] on that same page down below the bullet points. |
18 | A | "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." |
23 | Q | And at the time that was written -- you were you part of the IPCC -- you were mostly in agreement with that statement, were you not? |
146: 1 | A | You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with. |
3 | Q | I am going to show you a video clip of your deposition. This is pages 120, line 16, through 121, line five. |
6 | [Video deposition playing.] | |
7 | THE COURT: We need to turn this up here. You want to -- | |
9 | [The video deposition of John Christy was played in open court as follows: | |
11 | Q. ..."In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." In 2001, did you agree with that statement? | |
17 | I did not have significant concerns about that statement. | |
19 | Q. So you were mostly in agreement with it, if not 100 percent? | |
21 | A. I was mostly in agreement with this statement.] | |
22 | BY MR. PAWA: | |
25 | Q | Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you said in your deposition you were mostly in agreement with that statement at the time it was written? |
147: 2 | A | That is -- |
3 | MR. CLUBOK: Your Honor, I object to this. This is not -- that was entirely consistent with what he said. It was one thing to impeach someone with an inconsistent statements. It's fine if Mr. Pawa wants to use his time. But he can't imply it's somehow inconsistent when it's not. | |
9 | THE COURT: I didn't hear his answer so I don't know if it's consistent or inconsistent. | |
11 | MR. CLUBOK: Maybe he should play it again. | |
12 | THE COURT: Go ahead and ask the question. | |
13 | BY MR. PAWA: | |
14 | Q | Does that refresh your recollection that at the time the 2001 report was issued, you were mostly in agreement with that statement, that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations? |
19 | A | I think what I said there was I didn't have significant concerns -- |
21 | Q | And then you said -- |
22 | A | -- about -- |
23 | Q | And then you said you were mostly in agreement with it, right? |
25 | A | Yes. You saw me pause a long time because -- this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago. |
148: 2 | Q | And you are in agreement with that statement, as we sit here today? |
5 | A | As I answered here, because of the qualifications in that statement, I don't have significant concerns. In fact, that's what I said on Monday, I believe it was. |
Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.
168: 8 | Q | Now, Dr. Christy, you agree that as we sit here today, anthropogenic global warming is happening from the burning of fossil fuels, correct? |
11 | A | The increase in fossil fuel -- let me back up. The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is real. It is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels. That changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and therefore, there is an impact on the surface temperature of the planet toward a warming rate. |
17 | Q | Is anthropogenic global warming happening as we sit here today? |
19 | A | Anthropogenic global warming, in a sense that the radiative forcing has changed and increased, is happening as we speak because there is an increase in the carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere. |
23 | Q | Do you recall you gave me a very unambiguous answer to that question in your deposition, Dr. Christy? |
25 | A | I don't recall. I'm sorry. |
169: 1 | Q | Let me refresh your recollection. On page 90 of the deposition, lines 6 through nine. |
3 | Question: So greenhouse-gas-induced warming from the burning of fossil fuel is occurring as we sit here today, correct? | |
6 | Answer: Yes. | |
7 | You made that statement? | |
8 | A | And that's consistent with what I just said. |
9 | Q | That was an honest and correct answer, was it not? |
10 | A | Yes. |
Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11.
174: 2 | Q | You haven't read the National Academy of Sciences on Abrupt Climate Change, though? |
4 | A | I haven't read all this report. |
5 | Q | And, Dr. Christy, it's true that an abrupt climate change would cause a much greater impact on both human society and ecosystems than a gradual one; that's true, correct? |
9 | A | I think it's common sense that something happens rapidly to a system, it's harder for humans or whatever to adapt. It's sudden. |
He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate. Id. at 174:16-23.
174: 16 | Q | And any level of emissions reductions are going to have some effect on the radiative forcing of the planet, correct? |
19 | A | The effect is going to be proportional to the amount of reduction. |
21 | Q | So any level will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate, correct? |
23 | A | Yes. |
I don't see any "mistakes" on Judge Sessions' part that support the current revision. What am I missing? — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 22:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The text currently reads "Although Christy's critics have often accused him of receiving money from the fossil fuel industry, he testified in court that his research is funded exclusively by NOAA.".
The supporting link contains the language "Christy's critics in the blogosphere assume his research is funded by the oil industry. But Christy has testified in federal court that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests - $2,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for penning a chapter of a global warming book in 2002 - he gave away to a charity, the Christian Women's Job Corps.".
No actual "critics" are named in the supporting reference, no specific accusations are noted in the supporting reference, and the supporting reference acknowledges that Christy received money from fossil fuel front group CEI (although it seeks to downplay the significance of this).
