When a Scientist Believes Data Does Not Support Theory in Climate Models, What Then?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

Your bald claim is accompanied by no argument, only by a link to a website. The website presents a number of disagreements with Christy. But “I disagree with Christy” does not prove that Christy is dishonest. Christy might be entirely honest even if he is wrong.

We can’t prove that Christy knows what he says is wrong, but it is definitely noteworthy how many wrong things he says. Also, they’re not mere disagreements. Many of the things he says are claims about data, models, trends, and so on. Claims which can be checked factually by clicking on the responses to each individual claim or statement.

@Eddie

Look under the hood, for the list of the “Team” which produces the articles on that site. Of the 30 or so writers, the majority don’t hold a PhD in any science at all

Completely irrelevant when the articles they write cite papers from the peer reviewed literature. It’s why the website is endorsed by many scientists with relevant qualifications:

What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science

Edit: Oh and on a related note, seems like ExxonMobil’s own scientists disagree with John Christy:

Paper: Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abk0063 Structured Abstract BACKGROUND In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly…

Isn’t that weird?