From the same website you cite to, it says:
"Christy is generally considered a contrarian on global warming and related issues, although he helped draft and signed up to the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change [1] (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable).
But for a sample of his contrarian views: May 2003: 'Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changes occurring now? Climate models suggest the answer is yes, real data suggests otherwise.' [2]"
BUT if you want to go with the classfication of non-skeptic, fine with me. That leaves the denialists with one real scientist, Richard Lindzen, and a bunch of hacks like Benny Peiser who present their "work" dishonestly.
(Guess I should split out Lomborg - not exactly a scientist, but I'm not sure he's a hack either. I don't think Storch is a denialist, although I don't know much about him.)
Space/Science » in reply to re: here ya go
re: here ya go
The whole thread (40 posts)
- Analysis of the GCR contribution to climate change.
- re: Analysis of the GCR contribution to climate change.
- here ya go
- re: here ya go
- Obviously you don't understand how funny that is.
- re: here ya go
- here we don't go
- re: here we don't go
- re: here we don't go
- care to make this debate more interesting?
- re: care to make this debate more interesting?
- Interesting debate
- Uninteresting rhetoric
- "We know why." No. You don't.
- re: Uninteresting rhetoric
- Uninteresting rhetoric
- care to make this debate more interesting?
- re: here we don't go
- re: here we don't go
- here we don't go
- re: here ya go
- here ya go
- I would expect the CRF to change with time...
- re: Analysis of the GCR contribution to climate change.
