NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt vs UAH’s John Christy debate on CNN’s Situation Room an hour ago:
h/t to WUWT reader Chris
Gavin Schmidt -vs- John Christy on CNN
- Sunday, February 8, 2026
NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt vs UAH’s John Christy debate on CNN’s Situation Room an hour ago:
h/t to WUWT reader Chris
Gavin, poor Gavin. He doesn’t get it. America is going to understand the trick. Why does he keep digging deeper?
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.
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 The short answer, those graphs were either outdated, disputed or irrelevant.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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
How does this play in Peoria? Well, the Nixon-Kennedy debate comes to mind. Christy looked honest. Gavin looked shifty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, Christy DID say that Antarctic ice was growing!
He came across as a very restrained and calm observer, unlike Gavin.
DaveE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Might want to spell Lord Monckton’s name properly next time (and no, more than once in the same post is not a typo.)
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.