Gavin Schmidt -vs- John Christy on CNN

NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt vs UAH’s John Christy debate on CNN’s Situation Room an hour ago:

click for video player

from Eyeblast.tv

Posted using ShareThis

h/t to WUWT reader Chris

Share

Advertisements

268 thoughts on “Gavin Schmidt -vs- John Christy on CNN

  1. Watched it and thought Christy came across very well. I also noticed Blitzer asked him twice about the north pole ice…

  2. Climate models are not tools for understanding past climate shifts. They’re hand-tuned by men…you can’t use a climate model to demonstrate the role of CO2.

  3. A few thoughts:
    – John Christy is a good spokesperson
    – Why is Gavin Schmidt defending the CRU guys?
    – I credit Gavin for moving me to the skeptic side; he reaffirmed here
    – The warmists have coordinated talking points
    – I’m not encouraged that Campbell Brown is doing the follow up

  4. I didn’t like Christy’s response to the “polar ice caps disappearing” … THEY ARE NOT DISAPPEARING! That should have been his response. It’s plain, it’s simple and is irrefutable. The polar ice caps are NOT disappearing.
    Otherwise, this was alright interview. I think Christy could also have elaborated much more on the Climategate emails and especially the data code code within the Climategate files.
    I know, let ME go on CNN and debate Gavin! I would love to! I would leave him in the dust!

  5. “Strange that Brits seem to form the core of the Team.”
    Ah, well, wait till someone at NASA Giss plucks up the courage to release all Hansen’s emails …

  6. I have a lot of respect for John Christy, who I see as Mr Integrity, but he is simply a to nice a guy to handle a scum bag like Gavin Schmidt, because that’s what he is.
    As I have sated before, put Gavin Schmidt next to Lord Mockton and he will be destroyed completely.
    We can and need to destroy them from top to bottom (using the right arguments at the right moment). The majority of scientist is support of AGW, the so called “consensus” is not existing and Christy should have made this point.
    Let the world know that a handful of frauds has taken the entire world hostage.
    Governments, even if the science is flawed will act on the basis of the precautionary principle, a deadly phrase which will kill any reasonable approach and kills any scientific argument against AGW.
    Mockton would have turned Gavin Schmidt into a smoldering carcass if he got the chance.

  7. I thought Christy showed great restraint and didn’t pull a Watson because I must have told the tv to shut up at least 4 times. I leave it to the reader to guess who was talking at those points.

  8. Christy looked comfortable and confident. Gavin not so much.
    What is now happening is that the skeptics are getting airtime. No matter what the warmists say they are no longer assured of simple agreement from know nothing media bubble heads. That is a huge step forward.

  9. I think Christy could have done better. In particular, he was twice asked what he thought of the disappearance of the polar ice cap, and missed the chance to say it isn’t happening.

  10. As a brit I must say sorry for our assholes that have pretended to be scientists. Yes Christy was professional and confident, unlike the brit who spouted the party line, he also openly lied, by refering to “hacked emails” he introduces 2 untruths, 1 the “hacked” part, there has been no proof but as an ameteur I found it improbable that they were hacked due to the time span and focus and 2 “emails” there was a lot more than just emails, so, like most of what he said it was obscuring the truth, all of it.
    British asshole.

  11. yea Christy came across well, but missed his chance for a broad side on gavin in regards “trick to hide decline”. He didnt seem aware it was in reference to the proxy reconstruction and was a trick too hide the divergence from proxy vrs instrumental record… But still he came across well.

  12. Looked like a draw to me. Gavin Schmidt was a bit better at filibuster and stated conjecture as emphatic fact.
    At least we are now seeing open public debate about the issue, nullifying the claim of ‘the debate is over… the science is settled’.
    On a lighter and cooler note, Wisconsin’s Govenor Doyle has declared a ‘state of emergency’ due to the 15 inches of snow, high winds, and white out blizzard condition they are currently experiencing. In Seattle WA, the temperatures have not been above freezing for days. Most unusual for early December. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Minnesota are in the deep freeze. Be sure to ask your liberal, eco-green friends in those places how that Man Made CO2 Caused Global Warming thingy is working out for them! Think of it as grass roots education in action….

  13. ” jack morrow :
    Christy caught in the headlights just like McIntyre. ”
    Most unfair. Steve got his points in far better.

  14. Also, I do not understand why he didn’t point out how flawed and limited the models are. You could drive a truck through the assumptions. Having said that, I’d look like a dear in the headlights sitting behind a camera.

  15. Oh, and Gavin spun like an inexperienced politician. Hardly inspires confidence that he is any thing more than a partisan for AGW.

  16. Gavin is a professional sleaze ball. I worry about the reputation of science in the eyes of young people when I watch people like Gavin lie on TV.

  17. I think this is huge! CNN has in the past been SO biased it made me puke to watch Anderson Cooper highlighting our plight by going to the Greenland Icecap in July and freezing his a$$ off! This item seemed a genuine attempt to dig into the truth. The biases are still there but Wolf was aware of Gavin’s habitual blathering using up valuable time, and for what I think is the first time EVER, allowed the Skeptic the last word!

  18. I just remembered something. Some time ago a critic of my blog whined that I was just circle jerking when referring to HotAir.com over another temperature controversy. Funny, he included realclimate in his criticism and yes I nailed him for it in my reply.

  19. Gavin, poor Gavin. He doesn’t get it. America is going to understand the trick. Why does he keep digging deeper?

  20. I also noticed Blitzer asked him twice about the north pole ice…
    I was waiting for him to mention:
    (a) total global ice had increased.
    (b) Arctic ice had declined previously.

  21. I think part of the problem skeptics have is that it is much easier to sound bite warmist talking points but not so easy to sound bite all the problems behind the assertions. Case in point, sort of, Gavin posted a number of hockey sticks in response to the Yamal problem. The short answer, those graphs were either outdated, disputed or irrelevant. Showing that takes quite a bit of effort though if someone needs proof.

  22. Ironic that Gavin uses the forest fire analogy, especially since lack of natural fires has been devastating for forests.
    Gavin: “that’s just not true”. Well there you have it. I guess we should never ask again.
    Gavin “media storm”… um… which media storm is that, Gavin? You do, of course, mean the amazing cover-up and insanely smpathetic softball questions you occasionally get asked, right?
    Gavin’s list of what “we do know” is laughable.
    Unfortunately, the note it was left on is still wrong. And I now remember why I stopped watching CNN. Man, I despise Wolf, and Anderson.
    Either way, I guess it DOES get more people aware that something is going on…

  23. Squidly (17:36:54) :
    “”I didn’t like Christy’s response to the “polar ice caps disappearing” … THEY ARE NOT DISAPPEARING!””
    I actually do quite well arguing your everyday believer by simply stating, “You do realize that the polar ice freezes and melts EVERY year. Right?”
    I usually get a look of shock followed by a look of “that makes sense.”
    I think such a line would work well on the typical CNN viewer.

  24. Christy tried to come across as reasonable and moderate. In doing so, he was destroyed. The fat English dude was more polished. He knew there was only so much time and he filibustered.
    In the end, it was a wasted effort. Too bad.

  25. Despite the fact they gave Schmidt twice the time, he came across as not showing that he can prove anything. He stuck his foot in his mouth when he said that “the models give evidence” when Christy suggested models didn’t prove anything. Christy does well with his economy of words — he will leave it to people to see the farce in what Schmidt is saying.
    Bottom line for me is that the RealClimate people are going nowhere when they mention the illegality of the “hack”. They only say that because they’ve got nothing else.
    And when Christy said “our ignorance is enormous, and we need to inform our leaders of that”, nothing that Schmidt said made a dent in that.
    Clear win for Christy.

  26. How does this play in Peoria? Well, the Nixon-Kennedy debate comes to mind. Christy looked honest. Gavin looked shifty.

  27. The key point in this debate was Gavin Schmidt’s defense of the supression of alternative viewpoints by his failure to admit that that was wrong, or that Phil Jones did something wrong. It shows that Gavin puts the Team ahead of the science. Up until now I thought that Gavin Schmidt was an honest scientist, albeit too invested in his own beliefs. Now I know otherwise.

  28. It should be noted that the warmistas have made a living out of smooth presentations of data that lacks credibility. The need to speak in sound bites has been a part of their world for years. It takes practice to deliver and they are good at it. Gavin’s performance is AGW equivalent of “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit”? Remember, OJ walked because DNA evidence that is now a part of every day life was new and hard to understand. The initial leap of the truth into the public conscious is being made by scientists not actors and it is natural that they are stumbling a bit.

  29. Could the proponents for the non-man-made global warming side just please get their talking points in order before going into the interview. And could they please remember to mention the recent cooling and the deep solar minimum we are in now?
    Thank you.

  30. Mark (17:49:39) :
    “”I think part of the problem skeptics have is that it is much easier to sound bite warmist talking points but not so easy to sound bite all the problems behind the assertions.””
    You are so right. Which is why we need to adopt talking points. It’s impossible to teach anyone the science in 45 seconds.
    This problem is inherent given the nature of both sides of this debate.
    The warmists are prone to generating fake assertions and not explain the method used to arrive at the assertions. Why should they explain anything? They get all the media attention without any need to explain themselves.
    On the other hand, Skeptics are prone to walking through fire in order to explain the problems behind assertions. They do this because the burden of proof is definitely on the skeptic in order to get any attention at all.
    Don’t worry too much about this. The more our side does this, the better we’ll get.

  31. Greg (17:56:56) :
    “”It should be noted that the warmistas have made a living out of smooth presentations of data that lacks credibility. The need to speak in sound bites has been a part of their world for years. It takes practice to deliver and they are good at it.””
    Concur 100%.
    You articulated this point much better than I.

  32. It seemed to me Christy was a bit uncertain of himself, especially when asked about the Artic. He seemed thrown a bit by the question.
    I thought the ice was melting because of the unusual winds in the Artic, not temperature changes (link below). Has there been a determination to what is causing the winds to change?
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
    I also agree it seems Gavin was hitting talking points, and not quite answering the questions.

  33. Actually, Christy DID say that Antarctic ice was growing!
    He came across as a very restrained and calm observer, unlike Gavin.
    DaveE.

  34. I thought Christy came across well, i thought Wolfen Blitzen gave Schmidt too much
    air time but otherwise moderated the exchange well & asked some reasonable questions.

  35. The best part about having the Climategate debate on TV is seeing the faces of the characters involved, and knowing the rest of the sheeple will be seeing them too, and will be preserved on Youtube for all time.

  36. The skeptics need a great communicator. John Christy could be the one. He is not nervous (a big plus) and his voice does not shake. He comes across well. He just needs to take a few lessons from a pro on how to make the most out of a few well chosen words.
    Gavin, on the other hand, looks like a devil. I Imagine him with horns.

  37. Ron de Haan (17:39:28) :
    “I have a lot of respect for John Christy, who I see as Mr Integrity, but he is simply a to nice a guy to handle a scum bag like Gavin Schmidt, because that’s what he is.
    As I have sated before, put Gavin Schmidt next to Lord Mockton and he will be destroyed completely.
    We can and need to destroy them from top to bottom (using the right arguments at the right moment). ”
    “Christy caught in the headlights just like McIntyre. A pitiful showing. I don’t understand the meekness of the skectics. No wonder the warmers win.”
    reply
    It would just be a punch and Judy show, and the public don’t have an appetite for that. Christy is as cool as a duke, reminding us that science is broad, whilst Schmidt is full of, it should be said, moralistic outrage. People are questioning what they’ve been told. The general public seeing this for the first time – I think they’d take heed of Christy, who certainly comes across as having a broader understanding.

  38. would have been nice to see Christy more up for the debate – but major strength is that CNN are at least covering it so Joe Public will now be hearing a message that is not quite as settled as they had been told.

  39. Mockton would have turned Gavin Schmidt into a smoldering carcass if he got the chance.

    Might want to spell Lord Monckton’s name properly next time (and no, more than once in the same post is not a typo.)

  40. Something that has been argued against we deniers is that we say there is or there has been a “conspiracy” on global warming/climate change, but what it is misunderstood is that this is a business, and a big one and if we call any arrangement among partners in a business or in politics a “conspiracy” in order to make money or to get power, it is indeed that:a conspiracy, call it that or call it a “joint venture” or whatever among a few powerful and resorceful people who get associated to reach a common goal, it´s just that, and that is perfectly possible and probable, it happens every day.
    What has bothered me and perhaps many of you is that, in order to reach that goal, such idiotic arguments as the role of CO2 have been used. They could have used more intelligent arguments but they did what they did because of having the people they had around them.
    Now they are obliged to push their agenda almost by force which will undoubtely provoke, according to physical laws, an equal and opposed reaction.

  41. @ wobble (17:52:36) :
    Exactly! .. that is exactly the kind of position that I wish Christy and some of these guys would start taking. And the fact is, the Arctic may melt quite a bit every year, but it still is NOT disappearing.
    Hannity is having a scathing AGW discussion right now. “I think global warming is a hoax. I think this whole thing is a fraud … what do you think?” … panel replies .. “yup, I think you are right …”
    Tides are turning folks .. but, this is NO time to rest. People MUST become educated about the things that we DO know, what it is we DON”T know, and most importantly, why action based on the things we don’t know will hurt us.