I suggest that either the line in the article be reworded to remove the language about "critics", the language be reworded, or a better source provided for this claim. phjacobs ( talk) 14:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on
WP:BLPN and
WP:CFD the category was deleted.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 16:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Christy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The publisher is Dow Jones & Company, now a division of News Corp., per its wp article ... on August 1, 2007, News Corp and Dow Jones entered into a definitive merger agreement; transaction was completed on December 13, 2007. Before and after 2007 DJ & Co. was/is publisher. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
@ Tillman:, @ Stephan Schulz: Any responses/comments? X1\ ( talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Christy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is apparently a new category that has been created. Can we please establish that Christy really is a sceptic who has formerly been a supporter first? Otherwise that part is WP:OR. I agree that Christy is somewhat sceptical - but i don't think (from what i've read) that he has ever been anything other. -- Kim D. Petersen 15:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"Christy and fellow University of Alabama professor Roy Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study based on extensive data from weather satellites. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. As The New York Times reported, when their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere."
In his speech at the circa 2003 AWMA conference in Perdido Beach Resort at the FL/AL border, he admitted the Earth might be warming a little, but avoided the question of if global warming was man-made or not. He mainly concentrated on pointing out that an ice age is a lot worse and that the U.S. shouldn't be penalized by kyoto thinking because we "produce more of what the world needs" by looking at GDP per CO2 emitted. The error in that reasoning is that $1 buys 5 times more in the 3rd world than it does in the U.S. So if you measure the philippines GDP in USD, you need multiply by 5 before comparing it to equivalent U.S. production. For example, $1 buy a full meal there...and better tasting too. Another way to look at it is that many 3rd world countries have a net USD export and yet we have a deficit, so it's more accurate to say "We consume 5 times more energy per capita and yet we have a negative net production."
If anyone wants to check the following John Christy quotes and add to the article, have at it.
May, 2004 UAH press release by Dr. John Christy:
Over the past 13 years they have made several corrections to their dataset as different problems have been identified. The satellite sensors, which have been in service since late November 1978, show a long-term lower atmosphere global warming trend of about 0.08 C (0.14 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade in the past 25 years. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=636
Before Committee May, 2003:
Over the past 24+ years various calculations of surface temperature do show a rise of about seven tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. This is roughly half of the total temperature change observed since the end of the 19th century. In the troposphere, however, various data, including the satellite dataset that Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and I produce, show much less warming, about three tenths of a degree (??) or less than half of the warming observed at the surface. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/vr_13may2003.html
Before Committee May, 2001:
Over the past 22-years various calculations of surface temperature do indeed show a rise between +0.52 and +0.63 °F (0.29 and 0.35 °C depending on which estimate is used.) This represents about half of the total surface warming since the 19th century. In the troposphere, however, the values, which include the satellite data Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA and I produce, show only a very slight warming between +0.00 and +0.15 °F (+0.00 and +0.08 °C) - a rate less than a third that observed at the surface (Fig. 1). New evidence shown in Figs. 2 and 3 continues to show the remarkable consistency between independent measurements of these upper air temperatures. http://epw.senate.gov/107th/chr_0502.htm
UniSci Daily Jan 2001: ...satellites shows global warming in the atmosphere from Earth's surface up to approximately five miles to be about 0.045 degrees Celsius per decade, a trend confirmed by data from "radiosonde" thermometers lifted through the troposphere by helium balloons. http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0109014.htm
NASA Space Science News: August 1998: The updated trend is now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected warming rate). http://spacescience.com/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
Same article as above but referring back to 1997: Our Adjusted Satellite Trend: -0.01 deg. C/decade.
NASA website, March 1997: The lower tropospheric temperature trend has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade. http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd12mar97_1.htm
Before Committee March 1996:
The trend in the time series is slightly downward (-0.05C/decade or -0.09F/decade). It is this relatively flat trend when compared to surface data (which show warming trends since 1979 of +0.09C to +0.19C/decade, depending on which data set is cited) that has attracted attention to the Spencer-Christy MSU data set. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/jchristy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.120.227 ( talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this information exists for an article on a scientist.-- Zeeboid 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The section I'm refering to is this:
(associated image)
-- Zeeboid 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the satellite data is JC's major work; and its what he is known for. It would be weird to have a page on him without mentioning it (comtrast, for example, the Fred Singer page which doesn't really spend any time on Singers actual work) William M. Connolley 09:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Quick answer to why not: not Wikipedia:Notable, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and finally you shouldn't add a movie link to all cast-members.
If we had to add every appearance of someone in a movie/documentary/whatever to a section called 'Appearances' - then it would very quickly fill up articles on people.
Now there are of course some movies/documentaries etc. that should be mentioned for people such as John Christy - but i fail to see that this movie would fall into such a category... Its a television movie (albeith controversial) that has been shown on one television channel in the UK - how does this make it notable for John Christy? Or Patrick Michaels? Or Paul Reiter? Or .... any of the others that you've added this to?
For Christy there is already a mention of this movie - which makes it even stranger to put such a section in.
