Talk:John Christy

Former global warming supporter...

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)

He used to contribute to IPCC reports as a "Lead Author", of which, the IPCC maintains a supporting view.--Zeeboid 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But he has exactly the same opinion before being a lead author as he had afterwards. At least that is my reading of his writings. He is btw. not a sceptic in the Timothy Ball sense - Christy does believe that global warming is happening - he is just contesting how large and how important. You could call him a Kyoto sceptic - but not really an AGW sceptic.

Please read a bit of his writings. (otoh Spencer his assistant is a sceptic. --Kim D. Petersen 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've watched two of his 4 or 5 presentations at AWMA conferences. He has always been a rigid skeptic. Unfortunately, he never had handouts for his presentations, so no one was able to walk away with a record of what his presentation was unless they recorded it. I'm surprised there has been no mention of how often he has had to change his data after people showed his mistakes. Here is his data in each year it was reported rather than going back and correcting for the mistakes that were found in his methods:

• 1996 -0.05
• 1997 -0.04
• 1998 -0.01
• 1999 0.045
• 2004 0.08
• 2005 0.123

"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

that link seems to be dead; but it is archived on the Wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20080523141955rn_1/www.globalwarming.org/node/593

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

another dead link. Google books has this under "United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources - 2003, Kyoto global warming treaty's impact on Ohio's coal-dependent Communities, Volume 4" (page 48); which is also available here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg87018/pdf/CHRG-108hhrg87018.pdf (scroll down to page 48)

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

again, that link seems to be dead, try this one: http://spacescience.spaceref.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)

Whats with the satalite info

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)

The climate trend shown by the UAH satellite data has changed through time, due to corrections in the processing and as the climate has varied. During the first several years of data collection the global trend was downward. That has since changed and the most recent long-term average global climate trend seen in the satellite data is +0.14 C (about 0.25° Fahrenheit) per decade.

Unlike some other major climate data sets, the satellite data are constantly being refined and adjusted as new discoveries are made in the relatively new science of remote sensing. Notable adjustments were made to compensate for the effects of orbital drift and orbital decay, and most recently to correct an arithmetic error. Christy and Spencer use intercalibration between instruments on different satellites to adjust for instrument bias, then try to validate their data by comparing it to data gathered by weather balloons and surface stations.

A native of Fresno, CA (where he learned to pan for gold), Christy was a missionary in Kenya for two years. After earning his divinity degree he founded a Southern Baptist church in South Dakota before pursuing a career in science and teaching.

--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)

Is this HIS satellite data?--Zeeboid 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is reading the figure caption beyond you? William M. Connolley 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Appearances section

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)

Sorry but that explanation is rather weak - you are (almost) including every person that is in the movie - except innocent bystanders who where caught in the camera's view. And you still haven't responded to any of the other things i pointed out. --Kim D. Petersen 02:20, 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)

He also contributed to a countless of other documentaries/tv productions/interviews how does this one differ? You have to adhere to Wikipedia:Notable - why is this particular tv production so specifically interesting? Especially on this page - where its already mentioned - with a direct quote and timestamp in the movie? --Kim D. Petersen

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)

Give me a reason for that particular movie to be placed more prominently, or even for that particular movie to be interesting to an international audience (hint: Its a UK television movie - that has been shown only on one channel in the UK). Christy has a lot of accomplishments and appearances that are quite a bit more prominent, notable and interesting. For instance i don't think that all of his Senate/Congress appearances are mentioned - nor is all of his papers or books - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (correct) but it is also not a place to put every little information. You actually have to weight things - and TGGWS is not very heavy on any scale... The quote and the reference is there because its succinct - it describes Christy's attitute (as seen in lots of places) quite well. --Kim D. Petersen 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is one. please view other wiki articles with scientists who appeared in that documentery. a president has been set.--75.134.134.160 03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other articles doesn't set precedence. Contrary to other articles, Christy has a section called Quotes where he is directly quoted from the movie. And the movie is therefore in the references. --Kim D. Petersen 08:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

.160 is right, it needs to be listed here. He was in the documentry, he had quite a bit to say, noting his participation would only enhance his article, which until reciently didn't seam to contain enough information. Are you willing to, upon your statment, go throughout other articles, and remove any mention of something that is in the refrences? If not, it should stay.--Zeeboid 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, WMC and friends typical POV'ing informaiton right out of of the article. The subject of this article has been in this documentry, and, as his stance on GW, it should be listed.--Zeeboid 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Its bad elsewhere - so it has to be bad here as well". Sorry, not acceptable as an argument. (btw. i though .160 was you - he has a strange interest in all the same subjects?). Oh - and if i find things on other pages in external links, that is already in the references - then i delete it. Feel free to check my contribution list.

