A Case Against Climate Change

Climatologist Dr. John Christy explains why he disagrees with the idea of climate change and the EPA’s flawed climate model. 

By Samantha Cart 

Climatologist Dr. John Christy explains why he disagrees with the idea of climate change and the EPA’s flawed climate model.

A case for climate change is being made everywhere: in the classroom, in the courtroom and in the White House. The science and tenants of global warming are widely accepted in the scientific community and have been translated into government agencies, stringent regulations and green business practices.

The basic principles of accepted climate change science are that Earth is warming due to human activity that produces and releases large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, with the burning of fossil fuels in order to produce energy being the main culprit. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the global warming trend is responsible for significant changes in weather and climate, including increased rainfall and flooding, frequent and severe heat waves, melting of polar ice caps and a subsequent increase in sea levels. The consequences of a warming climate could potentially bring changes that affect the water supply, agriculture, power systems and human safety. Since its inception in 1970, the EPA has been working to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution and the risks associated with climate change.

An Opposing View

Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth Science Center and distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), is one of the few climatologists who disagrees with the idea of dangerous global warming and the impact of CO2 on the environment. Christy holds a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from California State University in Fresno, a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and masters and doctorate degrees in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. Though he has been interested in climatology since childhood, he began studying the subject at UAH in 1987 and has since received much recognition.

In 1989, Christy partnered with Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist, to develop a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. The team was awarded NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement medal in 1991 and a special award by the American Meteorological Society for developing a precise global record of Earth’s temperature, which advanced the ability of other scientists to monitor climate change. Christy has served on five National Research Council panels and committees and has performed research funded by NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation and the State of Alabama; has served as a contributor and lead author on reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has provided testimony to several congressional committees on climate change.

The Flawed Climate Model

While Christy is highly educated and has received many accolades for his achievements, he is still an outlier in the scientific community on a major topic that most of his colleagues consider indisputable. However, his unpopular opinion has not kept him from speaking out. The IPCC, a scientific body housed under the United Nations, created the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) used by the EPA to assess climate change information. According to Christy, the average projections of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models claim Earth’s atmospheric temperature should have risen more than 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit between 1979-2015. However, according to data taken from actual balloon and satellite datasets, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1979.

“The EPA, which is not an independent scientific organization but a political agency whose leadership is appointed by the White House, uses climate models to project how the climate is going to change based on how these climate models think CO2 will affect the climate,” says Christy.

According to Christy, his work with Spencer has demonstrated with real data that in trial simulations, the models used by the EPA fail to reproduce actual observations on climate change that has already happened. The EPA website says Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4 Fahrenheit degrees over the past century and is projected to rise anywhere between 2-11 additional Fahrenheit degrees over the next 100 years, but Christy’s data suggests that this projection is too rapid. “You would never want to use these models for future projections—they cannot even reproduce the past. These models are warming up the air three to four times faster than it is actually warming. They are not accurate in telling us how the climate is affected by CO2.”

CO2 and the Environment 

Christy’s research suggests the climate response to CO2 is fairly small. “The climate does respond to CO2,” he says, “but it is not as alarming as what has been demonstrated by the administration and the media.” While his ideas have been met with a lot of discord from his colleagues, his research has not been contradicted. “Many people are convinced by the presentation I make because it’s not me, it’s the observations and data I’m showing that can be tested and retested.” According to Christy, if the United States as a nation ceased to exist and no more CO2 emissions were made, the effect on the global temperature would still be too small to measure, which means that even the strictest and most radical EPA regulations will have no significant effect on the climate.

Christy says the flawed science used to support global warming also includes the supposed increase of extreme weather conditions. “To paraphrase Lord Kelvin, ‘All science is numbers.’ If you want to question something, go count it. Count the hurricanes and tornadoes and measure the rising sea level. When you compare it to the hardcore data, you will see nothing alarming.”

Those who believe CO2 emissions are responsible for extreme weather use melting ice caps, rising sea levels, unprecedented heat waves and an increase in the occurrence and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes as proof of the impact—and reality—of climate change. Christy disagrees, and he uses verifiable data to do so.
“Sea levels have been rising for the last 25,000 years because there is ice on land that is slowly melting—about an inch per decade. This is completely normal,” he says. “Extremists also claim increased heat waves, but the worst heat waves in United States history occurred in the 1930s, not now. Climate varies naturally, but some will say that anything bad that happens is because of us.”

