What do you think about John Christy after his congressional testimony?

Although he's a "skeptic", John Christy had been a pretty low-key one. He rarely signs on to "skeptic" letters or petitions, he doesn't write media articles (unlike Lindzen), he doesn't have a blog (unlike Spencer), etc. He had seemed to me like a pretty honest guy - wrong, but... show more Although he's a "skeptic", John Christy had been a pretty low-key one. He rarely signs on to "skeptic" letters or petitions, he doesn't write media articles (unlike Lindzen), he doesn't have a blog (unlike Spencer), etc. He had seemed to me like a pretty honest guy - wrong, but honest.

But on Tuesday he appeared before a US Congressional committee to give testimony about climate science and whether it supports Republicans' efforts to revoke the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Christy's testimony was a litany of long-debunked "skeptic" myths. He even went as far as to claim that the tropical troposphere 'hot spot' is a signature of the greenhouse effect, when any climate scientist should know it's a result of *any* warming of the Earth's surface. More details here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-...

What do you think about John Christy after this congressional testimony?
Update: jim, you just said I was misinformed and then proved my point. Was it your intention to do something so foolish?
Update 2: gcnp - I don't think Lindzen is going anywhere
Update 3: Ottawa - nice job. You managed to go into the most detailed rebuttal point, cherrypick one aspect of that point which hasn't been peer-reviewed while ignoring that immediately prior to that discussion, I had noted an application of a method to remove the ENSO influence which *was* peer-reviewed and which arrives... show more Ottawa - nice job. You managed to go into the most detailed rebuttal point, cherrypick one aspect of that point which hasn't been peer-reviewed while ignoring that immediately prior to that discussion, I had noted an application of a method to remove the ENSO influence which *was* peer-reviewed and which arrives at the same conclusion. All the while you manage to ignore the 8 other flawed (at best) of Christy's arguments which I refuted.

That's the quality of analytical thought that I've come to expect from deniers.
Update 4: jim - "I think Christy's testimony...will no doubt be ignored" Yeah, ignored, like devoting an entire article to addressing every single point made in his testimony. Perhaps "foolish" is a bit of an understatement. Claiming that something is being ignored when you have just read a detailed response to it - is... show more jim - "I think Christy's testimony...will no doubt be ignored"

Yeah, ignored, like devoting an entire article to addressing every single point made in his testimony. Perhaps "foolish" is a bit of an understatement. Claiming that something is being ignored when you have just read a detailed response to it - is there a better example of denial?
Update 5: Gary - he also referenced a 2007 paper by Pielke Sr., but omitted it from his references. Definitely sloppy work.
Update 6: eric, is English your second language? By the way, I wrote the Skeptical Science article. If you'd like to actually dispute the science, rather than simply engaging in pathetic ad hominems, feel free.
Update 7: Gary F - actually "Mike's Nature trick" was simply to include the instrumental temperature record along with the proxy data. Briffa was the one to omit the post-1960 tree ring data in the IPCC report, but as you note, included it in his 1998 paper. There is no such thing as "Mike's trick to hide the decline",... show more Gary F - actually "Mike's Nature trick" was simply to include the instrumental temperature record along with the proxy data. Briffa was the one to omit the post-1960 tree ring data in the IPCC report, but as you note, included it in his 1998 paper. There is no such thing as "Mike's trick to hide the decline", contrary to Muller's statements in that video. Muller is effectively talking out his butt.
13 answers 13