Video: John Christy's stellar testimony today – 'The recent anomalous weather can't be blamed on carbon dioxide.'

From The Senate EPW , well worth your time to watch.

Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on global warming and stated:

“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.

However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.

Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.

A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.

See also his written testimony here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Australia needs a John Christy to counter alarmist shrill on this side of the Pacific.

When I used to work down the hall from Christy in the late 1980’s I still remember when the then senator Al Gore just ripped Christy up one side and down the other for the temerity of actually looking at old satellite data and processing it to get a long trend. This trend did not match the computer models of the time and he caught pure hell for it.
I bet he feels pretty good today.

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
WATCH THIS

Ally E.

This is good! This is better than I thought! 🙂

Doctor K

I would like to say lets get this on twitter and get it trending, but I’m too cynical to believe it would work. We are in the minority but there is enough of us to hold them to task at least (for now). Thank goodness for scientists like Christy and Spencer fighting the good fight it the true spirit of the scientific method. It can’t be easy for them. Great speech!

I found this blurb on Field and the Global Ecology program he heads up. Always good to remember he is building on Ehrlich’s Ecology work. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april14/building-414.html
They are, according to Field’s own words in the blurb to right, seeking to “find a scientific foundation for a sustainable future.”
In other words, this is the future we want and we seek a rationale for imposing it. It’s not science driven. It’s not data driven. It is end result and theory driven.
Which is always when the ever useful social sciences and behavioral sciences plus federal funding plus monopoly over curricula, practices, pedagogy, etc start entering the fray. To create the desired science. To gain what Ehrlich called newmindedness. We must not forget when we are dealing with people who take a unified view of science. It may be factually wrong but it still guides their actions and influences their beliefs.
Christy, luckily, is still interested in the data of the natural sciences and reality itself. Not what will it take to alter it to get the future we desire.
Or the one grants pay to seek.

gerrydorrian66

More power to Christy’s elbow – this and revelations like Anthony’s on Sunday will, hopefully, have a drip-drip effect upon people who presently support AGW but are amenable to common sense.

Bill Parsons

Thanks, Dr. Christy, for a clear summary of the state of climate science. This has provided (for me) a useful context in which to place Watts et al. It’s an important paper, it seems.

Bravo !
Undeniable facts once again..
Thank Dr. C !

corio37

What’s that unfamiliar sound? Good Lord, it must be common sense!

Lancifer

Eat it Barbara Boxer!
How ingracious can she be?
Kudos to Dr. Christy.

Global warming alarmism is what fear of an alien invasion looks like.

Mosher is already sand bagging,
http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/#comment-345586
“Perhaps, co author Christy should be sent a notice that the results he testified about were not fully baked.”
I am giving a friendly warning to Anthony not to get Mosher involved in any way relating to his paper. Everyone trusts McIntyre will accept whatever he finds relating to the data until the paper is published.

viejecita

Great video
Thank you very much for bringing it so fast.
Am going to try and send it everywhere, saying that I got it here, and hope someone listens here in Spain, and gets us out of the anti- CO2 programs.

Theo Goodwin

Poptech says:
August 1, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Apparently, Mosher thinks that he has found something that Christy overlooked. Or maybe he thinks he has found something that he needs to explain to Christy.
Who was it, just a day or so ago, who was applauding McIntyre’s website for its focused and controlled comments section?

Theo Goodwin

Brilliant performance, Dr. Christy. The simplicity and directness of your exposition made your address a brilliant piece of work.

joeldshore

Dennis Ray Wingo says:

When I used to work down the hall from Christy in the late 1980′s I still remember when the then senator Al Gore just ripped Christy up one side and down the other for the temerity of actually looking at old satellite data and processing it to get a long trend. This trend did not match the computer models of the time and he caught pure hell for it.

