Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Update to the update

In my last post, in response to the Bristol complaint about 'The Great Global Warming Scandal' I mentioned that I would check with Dr John Christy about how his research was being used to attack the film.
This is his email to me,

You are correct that this completely misrepresents the science.
Attached are two papers that go beyond the old report sited below to demonstrate in a number of ways that the UAH data are more consistent with independent data than RSS and that RSS data, from a number of different ways to assess them, have significant issues.

Bottom line - there is a discrepancy between the what is shown by the observations about the relationship between surface and troposphere and what is shown by models, especially in the tropics.
Thank you so much for checking.
John C.

So it seems that it is not just Mr Gore and Mr Durkin who play fast and loose with scientists work.
Anybody who would like to see the papers that Dr Christy mentions should are here and here.


John Nicklin said...

Clarify please, do Professor Chritie's comments imply that Durkin misrepresented him or that Durkin's attackers misrepresented him. Its really not clear.

Gawain Towler said...

He was responding to the claims made by Durkin's attackers about his research.

John Nicklin said...

Thanks for that. I'm increasingly alarmed, amazed, discouraged, that we have come to a point in time where models dictate what we observe instead of the other way round.

Christie observes a trend in the tropospheric measurements that does not agree with the models, so Christie's observations must be wrong and must be adjusted. Tree rings that can't reliably correlate to observed modern temperatures are used to tell us what past temps were, again, observation means nothing, we have models.

Models are best used to help us understand climate, they can't predict it. But we are using the same models to make decisions that will effect large changes in our economy and in the development of the 3rd world which I won't rant about here, I've already done that on my blog at

Gawain Towler said...

What, you want empirical evidence based stuff, you poor deluded fool.
This is all about faith, and as we all know, proof denies faith.

John Nicklin said...

Good point! I stand humbly corrected.

Without faith there can be no inquisition afterall.