Sorry but you are trying to push a POV here - and its quite obvious. -- Kim D. Petersen 23:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kim, I'm not talking about including the appearance of everyone in the documentary, i.e., I wouldn't include the names (if they were known) of the sunbathers on the beach in one segment. Or the students who assisted the scientist in launching a weather balloon in another.
I have clicked on the names of the contributors who participated in the film, and added on their bio that they made an appearance in the documentary. How is that POV? -- Dean1970 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain the fact. Christy contributed to the docu. Who do you think you are to tell someone they can't add that in here?-- Dean1970 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Kim, its wikilinked at the foot of the page! In the reference part! What is the big deal mentioning his appearance in this documentary? If the documentary is as your friends claim "controversial" and the word "propaganda" has been banded about, why would you object to some reference of Christy appearing in it in the article itself? -- Dean1970 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The documentary is notable and relevant. I've added the information. ~ UBeR 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys have got to be kidding.-- Zeeboid 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
included are edits by:
I would like this article to be looked at by an outside observer, as these editors seam to be pretty SP in their edits.-- Zeeboid 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with these, what do you sugguest?-- Zeeboid 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have read that he shares a (half) Nobel Prize with Al Gore: "I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume." [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.224.233 ( talk) 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Christy was a member of the immense IPCC team that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Phil Gentry, May 13, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.155.91 ( talk) 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The UAH website describes Dr. Christy as "the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science" Is there any objection to including this language in his Biography? Showman60 ( talk) 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this in fact need a reference. If so, is there an objection to referencing the UAH website? In regards to puffery, a distinguished professor is one of five tenured tracked levels of professorship recognized and described by Wikipedia under the topic of "professor". If we omit the use of that designation here then are we suggesting that Wikipedia will need to collapse the other five Wikipedia categories of tenured professor into just "professor"?. Showman60 ( talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Distinguished professor is a formal job title within the hierarchy at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Phil Gentry, May 13, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.155.91 ( talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This text needs a citation or it probably will need to be deleted. Cla68 ( talk) 07:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph isn't entirely accurate. As I understand it, NASA publishes raw satellite data available to anyone on the planet. There were two major organizations publishing conflicting trends. One group, UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville), said the climate was cooling while another group, RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Clara), said it was warming. In the Septemeber 2005 issue of "Science", Mears and Wentz of RSS published their discovery of alegbraic errors in the algorithms used by Christy and Spencer at UAH (Christy and Spencer acknowledged the errors in the "letters area" of the same issue). That is why the slopes on the second graph of the "Global Warming" article are almost identical. Check the comments behind that graph for more details. -- Neilrieck ( talk) 14:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed some stuff that G added [5]. deleted one publication on which Christy was not an active (or willing) author is a weird edit comment. If G really does have some reliable insight into Christies mind, err, we'd need to see some kind of sources for it.
Also, I think replacing "cooling" with "showing less warming or more cooling than ground measurements." is dishonest. The ground measurements didn't show cooling, they showed warming; the UAH record started off showing cooling and that was what the "skeptics" all pushed, e.g. [6].
I also took out this [7] because it doesn't look like an accurate characterisation of the paper. Nor is there any evidence of it being one of his "chief interests".
Also, as a gesture of compromise I restored 3 papers that G added. I doubt Christy regards any of them as his finest and would probably wish the E+E one forgotten.
Does William "Danny" Blaswell work with Roy Spencer (scientist) and John Christy of University of Alabama in Huntsville? Christy is on Talk:Richard A. Muller, saw this on Talk:Global warming. 64.27.194.74 ( talk) 20:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The current information claiming a "mistake" by Judge Sessions is not accurate....
In a 2007 ruling in a trial relating to automobile emission regulation in Vermont, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William K. Sessions mistakenly wrote, "Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations." [1] What Christy said in his testimony was, "You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with." and "You saw me pause a long time because — this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago." [2]
- ^ "Case No. 2:05-cv-302" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Vermont. September 12, 2007. pp. 44–45. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
- ^ "Civil File No. 05-302 & 304" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Vermont. May 4, 2007. pp. 46–48. Retrieved March 7, 2011.
I attempeted a correction here but was reverted with the edit summary explanation: That is not a correction, that is deleting what Christy said.
As cited by Judge Sessions in the references above, here is what Christy said during cross examination...
Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007).