It turns out that Spencer and Christy’s trend was wrong, in large part because of errors in their analysis that have been corrected over time ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/31/senate-epw-hearing-on-global-warming-tomorrow/#comment-1049302 ), although the particular shortness of the time period of the satellite record also contributed.
It’s okay to be wrong though…Fortunately, Christy’s detractors don’t try to criminalize it in the way that the detractors of Mann have tried to for his being…well, not really wrong as far as the current thinking in the temperature reconstruction field goes.

Restless 1

I was just glad to see Boxer rise above petty snark. /sarc

Sen. Boxer’s pummeling of Dr. Christy for citing an unpublished, non-peer reviewed — and as we now know deeply flawed even according to its own authors — paper in his written testimony was even more stellar. You gonna post that part, Tony?
REPLY: The name’s Anthony and yes, EPW is posting more tomorrow and I’ll have them, including the liar IPPC author that Pielke Jr. took down today. Be sure to watch that. And no, it isn’t “deeply flawed” just incomplete, and will be better thanks to good people who have stepped up to help, unlike you. You seem to have no trouble whatsoever though with the Muller non peer review papers being discussed. Biased much?- Anthony

David Ball

joeldshore says:
August 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Right or wrong, at least it was available so errors COULD be found. Good idea, eh?

kwik

Robin says:
August 1, 2012 at 5:47 pm
“To gain what Ehrlich called newmindedness.”
Hmmm….never seen that word before. Must be newspeak.
Personally I find that everything Erlich writes is full of …. wrongness.

joeldshore says:
August 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Fortunately, Christy’s detractors don’t try to criminalize it in the way that the detractors of Mann have tried to for his being…well, not really wrong as far as the current thinking in the temperature reconstruction field goes.

You do realize that you have just said Mann and his hockey stick have been excoriated for being *right* — and you don’t base your belief on the evidence, which proves that both are wrong, but on your opinion, which assumes the existence of a claimed, but unproven, consensus.

Joel–Christy is not testifying for, reasearching on, and ascribing to policies that will cost each of us big bucks and ensure the poverty of millions in third world countries–him being wrong doesn’t punish everyone else as Mann’s does…big difference.

William McClenney

Intentionally repeating myself, “warmists and skeptics thus find themselves on the mutual, chaotic climate ground where the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG had better be right.”
The “Precautionary Principle” is rather absolute on this point. The most common articulation of the precautionary principle is the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, a consensus document drafted and adopted by a group of environmental activists and academics in January 1998. The statement defined the precautionary principle thus:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
At the half-precession old Holocene, the typical point where climate normally tips into a glacial (ice age), removing a “climate security blanket” GHG like CO2 (assuming, of course, that IR saturation is not possible with any concentration of CO2) might actually be the wrong thing to do, in terms of the Precautionary Principle.
Consider that removing the GHG CO2 from the late Holocene atmosphere might also be construed as the correct thing to do, naturally, so as not to impede the natural transition into the glacial state, thereby minimizing anthropogenic climate interference which might delay or prevent the next such ice age.
This, of course, represents a near paralyzing conundrum to the true and proper environmentalist. To be scientifically correct, CO2 above the politically correct concentration MUST be scavenged from the atmosphere so that nature may take its unimpeded course, which might just be the next glacial. But that places a true and proper environmentalist in diametric juxtaposition to the vaunted Precautionary Principle, which actually puts “human health” just a tad before “the environment” per the original wording!
What is a Homo sapiens sapiens (the wise wise one) to do? Legislate the “climate security blanket” to extinction and, regardless the cost, transition to the lowest density energy systems known (solar and wind) so that those humans with the best health can “weather” the next ice age naturally? Or would the wise wise one be able to recognize that the end extreme interglacials are ALWAYS attended by abrupt climate excursions to the tune of many to tens of meters of sea level highstands, naturally, which the heather devil gas CO2 might actually be the only “precautionary measures (which) should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
???
Would you like fries with your Gordian Knot?