  42. Christy did well…. He came out looking like the Scientist…. Mission accomplished!
    People now have a realization that the skeptics are the real, quite, unassuming scientists… Exhibit A: McIntyre. Exhibit B: Christy….
    Whilst Gavin Shmidt was nothing more than an obvious PR guy for what everyone is getting tired of hearing and are about to be taxed on….. Gavin was fighting a losing battle. He just didn’t know it.

  43. I have noticed a similarity amongst the proponent scientists of AGW. They would all make good used car salesmen. They have mastered all the techniques needed to sucker people.

  44. Well… Gavin made a good attempt but the problem is there is so much back information that a lay person needs to know in order to understand what Christy is talking about. Where as we can all be shocked by the idea that the polar ice cap is melting.
    That is the problem with the skeptic is if asked if CO2 can contribute to an increase in temperature we have to answer in the positive. Because the plain truth is it may very well do so and from a physical science standpoint that is correct.
    The real problem is then in explaining that even though an increase in CO2 does in fact minutely raise temperatures it does not mean catastrophic warming. Heck, quadrupling CO2 is barely going to have any effect at all…
    I think that may be the way to go… Say yeah CO2 warms the earth a couple tenths of a degree if we double it. We do not dispute that. What we dispute is the large temperature increases that are being bandied about rather then the small realities of it all.
    We do not dispute the science, only the political conclusions the science portends to. CO2 should not be considered dangerous, that is all. In fact it is a boon to our plants and growing seasons. So join us and become a skeptic of a 8 degree Celsius increase in temperature today!!! Oh and when a prediction is anywhere from one degree to eight isn’t that a little dodgy? If it only goes up one, well we did give a range after all…
    Natural Variability will more then likely kill this in 30 years or so. Scientists who pushed this science will be in the lime light today and by the time my kids have grandkids will be remembered as political scientists. A new term that will come out of their own self assurances.
    When you create a club where everyone has to agree with you or you get pushed out, there will be very few people who stay in the club who don’t agree with you, this is true of politics, it is true now of science.

  45. Well this sort of exchange is next to useless. CNNC is looking for a sound bite that they hope will make somebody look stupid.
    Pesonally I think John Christy knows that you can’t go on public TV and throw mud on people who after all are are colleagues in a snese.
    This was my first visage of the famous Gavin schmidt, and I have to say he didn’t endear himself to me. Blitzer asked each of them specific questions; and schmidt saw fit to interrupt Christy on several occasions.
    It’s a standard 8th grade debating trick; interrupt the other guy to disrupt his train of thought, and also consume his air time, instead of using your own time to make your own points.
    Yes John should have taken the opportunity to just let Blitzer have it and tell him the ice caps are not disappearing.
    Addressing the question:- “Does human activity affect climate.” is a losing effort; of course the answer is yes; unless you don’t believe Heisenberg’s Principle of Unbestimmheit (mit ein umlaut).
    So does every other living thing on this planet affect climate. Some of them even moreso than the beat of a butterfly’s wing in a Brazillion Jungle.
    Gavin protested too much about the hacking of private e-mails. Well of course they are not private; and as Christy said, the code shows exactly how the scam is done. Well yes the incriminating spaghetti is commented out. Well if I had such a time bomb in anything I wrote, of course I would have it commented out until the very moment I came to use it, and it would go Kaput as soon as the run was finished.
    The very fact that it exists in those snippets is all the evidence one needs that skullduggery was planned ahead of time.
    I’m sure the persons who wrote that code, never have had to write code to go into a chip to make some process happen. those who do that do not have the luxury of storing on valuable chip space any line of code that isn’t doing something useful. You don’t put commented out code onto a chip, unless that one chip makes several products that all share a basic core, but hve a selection of bells and whistles for product discrimination.
    The reason why Micro$oft Windows, is the world’s largest computer virus, is because they don’t have to mask that onto any chip; so the thing is like flaky pastry; just one layer of bandaids on top of another layer of bandaids.
    Back in the days when computer logic gates were made out of discrete diodes, even the best semioconductor diodes weren’t too reliable; so some genius invented the diode quad, consisting of two serial pairs of parallel diodes. One of these quads was used in each location where a diode was needed. Any one diode could fail op[en circuit or fail short circuit, and the quad still behaved like a diode.
    Well so now you have four times as many of those unreliable diodes; well actually you have more than that, because as a result of having two diodes in series when all were good, the resulting logic gat had a lower fanout and fan in tolerance; so you ended up needing a lot more gates to do the required logic.
    The result was that the system consumed a lot more power and really wan’t any more reliable. Well the same thing happens when you comment out snippets of code; like scrunching up a piece of paper and tossing it in the trash can. Sooner or later, somebody is going to program a jump right into the middle of that commented out code, and then almost anything can happen. I’d like a dollar for every piece of code I have read that assumes that it knows the initial state of some register or bit, and proceeds on that basis; instead of setting the desired state before hand so it really does know.
    It’s Smith’s first law of coding;- “No matter where you start writing code; there is always something else that you have to do first !”
    Well I wandered a way from the debate; but John exudes a no nonsense image; and Gavin just rubbed me the wrong way. His description of what computer models do floored me; well they certainly don’t replicate what Gaia does with her models.

  46. If you compared AGW fraudsters to the Corleone Crime family in the Godfather….Gavin would be Fredo. One can almost hear him shouting, “I’m smart….I’m smart. Not like everyone says….”
    I am not sure that the CRU scientists he is defending even have much respect for him. I could see them sending him for coffee when they sit down for a meeting. He is the propaganda spinner of sorts, so the big boys let him tag along as long as he serves this purpose. He will be the one left holding the bag when it’s over…and that could have some high entertainment value.

  47. The late Michael Crichton offered to debate any of the Carbon Cultists, but only on condition that both sides could use graphics. His offer wasn’t taken up before he died, but it’s still the most important condition. With graphs, the natural up and down of temperature is clear to everyone, and the non-correlation with CO2 versus the excellent correlation with sunspots can also be made clear. Without graphs, it’s just a question of who do you trust or who do you like.

  48. The sceptics are back on TV, and that’s all that matters. The average Joe Public hears ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’ and instinctively grasps that something terribly fishy is going on, If it wasn’t, why would there be a debate about this on TV? Clearly the needle has moved big time and the alarmists can’t deal with what just hit them – they’re shell shocked and have no defence. The answers they’re providing reek of desperation. And why wouldn’t they? The fact are not on their side and the media is sensing that it might make sense to press them harder because a) they’re probably pissed that they’ve been had for a ride all this time b) the public’s mood is changing toward this issue and they want to be on the side of the public sentiment.

  49. Schmidt has really dropped in my view. He’s exposed himself to be the advocatician I hoped he wasn’t. Christy wiped the floor with him.
    I always battled with the guy and actually thought he believed in what he said, this was just not honest.
    BTW- I did an improved sea ice post with a much better video of what’s really happening to the sea ice they discussed.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/sea-ice-copenhagen-update/
    What’s wrong when scientists can’t say – we don’t know.

  50. WHy didn’t Wolf ask Gavin why he is shilling for Fenton Communications?
    The Truth about RealClimate.org
    Just an interesting note,
    Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Research Scientist, NASA GISS
    John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Former Lead Author, IPCC

    As for the Arctic, Historically there has been less ice then there is now,
    Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)
    Arctic Historical Data Cast Doubt on Climate Change Theory (Associated Press)
    “If you go back to the early 1700s you find that sea ice extent was about the same then as it is now”

  51. All I have to say about “Global Warming”. It is a lie and the earth goes through cycles every 200 to 400 years. The world started warming during the early 1800’s after the mini “Ice Age”. They need to look at all the information going on now. Only GOD controls the weather not Al Gore and so called Scientists.

  52. Gavin fails…
    1:03 – Question “Gavin what do you say?”
    “The changes that we’re seeing in the climate are outside of what we would expect under natural circumstances at the moment. The causes that humans are put into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, aerosols, the other greenhouse gases do have a noticeable effect on the climate, we’ve detected it in fingerprint studies, we’ve looked at it all over the world and these things are really happening now.
    The issue is not whether these things have ever happened before, but whether we are causing them. The presence of natural forest firest doesn’t mean that arson doesn’t exist. We can still be attribue… we can still attribute our role in climate change even though back in the cretaceous period it was much much warmer than it is now.”
    Sure Gavin, you are correct, the issue is whether or not we are the primary cause. However, thus far, your argument has repeated the mantra of “unprecedented global warming” as evidence for mans influence on climate. If you are now saying that the alleged evidence that suggests that this warming is abnormal doesn’t mean anything, fantastic, then we can all safely ignore every dendroclimatological study ever made. Nothing like the man who presented an argument himself invalidating his own importance in the issue.
    2:20 –> “Can they Gavin” (can climate models prove human influence on global warming?)
    “Climate models are a tool that allow us to understand why climate changed in the past, why it’s changing now, and what that might mean for the future, they’re just tools they dont prove anything in the sense of a mathematical proof. But they do provide us with very good evidence that what we’re seeing now is in fact caused by the things that we know that we’re doing the to atmosphere.”
    Very fair Gavin, except the part about equating model results with evidence. That’s a big fail. model results are model results, not data, not evidence. So sorry, lets try again.
    3:27
    Question—> “…a lot of people are outraged when they go back ten years and read that. and believe that legitimate scientists were trying to suppress other information.
    Gavin —> “Well that’s just not true. Ah the uh the words that you have quoted there out of context… if read in their proper context the trick is just meaning a technique its just a way of doing uh a smooth when you’ve got uh a time series that ends in the middle of where you want to do the smooth its nothing nefarious, its nothing sneaky. uhm, the uh decline that they were talking about it was in ah some tree rings {crosstalk}…
    WB —> “well let me interrupt for a second, let me interrupt for a second Gavin. because I take it that the uh uh individual the scholar at the head of this institution at East Anglia University has now stepped down because of all of this.”
    Gavin —> “Well he stepped aside while the university is looking into these things and I think that’s perfectly appropriate people should be able to investigate these things outside of the media storm that has been created over these e-mails. and let me tell you if you had had 13 years of your e-mails poured over by people who are extremely hostile to you I dont think anybody would survive that unscathed. and this has been very devastating for the people involved anbd it s a huge invasion of their privacy and I dont think we should forget that these e-mails were stolen, these are not government employees, these are things not released under a freedom of information act. These were e-mails hacked from a mail server uh at their university and released completely illegally. I dont think that that is something that you should be encouraging and I dont think that anybody here would really want that even to happen to their worst enemy.”
    Nice Gavin, the question was what was the meaning of the e-mails and you’ve played the victim card. LOL. Apparently the context is all wrong, and they weren’t talking about any sort of divergence, they were talking about smoothing out datasets? Leaving aside the fact that smoothing datasets is data manipulation to begin with, and that smoothing a data set shouldn’t hide any sort of divergence… What dataset were they trying to smooth out? And, more importantly, Why were they talking in some bizarre code in their e-mails when they could have just said, “I just completed Mike’s nature technique to smooth out our datasets.” In fact, as someone who’s worked in science, I’ve seen that phrasing used hundreds of times. I’ve never seen the word trick used, nor the words “hide the decline” in any data processing coordination I’ve ever done. It seems to be some unique Climate-Science language you guys have invented here. I’ll remember that for the future. “Trick” means “Technique”; and “Hide the Decline” means smooth a dataset. Interesting stuff here. I’ll try to remember distribute your hacked e-mails in the future Gavin, since its obvious you guys don’t want the world to know about your secret climatology code that you guys speak back and forth.
    6:10
    “Our ignorance about climate system is very large but we do know some things we do know that greenhouse gasses are increasing because of human activities we do know that the planet is warming we do know that its warming for the reasons that basic physics tells us that its warming there are lots of details and lots of issues that we need to work on obviously we’re all scientists and we’re working on the things that are uncertain no scientist makes a living by going around agreeing with everyone elses work we are looking for the places where there is uncertainty that is where scientists look but when you do that you can’t forget that science is built ona foundation that goes back to the 19th century the shape of that building the whole edifice is not being changed because people are arguing about one or two bricks at the top and whjich temperature record is the best temperature record or not.”
    Fail Gavin. This is not one or two bricks at the top. These are the bricks of the foundation. In order for the current changes in climate to be alarming, we need to look at the past record to see if the climate changes that we’re seeing are abnormal. Paleoclimatology needs to definitively show that in order to proceed to the next step, which is discovering the cause of the abnormal changes. Your fundamental question is, “Is the climate changing in an abnormal fashion?” That is your fundamental question, because if it isn’t changing in any sort of unusual fashion, there’s no reason to even ask why. Your primary question is not why, but what. Without a properly formulated primary question, the question of “why is this happening?” is meaningless.
    Fail Gavin. But then again, I expected nothing less from a man who censors rational discourse on the internet.

