NASA's Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin goes full emotional – rorts himself with an unsupportable claim, Gleick plays 'me too'

Tom Nelson writes:

The end days of the climate hoax are upon us: Award-winning climate communicator Gavin Schmidt calls distinguished Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA moonwalker Harrison Schmitt “idiots”.

Unfortunately, Gavin forgot to check the data first. But that’s generally what The Team does when they take to Twitter. No science there, only raw emotions.

Twitter / ClimateOfGavin: Happer and Schmitt in the WSJ: …


Flashback:  A Deserved Award for Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate and NASA –

Gavin Schmidt, the climate modeler at NASA and Columbia University who has long endured the slings and arrows that come with blogging on climate, has now gained a laurel for his efforts — the inaugural $25,000 Climate Communications Prize of the American Geophysical Union.

The data says that Schmitt and Happer are correct. In books and on the web, carbon dioxide is far more discussed (and maligned) than the other chemicals he lists.


On the web as news headlines, CO2 is still the overall leader, as indicated by the bar graph but has recently waned. Parabens seems to be the new bogeyman with the press as they seem to care less and less about CO2:


Gavin should look at data, rather than be emotional Twitter ranter like Michael Mann. But when your livlihood is dying, I suppose emotions are all you have left.

Take for example Peter Gleick’s response. Tom Nelson documents that too:

Don’t miss this: After distinguished Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker Harrison H. Schmitt defend CO2 in a WSJ article, Gleick goes apoplectic

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Distinguished physicist Dr. William Happer: ‘The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science’

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.


WSJ.COM 5/8/13: Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

he adds

and finally

It’s like grade school with Gleick.

I’m just going to pick one, readers can refute the others.

There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

Gosh, you’d think Gleick would note what the IPCC SREX report, Nature, and NOAA says about this:

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.  –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4

From Nature: Extreme weather

Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

NOAA sums up the situation neatly in their FAQ.

Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.” This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. They can indicate broad-scale shifts in three of the four favorable ingredients for severe thunderstorms (moisture, instability and wind shear), but as any severe weather forecaster can attest, having some favorable factors in place doesn’t guarantee tornadoes. Our physical understanding indicates mixed signals–some ingredients may increase (instability), while others may decrease (shear), in a warmer world. The other key ingredient (storm-scale lift), and to varying extents moisture, instability and shear, depend mostly on day-to-day patterns, and often, even minute-to-minute local weather. Finally, tornado recordkeeping itself also has been prone to many errors and uncertainties, doesn’t exist for most of the world, and even in the U. S., only covers several decades in detailed form.

But hey, who needs data when you can spew raw religious emotion on Twitter?

The last time Gleick got this worked up about a WSJ op-ed unfavorable to his views, he committed a crime. Heads up everybody!


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Infantile hysteric.

Google search of “Climate change lunacy” currently results in 53,700 hits. My prediction is this phrase will double in the next year….


Why do equate popularity with reputation?


Thanks to the efforts of scientists like Gavin Schmidt, CO2 is the uncontested Demon of the Age. Funny that he should take umbrage over this claim.
Is Gavin saying that CO2 is not as bad as he makes it out to be?

He’s only playing to an ever smaller audience of adherents who are no doubt relieved to read his emotional drivel.


Schmidt doesn’t read anything outside of his blog; Gleick is too busy manufacturing false documents. Both should be ignored or, at best, laughed at.


Michael Palmer. What do you think of the scientific discourse undertaken by Schmit and Gliek?


The Climate Communications Prize is awarded for …What?
I am starting to understand climate communication, I think.

What ever doesn’t agree with Holy Climate Scripture is false no matter what data or findings get presented. Happer and Schmitt to Gleick are like Galileo to the Catholic Church.

David L. Hagen

How low the “mighty” have fallen!
Has he been following a fallen mentor?

If only they could find a political strongman, someone they could trust and support, who could force everyone to listen to them, before its too late…


Note that the claims of Happer and Schmitt are not new, but have been put many times before in various ways. The reason that Gleick and Schmidt are in such a tizzy is because that these oft-spoken facts have been published in the WSJ. These climate alarmists are used to having it all their way in prestige publications. To their anguish, this is no longer true. Their cause is waning and climate alarmism has just about run its course.

John Greenfraud

With the climate rackets drying up, Gleick will do anything to get some press. However, in his defense, job opportunities may be limited for a liar and a thief in the real world. His current employment by the useless idiots of the climate cult may be his only option.

Frank K.

Re: GAVIN SCHMIDT calling BS on the reputation of CO2…
“Hello, Gavin? I have your good friend Bill McKibben on the line. Something about CO2, the end of life as we know it, climate science, Exxon-Mobil, Koch Brothers, and the Keystone pipeline…can you take the call? And I also have your former boss Jim Hansen on line two. Something about tipping points, “game over for the climate”, flat earthers and neanderthals… “


‘Deceptive from the first paragraph to the last. ‘
Well, Gleick should know all about that.


