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
- Tuesday, May 12, 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
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.
Sunspot update: right down to the wire on blank days
http://www.examiner.com/x-5182-Dallas-Weather-Examiner~y2009m12d9-Sunspot-update-right-down-to-the-wire-on-blank-days
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.
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.
Gavin was rude. There was no need to interrupt.
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!
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.
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
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!
It looks like Gavin won that one. He still takes the victim role regarding the e-mail leak though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that Boy George?
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
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.
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.
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.
I am in love with John Christy!!!!! Not only is he handsome (eye candy), his debate style was absolutely flawless! Ear candy!!!!
“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.
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.
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.
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.