  53. The media ran dead.
    Now they can’t. It looks like catch up footy to me.
    Christy sounds like scientist should, cautious in expression of scientific opinion.
    Gavin was spinning like a top.

  54. Administration Warns of ‘Command-and-Control’ Regulation Over Emissions
    FOXNews.com
    The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in way that could hurt business.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/
    With our shaky economy, the last thing we need is to have a pit bull loose in the grocery store.

  55. Mickey Langan (17:55:27) :
    “And when Christy said “our ignorance is enormous, and we need to inform our leaders of that”, nothing that Schmidt said made a dent in that.
    Clear win for Christy.”
    Seconded. He even had Schmidt agreeing with that statement. Thats a sign of a cool rational voice against a dramatist’s voice: The dramatist has to concede to the rationality, whilst the rational don’t have to concede to the dramatist. He even had Schmidt agreeing that models don’t prove anything.
    I have to say: people might ask: are storms and droughts increasing? were climate catastrophe’s worse before this present climate? Were famines, droughts and floods and tempests worse before 1980?
    http://across.co.nz/WorldsWorstDisasters.html
    just ignore earhtquakes and tsunamis

  56. ABC World News Tonight had a piece on Climate Change vs Climate Gate.
    Ran a bit of Glen Beck on the footage, showed Al Gore hightailing it after protesters showed up at a book signing.
    It was a scientific concensus group pitted against leaked emails.
    Millions more are now aware, and will run for their computers to check it out on the Internet. Message is spreading.
    ABC did not take sides.

  57. I watched the IQ^2 debate with Gavin and decided at that point he was a complete slimeball. He is simply a conman and a liar – and his credentials as such should be pointed out everytime he dares to appear in public.
    Anyway, I think Christy did a better job than McIntyre, but he was still far too soft – we need people with fire and facts!

  58. If a TV news station does not report on a given topic three time in a given hour, like the Tiger Woods story, then “it didn’t happen” or it isn’t important, especially to them and they don’t wish for you to know about it. A lack of coverage on a topic of this magnitude completely discredits the station as a worthy source of news, and they know it.

  59. Blitzer didn’t ask the multi-dimensional question: Are climate models tools or are climate scientists tools?

  60. Jeremy:
    Great job of deconstructing Gavin’s non-responsive responses. Damn right he failed. Christy was cool – perhaps too cool – and was very strraightforward. I bet you couldn’t find anything wrong with what he said. If you reckonize that some facts are compatible with the warming hypothesis – it is just plain stupid to deny or waffle on them. Arctic ice, for example, is relatively low – it is tough to deny without pulling a Gavin.

  61. I can’t thank you enough Gavin Schmidt for showing your insecurities by interrupting John Christy several times.

  62. I like it that Wolf Blitzer brought up the ‘paid by big oil’ absurdity and gave John Christy the chance to answer.

  63. Watching Gavin Schmidt shows me once again that global warming is becoming a caricature of itself.

  64. Finally there is a debate happening in public over AGW. And every time that happens people mostly side with ‘skeptics’.
    This debate wasn’t perfect but we have to stop expecting perfect.
    We are winning!!
    I feel so good about that!

  65. They agreed about the most important thing:
    the ignorance of climatology.
    This ignorance will not go away until productive research on natural climate variations is permitted to flourish (via sufficient funding, in contrast with the malicious obstruction we see currently).
    I would encourage Christy to read the works of Sidorenkov, Barkin, Klyastorin, & other Russian scientists. The Russians have a superior understanding of north-south climate oscillations. Don’t stop at 2 or 3 Barkin articles; download dozens. (Some of them are hard to find.)

  66. Christy got some good points in – particularly about the models. He could have been a bit more aggressive but as someone else said, he came across as cool and calm while Gavin to me looked like the a-wipe he apparently is.
    Who would you trust with your life? Your fortune? Your kids? Who would you rather sit next to on a plane for 5 hours? Christy wins hands down. Gavin’s personifies the arrogant, pointy headed intellectual who knows nothing about the real world.

  67. CO2 Realist (17:33:38) :
    – Why is Gavin Schmidt defending the CRU guys?
    He’s in the CRU emails. He’s in ClimateGate up to his eyes.

  68. I think Gavin inhaled some spit just after he said that nobody in science got paid for doing what everyone else is doing.
    Hold on isn’t that exactly what they are all getting paid for with big government research grants. Nobody gets paid by the government for trying to disprove global warming.

  69. RDay (17:40:05) :
    I thought Christy showed great restraint and didn’t pull a Watson because I must have told the tv to shut up at least 4 times. I leave it to the reader to guess who was talking at those points.
    I didn’t keep it to only saying the two words “shut up”.

  70. Wolf Blitzer hasn’t a clue.
    This was about as pathetic a set of question as anyone could have come up with.

  71. It seemed to be just a another forum for a Global Warming Advocate to voice his position to me. Christy didn’t say much, while Gavin rambled on and on.

  72. I am part of the public that has very little experience with science in regards to global warning. I have been lurking on many sites trying to have some understanding of this situation.
    My opinion of the debate between Christy and Schmidt is that Christy came off as an honest person. He acted as if being on TV was not a normal event for him, however, I listened more when he spoke. He just seemed honest and open.
    Gavin Schmidt came off as someone trying to sell me something. Didn’t sound solid in what he was saying.

  73. Michael,
    Gavin Schmidt and the rest are paid in small part with public tax money. The problem is, they are also paid a lot more by outside foundations, NGOs and individuals, like George Soros, who all have a heavy AGW agenda.
    They can’t serve two masters. So who gets their money’s worth? The public, who pays their scientists’ salary? Or the ones paying them millions to promote the highly questionable conjecture that CO2 causes global warming?
    The result: money talks, and the public be damned.

  74. I think Dr Christy could have answered the ‘polar ice’ question much better. I think a reference to the fact that it is cyclical, not an ‘unprecedented’ occurance since we know the polar ice cap was equally small or smaller earlier in the 20th century, i.e., Northwest passage was open in 1940 but is closed now would have gone a long way to obliterate the point.

  75. GAVIN SCHMIDT: “No scientist makes a living by going around agreeing with everybody else’s work.”
    Hahaha. Did he really just say that??
    Yeah….most scientists don’t make a living that way…except those within your climate club, Gavin…..where group-think gets you all the $$$ you need for your projects.
    Its nice to have you slither out from under your rock over at RC for a spell and show yourself for you really are in these interviews.
    Very telling.
    We see the grin…
    We feel the contempt for those that take you task…
    We hear the charlatan antics in your nervous explanations.
    Your reign is about to end.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  76. TheGoodLocust th (18:51:46) :I watched the IQ^2 debate with Gavin and decided at that point he was a complete slimeball.
    I saw the debate where Lindzen, Stott and Crichton took on Gavin and two other warmistas and I remember 3 things from it clearly.
    1. No one could beat Crichton on getting a clear message across
    2. At the end of the debate Stott put Gavin down like a rabid dog
    3. The Skeptics won the debate

  77. It is unfortunate that Dr. Bob Carter was not invited to debate Gavin Schmidt.
    AGW Religion Rule One
    Never discuss the science
    attack the man
    Repeat the mantra
    It is left as an exercise for the student to determine the practitioner of Rule One.

  78. IMO the fact that CNN put John Christy on The Situation Room with Blitzer is in itself a fairly significant step in the right direction: That program is definitely mainstream, and a LOT of people watch it.
    And I agree with multiple prior comments: Especially given the time limitations of the Sit Room format, on the whole Christy came across as comfortable, confident, and especially:
    He sounded like a professional scientist.
    Not only Gavin not so much:
    The constract between Christy and Schmidt was striking, with Gavin very much looking and sounding nervous, touchy, defensive, and . . . . yeah: Guilty. . . .

  79. Bob Tisdale (17:41:45) :
    “The major postive to ClimateGate:
    Skeptics are back in front of TV cameras.”
    Great point. You know, that is exactly what I was thinking. The Skeptics are actually on the air, in front of the people and at the very least showing that there is a rational other side to the story. And, anyone with a slightly open mind might look further. And when people get wind of the true cost of alarmism they might have second thoughts about relying on questionable science.

  80. GAVIN SCHMIDT: “We do know that greenhouse gasses are increasing because of human activity….we do know that the climate is warming…we do know that its warming for the reasons basic physics tells us that it’s warming.”
    Circular reasoning at its best!
    He should think about going into politics. He would be right at home!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  81. I wonder if I will see a news story on the evening news titled “Main Stream Media Scooped By the Internet on Climategate”?
    I guess we will never again see like it was back then, when reporters used to compete with each other to get the scoop on a story, sort of like this at 3:05 in this movie clip;
    Airplane! – Movie Trailer

  82. If Christy is going to “debate”, he really should take a course. He got run over and he got “filibustered” as one observer noted. If he can’t even think of a reasonable counter to “The Arctic ice is melting”, he doesn’t belong on camera. The AGW crowd should be lining up to debate him.
    Really lame!
    CH

  83. Watched the Christy/Schmidt. What a weasel Gavin is. Again he repeats the “everthing is out of context” and “the trick is just a way of describing a neat solution for smoothing”
    I think the casual observer is gone to see that and recall the old saying “If you can’t dazzle them with footwork, then baffle them with bulls**t”

  84. MSM needs to dedicate like 2-3 hours of debate time for these guys. Let them use presentations and make it similar to a presidential debate. They need more than 10-20 seconds to expand on a topic because the evidence is that detailed that you can’t say, here it is, here is what the code says, here are the results…etc all in a few seconds. MSM just skims over the surface of the lake at about 10,000ft and won’t allow these guys to explain themselves in a way that allows Joe the plumber to understand. Keep up the good work

  85. Mark (17:42:55) :
    Christy came across well IMO. Gavin did nothing to improve my very low opinion of him, in fact he might have made it worse.
    It did for me too. I had been willing to give Gavin Schmidt the benefit of the doubt. But seeing his reaction to ClimateGate the past weeks he has only implicated himself as guilty.

  86. Roger (17:45:27) :
    …but Wolf was aware of Gavin’s habitual blathering using up valuable time, and for what I think is the first time EVER, allowed the Skeptic the last word!
    I liked that too.
    Gavin Schmidt not only talked over the top of John Christy he didn’t listen to Wolf Blitzer as he tried to interrupt his long winded monologues.

  87. I once attended a seminar given by a guy who was a expert in radio communications. During a break, he told us a story about how he had developed a burst transmitter design for an agency within the “intelligence community”. In the process, he described how not only did this intelligence agency have guys designing radio transmitters that could be hidden, they had another set of guys, a “counter group,” who’s job it was to detect hidden radio transmitters. These two groups would go after each other in an attempt to come up with the best possible transmitters and the best possible methods of detection.
    In climate science, we have a bunch of seemingly half drunken academics who live off the government dole while they concoct ridiculous schemes to prove something that it seems has been predetermined to be true, no matter the actual empiric data. The only group of guys trying to test they schemes are underfunded or doing work on their own time pro-bono.
    This process is obviously corrupt. It was never meant to provide the truth. If it was, the government research community would also have a fully funded “counter group” to try to prove that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” doesn’t exist, has little impact or at least can be easily mitigated and therefore save billions, if not trillions, of dollars/Euros/pounds on trying to prevent a non sequitur.
    The fact that there is no “counter group” immediately brings into question the purpose of the activity and whether it is meant to be part of that “waste, fraud and abuse” that so often infiltrates all vestiges of government. The fact that this is an international activity makes one wonder if the UN has any real function except to give heads of state a chance to go shopping in New York City from time to time and travel to useless conferences where they can dine well and come up with new ideas on how to fleece their citizens at home.

  88. Jeff Id (18:36:37) :
    Schmidt has really dropped in my view. He’s exposed himself to be the advocatician I hoped he wasn’t.
    I thought the same thing.

  89. DaveE (18:51:59) :
    That article was written mid December 1938 -at winter ice extent. That Russian breaker drifting within 300 miles of the North Pole is quite a statistic.
    the arctic must have ben very small in those days.

  90. “the trick is just a way of describing a neat solution for smoothing”
    A bald faced lie and Gavin knows it. Mixing proxy reconstruciton with temperature data is NOT a ‘neat solution’ for smoothing, it is a neat solution for obfuscation of the fact that your proxy reconstruction is utterly worthless.

  91. rbateman (18:45:03) :
    The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role
    If the Senators can’t stand up to Lisa Jackson and Barak Obama I may start making jokes about certain parts of their anatomy.

  92. rbateman (18:51:36) :
    ABC World News Tonight had a piece on Climate Change vs Climate Gate.
    Is there a link to this? Hopefully a video?

  93. Jim (18:55:34) :
    Blitzer didn’t ask the multi-dimensional question: Are climate models tools or are climate scientists tools?
    Niiicce! 🙂

  94. In part two of that interview CNN showed scenes of the blizzard up north saying winter has arrived two weeks early. What was that thing about getting in the last word? I think Mother Nature got in the last word in that interview.