SarahConnor

I have sent this to the Twitter sphere ( I have 3 thousand followers) plus I have a going into sophomore year son at Stanford. I have shared this and the Stanford project with him.
He has sent it to his Stanford roommate a chemical engineer major with a father who works as a chemical engineer at DOW –they are all against the hoax so Anthony work and Dr. Christy’s testimony is being spread.

joeldshore
As I continue reading the voluminous climate writings of Dr. Hubert H. Lamb, paying particular attention to studies covering the last 20,000 years, I don’t find any place for the simplistic CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming concept. Dr. Lamb, founder of the CRU, presents hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that establish a global, warmer Medieval Warm Period, a Little Ice Age, and a current warming period not nearly as warm as the six preceding. Unlike Mann, Dr. Lamb cites many temperature reconstruction studies, including tree rings, that refute Mann’s Hockey Stick decades before Mann tortured it from cherry picked samples. Lamb showed incontrovertibley that current warming was in no way unprecedented. In fact, since the end of the Ice Age each warming period has not reached the warmth of its predecessor. Sea level was higher 8,000 years ago, over 11,000 years prior to the Little Ice Age were warmer than the present, glaciers retreated farther during the Medieval Warm Period than now, and US temperatures were much warmer during the 1930’s. As Anthony Watts’ new study shows, current warming is primarily man-made as a result of poor thermometer siting and unwarranted temperature record adjustments. Drs. Pielke Sr. and Jr. have interesting comments concerning the inadequacy of Richard Muller’s BEST work (as does Dr. Mann), and that Anthony Watts’ study is a game changer.
Climate science finally shows signs of rationality.

Allan MacRae

Excellent testimony by John Christy – thank you John.
Dr. Christy says at 6:34 of his video presentation:
“As someone who has lived in Africa, I can say that without energy, life is brutal and short. So this is the goal of poor countries – to access energy.
So I’ll close with this unpleasant thought:
Demanding a reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions, without affordable reliable alternatives, means reducing the hope for prosperity of our fellow world citizens, who are struggling to escape their impoverished condition.”
___________________
I used to assume that the radical enviros shared my humanitarian values. I now conclude that this assumption is, in all probability, FALSE
The radical enviros are anti-human and consistently oppose moves to increase supplies of economic energy that will improve the wellbeing of humankind. This explains their apparently nonsensical opposition to oil and gas pipelines, hydraulic fracturing, the Canadian oilsands, etc. and their seemingly irrational support for inefficient, ineffective and environmentally destructive wind and solar power schemes.
The radical enviros stance is NOT primarily about the environment – that is a smokescreen – their objective is to increase energy costs, cause energy starvation and even to reduce human population on a global scale. Their seemingly nonsensical positions are all consistent with this theme and are also consistent with their following statements.
(h/t to Wayne for the following quotations)
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
**********************************

AleaJactaEst

William McClenney 10:27 p.m.
re Gordian knot
Alexander solved the conundrum with a swift stroke of his sword
who will be our Alexander?

Allan MacRae

joeldshore says Total Nonsense on August 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Joel – you are repeating lies from warmist websites as if they were true.
Considerable political noise resulted from minor differences in the results between RSS and UAH (Christy and Spencer) analyses of the same satellite data to obtain atmospheric temperatures. Yes, these differences have largely been resolved, No they were not that material, not even at the time. It was largely political noise by the warmists to try to discredit the UAH work, and that noise was false.
Furthermore, to claim that Mann’s hockey stick is valid flies in the face of all the credible work done on it, from the initial work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to the North and Wegman Commission reports.
Many of us already knew that Mann was false long before Steve McIntyre dissected Mann’s flawed mathematical analysis, because we knew that one pal-reviewed study (MBH98) does not eliminate from the historic record both the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon complied the extensive technical literature supporting the existence of the MWP and LIA, and were vilified by the usual odious subjects. An unbiased reading of the literature leads to only one conclusion – the MWP and LIA were real and significant.
You are hanging out with a bad crowd Joel. Try reading more, and thinking for yourself.