According to Christy, the United States has also seen a slight decline in hurricanes over the past 150 years. “We are living right now in the longest period without a major hurricane to hit the United States—a hurricane drought, you could say—of about nine years. However, when the next one hits, you will hear cries of global warming.” Christy blames these dramatic notions on underlying intentions. “If you have a dramatic story to tell, you will be written about, interviewed, photographed and talked about.”

He believes the same can be said for the scientific community. “If you are on the side of alarming climate change, the coffers of the federal government are open to you. The financial gain and the ability to sustain a research program is a real goal for many institutions that support scientists. If you are able to satisfy government agencies, you stand a far greater chance of being funded. You’re never going to see an advertisement for scientists or programs to test or investigate potential problems with the theory of global warming, but that’s what science is supposed to do. It’s supposed to poke holes in theories.”

Environmentalism Versus Humanity 

Before moving to Alabama, Christy taught physics and chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya. His experiences there helped shape his opinion on environmental issues that hold more weight than global warming and how the EPA should be spending money.

“We do not produce CO2 because we are bad people; we produce it because we are good people,” he says. “CO2 emissions do warm up the atmosphere a little, but they also invigorate the biosphere and produce more plant life and more crops. Producing CO2 through energy means we are living longer and better lives. As someone who has lived in the third world on purpose, I can tell you that life there is brutal and short. There are other environmental issues we need to address, like air and water quality in the third world. However, these are not popular issues that attract donors. They see poverty as something that has always existed, and it does not interest them. As someone who believes human life is important no matter where it is, I believe this is where we should focus our energies.”

Christy uses a world view of environmentalism to validate his research. “The United States pressures other countries to not expand their carbon-based energy,” he says, “but I think this is a violation of human morality. It is precisely the expansion of carbon-based energy that will lead people to longer and better lives.”

Germany’s Clean Energy Initiative 

According to Christy, the CO2 emissions of other countries are rising while the United States works to lower its own. In the last several years, Germany spent more than 100 billion euros, or approximately $130.5 billion, on solar and wind projects in the hopes that by 2050, 80 percent of the country’s energy would be produced by renewable resources. According to the Institute for Energy Research, the amount came out to an average of 2,500 euros, or $3,263, per household.

“Germany has taxed itself tremendously, and what they got in return was a lot of unreliable power stations,” says Christy. “If the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, they have no power.”

The clean energy initiative caused electricity prices to increase by more than 10 percent between 2009 and 2012 due to the surcharge to cover the cost of using more renewable energy. According to Christy, there are currently 7 million people in the category of energy poverty in Germany because it is so expensive to heat and cool a home. “They’ve had so much trouble with it, they realized that to have a modern economy in which you have power on demand, you have to have a power source on demand,” he explains. “Germany is currently building 26 large, coal-fired power stations. Their emissions of CO2 are rising rather than falling because they know carbon is the way to go if you want to power a modern economy.”

Propositioning China

President Obama announced a plan at the end of 2014 to cut new greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 28 percent of the 2005 levels by 2025. His goal is to have China, the world’s leading producer of CO2 emissions, join an initiative to reach this goal. According to the White House press, President Xi Jinping of China announced that the country expects to peak its CO2 emissions by 2030, and, in line with President Obama’s initiative, they agreed to increase the non-fossil fuel share of that peak amount of energy to 20 percent. While the agreement makes it appear that Jinping is on board with the White House’s initiative, Christy sees China’s agreement differently.

“To get everyone on board for his view, President Obama wants this document to look like he is getting other countries to sign up for emissions reduction, but China agreed to do nothing until 2030, and then they will look at it. A lot of their people are in poverty, and the government wants to get them out of poverty. They know this is not possible without a strong economy that operates with high carbon emissions.”

The political, environmental and financial measures of climate change are far-reaching, impacting other countries the same way the United States, its citizens and businesses are affected by the regulations of the EPA. According to Christy, the United States can learn from the effect of Germany’s clean energy initiative on its economy. More importantly, the country should ensure the science used to determine the considerable changes being made to public and private life is based on reliable models and sound data.