2011-04-04 05:48:54Christy Crock #1: 1970s Global Cooling
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Since I'm going to be swamped this week, I figured I'd do this Christy post I had planned while I have time.  Feel free to comment on the series name.  It's not alliteration, but both words end in "-sty", so it has kind of a nice ring to it.  The only other one I came up with was 'Christy Catastrophes'.  But dishonesty is a good description of Christy's behavior.

Anyway, let me know if you have any comments on the series name or the blog post:

Christy Dishonesty #1: 1970s Cooling (updated link below)

Also feel free (nay, encouraged!) to look over the quotes I compiled from Christy's testimony and pick one to do a blog post about for this series (which is going to be based on his Thursday testimony).

Oh and John, you may want to add the bit about SO2 from my post into the intermediate 1970s ice age rebuttal.

2011-04-04 08:43:40
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.84

I'd stress a little bit more the section "Understanding of Climate Science". Recall, for example, that climate modeling was in its infancy, no satellites, no ice cores from Antartica, etc. and that Christy's answer implies no advances in the understanding in the last 40 years. It's really unbelivable that a scientist may say such things.

2011-04-04 08:59:18
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Christy's Crusty Contrarian Casuistries.

Or maybe just "Christy's Casuistries."

Couple grammar comments:

- punctuation goes inside quotations,

- colons before long, offset quotes

Also:

"Dr. Christy's response to both questions was very similar."

>>"Dr. Christy's response to both questions was very similar to Cravaack's."

"In my opinion, the worst..."

>>"Perhaps the worst..."

"He didn't use the opportunity to dispel the myth and ensure that our policymakers are well-informed about the many differences between the '70s cooling predictions and the current global warming predictions."

>>"Instead of using the opportunity to dispel the myth and ensure that our policymakers are well-informed about the many differences between the '70s cooling predictions and the current global warming predictions, he decided to promote it:"

"Let's examine the many, many reasons why"

>>I would recommend not saying "many, many," as you give mainly 3 reasons.  "Many" suffices without artificially buffing it up.

"Dozens of major scientific bodies throughout the world have affirmed the consensus"

>>Haven't all?

"Understanding of Climate Science"

>>This section is pretty weak.  One sentence that doesn't lead to any specific details doesn't cut it.  What are some examples of newer understanding?  Especially understanding that has improved that might relate to knowledge that really shifted opinion away from global cooling?  Global dimming information too?

2011-04-04 11:31:59Quick comment
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Haven't read the post yet but not a big fan of "dishonesty", considering our comments policy.

What about "Christy Crocks". I know we reserved it for "Carter Crocks" but I think Crocks alliterates nicely with Christy and we could always do "Carter Capers" or figure something else out down the track for Carter.

Carpe alliterum, as they say.

Thinking about a "Christy Crocks" button, the imagery that immediately comes to mind is a moustache. I'm sure I'll come up with something a bit mature though :-)

2011-04-04 12:38:57thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Good comments guys, thanks.  I beefed up the understanding of climate science section, and made the other changes.

John - I think Christy Crocks has a good ring to it too.  I'd be down with using that name for the series.  When I hear 'crock', this is what comes to my mind:

2011-04-04 15:59:12
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.202.31

"our ignorance about the climate system is just enormous"      Clearly John Christy was referring to himself and his fellow skeptics.

"Conversely"    Just had to put that in there, didn't ya?.

quadrupled = quadruple

I'm sure a few of the references to dishonesty will have to be changed; we are well aware he is a lying shitbag. If there is a heaven, I doubt he's going to be visiting its pearly gates.  I'd like to see that the post proceed along the lines of why Christy, a climate scientist, is reduced to trotting out tired old myths. Surely, if the skeptics have a case, they should be able to adduce some evidence?. Where is it?.

Also, I'm a bit disappointed that some of the "consensus" climate scientists haven't learnt a bit more about these "kangaroo courts".  "CO2 is the earth's thermostat", "the Earth has cooled over time as the sun has warmed", that's the sort of stuff that will sink into some layperson's skull, not some long-winded scientific explanation, without some simple framing.   

2011-04-05 14:47:32
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
96.14.14.235
2011-04-05 17:19:54
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.226.229

Dana, just on that heading "Understanding of climate science", it's a bit light on substance at the moment. This is, of course, Christy's version of "we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing". Perhaps drawing a parallel with medical science would be useful here. Some examples of medical progress since the 1970's are here. Might wanna check the accuracy though, I haven't bothered. Still no cure for cancer though, or the common cold!. 

And why is CC's comment already on the post?.

2011-04-06 01:41:16
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Still too light you think Rob?  I'll make mention of the logical fallacy "we don't know everything therefore we know nothing", but I think talking about medical science is kind of off topic and would serve as a distraction.  As for CC, I guess he just wanted to get a jump on the comments.

By the way, I've changed the name to Christy Crock #1, and I took out all mentions of dishonest except the last reference to Christy's intellectual dishonesty.   I hope that's okay.

2011-04-06 05:28:28
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.217.218

Righto, not always easy to strike the right balance huh?. Part of the success of your posts, I believe, is that that many of them focus on events happening right now, so thumby, and get er done!. 

2011-04-06 05:56:09thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks Rob.  I do prefer to post about current happenings.  Climate science is usually interesting, but I'm interested in solutions too, and current events are very important in terms of solving the problem.  In this case, Christy misinforming Congress is just serving to help delay implementation of solutions.

2011-04-06 06:19:44Looks great, thumb from me (just some tiny nits)
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
First para: I'd change "dishonest behavior" to "misinforming behavior"

This is very nitpicky but nowadays, instead of "most popular myth", i try to say "most used myth". I just figure popular is a positive term while used has negative connotations - it's a subtle framing thing (note I use "used" in the left margin).

Realli like the mention of the logical fallacy "we don't know everything therefore we know nothing"

2011-04-06 06:31:20thanks John
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Whoops, I missed that particular 'dishonest' when I was switching from 'Dishonesty' to 'Crock'.  Nits have been addressed, thanks.

2011-04-06 10:39:14
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

>>>I just figure popular is a positive term while used has negative connotations

Maybe most whipped horse?

I like it Dana, go ahead :)