Gavin Schmidt -vs- John Christy on CNN

Gavin Schmidt “models dont prove anything”. So why are we trying to reorganize the world based on them!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Open Letter: Peter Chylek
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/218-petr-chylek-open-letter-to-the-climate-research-community.html

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.

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.

Gavin looks like Betty Boop.

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