  95. RT news gives good coverage of the Alternative Summit in Copenhagen:
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AD6S22JGmg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

  96. Was Gavin Schmidt implying that climate science was built on a foundation that goes back to the 19th century, or was he out-and-out stating that science as a whole is built on a 19th century foundation? I guess in that case Galileo and Newton don’t count. However, I guess most viewers would neither know or care. But it does not say a lot about Dr. Schmidt’s understanding.

  97. Christy came out looking like a scientist with inner confidence from knowing that they can answer any question with a reasonable answer.
    Schmidt came out looking like a typical US media commentator who believes that value comes from how much you say not what you say. If you didn’t tell me he was a scientist I would have never guessed.
    Michael

  98. Ahh Gavin. What a guy. I’m pretty sure that he was on an episode of “Cash Cab” not so long ago. This is probably where he developed his TV skills, although, as I recall, his companion had most of the answers. Gavin was just a guy with a beard, no hair, and a leather coat that he couldn’t zip. Anybody else see this?

  99. I’ve only read a few of the comments here, so this has probably been stated ad infinitum: the performance of both McIntyre and Christy was so tragic that they may as well have been on the side of the alarmists! Very sad – golden opportunities missed.

  100. 2009
    M. Simon (17:22:36) :
    Strange that Brits seem to form the core of the Team. Or is it just my observer bias kicking in? Or memories of Beatles movies?
    The way I see it global warming is a form of restitution. There was alot of noise being made about British colonalism france Spain ect.. rapeing the resources of the poor countries and that restitution should be paid. So low and behold Britian and the euro socalist devised the AGW scam. Instead of just britian and such making thier payments of reperations themselves They scam and bully us into the belief that we are making payments to the enviroment for crimes that we all took part in. People would be up in arms if they told us we had to help them make thier restitution payments for the greedy colonialism of thier past. Blaming Agw helps keep the noise level down some. The only problem is mother nature has her own agenda and is leaving whole lot of egg on thier faces. So I am not that suprised that Britian is leading the scam. They’re just not that intrested in flipping for the bill themselves.

  101. I think John Christy did a great job he didn’t got sucked into a shouting match with Schmidt, he came over level headed wile Gavin Schmidt had only the usual talking points to offer with no substance.
    Get historical like Gavin did and you loss all credibility and the polls show it more and more people aren’t buying the AGW crap anymore.

  102. Not seen the video but I have read the comments.
    Christy seems to have acted carefully, not a bad ploy.
    The polar ice cap matter is best left silent because…
    Strictly no room for wriggle there is no defence either way even though there is zero prospect of losing the ice caps. <—- note the pleural.
    The Arctic cap given the changing orbital tilt of the Earth and maybe other processes might even if very unlikely disappear. As things stand maybe 2150 to 2200.
    I have been doing a lot of work on the data and I know that something very strange is happening.
    There has been a smooth dip and recovery __not the brief loss of summer ice__ but right now there is no way of knowing what next. Now note this: the ice and UAH North Pole temperature track very well. (same for Antarctica)
    There was no temperature follow for the brief 2007/8/9 dips in ice, it follows the broader trend which is at normal right now.
    Firstly I have shown that sea ice extent and area datasets are the same and for both Arctic and Antarctica. That is based on monthly data. In other words forget area as telling anything more.
    Secondly I have successfully created a daily Arctic sea ice dataset by merging NASA stereo and IJIS/JAXA even though they use a different geometry. Fortunately this difference is constant. (they cannot both be numerically accurate!) NASA ceased updating 31st Dec 2007
    On removing the annual ice cycle a change signal remains. This too matches UAH just like the monthly data. So it should.
    Whether these data will see the light of day remains to be seen. Question ought to be why it falls to an amateur?

  103. Lord Monckton should be the person to debate the AGW people. Of course Gore, Suzuki run the other way whenever they hear the name. Reading what Steve McIntyre said about his interview it’s seems that most people don’t think quickly enough for TV which is a soundbite exercise.
    Monckton wouldn’t have allowed Gavin to use talking points (false ones at that) as facts.

  104. I like Gavin schmidt. He let me down. Using the argument to popularity is as far from scientific as could be. If we all study the same corrupted data, why shouldn’t our conclusions be the same? It hurts when some one claims to be a scientist and can’t grasp a coincidental observation doesn’t prove a causal relationship. They could get a little sharper in isolating variables. Our sixth grade genius knows when the sun comes up, the dat becomes warmer and it cools after sunset. It doesn’t occur to the warmists the sun gives heat and when light is blocked, it cools.

  105. Michael wrote:
    Michael (17:58:59) :
    “Could the proponents for the non-man-made global warming side just please get their talking points in order before going into the interview. And could they please remember to mention the recent cooling and the deep solar minimum we are in now?
    Thank you.”
    Most political issues can be summed-up with a few good talking points. Other posters have mentioned repitition as being an important aspect to getting your message across. A good strategy along with good tactics are necessary when involved with political war. Goal+Strategy+Tactics.
    John Christy did not join the political battle that was waged against him by Gavin, and to some degree Wolf. Wolf did deliver some good fast balls that Christy should have hit out of the park.
    Christy looked like a good scientist who was not ready for television debating.
    Michael’s post was right-on!
    markm

  106. i thought Christy seemed classy and more confident (in his meekness). gavin looked poised for a fight and therefore came across as defensive and ultimately petty. contrary to some on this thread i thought that Christy looked much more appealing to thoughtful types who aren’t impressed with sass.

  107. The current situation is skeptics are painted as unreasonable fanatic science haters. That is why no one has actually checked the science – I don’t check the science of the flat earth society either. I think the best thing the skeptic side can do is come off as calm, reasonable and only there to discuss the science. So I think this interview and the one with McIntyre was perfect, and far more powerful than scoring a point with a ‘yes it is’, ‘no it isn’t’ debate full of wild sounding claims.
    The goal isn’t to convince people we aren’t warming like a barbecue, to goal is to convince them to take an impartial scientific look. For once.

  108. Wobble said:
    “we need to adopt talking points. It’s impossible to teach anyone the science in 45 seconds.”
    What I wish Fox TV would do (actually, it could even be done by a large chain of radio stations) is give each side an hour of time per week to present its side of the case. After a few weeks these would settle down into rebuttals of the other sides’ prior presentations, using clips of the other sides’ statements. This time to explore in depth would produce adequate treatment of the issues.
    One benefit is that episodes could be re-run every few months. Costs would be very low. An even cheaper way to test the waters would be to start the series with broadcasts of video-recorded past speeches by leading lights on both sides. If that gets good ratings, then the weekly point / counterpoint series could be initiated. The network could start cautiously, by scheduling the first episodes late at night. I think the series might be amazingly popular.
    Good grief — TV and radio stations have been given their licenses under a general mandate to act in the public interest by doing some amount of public service broadcasting. Exploration of this topic qualifies in spades. Not giving time to this momentous matter would be a travesty. In fact, I think that two hours a week is an absolute minimum.

  109. finny (20:15:25)
    It seems that Mrs Thatcher first funded reseach into Global warming after a speech to the Royal Society, which later set up the Hadley centre (which controls the IPCC)
    you could be right

  110. PS: If a point / counterpoint series is set up, it would probably be a good idea to establish a framework of topics to be treated each week, so that the discussion doesn’t wander all over the map and not engage with the other side.
    A few days after each show, perhaps an interviewer could ask questions of each side, to clarify points, tidy up loose ends, bring out more data, etc.

  111. There’s no such thing as bad publicity. As long as we get to air our side on TV in any form, unlike nothing as before, it’s all good.

  112. I thought both were OK. Gavin was pretty honest about the role of models (the stuff he knows about) but he also did very carefully evade the issue of exactly how much CO2 actually causes. Christy I thought was not strong enough on the same issue, nor the appalling state of the temperature record that is what the public is fed to “show” AGW in action.

  113. P Wilson (19:44:49) :
    Better yet…
    If you look to the follow on articles, Syedoff was frozen in on the 18th of December 1938 but was free again in February 1939!
    All reported in the NYT.
    DaveE.

  114. MarkM (20:23:37) : wrote
    “Could the proponents for the non-man-made global warming side just please get their talking points in order before going into the interview. And could they please remember to mention the recent cooling and the deep solar minimum we are in now?
    Thank you.”
    “Michael’s post was right-on!
    markm”
    Thanks Mark.
    Most people just don’t know how the game is supposed to be played. How can you win if you don’t know how to play the game?

  115. Maybe everyone that thinks Steve McIntyre and John Christy weren’t colorful enough (I thought they both were fine) would be satisfied if Ian Plimer were on these tv show (actually I would like that too)

  116. Christy’s got his hand in the pork barrel – Sen. Richard Shelby earmarked $1.8 million for UAH’s “climate model evaluation project” in the FY2010 Energy and Water Appropriation Bill. The project even appears in the East Anglia emails 2 years earlier.
    http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/pork-barrel-spending-on-skeptical.html
    I guess you can still get research funding from the government even if you’re a skeptic. (Of course, Roy Spencer makes a point of saying his research is 100% government funded on his website, so this isn’t really news).
    My only point is, now no one can ever say that scientists are hyping global warming hysteria to win research grants – it’s clearly possible to find patrons in the US Senate by doing just the opposite. The conspiracy theory is busted.

  117. vigilantfish (20:01:39) :
    Was Gavin Schmidt implying that climate science was built on a foundation that goes back to the 19th century, or was he out-and-out stating that science as a whole is built on a 19th century foundation?
    Don’t read too much into what he was trying to say. He may not be as smart as you think he should be. Lower your expectations and then the picture will clear up for you.
    (I may sound rude here I think)

  118. DonS (20:03:33) :
    Ahh Gavin. What a guy. I’m pretty sure that he was on an episode of “Cash Cab” not so long ago.
    I remember that episode now that you bring it up. He does look like him. But I’m not sure.

  119. Apparently many people here are new to this debate,
    McIntyre and Christy’s performances are exactly the same as they have always been and their personal position on the issue has not changed. Both are low key and professional.
    Now if you were expecting shock and Awe you want Monckton or Morano (who people were ironically complaining about).
    Gavin is the alarmist’s go to guy to argue any and all positions, his whole Blog (realclimate) was created just for this purpose. For over three years every single “rebuttal” has been through him and his blog or originated there. So there should be no surprise to his demeanor.
    Anytime Gavin brings up computer models, someone should ask him if he has a degree in Computer Science = debate over.
    I’ve always said that this whole charade will unravel once actual computer scientists start looking at the code.

  120. Gavin citing “this is how science works” is funny as he is a mathematician! No offense met to other mathematicians out there.

  121. In the CNN face off, Schmidt’s body language betrays him. When he makes assertions that we know are not true, he blinks rapidly and is eyes dart . Other times in the interview where he isn’t flat out lying his blinks are at a normal rate .
    John Christy is the polar opposite. He is calm and his body language is consistent throughout.
    Gavin doesn’t even believe himself. He knows he’s lying.

  122. I am wondering why the skeptical sides in these interviews are not hitting the most damning points
    1) The distinction between admitting there has been warming, and the higher burden of proof of showing that mankind’s activities are the prominent reason for it.
    2) The fact that incorrect science is fettered-out by falsification, and Mann’s hockey stick has clearly been falsified in the last 8+ years.
    3) That it is nowhere near “good science” to keep raw data under wraps, as that prevents independent scientists from recreating their results.
    4) That science is not democratic, and it doesn’t even matter if a majority of scientists are convinced about AGW…if they do not have evidence, or their results cannot be duplicated by independent scientists, their opinion is no better than a lay person.
    5) That all IPCC climate models are based on a completely unproven and unvalidated assumption that CO2 feedback effects on temperatures are destabilizing. And further that historical data falsifies this assumption. (This issue is close to my profession as a control engineer…I know feedback systems and this is a massive error in their models).
    I am a practicing aerospace control systems engineer and also an adjunct professor of aerospace engineering at an accredited engineering university in California. I, like many of my colleagues, could be much better spokesmen for the real scientific problems with the whole AGW agenda. But for that matter, why do none of these media outlets ever call on Roy Spencer? He would also be another very good spokesman for veridical science and the problems with the AGW religion.
    I don’t get it…we should be tearing these pretenders a new one all over the TV! A few simple facts about how science works would put an AGW-friendly host and his AGW proponent guest on the defensive quickly. In fact, Roy Spencer made a good point on his blog yesterday: If this were cancer researchers caught not sharing data, attempting fraud, or trying to silence dissenters or other scientists trying to falsify their work, there is no doubt everyone would be outraged. But not everyone has cancer; however, everyone will be negatively impacted by the draconian measures being considered.
    We need to do better getting the real science out there!

  123. “The contrast between Christy and Schmidt was striking, with Gavin very much looking and sounding nervous, touchy, defensive, and . . . . yeah: Guilty. . . .”
    LOL!
    Neo wrote:
    “In climate science, we have a bunch of seemingly half drunken academics who live off the government dole while they concoct ridiculous schemes to prove something that it seems has been predetermined to be true, no matter the actual empiric data. The only group of guys trying to test they schemes are underfunded or doing work on their own time pro-bono.
    This process is obviously corrupt. It was never meant to provide the truth. If it was, the government research community would also have a fully funded “counter group” to try to prove that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” doesn’t exist, has little impact or at least can be easily mitigated and therefore save billions, if not trillions, of dollars/Euros/pounds on trying to prevent a non sequitur.
    The fact that there is no “counter group” immediately brings into question the purpose of the activity and whether it is meant to be part of that “waste, fraud and abuse” that so often infiltrates all vestiges of government.”

