A Repost Of Dr. John Christy’s Testimony

A couple of days ago Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) hosted a climate change conference in a technology park in Fairmont, W.Va.  Warmists and skeptics alike were there to present their thoughts.  You can read much about it at ClimateDepot.  GlobalWarming.org has a brief synopsis of Dr. Christy’s presentation.  And, I picked up the graphics and text from the links provided.  But, why just provide the links when one can present the graphics and text?  I’m assuming Dr. Christy has no objections for me to replicate them here.  To me, it’s kinda nice because much of what he presented is very similar to what I present here.  And some which other blogs, such as Steve’s Real Science presents. 

I thought about putting my own words below the graphics, but, there is a certain eloquence to Dr. Christy’s plain word style which I would deprive readers of if I were to replace his text. 

His was a short slide show and the text that accompanies it are below…… after the obligatory introduction of his presentation he starts with this…… Note:  These are Christy’s words, not mine.  Please don’t get confused by the pronoun “I”.  My bold.

The first point I want to make is that popular scare stories of weather extremes getting worse are not based on fact. In the upper left, tornadoes are not increasing. In the lower left, hurricanes are not increasing. In the upper right, snow cover is not disappearing, in the lower right, droughts and floods continue to happen as they always have.

What about record high temperatures in the U.S.? This chart shows that 2012 had quite a few, but hardly the most. Indeed a careful look shows a downward trend. High temperature records are not becoming more numerous.

What about climate model projections? The red line shows the temperature response to greenhouse gases that the very latest models indicate should be clearly evident – the tropical atmosphere is supposed to be rapidly warming. The green and blue lines show what the real world has done. The models are significantly wrong compared with the real world in this signature quantity.

Let’s suppose for a brief moment that the models are correct. The red line here shows global temperatures over the next 100 years. The harsh policy that congress considered four years ago of drastically reducing CO2 emissions would have the effect seen in the green and blue lines – in other words, no detectable impact. Energy costs would soar without any benefit.

As State Climatologist I work on many economic development issues, including legislation to take advantage of Alabama’s climate resources. One thing I know about this area is that if an idea is not economically sustainable, in the long run, it is not sustainable no matter its other intentions.

Finally. Affordable energy is the basis for our standard of living today. Energy comes from the green box here, mostly from carbon. The benefits of energy are in the blue box, and who doesn’t want long life, progress, plentiful food and so on.  The lower green box shows the physical consequences of carbon-based energy production – invigorated biosphere, increased food production and the debated climate impact. The evidence I’ve presented shows the climate impact of enhancing the concentration of CO2 is not much.  However, I’m quite certain that making energy more expensive will cause the results of energy in the blue box to become more expensive and therefore more scarce. I’ve lived in Africa and can assure you that without energy, life is brutal and short. We are not evil people for emitting CO2, we are good people because we recognize the direct and powerful benefits to human life that carbon-based energy supplies. With that I’ll close, thank you.

Beautiful, plain, and simply presented.  It’s a devastating argument against the nutters. 

sources here and here.