Oh - and what is POV about deleting redundant information? Note: Christy himself is referring to the UAH product as his own. --Kim D. Petersen 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This scientist has contributed to TV documentries and specials, it should be noted. Otherwise, why not just have a refrences section?--Zeeboid 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - he has appeared in quite a few such documentaries, or TV shows - how exactly are these sufficient notable for them to appear on his bio? Personally i suspect that you are trying to push mentions of TGGWS instead of trying to improve Christy's bio. --Kim D. Petersen 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

your arbitrary requirements for what should or should not be in an article keep changing. Cite for me please the policy that lists that a wiki article on scientist should not contain Media appeariances. Or, lets take this Though mediation.--Zeeboid 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Notable - as well as WP:NPOV which becomes apparent when we look at what you cherry-pick from the various sources. Try sticking instead to biographical information about Christy, and the research that he conducts. --Kim D. Petersen 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into that IP address edit appears be from one of my locations, I will have to ask the wife if she has done any edits based on my complaints about POV Pushing in Wikipedia. If she did, then I will ask her not to per the policies, as I'm sure you would object to someone else having the same opinion as me, editing from the same ip address, which I can understand. its probably her though, we were just talking about this article yesterday. my apologies if it is.--Zeeboid 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you self revert - since you are above 3RR then. As per WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT - policies of which you are aware. --Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim, would you like to bring this to a moderator? I feel that your crew and I are at an impass with this article.--Zeeboid 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid, i see no specific reason for mediation here. This is in essence a discussion about trivia, which shouldn't be on biographies. --Kim D. Petersen 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The documentary is notable and relevant. I've added the information. ~ UBeR 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seem that you haven't read the talk page UBeR. The documentary is already referenced. How btw. does this make the other things in your revert (not "added relevant information") notable? --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you show us where in the article this informaiton already exists? The only place is a link in the refrences that does not say that this scientist is in the film. you are out of line by removing this information, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The refrences do not explain the information, they don't even list this Christy as participating in either documentry.--Zeeboid 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How can he not be in the movie - when there is a direct quote by him - from the movie? Thats pretty far-fetched. You want TGGWS to be mentioned, and it is. --Kim D. Petersen 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's referenced, but it's not mentioned. There's quite a difference. The documentary is notable enough to be mentioned, and if you have any doubts about that, just do a quick Google search. ~ UBeR 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here Here, UBeR.--Zeeboid 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR - the movie is notable. So is a lot of movies. Should we list them all on the various actors/participants articles? The quote is here - because it actually is succinct and captures Christy's view nicely. Why should it have more space than that? Is it really that notable in Christy's life and career? --Kim D. Petersen 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Scientists who carry posisitions on this topic, are listed all over the palce, what they are in, where they said what and so on. example: Richard Lindzen,Gavin Schmidt,Timothy F. Ball, Ian Clark,Piers Corbyn,Paul Driessen (author),Nigel Lawson... would you like me to go on? I don't believe I need to. I'm sorry you don't agree with it, but it is a valid entry.--Zeeboid 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally i think its trivia, and that it doesn't belong on those pages either - and neither does the debate on Schmidt's page. But this is not "those pages" - this is the page about John Christy, remember? --Kim D. Petersen 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

John Christy is a scientist, much like the others. And he was in TGGWS just like the others. Just like the others, it should be noted in his article, because based on all the others, it is relivent enough to stick... wether or not you agree with it.--Zeeboid 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid - that argument is irrelevant. This is a biography article about John Christy - its not the other articles. Just because something is bad on other articles - doesn't make it right in this one. --Kim D. Petersen 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, your arguement is irrelevant. other scientists articles include information about public appeariances, so should this scientist.--Zeeboid 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

May I sugguest Moderation if we all can not work this out?--Zeeboid 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?--Stephan Schulz 17:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing here is that its actually allready worked out. You just do not like the consensus. Sorry about that. --Kim D. Petersen 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is quite diffrent then majority. there are three people here who have put that inforamtion back, and three who have removed it. You just do not like the lack of a consensus.--Zeeboid 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PARSER ERROR    Raymond Arritt 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for a neutrality check

You guys have got to be kidding.--Zeeboid 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Several editors on this article are making clear Bias edits, limiting or re-wording the information.

included are edits by:

1. KimDabelsteinPetersen
2. Stephan Schulz
3. William M. Connolley

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)