    Henry Bauer, who believes that the currently embedded practices of modern, bureaucratic science have corrupted it (the CAWG consensus being a prime example IMO), has suggested that 10% or so of funding needs to go to contrarian viewpoints, that there should be a place at the table for contrarians (in every field), and that there should be “science courts” where both sides can argue their case in matters where established science has shut out or shouted down outsiders. You can find more here:
    “Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels”
    By HENRY H. BAUER
    Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies
    Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
    Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 643–660, 2004
    http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/21stCenturyScience.pdf

  124. It was a good interview,it showed the public that the science is not settled,2 scientists stating different views.The interviewer was good,he pointed out that Jones was being investigated,thereby implying that there must have been something in the e-mails,which in turn led to doubt on anything Schmidt had to say.Any scientist or scientific organisation defending Phil Jones are automatically discredited,because they are trying to defend a wrong.It won’t wash.John Christy was very good,he calmly stated the facts.His face was expressive when Schmidt was commenting,he looked amused most of the time.

  125. I thought on balance it was a lot of “yes, it is,” “no it isn’t” argument. Schmidt is such an evader and a dissembler to boot. He has his party line down pat. Don’t expect any serious discussion or admissions on any network TV program covering this subject; just a lot of posturing. Is Schmidt a scientist or a politician? Ha, I know the answer already.
    I would challenge Schmidt and the other warmists to answer the challenge set forth by the 141 scientists in their letter to Ban Ki Moon of the U.N. today. The warmists need to come up with solid, falsifiable, observational evidence to confirm each of the ten issues identified in that letter.

  126. As far as debates go, they were both pretty good, and, unfortunately, Gavin did a pretty good job of getting the AGW talking points to the forefront.
    I’ve been in debates occasionally, and it is nigh on impossible to think of the right thing to say at the right time (always kicking oneself afterwards thinking of what you should have said). That said, I was disappointed that Christy didn’t jump all over the softball that Wolf Blitzer threw at him twice (intentionally?): the disappearing Arctic ice cap. Christy tried to be technical and nuanced, but that is not what was needed. He should have retorted with something close to righteous indignation about such an incredibly outrageous statement, pointed out that it most certainly hasn’t disappeared, that it in fact has grown/recovered significantly over the past two years, etc.

  127. I have read Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate for years. Thread after thread comment after comment. I’ve posted and debated Gavin and his AGW thugs.
    There is no question that RC, run by Gavin Schmidt is the worst offender of open debate on the web.
    His approach to his RC blog mirrors, but is worse, the same approach to peer review and skeptics work exhibited in the CRU emails.
    Gavin and co.’s moderating at RC includes censoring posts, outright blocking individuals entirely, altering posts and selectively allowing posts then obstructing follow up posts skewing the debate.
    The deliberate shaping of the blog posts results is a heavily lopsided presentation of the AGW debate which then gets reccomended by many in the AGW camp as a good source for the truth.
    Yeah you bet, and so is Hansen, Jones and Mann?
    As CRU e-mails revealed, Gavin’s blog was and is being used to deliver the AGW cooked science and message for wider distribution.
    However, the whole thing is unraveling and Gavin has no choice but to keep it up and hope for the best.
    IMO his goose is cooked along with his pals and they may be already looking at escape hatches and landing pads for their future.
    They are of course delsional. Having gotten away with so much for so long they’re shell shocked having to face imminent consequences.
    The real entertainment, at their expense, will come when one or more of them turns rat.
    They got to be nervous about that prospet.

  128. Hopefully soon, Chris Monckton will be matched against a major alarmist. Until then the skeptics/realists/actual scientists are getting tv debating experience and the more frequently the more we will handle such debates better. A little painful in the beginning, but as the temps remain stable, or decline we will have many more opportunities. I guess the serious concern is will we get enough air time before the major cap/tax vote?
    This is a great growing experience for skeptics and objectivists who may be somewhat apprehensive about both getting hit by flagrantly distractive invectives while they want to be accurate in their statements. More experience will soon loosen us up – then…
    My congrats and encouragement to Christy, McIntyre (Morano simply lives for debates!) and all who are having to go through this gauntlet.
    But keep in mind that the AGWers are going to have to be debated, overwhelmingly, into the ground and never to be heard from again. We rely mostly on the science to make it’s own points, ok, but the science has to be related by us in debates. So, bear down, we’ve got our work cut out for us.
    AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX.
    Sen. James Inhofe and Steve McIntyre for Nobel Prizes.
    Oh, and AGW is a HOAX! and a SCAM! A SCAM AND A HOAX!

  129. IMHO I think the scientifically rational side of this debate needs some media management. That is the message needs to be clarified into, if you like, sound bites. And these need to be pushed hard by everybody who debates the AGW Evangelists.
    The scientifically rational anti-AGW side tend to want to use a detailed careful approach but unfortunately we are arguing with people who are not careful, detailed, or for that matter scientific. And detail does not sell on TV
    Some examples:
    1. Climategate is evidence of one of the greatest scientific frauds in history.
    2. Climategate is not evidence supporting a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy. There is no theory about it.
    3. If the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) occurred, and temperatures were hotter than they are today, then the hypothesis of AGW is disproved. End of story, no ifs, buts or maybes. It is dead in the water.
    4. Climategate shows clear irrefutable evidence that IPCC scientists made a deliberate attempt to suppress data showing that the MWP occurred.
    5. We know that the MWP occurred because many truly reputable scientists from reputable institutions have published proper papers showing that it occurred.
    6. “Peer review” credentials now no longer apply to any paper published by the CRU team, or in the journal Nature with regard to climatology. The concept of peer review by these people or in that journal is now so corrupted as to have no meaning. Any statement, report, claim or document citing as support any paper by this team or that institution should be disregarded.
    7. The ice caps are not disappearing.
    8. Polar bears are not endangered. There numbers are increasing and have been for decades.
    And finally a joke I saw on another blog, or maybe this one slightly modified:
    A Mathematician, an Engineer, a Geologist and a Climatologist were asked to answer the question: What is the average of 2 and 4?
    The answers were:
    Mathematician: “3”
    Engineer: “3”
    Geologist: “3”
    Climatologist: “Well it depends…”
    I’m sure there are clever media savvy types that can add more and improve on these.

  130. This may be a bit OT, but since this is a media thread and this one is WAY too good to let slide by, I hope the moderator will indulge me (and help us all retain a little sense of humor while dealing with the critically important ClimateGate scandal):
    Seen on the Times of India website:
    ”Gropenhagen” T-shirts and coffee mugs are now available on the net:
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Gropenhagen-tees-poke-fun-at-ban-on-paid-sex/articleshow/5320716.cms
    If you want to skip the article and go right to the T-shirts and coffee mugs:
    http://djtees.com/tshop/store/index.asp

  131. Gavin can be destroyed by any debater with guts. Poor John Chrsisty is a tender one and it seems he doesn’t like to embarrass a person.
    Two years ago, when Gavin was participating in CimateSceptics.yahoo.group debate list (Timo Hammeranta was moderating then), I posed him three question that he kept avoiding the answer, because he knew doodle-squat. Finally he disappeared from the list and hasn’t returned. He was scared stiff by other really knowledgeable people there. And wow”, was he discussing in bad faith!

  132. photon without a Higgs (19:08:27) : He’s [Schmidt] in the CRU emails. He’s in ClimateGate up to his eyes.
    Yes, but he’s acting like the impartial outsider. I’m going to have to dig into any emails that include Gavin to get a better read. To me, his behavior is much more like PR flack than scientist.

  133. Lame discussion, really. No one can ever learn about who’s right and who’s wrong in this type of TV talk show. Both sides pretty much just spew out talking points after talking points, and it’s very obvious Wolf (one of my least favorite news anchor) gave Schmidt way more time than Christy.

  134. rbateman (18:45:03)
    This plays into the bit I just posted a little while ago about restitution colonialism and AGW. American libs want in on this obvious scam for one reason. They want more people on the goverment payroll ( people on assistance with hands out waiting for the free lunch). Well almost free lunch they do expect a vote for the democrats in return. It works like this. America hands over thier
    colonial restitution payments( vieled as cleaning up the eviroment) . The dems or libs go after the manufactures for the money. which scares them off to some cheaper none restitution paying country. This puts alot of none educated workers on the free luch program. I think the libs would be looking for numbers like 40% educated high paying professionals paying for 60% of democratic voting americans on the free lunch program. Now in order for it to work They need to pretend thier hands are tied in regards to bringing back these manufacturing jobs due to thier soverenty on energy consuption being in the hands of some euro politician. Setting up every election after that with thier talking points about how republicans will take away thier lunch and there are no jobs out there unless you are educated ( those jobs being slim pickins).The whole time this is happening the dems will work hard to dumb down the free lunch crowds offspring so each generation feels more of an entitlement to hand out. Taking steps along the way to brainwash this voting base into beliving that they are the only party that is looking out for them. Hell they’ll probably still be blaming bush for it 30 years from now. This is what the liberal dems want and they are more than happy to hide behinde Obamas race and let him act out his politicall wet dream on the american public. The mortgage scam was basically plan B AGW plan A either one of those bills will scare of the jobs. Not to worry the dems will pull the plug halfway through on Obamas vision when more than enough damage will be inflicted to create a big enough tax bill to beat the manufactures back with. Of course there will allways be the green jobs for the uneducated but they will also be brainwashed into thinking without democrats there jobs will dissapear. This is the reason why AGW is very partisan and simply just not true. But this picture is alot less scary than Obama being alowed to act out the whole dream. Might be due time for some fire and brimstone.

  135. Claude Harvey (19:33:10) “If he can’t even think of a reasonable counter to “The Arctic ice is melting”, he doesn’t belong on camera.”
    This point needs to be taken seriously (but perhaps reflection is enough and no one should be fired).
    Anecdote: The variable that most strongly correlates with CO2 is an index of solar system dynamics. I can’t remember exactly, but the r^2 is something like 0.98 or higher over the entire CO2 record, with a best-lag of zero across the entire timescale board – blows away the much weaker correlation between CO2 & temperature at all timescales. …So am I suggesting that celestial bodies are driving SUV emissions? For people who like 2+2=5, the answer might as well be “yes” (in a cross-cultural show of respect for art & religion). For people who like 2+2=4, read the Russian literature on north-south shell oscillations.

  136. Polar Bare (20:20:46) :
    I have been doing a lot of work on the data and I know that something very strange is happening.
    If you want to better understand what has been going on with the Arctic ice cap I would suggest you review this paper
    http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/research_seaiceageextent.html
    and the accompanying animation
    http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/animations/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg
    the commentary to the animation includes the following
    This animation of the age of sea ice shows:
    1.) A large Beaufort Gyre which covers most of the Arctic Ocean during the 1980s, and a transpolar drift stream shifted towards the Eurasian Arctic. Older, thicker sea ice (white ice) covers about 80% of the Arctic Ocean up to 1988. The date is shown in the upper left corner.
    2.) With the step to high-AO conditions in 1989, the Beaufort Gyre shrinks and is confined to the corner between Alaska and Canada. The Transpolar Drift Stream now sweeps across most of the Arctic Ocean, carrying most of the older, thicker sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait (lower right). By 1990, only about 30% of the Arctic Ocean is covered by older thicker sea ice.
    3.) During the high-AO years that follow (1991 and on), this younger thinner sea ice is shown to recirculated back to the Alaskan coast where extensive open water has been observed during summer.
    The age of sea ice drifting towards the coast explains over 50% of the variance in summer sea ice extent (compared to less than 15% of the variance explained by the seasonal redistribution of sea ice, and advection of heat by summer winds).
    If you go through the animation frame by frame it is fairly obvious that in 1989 the state of the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift shifts from this
    http://www.amap.no/?main=http%3A//www.amap.no/mapsgraphics/%3Fevent%3Dsearch%26q%3Darctic+currents
    to this
    http://www.amap.no/
    As the authors point out the old ice that had been retained by the much larger BG circulation declined from 80% of the total ice area to 30% in little over a year and the decline that has continued is mostly attributable to the change in circulation and has little to do with global warming or CO2. The recovery of the Arctic ice in the last couple years may be due to circulation patterns undergoing another shift, which is suggested by drift patterns shown here
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift/index.uk.php
    I’ve ended up with quite a collection of links in this comment and I hope it doesn’t get trapped by the spam filter.

  137. I fixed that CNN interview with my Windows movie maker. Sometimes the game is played like this.
    Al Gore Destroyed By Mother Nature on CNN 12-09-09

  138. On 27 April 2009 I downloaded from WUWT a number of images of US submarines (USS Skate and others) surfaced at the North Pole, photographed on 17 March 1959 and on many subsequent dates. In some instances the sub involved had to break through just 2 feet of ice. In others, the submariners detected complete holes in the North Pole ice with their sonar, and surfaced through those. Perhaps if Wolf Blitzer had shown some of those as background shots, Gavin Schmidt would have found making has case of rapidly diminishing ice as a unique present-day phenomenon somewhat more difficult.

