Gavin Schmidt -vs- John Christy on CNN

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.