Oh my, Wikipedia editors rewording information! What a thought! But I'll welcome an outside opinion. --Stephan Schulz 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand Stephan. If you welcome an outside opinion, why did you vote against mediation? RonCram 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Christy. I'm fine with mediation if someone comes up with a clear case description. --Stephan Schulz 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not followed the whole discussion here. I just saw that you favored mediation here but voted against and thought it strange.RonCram 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put my rationale on the mediation page first, but it was moved to talk as they wanted only the votes. In fact, I did not put the current "disagree" vote there, someone moved that part back from talk... --Stephan Schulz 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought this was strange too, but if you think about it, they don't have anything to gain from mediation.--Zeeboid 14:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect THEY are firing up their orbital mind control lasers again. The question is if YOU are willing to spend a modicum of time and thought (and a spellchecker) on writing a mediation request that makes sense, in which case I would agree to mediation (as I've done before).--Stephan Schulz 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An Admin (William M. Connolley) who is part of the bias issues is removing the neutrality tag.--Zeeboid 14:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming in new to this one also. What's the POV concern? The article reads quite objectively and doesn't accuse Christy of anything. Raymond Arritt 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I though, and why I removed the tag William M. Connolley 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The POV Concern is the removal of the controbutions to TGGWS and Exposed: The CLimate of Fear because "It exists in the refrences" section, even though other scientists (Richard Lindzen,Gavin Schmidt,Timothy F. Ball, Ian Clark,Piers Corbyn,Paul Driessen (author),Nigel Lawson and more) contain the same type of information.--Zeeboid 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The contribution to TGGWS is in the Quotes section (do you ever read the articles you comment on?), not only in the references, and W:CoF is completely non-notable.--Stephan Schulz 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An Admin (William M. Connolley) who is part of the bias issues is once again removing the neutrality tag. It would be best if people who have single purpose accounts on Global Warming issues (William) stay out of issues questioning the neutrality of said admin's edits.--Zeeboid 14:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mu. See [1] and compare [2]. William has two times more edits on WP:3RR alone than Zeeboid has in total. --Stephan Schulz 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Its still a Global warming single purpose account. How many of those 3rr edits have to do with global warming topics? I would dare to allmost all of them. single purpose account i'm sure applies to global warming related 3rr edits.--Zeeboid 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. The record is open. If you find more than 10% global warming related edits among the 1800 or so, I'll buy you a beer.--Stephan Schulz 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you show us how to view this stat?

Start here and go through his edits. It will take a while. A browser with good search helps. It might be possible to use a suitably programmed bot to do a filtering for edits to a particular page. --Stephan Schulz 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't chang the edits you guys are making. look. this information exists under almost every other scientist who has contributed to TGGWS in the same form as I have added, yet from my perspective, just to be arguementetive, you are removing it from this article here, claiming that if a precident is wrong, it shouldn't be followed. I try to mediate this issue, and what do you know, you guys refuse. and why should you? You have nothing to gain from working something out to a NPOV, because your edits are obviously NOT NPOV. Why not prove otherwise, William and Stephan, and assist me in writing a mediation request. William couldn't even explain his issues other then "oooh, poor spelling" Lets start here:

• The limiting or addation of text to note media appeariances this scientist has been in
• POV wording of the article
• The Global Warming articles in general suffer from the same problems by the same editors. These editors qualms that will most likely be raised are not going away.

Whats wrong with these, what do you sugguest?--Zeeboid 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Given your previous helpfulness, don't know why I'm doing this...

Issues to be mediated

John Christy is a notable climate scientist. Mediation should help to answer the following questions:

• Is the CNN Headline news special Exposed: The Climate of Fear notable enough to warrant mentioning Christy's appearance in it?
• In which form should Christy's appearance in The Great Global Warming Swindle be included?

Additional issues to be mediated

None

I also suggest that you remove this statement based on a refuted assumption from your talk page.--Stephan Schulz 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked for suggestions -- my suggestion is that you give up your tendentious editing and bad-faith use of tags before you get blocked again. Raymond Arritt 16:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That sugguest does not fix this article. Rejected.--Zeeboid 19:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No - that suggests that you try to get away from your specific tunnel-vision about media appearences and start thinking in terms of John Christy and what can be done to improve the article about him. Usefull hint here: Would Christy mention his appearence in these if he was writing an autobiography? My guess is no. --Kim D. Petersen 19:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