  139. Regardless of who won, I still think that Christy is much more believable in the fact that he is more detached and sounds much more sensible than has an agenda that much be defended at all costs, with no weaknesses mentioned whatsoever in order to make the agw case humble, and therefore more apt to possess integrity.

  140. Christy was measured and professorial. Those saying his performance was crappy are trying to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear. (The last thing we need is for skeptics to come off as nutbars.) That CNN is doing stories on Climategate, that they had Christy on, that Blitzer didn’t just pander to the AGW line… it’s all progress.

  141. I am in love with John Christy!!!!! Not only is he handsome (eye candy), his debate style was absolutely flawless! Ear candy!!!!

  142. “Ole Juul (21:44:05) :
    It looks like Gavin won that one. He still takes the victim role regarding the e-mail leak though.”
    I disagree. Gavin came across very poorly, while Christy gave the most balanced view.
    Not a great debate, although probable better than what’s going on in Copenhagen.

  143. the links I put in for Arctic circulation maps didn’t work I’d hoped. At the first link the maps I referred to are the third and first respectively.

  144. So far no one has the balls to say that they are lying, till someone in these debates step up and say “You sir are lying!” the warmers come out on top. Sorry to say this but I have not seen a knock out punch.

  145. Schmidt said the emails were stolen.
    (We don’t know that for sure).,
    And he said that they weren’t released under a FOIA request
    (That begs the question because THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN, but CRU stonewalled for years.)
    I take Christy to task for not catching him on that and some other nonsense. Why is it the skeptics aren’t that good at putting their case in front of a camera?
    Christy was polite, and Schmidt was, like most of his ilk, rude.
    As someone else said, the warmers have their talking points coordinated pretty well, actually.

  146. Everyone should try to put themselves in an average person’s shoes when they analyze this sort of thing…
    I actually think that John Christy would have come off better than Schmut (spelling intended) for the simple reason that the average person saw both these people’s faces for the first time (aside from Christy being in the great global warming swindle which not that many will remember anyway……)
    It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that this was a failure because everyone that comments here is well informed….I put it to you guys that the average person watching that interview would have seen a scientist talking like you would expect to see a scientist talk….He was calm and confident, bu t most of all, he didn’t turn the debate into the usual dog fight. I don’t think that the power of that should underestimated. People are often more influenced by these traits than the content of the debate itself.
    A good example would be in the political arena. Here in NZ where I come from, the previous Labour government was thrown out for pretty much exactly this reason. It must of been, because the new Government hasn’t really changed a thing in terms of policy settings.
    Just my 2 cents anyway…..
    On another short note, and I hope this is OK with the Mods:
    Did anyone else get questions to Al on CNN’s blog ‘moderated’?
    All I asked was what he thought about the ERBE data given that the data is inconsistent with the positive feedbacks employed by the computer models….
    Just wondering…..
    By the way, thanks for such an informative forum!

  147. I am a fan of debate technique and John won this hands down with a knockout hit outa the park!!!! Debate isn’t about beating your opponent over the head with ferocious attack. It is more like a delicate surgery on your opponent. Gavin doesn’t even know what hit him.

  148. Great video – I’ve never heard Schmidt before but I’ve read some of his supercilious comments on his blog. His performance was truly pathetic – dogmatic assertion while admitting there is plenty of unknowns about the climate system. I am now a complete climate change heretic thanks to this.

  149. By the way, When Al says ‘probably’ in the CNN interview shown above in the comments section, Can’t we take that to mean “already decided” as he spent all of the day before yesterday in the White-house with Obama?
    This whole thing is so obviously scripted it’s like watching a soap opera….you only need to watch a few episodes to figure out what the story line is going to be for the next 6 months….

  150. Given that it was on CNN and what little audience they have left is likely to be composed of those who have thoroughly swallowed the Kool Aid, Schmidt’s mantra like recitation of the warmists’ talking points was probably adequate to maintain the illlusion. Did anyone else notice that Schmidt was photographed with the camera slightly closer, so that when he was on screen he appeared much larger than Christy. It may have been just an accident, but it is known to be an effective propaganda technique.

  151. This went very well for a number of reasons that I’m sure have been pointed out already by others, so I won’t go into that.
    ONE nagging thing is that… Schmidt doesn’t like the media storm, eh? Well, just why, pray tell, should all of us nonscientist people never get wind of this? Yeah. If you can’t take the heat, then stop stoking the fires by telling nature what she’s doing!

  152. As someone who is very involved in politics and media professionally, I thought it was over all a win for our team.
    Yes, the Brit got more air time (took more), and Christy pulled punches, but Christy came across much more like a guy who you would trust to watch your kids or return money borrowed–or, most important, believe when deciding whether to spend a trillion dollars or more.
    Schmidt, Watson, and others are coming across like they are really mad that they have to stoop to be treated like equals, EQUALS, with people like Christy. “Why don’t people realize how smart I am and how stupid he is; it is time for everyone to stop questioning me, RIGHT NOW!” Our guys are hitting some singles when they should have doubles or triples, but they are getting hits. The other team is losing ground; they know it; any one who is not previously inclined and picked up on the body language and tone (most communication is not verbal after all) knew it too.

  153. @ Dave Wendt
    Schmidt was photographed with the camera slightly closer, so that when he was on screen he appeared much larger than Christy. It may have been just an accident, but it is known to be an effective propaganda technique.
    I noticed that as well, I also saw the use of the low angle shot in the Steve McIntyre debate to try and make him look a little ‘doctor evil(ish)

  154. I agree with debreuil. The goal of these media exposures is not to satisfy the needs of those who are already familiar with and understand the sceptic viewpoints. Nor is it to try and score any victories directly, which is unrealistic especially in such a forum. I think the best benefit will come from people who have not yet looked into it deeply, being given enough of an indication that there is more to it than meets the eye, and thus encouraged to look further into it of their own volition. In this context, I think the non-histrionic style as shown here by Christy can be very powerful.

  155. With any comparison of performance you have to bear in mind that Gavin is associated strongly with, and is probably coached by, a professional left-wing public relations organisation (that also runs RC).
    I would imagine Christie is untutored in PR skills.

  156. My take on the urgency of getting a deal done in Copenhagen is, this is their last chance at getting a global tax on all of us before Reality smacks those UN global government people and us with a 2 X 4 across the head.

  157. Jay Currie: “Christy looked comfortable and confident. Gavin not so much. ”
    I agree and I think this was the main point. Christy gave the big audience now a feeling that skeptics aren’t lunatics at all but there are scientists that can actually think beyond gutter press headlines. Ten points to Christy and nil to quite nervous Schmidt. Hopefully we see more of these kind of debates in the near future…

  158. John Christy stuck to his science and was able to look directly into the eye of the public. Gavin kept looking shiftily downwards as he went beyond the data. I think Christy was allowing Gavin plenty of airtime so that he could let him put his foot well and truly in the doodoo for all to see.
    Rather than trying to convince joe public, Christy was speaking to people who are more scientific in their thinking, and they will in turn influence the people around them.

  159. I think Christy did a wonderful job. Most people are not going to cry for CRU over the leaked emails, considering their controversial content.
    There is far more uncertainty than the (AGW) scientist would like to admit.

  160. I think that Gavin Schmidt’s immigration status should be reviewed. And the same for Caspar Ammann and Tom Karl. It is time for US science policy to be made by US citizens.

  161. Don’t forget Schmidt is a mathematician, not a scientist. That’s why he thinks computer model results are evidence.

  162. M. Simon (17:22:36) : Strange that Brits seem to form the core of the Team. Or is it just my observer bias kicking in? Or memories of Beatles movies?
    In my analysis of the GHCN data biases I’ve noticed a pattern of more “data buggery” in English speaking countries than in non-English. For example, Canada has rather dramatic thermometer changes, leaving the Rockies, for example; but China has a very stable set. Australia has not only had thermometer migration, but they also recalculated their “raw” data (IIRC the article I saw on it “somewhere…”) while Argentina has a more stable thermometer set and Africa shows almost no warming at all (despite some shenanigans like moving the Egyptian thermometers from the sea coast to an inland desert…).
    Why? Who knows. Perhaps it’s a simple as who talked to whom or who was able to read what “peer reviewed” papers and react to them, or who was most admiring of the UEA so listened to their advice more.l
    An interesting anomaly in this trend is Japan, where no surviving GHCN thermometer is about 300 m in elevation. Don’t need those pesky cold mountains in the record… but Japan has tended to look to the English world for guidance since W.W.II.
    Details in the “details” section here:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
    No, I’ve done no ‘by language” formal analysis, but when Canada, USA, and New Zealand are all very high rollers in percent of thermometers at airports (in the 80-90% range) while Mexico and China are in the low band (25-40%, lower in some years), you kind of notice…
    It could be anything from “conspiracies are easier in same culture groups” to just “rich countries got more airports first” and The Empire was “rich early”. Noticing a pattern does not attribute causality nor imply motivation.
    Personally, I suspect that all the “flying around to see each other” tended to be between the “same language” folks, and they influenced their countries behaviours more. A small matter of “group think”:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/gistemp-pas-dun-coup/
    where places like China would just go their own way…
    It just hasn’t been high on my list of things to sort out. Having been busy with more “important” GHCN / GIStemp analyses …

  163. Make that:
    An interesting anomaly in this trend is Japan, where no surviving GHCN thermometer is above 300 m in elevation.
    Up at 6 am, after midnight now, up at 6 am … I think it’s time for bed…

  164. On this one, I’ll go with debreuil. Christy works, Schmidt sucks. Not to pick nits (they be lice, folks), but these threads would be much more pursuasive if the posters would pay more attention to grammar, spelling and punctuation.
    Some writers are very good indeed, and others seem to be carried away with the emotions of the moment, but overall it would be good to see some improvement. It may be too late for the punctuation and grammatically impaired, but a simple dictionary is inexpensive and really doesn’t take up that much space on the desk.
    The other suggestion I have is that everyone writing should take the time to proof read his/her opinion before posting. Sorry if anyone is offended by these rather obvious suggestions, but credibility is important, and illiteracy doesn’t cut it in the majors. Make the other side the morons, not ourselves.
    Imagine a Brit misspelling Britain three times in one post (see above). Next time, we discuss ‘capitalization.’

  165. John Christy gives the impression of being an honest, friendly and solid scientist. As such he is certainly the kind of scientist we like to associate us with here at WUWT. Nice post Anthony, continue to bring in the best scientists that humbly expresses the science of our climate – it’s no need to reply hostile AGW propaganda with anything but honest and transparent science.

  166. Why aren’t they appearing on FOX?
    CNN and the rest of the MSM aren’t going to allow a balanced debate.
    The sceptics have to unload all their ammuniation in these confrontations.
    Make the warmists aquirm.
    I haven’t watched the above clip yet.
    I’m afraid of being deeply disappointed.

  167. I didn’t realist Schmidt was British.
    I liked Christy’s performance. cf Marc Morano which triggered the Watson comment. Morano was criticised for being too loud.

  168. Okay I watched it.
    Not as bad as I thought it would be.
    But my advice hasn’t changed.
    We really have to unload on these charlatans.
    Why is that so damn difficult?
    1. Arctic is recovering
    2. Antarctica is growing
    3. temps are declining
    4. Warmist Mojib Latif even says cooling for the next decade.
    5. The trick is a fraud.
    6. FOIA was violated – criminal!
    What the hell else does one need?
    It’s there on a silver platter!
    Why can’t they drive that home?
    It’s so frsutrating.
    It’s almost as bad as watching the GOP.

  169. Why are all the sceptics such poor speakers?
    Why did he not point out that arctic ice had INCREASED by some 20% over the last couple of years !
    .

  170. The thing that I feel like I have in common with Dr. Christy is that he fully embraces the notion of that which is greater than himself. Universally, wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing: how the atmosphere is dynamic and extremely complex, how warming may be partially or largely due to C02 emissions, how abysmally models verify. His demeanor is humble, yet intelligent, which is how a true scientist should be. Unafraid to seeks answers to questions others wish to stop asking.

  171. Paullm: “AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX.”
    Dean McAskil: “Climategate is not evidence supporting a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy. There is no theory about it.”
    Bad moves. With the CRU hack/leak coming on top of Copenhagen, climate sceptics have been given a small window of media opportunity. Don’t blow it by jumping into wingnut territory.
    The likes of McIntyre and Christy are not going to support public accusations of fraud and conspiracy, nor are they going to deliver a sucker-punch to AGW. But they are your best hope.
    The more enthusiastic sceptics need to step back and gain some clarity. If you want to present a credible case, put the Becks and Moncktons in the back row and the more sensible scientists up front.