145: 15 | Q | All right. Read the -- read the paragraph beginning, "in light of the new evidence" [from the IPCC's third assessment report (2001)] on that same page down below the bullet points. |
18 | A | "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." |
23 | Q | And at the time that was written -- you were you part of the IPCC -- you were mostly in agreement with that statement, were you not? |
146: 1 | A | You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with. |
3 | Q | I am going to show you a video clip of your deposition. This is pages 120, line 16, through 121, line five. |
6 | [Video deposition playing.] | |
7 | THE COURT: We need to turn this up here. You want to -- | |
9 | [The video deposition of John Christy was played in open court as follows: | |
11 | Q. ..."In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." In 2001, did you agree with that statement? | |
17 | I did not have significant concerns about that statement. | |
19 | Q. So you were mostly in agreement with it, if not 100 percent? | |
21 | A. I was mostly in agreement with this statement.] | |
22 | BY MR. PAWA: | |
25 | Q | Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you said in your deposition you were mostly in agreement with that statement at the time it was written? |
147: 2 | A | That is -- |
3 | MR. CLUBOK: Your Honor, I object to this. This is not -- that was entirely consistent with what he said. It was one thing to impeach someone with an inconsistent statements. It's fine if Mr. Pawa wants to use his time. But he can't imply it's somehow inconsistent when it's not. | |
9 | THE COURT: I didn't hear his answer so I don't know if it's consistent or inconsistent. | |
11 | MR. CLUBOK: Maybe he should play it again. | |
12 | THE COURT: Go ahead and ask the question. | |
13 | BY MR. PAWA: | |
14 | Q | Does that refresh your recollection that at the time the 2001 report was issued, you were mostly in agreement with that statement, that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations? |
19 | A | I think what I said there was I didn't have significant concerns -- |
21 | Q | And then you said -- |
22 | A | -- about -- |
23 | Q | And then you said you were mostly in agreement with it, right? |
25 | A | Yes. You saw me pause a long time because -- this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago. |
148: 2 | Q | And you are in agreement with that statement, as we sit here today? |
5 | A | As I answered here, because of the qualifications in that statement, I don't have significant concerns. In fact, that's what I said on Monday, I believe it was. |
Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.
168: 8 | Q | Now, Dr. Christy, you agree that as we sit here today, anthropogenic global warming is happening from the burning of fossil fuels, correct? |
11 | A | The increase in fossil fuel -- let me back up. The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is real. It is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels. That changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and therefore, there is an impact on the surface temperature of the planet toward a warming rate. |
17 | Q | Is anthropogenic global warming happening as we sit here today? |
19 | A | Anthropogenic global warming, in a sense that the radiative forcing has changed and increased, is happening as we speak because there is an increase in the carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere. |
23 | Q | Do you recall you gave me a very unambiguous answer to that question in your deposition, Dr. Christy? |
25 | A | I don't recall. I'm sorry. |
169: 1 | Q | Let me refresh your recollection. On page 90 of the deposition, lines 6 through nine. |
3 | Question: So greenhouse-gas-induced warming from the burning of fossil fuel is occurring as we sit here today, correct? | |
6 | Answer: Yes. | |
7 | You made that statement? | |
8 | A | And that's consistent with what I just said. |
9 | Q | That was an honest and correct answer, was it not? |
10 | A | Yes. |
Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11.
174: 2 | Q | You haven't read the National Academy of Sciences on Abrupt Climate Change, though? |
4 | A | I haven't read all this report. |
5 | Q | And, Dr. Christy, it's true that an abrupt climate change would cause a much greater impact on both human society and ecosystems than a gradual one; that's true, correct? |
9 | A | I think it's common sense that something happens rapidly to a system, it's harder for humans or whatever to adapt. It's sudden. |
He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate. Id. at 174:16-23.
174: 16 | Q | And any level of emissions reductions are going to have some effect on the radiative forcing of the planet, correct? |
19 | A | The effect is going to be proportional to the amount of reduction. |
21 | Q | So any level will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate, correct? |
23 | A | Yes. |
I don't see any "mistakes" on Judge Sessions' part that support the current revision. What am I missing? — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 22:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The text currently reads "Although Christy's critics have often accused him of receiving money from the fossil fuel industry, he testified in court that his research is funded exclusively by NOAA.".
The supporting link contains the language "Christy's critics in the blogosphere assume his research is funded by the oil industry. But Christy has testified in federal court that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests - $2,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for penning a chapter of a global warming book in 2002 - he gave away to a charity, the Christian Women's Job Corps.".
No actual "critics" are named in the supporting reference, no specific accusations are noted in the supporting reference, and the supporting reference acknowledges that Christy received money from fossil fuel front group CEI (although it seeks to downplay the significance of this).
I suggest that either the line in the article be reworded to remove the language about "critics", the language be reworded, or a better source provided for this claim. phjacobs ( talk) 14:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on
WP:BLPN and
WP:CFD the category was deleted.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 16:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Christy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The publisher is Dow Jones & Company, now a division of News Corp., per its wp article ... on August 1, 2007, News Corp and Dow Jones entered into a definitive merger agreement; transaction was completed on December 13, 2007. Before and after 2007 DJ & Co. was/is publisher. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
@ Tillman:, @ Stephan Schulz: Any responses/comments? X1\ ( talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Christy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)