Scientist Who Rejects Warming Is Named to EPA Advisory Board

scientificamerican.com

21 points·pseudolus··5 comments

Christy is likely the most credible Climate Change denier that I know of given his earlier career. However his public commentary on the inaccuracies of our climate models are often nitpicks over inaccuracies (not data with poor precision) without providing a reasonable alternative. Like the other commentor said, if Christy was presenting a good faith argument he would improve the models he was criticizing rather than publicize his opinions.

Most climate scientists would say that Christy is wrong when he asserts that climate models overestimate warming.

Could someone please show me some legitimate study that would reinforce this assumption?

> Christy, who is a frequent critic of EPA regulations, said he will use his position on the 45-member board to question the results of climate models.

So do what scientists do? Question models and improve them.

Disgustingly simple title, to be honest. Even these so-called believers in science turn out to have a single brain cell.

I can't wait for a world where we understand that people with an opinion different than mine doesn't make them the only trait that defines them.

I'd say that it stretches further than just "having a different opinion" when (i) it's a very relevant factor in the context of what's happening (the appointment), (ii) this "opinion" becomes a replacement for scientific consensus in decision making.

For instance, we wouldn't say that a parent who refuses to vaccinate their child is simply someone with a different opinion. True, they have a different opinion, but that's not what makes the matter dodgy - it's the imposition of that opinion where the stakes are high and we can't afford to have mere opinions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com