  172. John Christy: What a terrible performance on CNN! Talk to the viewers, not to fellow scientists. You justify the alarmism by being vague on the subject!
    Use words that can be understood. The main issue is the enormous exaggeration. Your academic speak is useless. In fact, you should NOT go on TV if you do not have the currage to use harsh words. The climategate documents warrants harsh words. Give me a [snip] break with that stupid science talk – it works to promote the hypothesis of a dramatic human influence on climate. Gavin Schmidt totally beat you there – he won that round by a large margin – be a [snip] man John next time or don’t make any more interviews. It was a disgrace to be quite honest – you did a terrible job.
    Reply: OK EVERYBODY LISTEN UP! PARTIALLY COVERED X’D OUT SUGAR COATED PROFANITY IS STILL PROFANITY AND IT MAKES YOUR POST SUBJECT TO COMPLETE DELETION. WE ARE TOO OVERWORKED HERE TO HAVE TO GO IN AND SNIP OUT YOUR WORDS. POSTS WILL NOW START DISAPPEARING. ~ charles the moderator

  173. Gavin Schmidt’s debating personality doesn’t work for at least a large part of the public. That was seen in the IQ2 debate where he joined Brenda Erkwurzel and Richard Somerville against Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton and Philip Stott. Schmidt’s side lost abysmally, and he came across as patronizing, arrogant and as assuming – or as clearly stating – that the audience was too stupid to follow the technical arguments, and that the other side was dishonest. It didn’t help that he was the only one on his side that came across as at least minimally knowledgeable. Anyway, I think it’s a mistake to assume that people in general prefer his kind of debating personality. Schmidt seems to naturally assume that others are less smart and knowledgeable than he is, which also leads him to assume that people mentioning facts that he himself is unaware of are just bluffing. Quite a few people see through that and are put off by it.

  174. I hope the sceptic scientists grasp that science is going to die with waning public opinion. So when you’re out there on camera, then act and speak like your life bloody depends on it!
    Christy looked and acted like he had just gotten off the golf course. You’d have never thought he was dealing with the greatest scientific scandal of all time.
    Where’s the outrage?
    Frustrating frustrating frustrating.

  175. Guys like Christy and McIntyre will always be at a disadvantage against any alarmist spokesman because they see their role as defending the integrity of science, not as advocates for a point of view. The alarmists have all embraced the notion that their ideas are too important to be limited by archaic notions of truth and solid methodology. They see advocacy as their primary role, and sticking to the scripted talking points as the best means of achieving their goals. That’s why they shy away from guys like Monckton, he’s better at their dodge than they are themselves.

  176. George E. Smith (18:27:15) :
    “This was my first visage of the famous Gavin schmidt, and I have to say he didn’t endear himself to me.”
    In that case, George , you should see the Intelligence Squared debate. It’s in 10 parts:

    Gavin is so irritating which is exacerbated by his accent.

  177. Christy came over to me as likeable and trustworthy; Schmidt didn’t. As someone else has opined, why does it seem that our fellow Englishmen seem to be the bad guys here? Well, at least we have Monckton! 🙂
    Good point made earlier about FOIA – did anyone else think that Schmidt’s mentioning that was a Freudian slip?
    Christy is an accomplished public speaker and interviewee, at least in edited interviews I have seen – maybe live interviews are not his style. I am not sure he needs any lessons in PR though. Time is always limited in live interviews and it is impossible to say everything that’s really needed to cover a situation adequately. As someone else has suggested, he was probably correct to just let Schmidt keep digging himself into a hole.

  178. Christy looked more comfortable than McIntyre, but his answers were probably too short. I saw Ross McKitrick in another clip, and I think his answers were probably too short, also. It seems to me that if you stop talking because you think you’ve made your point, you’re giving the other guy extra room to hog the airwaves, and you’re also missing some good opportunities. I would recommend that someone taking part in this type of interview should not hand over the baton even half a second before they have to. Instead, they should keep talking – elaborate, repeat, add related points. That puts the other guy at a disadvantage, or at least prevents the other guy from seizing an unfair advantage. Also, before the interview, they should discuss with someone else what points are likely to be raised, and what the answers will be, and what strategy you will use to make sure your most important points are highlighted. The AGW guys have lots of experience of this stuff. They’ve probably even taken media training. The skeptics are comparatively inexperienced.

  179. This guy is good, Professor Philip Stott, biogeographer. He has a lot of experience debating with AGW alarmists; a regular on BBC radio:

  180. Journalists: How well do you know Freeman Dyson? He is probably one of the most brilliant scientists in our time. Please take your time and enlighten yourself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&NR=1
    Links between CO2 and vegetation is poorly understood.
    Links between solar cycles and climate is poorly understood.
    Links between ocean cycles and climate is poorly understood.
    What do we know? To cite Dyson climate models is a very dubious business.

  181. R John (20:59:58) :
    Gavin citing “this is how science works” is funny as he is a mathematician! No offense met to other mathematicians out there.

    This is but a kind of reverse appeal to authority. It doesn’t matter much what anyone’s degree is in. Mine is in economics (actually, “resource economics,” aka “environmental economics”), and I got a very heavy dose of research methodology and philosophy of science in graduate school. While math itself is not science, it is certainly applied to various sciences routinely, so there is nothing odd or illogical about someone with a degree in applied mathematics working in a scientific field.
    We just perpetuate the appeal to authority argument when we make issues of the fields the degrees are in of the people doing work in climate science. It is not the field the degree is in that matters. Science is science, regardless of who does it, or what field their education was in.

  182. Is Gavin Schmidt really Michael Mann under an assumed name? I can’t actually tell them apart.
    Anyway, I think Gavin wasted a lot of his own time whinning about stolen emails, privacy etc. This does not win much sympathy from viewers. Neither of them made any worthwhile points but I suppose that was because the interviewer was setting the agenda. Overall, I would say the score was 0-0.

  183. My take: Schmidt was less annoying than he is on RC. I don’t think he made a bad impression. Cristy missed opportunities to score points and seemed too laid back. Much more time is needed to explore the issues raised.

  184. Maybe people are not reading my comments but you need to understand that scientists like Christy and analysts like McIntyre are not involved in the day to day war of words, Gavin is. Christy and McIntyre spend their days looking at real science not trying to rabidly defend the dogma like Gavin.
    If you want shock and awe and someone to hit back at Gavin, you need Monckton or Morano.
    Please stop with the nonsense that Christy should use [insert your position] on an issue when he will always use his own. Christy understands the science better than just about everyone commenting here and is not going to take a politicized position. His positions are scientifically sound and scientifically defensible. They may not be what some people want to hear but this is the reality of the scientific debate and is not necessarily good for sound bites. Monckton and Morano have much more leeway with what they can say and better at sound bites.

  185. I thought Christy came across as credible, respectful, respectable, and restrained.
    However, I truly was dismayed at “the free pass” Christy gave to the “smoothing datasets” comment by Gavin.
    IT IS NOT “SMOOTHING” OF DATA! IT IS SPLICING TOGETHER DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF DIFFERENT CURVES AT CONVENIENT PORTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION YOU ARE MAKING. MOREOVER, IT IS USING DIFFERENT CURVES GENERATED BY DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES (tree rings vs instrumental records).
    As a physician and scientist who has studied a variety of fields including geology and ecology, I have never seen this done (at least to the end that it was not challenged). Perhaps I have not seen this technique before because I have reached graduate level studies in only one field, but it is shocking to me.
    I think Christy missed a golden opportunity to generate even more discussion on mass media about this and hopefully incrementally bring the lay public up to speed on what is going on. However, I give him credit for his many years of hard work, most before this was a big issue to the rest of us.
    I think skeptics have had less practice in front of the camera, but I’m sure we will come on strong!
    As an aside, both Pielke and Christy appeared to be looking at the cameras at an uncomfortable angle, whereas the guy from Princeton and Gavin Shmidt both appeared comfortable, were leaning in to the camera, and knew how to give the appearance of looking the viewer “in the eye”.
    Our side needs media consultants!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

  186. I think John Christy did extremely well here.
    If anyone of these two came across as being an honest scientist, it’s John and not Gavin.
    The most important message from this “debate” is that John was allowed to end it all by saying:
    “…noone can prove that the extra greenhouse gasses we are adding are causing all of it or part of it.”
    …and Gavin didn’t flinch. If he indeed did believe otherwise he would have interrupted exactly there.
    I guess he doesn’t believe in it either.

  187. The focus of the email leaks should be the CRU surface temp data. Even before the Mann’s Nature Trick email became the talk of the town, the Hockey Stick paleo-reconstruction was on the wane. The Team just shifted the HS from paleo data to other reconstructions -namely surface temps.
    I hope we don’t blow a good oppurtunity to bring not only CRU but NASA’s GISS and NOAA’s temperature analysis to light. I don’t think many people realize how crucial these distorted temperature analysis are to not only the Team but to almost all of the Alarmists.

  188. At least now he Tem are being forced to face public criticism. The skeptics at last are getting some air-time. This is good.

  189. Christy looked more comfortable than McIntyre, but his answers were probably too short. I saw Ross McKitrick in another clip, and I think his answers were probably too short, also. It seems to me that if you stop talking because you think you’ve made your point, you’re giving the other guy extra room to hog the airwaves, and you’re also missing some good opportunities.

    Totally agree. More media training is needed.

  190. Climate models are not tools for understanding past climate shifts. They’re hand-tuned by men…you can’t use a climate model to demonstrate the role of CO2.
    Not really … Computer models can be useful, just reset the start point to something like 1AD and predict the temperature for the next 2000 years. If your model can do that, then it has value. If it can’t it has political value, nothing more.
    Real science and engineering uses computer models just this way. Verified.

  191. I have been watching the Skeptics verses the Alarmist go back an forth on TV in these “Interviews” and the Skeptics are not properly prepared.
    The audience is not the idiot moderator and the Skeptic’s job is not to convince the Alarmist of anything.
    The audience is the stupid, “I can’t focus”, casual viewer and these Skeptics need to use truthful phrases and statements that the casual viewer can immediately relate too.
    Humor and sarcasm goes a long way in making the zombie viewer understand the proper perspective.
    For example, “The polar ice cap is not disappearing! Just talk to that idiot AGW Alarmist who tried to sail around the North Pole or those grant begging imbeciles who tried to walk to the home of Santa Claus only to freeeeeeeze their bottoms off and had to be rescued.”
    Serenity now……….

  192. MikeE (03:05:04)
    Outright censorship and political control here in the UK. From the Environment secretary, to TV adverts on co2 – its nothing but propaganda and brain damage. Richard Lindzen occasionally writes articles for the Dail Mail, otherwise, I don’t think its a lack of expertise – just that its not allowed a voice. However, people don’t trust authority, or being browbeaten in the UK, so I doubt many people are that fooled by government scientists on the climate.

  193. “This was my first visage of the famous Gavin schmidt, and I have to say he didn’t endear himself to me.”
    In that case, George , you should see the Intelligence Squared debate. It’s in 10 parts:

    Gavin is so irritating which is exacerbated by his accent.

    *hurt and disillusioned* – and I thought you guys liked our accent… 🙂
    No, seriously, he’s just irritating. He did say one thing I agreed with though:
    Scientists have to be professional sceptics
    @Bruce: Thanks for the Stott clip. Somehow not come across him before; he’s very good.

  194. both Schmidt and Mann are not scientists. They are mathemeticians. They Mannipulate data. Assembling data creats a graph. Doing correlation analysis could tell us if a green hoax gas has a causal relationship with warming. If it goes up in concentration and temps go down, a rational math conclusion is that the causal relationship is not found. If math is their contribution, it will also judge their work.
    Schmidt has a flock fleecing attitude. His arguments are emotional. so much for math being in between data and conclusions.

  195. Pamela wrote:
    Pamela Gray (22:57:15) :
    “I am a fan of debate technique and John won this hands down with a knockout hit outa the park!!!! Debate isn’t about beating your opponent over the head with ferocious attack. It is more like a delicate surgery on your opponent. Gavin doesn’t even know what hit him.”
    A fan of debate techniques should understand that an acedemic debate is not a political war. Academic debating uses different rules for different results.
    The art of political war requires debating techniques that get the biggest bang for the buck; sometimes, acedemic debating rules must be violated to get the desired effect in a political war. Political Marketing Campaigns require different techniques.
    Voters don’t have the time to analalyze debate points like academics do.
    Politics is war conducted by other means. War is politics taken to the highest degree. The very same issues that are decided in a war are decided in political war.
    Please don’t confuse a “Hawvaard” debate and political war.
    “Americans love a winner!” GSP
    “Just Win Baby!” Allen Davis
    markm

  196. There is quite a difference of opinion here, showing I suppose that two people watching the same thing can always describe it differently, which is why no one wins these “debates”. It would be great to have a real debate–hours and hours until one side was reduced to a bunch of tired whiners repeating the same tired points…., but the modern attention span is zip.
    People like the two Ms, Christy, perhaps Pielke and may even Spencer, who has a bit more experience testifying in public, are thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned, which puts them at a disadvantage before the TV camera. I’m not sure what sort of forum would provide an advantage for these sorts of individuals, but even the great goracle doesn’t debate live skeptics. We could try to shape ourselves in the image of folks like Gore, Hansen, and Schmidt, but would we feel good about it?
    I gave a brief presentation to one of my introductory courses on the surfacestations.org project, and I was surprised what an effect it had upon them. Even the most mathematically challenged, hard-science illiterate member of our faculty could follow the Darwin temperature record machinations, and was appalled. Some earlier post on this thread mentioned saying nothing more than “you do realize the pole melts and refreezes each season, don’t you?” Pound on the simple stuff, let the hard science take care of itself.