but the information exists everywhere else. you guys keep making new reasons to not include information that is listed else ware: (Richard Lindzen,Gavin Schmidt,Timothy F. Ball, Ian Clark,Piers Corbyn,Paul Driessen (author),Nigel Lawson and more). If it exists there and there and there and there and there and there and there, then it should exist here. the consinsity of the group here is really appalling.--Zeeboid 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The principle discussed at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Raymond Arritt 19:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you see, now your just saying "I don't care if it exists everywhere else, I Don't want it here!" which is complete trash. That’s the best argument you guys can come with for this argumentative deletion of relevant information. If you want to randomly cite policies, then WP:IAR applies here.--Zeeboid 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Try rephrasing it as: "It doesn't matter what exists elsewhere. Please answer the basic question: Why should it be here?" - and then you might actually capture the discussion above. --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear reason tends not to matter, no matter what I say, you will change what you require, however in an attempt: To make a more comprehensive encyclopedic entry on the topic.--Zeeboid 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please rephrase. I can't understand the text here. --Kim D. Petersen 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement listing what documenteries this scientist has been, much like the other scientists, is added to make a more complete encyclopedic entry. because thats what we are all here for, no? To make a more comprehensive encyclopedia?--Zeeboid 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the point you want to make, but can't follow your logic here. Can you explain your reasoning in a more straightforward way? Raymond Arritt 02:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he's saying Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and adding the documentaries they were featured in, like other scientists, would be comprehensive. ~ UBeR 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you are correct, but of course it would be best if Z explained for himself. Raymond Arritt 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid are you even remotely aware of how many different "documentaries", TV specials, appearences etc. that Christy has taken part in? Apparently not - because i suspect that it would fill more than the selected publications section. An encyclopedia doesn't mention every little trivia piece about the persons they describe. It cuts down the information to the essentials, the things that are notable, the things that defines the subject. Maybe this is just a difference between an inclusionist view, and an essentialist view. But i suspect not. Let me ask you one question:

Why is it so important for you to have this mentioned? Think about it please. --Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR is correct. It is important to have this mentioned because I want to do what I can to make a more comprehensive encyclopedia, which what you can't do when you are limited to fitting so many things into a spicific page number'ed volume of an encyclopedia set. Consinisty is something wikipedia greatly lacks... look at the recient discussion about the sources for Exposed: Climate of Fear not all of a sudden notable enough, dispite their defended notability on many other articles. the consinisty is what I faught for on the Apple inc. article. and it is what I am pushing for here. and wether or not you agree with it is becides the point. "all those other pages are wrong, so why should this one be too?" is just another way of saying "so, ok, you got me, everyone else has the info listed here, but I don't care, i don't want it hear either."--Zeeboid 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize ?

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)

Err? No. He wasn't part of the AR4. He was lead author on the TAR though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry that was incorrect, he was a contributing author to chapter 3 "Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change"[4] in the AR4. I got confused because it isn't in his CV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Professor or Distinguished Professor..

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)

Sounds like puffery, and needs a reference William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles are generally not permitted on Wikipedia (except in specific discussion of a person's titles), per the Manual of Style for biographies. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The correct title is: "is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville". They may not be "generally" permitted, but it is OK in this case.Gabriel Tuttle (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a title, it's a description of two positions he holds. The title is "Professor". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. We needed the correct description of those positions, and now we have it.Gabriel Tuttle (talk) 23:09, 27 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)

Citation needed

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)

Rv: why

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 and John Christy of University of Alabama in Huntsville?

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)

Is Blaswell a misspelling of Braswell, per Talk:Roy Spencer (scientist)? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Judge William K. Sessions mistakenly wrote...

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." 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."

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)

This is not a BLP about Judge Sessions. Presenting the views of someone based on someone else's "interpretation" is misleading. It is clear what Christy's views are on climate change and all you are attempting to do is distort his position on the issue through someone else's words.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP applies in every article, of course. You cannot claim that someone was mistaken without very good sources attesting that. But what are Christy's views on climate change? I would very much like to know them... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed mistaken and added the year for proper context. He states his views, "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."--JournalScholar (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Supposed accusation of fossil fuel funding

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)

A testimony like this one can only be explained if he gets money from the fossil fuel industry. Christy, Curry, Pielke and Smith together acting in one hearing.

In Germany, we have a saying which goes like this:"Put them in a bag and hit the bag and you will always hit the right person" --Hg6996 (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070423150153/http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf to http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512084908/http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf to http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703224241/http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412 to http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WSJ publisher is Dow Jones & Co

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)

You are right at least in part - in November 2007, News Corps was not yet in charge - I got my history upside down. Sorry. After 2007, the situation is more complicated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710170540/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130128143350/http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/x0k86v113t271601/ to http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/x0k86v113t271601/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)