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
- Monday, February 9, 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
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!
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.
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.
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….
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.
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!
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.
I am not sure who posted this link but thanks. It is a major eye opener regarding Gavin and RealClimate. There’s a lot of links throughout the article to sources. It is a must read for those not familiar with him and why he spun like a top on CNN. He’s a mathematician, activist and shill for a radical [left] political organization. Just doing what he’s paid to do.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
@ur momisugly 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)
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
Don’t forget Schmidt is a mathematician, not a scientist. That’s why he thinks computer model results are evidence.
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 …
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…
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.’
As in ,persuasive.’ See, it happens to all of us.
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.
Are Schmidt and Mann clones?
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.
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.