  197. I haven’t read through all the comments, but I just watched the ‘debate’, and—
    What the hell is wrong with John Christy?
    He let Gavin Schmidt run all over him, and never even attempted to make the case for rational science.
    Is the Arctic ice-cap melting? Yes, he said, meekly. (Well it has melted some, and refrozen some, and it goes in cycles.)
    Is man causing global warming? Yes, he said, meekly. (No, man isn’t, dammit!)
    I’ve seen videos of Dr. Christy in more spirited and eloquent form, but boy he sure lay down and let the Warmist steamroller flatten him.
    The average viewer would have come away with the impression that the skeptics have no argument whatsoever, other than “Well, it’s really complicated.”
    Anthony, can you get on these shows and tell them Watts what?
    /Mr Lynn

  198. I haven’t read all the comments so I may duplicate what others have said. I doubt either person will change any minds. Christy did OK but we wanted better. He needed to reconfirm that overall the ice is constant when both poles are considered and variations at either end are completely natural.
    Gavin used the “but” word quite a bit. An intelligent viewer could see he was spinning for all he was worth. Unfortunately, most viewers wouldn’t catch that.
    It would have been nice if Christy would have explained right away that Gavin works on climate models and without MMCC he very likely wouldn’t have a job. I think that would have put Gavin into a different light and people would have been more likely to notice his spinning.

  199. “Patrik (04:52:03) :
    Are we sure that Schmidt and Mann aren’t twins? :)”
    They must be, originally from Germany (as the names indicate), created then separated by Erich Kästner (“Das doppelte Lottchen”).

  200. “”” savethesharks (19:31:59) :
    GAVIN SCHMIDT: “We do know that greenhouse gasses are increasing because of human activity….we do know that the climate is warming…we do know that its warming for the reasons basic physics tells us that it’s warming.”
    Circular reasoning at its best! “””
    Well maybe not circular reasoning, Sharkey, but definitely a blunderous statement for anyone claiming scientific credentials to proclaim.
    I got my degree in “Basic Physics”; and Mathematics too in 1957; and for the last 52 years, I have been able to convince a relatively short list of six; plus two involuntary spinoff employers, that I am reasonably proficient at those skills, to the point where they haven’t stopped paying me yet.
    I know of absolutely NO principle of BASIC PHYSICS that says that the earth is or must be warming.
    In fact that is counterintuitive since we generally expect things to run downhill; with maybe something in the range of about 3Kelvins as a likely near term end point.
    Of course there is a natural variablity, which will let things heat up and cool down in the short term; and we are likely in one of those warming trends coming out of a recent ice age. But the historical record; to the extent that we can believe various temperature proxies; such as the ice cores that Willis so recently laid out for us, says that rapid warming incidents, followed by much slower cooling interval, seems the general order of things.
    So what is it about the laws of Physics that says, we should be warming, when in fact, for most of its entire existence, the earth has spent more time cooling than warming.
    As for future predictability; a chaotic system does not have to be very complex before its future state becomes entirely unpredictable according to the “basic Physics” principles.
    I have seen simple machines of about three coupled compound pendula, which can be set into oscillation in a totally unpredictable chaotic manner.
    Is it not a fact; a consequence of the “basic principles of physics”, that there is no closed solution to the general three body problem; even in a strictly Newtonian fashion; let alone an Einsteinian environment ?
    If Gavin Schmidt’s statement is true; why do his Playstation models of the planet earth, not even replicate the known past history of the planet; let alone predict its future state or trajectory.

  201. YES!!!!
    Those two together is a winning situation for the sceptics.
    John Christy is definately one of my heros on this planet.
    Calm, arguing only with scientific facts, and straight at the point.
    Thank you John, for standing up for us all like that!

  202. Well I see it was J. Storrs Hall, and not Willis, whom I should have credited with that ice core revelation below.
    Sorry JSH.

  203. Did you notice how Wolf says, in effect: “We know that all the skeptics are paid by big oil, and have their opinions because they’re paid to have those opinions. I just want to make sure you are not. Are you?”

  204. Look at the basic imagery of the two men. Christy – sporty, Southern, a good old American guy, anti existential. Schmidt – bohemian, very very NYC, a wannabe Euro, tres existentiel! Magnifique! Just saying …

  205. Gavin Schmidt always appears as an eletist know-it-all. Sheep and elitists believe him. That should be fine……

  206. Mr Lynn (07:26:17) :
    I haven’t read through all the comments, but I just watched the ‘debate’, and—
    What the hell is wrong with John Christy?
    ————————————-
    Christy’s meek responses were the reason I lamented the fact that Bob Carter was not debatng Schmidt.
    There are some really competent debaters to choose from, so why choose a “live and let live” debater.
    The debate requires an AGW “killer” such as Bob Carter, Christopher Monckton, Fred Singer, Phillip Stott, et al.

  207. John projected the persona of a cool, reasonable and (in the old, honourable sense) scientific gentleman, Gavin came across as a political spin meister. How would this play in the Provinces (or Peoria as you would say in the US)?
    John comes across as the sort of male who would appeal to the ladies much more so than Gavin. Never under-estimate the power of the ladies in their ability to influence their men. Lysistrata’s “trick” still works wonders today!
    I was going to comment on how, when the UK breeds a**holes we do tend to breed a superior strain. Then I watched the Gore movie segment. I regret to say that we in the UK must now relinquish that honour to our Cousins across the Pond. In Gore you have a World Champion.

  208. Not sure if anybody noticed, but Gavin keeps looking down and away. This is a common indicator of someone who is lying. If it has been mentioned, sorry. I did not read all comments yet.
    Decent interview.

  209. I just watched the video. Ed Scott, I think your analysis is accurate. It always seems fishy when one side always seems to be at a loss for words. Reminds me of those Kerry v. Bush debates where all George had to say was, “….it’s hard work, hard work…” and Kerry seemingly couldn’t best that. Seems odd. Most posters here had more fight and better answers. Christy does not come across like this in his own videos. Did he take something for stage fright, perhaps?

  210. Chad (16:53:31) :
    “Odd, Christie can’t even get one sentence out without lying.”
    May I deconstruct Mr Chad? Thank you:
    Chad posted a chart above, showing only Arctic ice extent. Since the Earth has two hemispheres, I wonder why Chad didn’t feel the need to also post a chart of Antarctic ice extent. Here, Chad, let me help: click
    And Chad preposterously believes that his alarmist contingent outnumbers skeptical scientists by 30:1.
    I won’t call Chad a liar, as he referred to Dr Christy. Chad is probably just ignorant.

  211. Henry chance (07:04:28) :
    both Schmidt and Mann are not scientists. They are mathemeticians.
    Actually Schmidt is but Mann is a Geologist (which is still ironic as alarmists claim geologists do not understand climate).
    Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate.org)
    Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate.org)

  212. Decent debate considering the venue. I was disappointed Christy let Schmidt get away with calling the models “evidence.”
    The Hockey Team guys are starting to look like an over-credentialed version of ACORN.

  213. Poptech (18:13:54) :
    “Actually Schmidt is but Mann is a Geologist (which is still ironic as alarmists claim geologists do not understand climate).”

    Oh, but they do! Especially petroleum geologists.
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=776&filename=1170724434.txt says:
    Senator Inhofe’s comment today (18 December) that “60 scientists” together with “Claude
    Allegre, a leading French scientist who is a member of both the U.S. and French National
    Academies of Sciences” have concluded that agreements like Kyoto are “unnecessary”
    because “the cause of global warming is ‘unknown.'” Presumably true, but so what?
    Allegre is an award-winning geochemist; the other 60 scientists are unidentified. There
    are tens of thousands of members of the American Geophysical Union alone (many of whom
    are petroleum geologists). I’m sure you can find a few hundred to support any claim you
    want to make about global warming.
    I am one of the 60 — and I am sure you know most of the other 59.
    Best for 2007! Fred
    S. Fred Singer, President
    Science & Environmental Policy Project

  214. Chad (16:53:31) :
    You’re lucky we have better manners than you but just for sh…s and grins, I don’t see your assertion and interpretation of the data backed up in peer reviewed literature. Do you have a PHD in the area of my choosing? If not then you’re not qualified to say anything.
    Sorry about that, I was channeling my RC alter ego for a moment. Where am I?

  215. George E. Smith:
    Enjoyed the history lesson of how computers used to be built. 🙂
    Re. commented out code
    I don’t think it takes up any space in the object code. A typical modern compiler’s parser will see the comment and will just consider it as “for the reader”, no matter what’s in it, and not translate it. It’s assumed that the computer that will execute the object code doesn’t give a hoot about it. It would be a waste of CPU time. Even if there was a branch into the commented code, the compiler would balk, thinking that you’re trying to reference non-existent code (because it just ignored it). The only exception I can think of is if the program is interpreted, in which case the comments might be translated into tokenized code. However, the interpreter would still not consider it executable code, just “read only” code it has to carry around and skip over during execution of the program.

  216. The more I look into this issue the more this song creeps into my mind:
    “I Wish We’d All Been Ready lyrics”
    Life was filled with guns and war
    And all of us got trampled on the floor
    I wish we’d all been ready
    The children died, the days grew cold
    A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold
    I wish we’d all been ready
    (chorus)
    There’s no time to change your mind
    The son has come and you’ve been left behind
    A man and wife asleep in bed
    She hears a noise and turns her head he’s gone
    I wish we’d all been ready
    Two men walking up a hill
    One disappears and one’s left standing still
    I wish we’d all been ready
    (repeat chorus)
    The father spoke, the demons dined
    How could you have been so blind?
    (repeat chorus 2x)
    I hope we’ll all be ready
    You’ve been left behind [3x]
    I hope my intuition is wrong, but if not, I wish us all luck in surviving the trials and tribulations we will face if this beast isn’t stoped and yes that is what I consider this belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming as a beast that is forming itself. If it is successful in Copenhagen to gain it’s feet (Which would be a larger finacial backing from the world bank.)

  217. Correction to above post. Quoted from the leaked emails is Curt Covey, mocking the 60 scientists dissident scientists and dismissing them out of hand because they might be from another field. (It is an exchange within an exchange without the use of quotes.)
    Still it goes to the original point, that a knee-jerk AGW defense is that criticism must come from peer reviewed climate quacks. Everyone else is just lowly chemists, physicists, astrophysicists, amateurs, retired, and (gasp), TV weathermen in the pay of fossil fuel industries. All 400 of them now. lol
    Anyways, still some really nice emails by Lord Monckton and Fred Singer in the link, so not a total loss.

  218. Mark (17:29:45) :
    Watched it and thought Christy came across very well. I also noticed Blitzer asked him twice about the north pole ice…
    I have just watched the video, my apologies to all, but,
    Christy got two bites at the cherry, and missed both.
    2007 was low (recently and relatively) for Arctic sea ice levels, satelite records only go back to 1979 anyways,
    BUT, has since recovered completely.
    ESPECIALLY AFTER THE ALGORITHM AND INSTRUMENT PROBLEMS WERE CORRECTED FOR.
    AND, there are plenty of historic records of low ice / navigable NW passages,
    going back hundreds of years, apparently cyclically.
    2007 was not that unusual.
    Refuters HAVE to answer better when given the rare chance.

  219. Talking points aren’t all bad. They’re annoying when the “other side” uses them, but they serve a purpose.
    One talking point that skeptics need to internalize and use whenever the subject of “big oil/big business” funding is thrown at a skeptic (as happened in the interview to Christy) is the huge percentage of research funding that is going to the researchers who are on the global warming bandwagon. That is where the real money is, and hard figures (which I don’t have) will make the point. The follow-up to that needs to include references to specific instances where researchers felt they wouldn’t get additional funding unless they “tweaked” their findings to support the global warming agenda.
    I don’t have the figures, and I don’t have specific examples, but the numbers ARE huge and there ARE specific examples out there. Once every skeptic has these points down pat and spouts them back at every interviewer who raises the “big oil funding” question, this topic will work to the advantage, rather than the disadvantage, of the skeptics.
    A similar talking point would involve a rebuttal to the “thousands of scientists are in agreement” argument. It would specify the EXACT number of scientists who are involved in overseeing the historical temperature records that are now so suspect, and then listing, name by name, how many of them (like Jones, Hanson, Schmidt and Mann) collaborate closely with each other while excluding anyone who disagrees with them. Again, I don’t have the details, but I’m betting the big number is not much over 50 people, and that the number of names on the Jones, et al list would come to over half that. Of the rest, I suspect most work for them, or their funding depends on their approval.
    Identify them all, tie them together (figuratively) and weight them down with the Climategate emails/data, then watch them sink in the eyes of the public.

Comments are closed.