
Scientist Who Rejects Warming Is Named to EPA Advisory Board - pseudolus
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-who-rejects-warming-is-named-to-epa-advisory-board/
======
burk96
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.

------
kleenme
_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?

------
sublupo
> 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.

------
philtar
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.

~~~
claudiawerner
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.