Mosher is heavily invested in BEST and he counters any criticism direct or indirect with often evasive assertions and a refusal to discuss the data and methods BEST uses.
I’ve yet to see any statement of how BEST is different and better than HADCRUT and GISSTEMP. Except that it uses x thousand more stations, which is irrelevant.

son of mulder

“Allan MacRae says:
August 1, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Excellent testimony by John Christy – thank you John.”
How does one make the list of quotes in Allan Macrae’s post above go viral?

go home

Allan MacRae list of quotes above are powerful, especially when strung together in a single post. I have been in agreement with the thought of the greenies anti-humanness.
Thanks for the post.

jup

One thing in common that all global warming alarmists share: they are really bad liars. Their lies and fraudulent studies are all too easily taken apart. IPCC has outlived its failed propagandist purpose and should be put down, like a diseased cow.
Question: is Michael Mann’s canuckophobia caused by his subconscious desire to kill his own hockey stick chart? Since Canadians are really good at ice hockey–is Mann’s recent public conflicts with Canadians Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Tim Ball, and Mark Steyn simply an unconscious cry for help? Poor Mann, all that pressure and stress must be suffocating. I hope Mann really sues Steyn, so that Mann can finally be put out of his suffering.

Brian H

Treeman;
Bob Carter will do. http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/03/bob-carters-ten-little-facts-about-global-warming/
What you need is pols willing to listen.

@William McClenney says: August 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm
The “Precautionary Principle” is rather absolute on this point. The most common articulation of the precautionary principle is the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, a consensus document drafted and adopted by a group of environmental activists and academics in January 1998.
/////////////////////////////////
Adopted on behalf of WHOM? I don’t recall them consulting me. What authority, pray, does any groups of “environmental activists” have in the world of science? What role does an agenda have in science?
As has been shown, the cost of applying the precautionary principle in the case of CAGW is likely to be many multiples that of dealing with CAGW. Were it even happening.

Jimbo

I remember when record cold temperatures were set in the USA a few years back. Warmists reminded us, quite rightly, that the USA was a very small part of the world. Yet the heat wave managed to elevate the USA into an important indicator of what GLOBAL WARMING looks like. Funny that. 😉

George Monbiot – Guardian – 6 January 2010
Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong

Climate sceptics are failing to understand the most basic meteorology – that weather is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends
Now we are being asked to commit ourselves to the wilful stupidity of extrapolating a long-term trend from a single event.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics

By the same token a heatwave in the US does not mean AGW is right. Did I mention anything about the recent east European winter and excess cold weather deaths? Oh, never mind.

Snotrocket

Dr Christy: ‘If we must legislate we should base it on observed measurements and not on models.’ BUT ‘When it comes to legislation or regulatory actions there is nothing that we can do to alter what the climate is going to do.’

Any chance that the New York Times could be talked into running Dr. Christy’s testimony as an op-ed? Doesn’t fit their agenda, I know. But they ran Muller’s self-flagellation. Fair is fair.
/Mr Lynn

son of mulder says:
August 2, 2012 at 2:44 am
How does one make the list of quotes in Allan Macrae’s post above go viral?

Well, you could send the quotes in an email to ten people, telling each of the ten to send it to ten more, and so on, and if they don’t, Michael Mann will sue them. /sarc
/Mr Lynn

bernie1815

Boxer’s gratuitous rudeness and crudeness know no bounds.

Why, Oh why does none of this seem to get into the mainstream media? I have been waiting to read about Anthony’s brilliant work on surface temperature stations in the USA and of NOAA’s massaging of what was already corrupted data.

Allan Macrae (h/t to Wayne for the following quotations)
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First! Etc Etc
—————-
Thanks for this devastating and incriminating series of quotes from guilty people. Can you povide us with some clues as to how to source and reference them? This could just prove a valuable wake up call for some useful idiots I know! Thanks

Get your hots

Please take a few minutes and blog/pass this link, and other A. Watts links, on to other blogs – “while it’s hot!”

