Gavin Schmidt -vs- John Christy on CNN

Get that Canadian commentator back on the air.

The thing that I feel like I have in common with Dr. Christy is that he fully embraces the notion of that which is greater than himself. Universally, wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing: how the atmosphere is dynamic and extremely complex, how warming may be partially or largely due to C02 emissions, how abysmally models verify. His demeanor is humble, yet intelligent, which is how a true scientist should be. Unafraid to seeks answers to questions others wish to stop asking.

Paullm: “AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX. AGW is a HOAX.”
Dean McAskil: “Climategate is not evidence supporting a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy. There is no theory about it.”
Bad moves. With the CRU hack/leak coming on top of Copenhagen, climate sceptics have been given a small window of media opportunity. Don’t blow it by jumping into wingnut territory.
The likes of McIntyre and Christy are not going to support public accusations of fraud and conspiracy, nor are they going to deliver a sucker-punch to AGW. But they are your best hope.
The more enthusiastic sceptics need to step back and gain some clarity. If you want to present a credible case, put the Becks and Moncktons in the back row and the more sensible scientists up front.

Gavin Schmidt’s debating personality doesn’t work for at least a large part of the public. That was seen in the IQ2 debate where he joined Brenda Erkwurzel and Richard Somerville against Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton and Philip Stott. Schmidt’s side lost abysmally, and he came across as patronizing, arrogant and as assuming – or as clearly stating – that the audience was too stupid to follow the technical arguments, and that the other side was dishonest. It didn’t help that he was the only one on his side that came across as at least minimally knowledgeable. Anyway, I think it’s a mistake to assume that people in general prefer his kind of debating personality. Schmidt seems to naturally assume that others are less smart and knowledgeable than he is, which also leads him to assume that people mentioning facts that he himself is unaware of are just bluffing. Quite a few people see through that and are put off by it.

KW
It’s not the time to be humble and reflective.
It’s about the very survival of science.

Guys like Christy and McIntyre will always be at a disadvantage against any alarmist spokesman because they see their role as defending the integrity of science, not as advocates for a point of view. The alarmists have all embraced the notion that their ideas are too important to be limited by archaic notions of truth and solid methodology. They see advocacy as their primary role, and sticking to the scripted talking points as the best means of achieving their goals. That’s why they shy away from guys like Monckton, he’s better at their dodge than they are themselves.

Christy came over to me as likeable and trustworthy; Schmidt didn’t. As someone else has opined, why does it seem that our fellow Englishmen seem to be the bad guys here? Well, at least we have Monckton! 🙂
Good point made earlier about FOIA – did anyone else think that Schmidt’s mentioning that was a Freudian slip?
Christy is an accomplished public speaker and interviewee, at least in edited interviews I have seen – maybe live interviews are not his style. I am not sure he needs any lessons in PR though. Time is always limited in live interviews and it is impossible to say everything that’s really needed to cover a situation adequately. As someone else has suggested, he was probably correct to just let Schmidt keep digging himself into a hole.

You’ll enjoy Christy being more thorough here

Journalists: How well do you know Freeman Dyson? He is probably one of the most brilliant scientists in our time. Please take your time and enlighten yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&NR=1
Links between CO2 and vegetation is poorly understood.
Links between solar cycles and climate is poorly understood.
Links between ocean cycles and climate is poorly understood.
What do we know? To cite Dyson climate models is a very dubious business.

Is Gavin Schmidt really Michael Mann under an assumed name? I can’t actually tell them apart.
Anyway, I think Gavin wasted a lot of his own time whinning about stolen emails, privacy etc. This does not win much sympathy from viewers. Neither of them made any worthwhile points but I suppose that was because the interviewer was setting the agenda. Overall, I would say the score was 0-0.

Maybe people are not reading my comments but you need to understand that scientists like Christy and analysts like McIntyre are not involved in the day to day war of words, Gavin is. Christy and McIntyre spend their days looking at real science not trying to rabidly defend the dogma like Gavin.
If you want shock and awe and someone to hit back at Gavin, you need Monckton or Morano.
Please stop with the nonsense that Christy should use [insert your position] on an issue when he will always use his own. Christy understands the science better than just about everyone commenting here and is not going to take a politicized position. His positions are scientifically sound and scientifically defensible. They may not be what some people want to hear but this is the reality of the scientific debate and is not necessarily good for sound bites. Monckton and Morano have much more leeway with what they can say and better at sound bites.

Aron,
“You’ll enjoy Christy being more thorough here.”
Christy doesn’t seem to be in this video.