Entry and exit polls were taken and the Lindzen et al side – in a minority prior to the debate – was in a majority after the debate.
Gavin Schmidt reports on the debate here, complaining that they lost to more accomplished debaters and that his side was “pretty dull”, offering “drier fare”:
I’m afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I’d say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it’s hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull.
Jean S pointed out some of Gavin’s debating style which is worth repeating here:
GAVIN SCHMIDT – ….So any change that there might have been because of cosmic ray impacts on climate, cant possibly have an impact on whats been going on—
PHILIP STOTT The most famous—
GAVIN SCHMIDT —in the last changes.
PHILIP STOTT But the most famous astrophysicist working on it say that it has.
GAVIN SCHMIDT Uh, he is drunk. [LAUGHTER]
In terms of my own position, I would be in the part of the audience that would have entered the hall undecided. I still don’t have an opinion on whether there is a crisis or not. I am still prepared to allow for the possibility that there is a real problem and that one should not be put off by the annoyingness of the Team. The Team has gotten used to ad hom arguments. Here is Team ad homs reduced to its lowest common denominator. The audience must have found this as repugnant as we do.
It’s interesting to examine Gavin Schmidt’s characterization of the NAS Report, which the Team is spinning as some sort of vindication for Mann. See the following exchange at page 50:
LINDZEN: … You [Schmidt] say, the earth has been warmer—is warmer now than it has been for 1300 years. The national academy evaluating this said, the methodology was no use beyond 400 years. Why do you make this statement. You keep on quoting these groups, and when they disagree with them, you make up the quote.
GAVIN SCHMIDT I—Ive gotta say that one, one thing at a time—
BRIAN LEHRER Gavin Schmidt—
GAVIN SCHMIDT —lets deal with that. The National Academy of Science report said that we have good evidence that were warmer from 400 years ago, we have credible evidence that were warmer from 900—
RICHARD S. LINDZEN No, they did not—
GAVIN SCHMIDT Yes they did, Richard, please— [LAUGHTER]
RICHARD S. LINDZEN No, the—
GAVIN SCHMIDT Read the reports before—
RICHARD S. LINDZEN —front end—the front end said—
GAVIN SCHMIDT Read the—read more than the front page, Richard—
RICHARD S. LINDZEN No, Im saying the text, said it was not credible beyond 400 years—
GAVIN SCHMIDT Thats not what it—thats not what it said—
RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE Moreover, moreover—
BRIAN LEHRER Right, well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait—
GAVIN SCHMIDT I can tell you why its not—
BRIAN LEHRER Were into ‘€•he said’€–-‘€•he said.’€– But— [LAUGHTER] But Gavin Schmidt, you seem to suggest that the other side does not have a real scientific argument, but a culturally or politically constructed one. You dont think theyre sincere?
GAVIN SCHMIDT Thats a very difficult question. I think—I— no, I, I do think that theyre sincere—
BRIAN LEHRER You as much as said it.
GAVIN SCHMIDT I dont think that they are completely…doing this on a level playing field that the people here will understand. And, there are… AUDIENCE MEMBERS [MOANS, VOICES, ETC.]
BRIAN LEHRER Well… [OVERLAPPING VOICES] explain yourself, because—wait a minute—
GAVIN SCHMIDT No, let me—let me explain, explain that—
BRIAN LEHRER Because they have larger cultural or political agendas?
GAVIN SCHMIDT No, um, I have no idea what their political or cultural agendas are, and to be frank Im not very interested.
PHILIP STOTT Im left-wing and have no money whatsoever from any oil company—
GAVIN SCHMIDT Okay, and—
PHILIP STOTT —and I wouldnt.
GAVIN SCHMIDT Thats fine. [LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE] Thats fine. But Im, Im—
BRIAN LEHRER All right—
GAVIN SCHMIDT —Im not interested in your motivations—
PHILIP STOTT But I know—
BRIAN LEHRER All right—
PHILIP STOTT —[INAUDIBLE] has interests.
BTW Schmidt also stated the following:
Scientists have to be professional skeptics, right, they are trained not to take new information at face value, they have to ask where measurements come from and what they could possibly mean.
All I’ve ever done is “ask where measurements come from and what they could possibly mean”. And look what the reaction of the Team has been.
Update: Schmidt has posted on another thread that he said “wrong” and not “drunk”, which, in fairness, seems a more likely thing for him to say. I guess, if Gavin says that Shaviv is “wrong”, the matter is settled and we can all move on to something else – like asking where measurements come from or what bristlecone ring widths could possibly mean.