Dr. Deanster

Hopefully .. With Christie and Spencer heading up a Satelite Operation, and now Watts establishing a protocol to produce a reasonably accurate temperature metric from thermometer data, .. this whole b.s. of Global Warming histeria can be put to rest for good.
Anthony .. I sure hope that you and your collegues are planning on doing a global exercise like your recent paper. I’m sure that once you get the TOBS adjustments out of the way, along with ironing out a few other kinks, that finally, a reasonable land/sea based temp metric can be had that we can all believe in. Maybe .. after your paper is published, you and et al., should apply for a Federal Grant to complete the exercise on a global scale.

joeldshore says:
August 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm
the difference is they didn’t know they were wrong and plunge on ahead knowing full well that the work they did would cost untold damage to economies and life the world over. Mann and others had an agenda and ignored data that didn’t fit that agenda to the detriment of the world economy.

Boxer is in charge of this circus. Someone should take her apart publicly and repeatedly for her statement about 97% of climate scientists supporting her view and that of the IPCC. That figure needs to exposed for what it is; a repeated invention based upon the views of very few scientists (about 75, I seem to recall) who dared to respond to an extremely misleading question. Those 75, became the 97% of all climate scientists. The other thousands to tens of thousands knew better than to respond. Please hammer this number all of the time, not just when it appears from the mouths of naifs and babes (and I am not calling sen. Boxer a babe, but a naif).

viejecita says:
August 1, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Great video
Thank you very much for bringing it so fast.
Am going to try and send it everywhere, saying that I got it here, and hope someone listens here in Spain, and gets us out of the anti- CO2 programs.
Lo pondré en mi blog, que nadie lee, together with Allan McRae post, translated, with the envoros goals. It seems relevant to me, so many sentences drawing a unmistakable picture of totalitarism. Si quieres difundirlo… Cheers

Allan MacRae

typo above : Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon compiled …

joeldshore

David Ball said:

Right or wrong, at least it was available so errors COULD be found. Good idea, eh?

It is, really? So, could you please give me a link to the code for the UAH analysis? The fact is that while Mann has released all of his code for his more recent PNAS paper (so much so that even McIntyre can’t find anything to complain about in that regard) and most everything for his earlier work, Spencer and Christy haven’t released any publicly. Not one little tiny piece. (They did allow RSS to see a small piece of their code, although the word in the grapevine is that it apparently took a fair bit of work on RSS’s part to get it.)
If the fundamental difference between Spencer & Christy and Mann regards access to their code, Mann wins hands-down.
Day By Day said:

Christy is not testifying for, reasearching on, and ascribing to policies that will cost each of us big bucks and ensure the poverty of millions in third world countries–him being wrong doesn’t punish everyone else as Mann’s does…big difference.

That is exactly what he is doing by advocating a policy of doing nothing to mitigate our grand experiment on the Earth’s climate system (and ocean chemistry).
Allan MacRae says:

Joel – you are repeating lies from warmist websites as if they were true.
Considerable political noise resulted from minor differences in the results between RSS and UAH (Christy and Spencer) analyses of the same satellite data to obtain atmospheric temperatures. Yes, these differences have largely been resolved, No they were not that material, not even at the time. It was largely political noise by the warmists to try to discredit the UAH work, and that noise was false.

Your statements are wrong from start to finish. First of all, I am not repeating anything from anywhere. I linked to a comment of mine on a different thread here where I actually presented calculations that I did myself of what the trend is over various time periods with the current version of the UAH LT data and I compared that to the trend claimed at the time in Spencer and Christys papers. By doing this, I can not only determine how their claimed trend has changied over time but I can also say what part of that change is due to changes in their algorithm and what part is due to having a longer data record. (Why nobody else had done this is puzzling to me…It is not hard to do.)
And, contrary to what you claimed, the differences were very material. THey allowed Spencer and Christy to claim (and many others to repeat) that the satellite record showed cooling not warming in the troposphere, whereas we now know from the current UAH and RSS LT records that it shows warming at about the same rate (within uncertainties) as the surface record.