Is it possible to have gotten the temperature increases in the late 20th century from negative feedbacks?
I found this statement a bit puzzling since Christy is a co-author of a paper that states that instead of clouds acting as a positive feedback, they act as a negative one.
Can a person believe in negative feedbacks and still come to the conclusion that humans are primarily responsible for most of the late 20th century warming?
Why do believers feel the need to portray Chrisy as being on their side? Is it because believers are losing faith in the AGW theory, and this is a way of maintaining their belief? Is it a way of saying that if skeptics are becoming believers, that is proof that we are right and you shouldn't lose your faith?
A paper by Spencer has been submitted that will answer criticisms on negative feedbacks.
I asked that question because if the judge understood the global warming theory, he would not have made that statement. Those are the judges words you quoted, not Christy's.
GCNP: The AGU quote was in 2003. Given his public statements today it appears he is becoming more and more of a skeptic, not less or a delayer (as the alarmist blog says he is).
Christy is 58 years old, he is not young anymore.
If the AGW theory is correct, and Christy knows it is correct as you say, then misleading the public the way he does would not only tarnish his reputation as a scientist, but as a human being. So your arguments make no sense.