Using the google charts is pointless for many reasons. Popularity of a term has little to do with it’s reputation. Type water in with the other terms, and you will find that it is listed twice as often as carbon dioxide. Does this mean that water has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide?
Also, carbon dioxide’s popularity has been higher then all the other compounds since the mid-1870’s. So assuming popularity is an indicator of reputation, carbon dioxide’s poor reputation precedes modern climate science by many years, and has actually been decreasing since 1940.
These charts don’t support the claims you are making whatsoever.
Furthermore, I disagree with your point for less scientific reasons. Agent Orange I would assume has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. I believe if you surveyed people on the listed compounds, nearly 100% would say Agent Orange is “bad”. I’m not sure how many would say the same about carbon dioxide, but I doubt it would be even close the the same as any of the other compounds.
I believe this issue boils down to semantics. “Popularity” and “reputation” are being confused and/or interpreted differently.
I also have a minor issue with your extreme weather claim. I believe it is a strawman. Gleick says the statement “There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather” is false. You are essentially arguing against the statement “More carbon dioxide has caused extreme weather” There is a difference between saying there is slight evidence for causation and saying that there is probable causation.

Next you know Schmidt and Gleick will be claiming that 2 + 2 = 5, and that water freezes when you heat it.
They are so Orwell – remember O’Brien’s 4 vs. 5 fingers?

The AGU is to honoring Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s GISS as Abbott was to Costello.
In the realm of science, the AGU’s and Schmidt’s communication on climate science is its funniest slapstick Vaudeville act.

P.S. Notice all the ad hom stuff and not a whit of evidence to back up their claims.
Schmidt and Gleick are so low they have to look up to look down.

Mike Bromley the Kurd (this week)

Gleick is just plain funny. A liar who calls things false. Snore.

pat says: “Infantile hysteric.”
They’re playing to audiences who feed on infantile hysterics.


I have only met and spoken with one Apollo astronaut in my life. That man was Harrison Schmitt. This was before the global warming hoax. We spoke very briefly about joint design for gas pressurised suits. He knew what he was talking about, he spoke from experience. I was impressed, a geologist by training with an deep understanding of other scientific fields.
Gavin’s reputation depends on pseudo science. Harrison Schmitt is putting his deserved reputation on the line to defend real science. Gavin is not saving the planet, Harrison however is fighting to save science. Gavin is a waste of skin and he is breathing other peoples air.
[snip – over the top – mod]

DDT is deadly to mosquitoes only. The LACK of DDT is deadly to humans. So one can only surmise with the tirade of Schmidt, that he is a mosquito.


Here’s a link to the excellent article about the benefits of CO2 in today’s WSJ, co-authored by Harrison Schmitt, ex Apollo austranaut, also former U.S Senator, and William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, also ex-director of energy research at the U.S. DOE:

Michael Jankowski

We can go back to “Earth in the Balance” where all Gore called the internal combustion engine – because of the GHGs it gives off (particularly CO2) – “the greatest threat to mankind.” Not DDT, parabens, sulfuric acid, etc. While I don’t want to be doused in sulfuric acid, is anyone out there losing sleep over it? How often are parabens discussed in the news, during political races, etc? Does the UN have a committee designated to fight parabens?

Tom J

I really hate to admit this but Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick, and I have a little in common.
You see, a while back I was hospitalized, and I had to go for the obligatory chest X-ray. As the nurse was pushing my hospital wheelchair to the room for this X-ray of my chest I joked to her, “They wanna make Arnold Schwarzenegger jealous.”
Now, that is what I have in common with our two protagonists. We were all joking. And in all cases it should’ve been quite obvious.
For instance, in my case, the joke should’ve been obvious for the simple fact that I’m 5’8″ tall and I weigh, um, 128 pounds. My gastroenterologist calls me “scrawny.” Obviously, there’s no way in hell Arnold Schwarzenegger would be jealous of me. The only physical competition I could possibly win against him was how quickly mosquitoes could suck me dry.
Now, I think it should be quite obvious that the joke I played on that nurse, and Peter and Gavin (and others) have played on the general population, have profound similarities. They’re both absurd. I mean, yeah, every breath we take, we exhale a breath of poison.
But here is the difference. You see, the nurse didn’t laugh at my joke. She actually took it seriously. How, I’ll never know. And, rather than let her think that this ‘scrawny’ guy could actually compare himself to Arnold I quickly walked it back and told her, “Just kidding,” rather than letting her think that I was a blithering moron.
And that’s the difference. Gavin and Peter never walked it back. And now it’s too late.

rort [rɔːt] Austral informal
1. a rowdy party or celebration
2. a dishonest scheme
to take unfair advantage of something
[back formation from rorty (in the sense: good, splendid)]
rorty adj

Maybe I am new to this English vocabulary thing, but I have only recently noticed that the word “rorts” is appearing in articles on the internet. I believe I first noticed it on JoNova’s blog. Does this have an Australian origin? Since I am somewhat rowdy myself, does that mean that I can be called, rorty, even though I am an honest person?


Schmidt and Gleick don’t live in the same world that we do. Theirs is an imaginary world created by climate models. They stubbornly refuse to look at any observations that show their imaginary world diverging from reality.


[snip – over the top – mod]
Perhaps then a cut and paste from the last time that image was allowed at WUWT. Something Gavin and Peter should keep in mind –
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it


“Another twisted and scientifically bad climate piece.” –Peter Gleick
Projection, (prᵊ-jek’-shᵊn) n.: The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

John W. Garrett

Bob (May 9, 2013 at 10:03 am)
Thanks for providing a definition of “rorts.” I had wondered if it was a typo or a simply a word I’d never previously encountered and went so far as to look it up (with no success). It did not occur to me that it might be a derivative of rorty.


I’d be interested in a cryptographer’s analysis of Gleick’s stick-printing. He’s written the word “FALSE” numerous times with conspicuous inconsistencies in the way the letters are drawn.
Looks like signs of instability to me
And, BTW, why would you post a scan of your scrawls in a twit-feed? Now everyone can plainly see you have no factual argument – just a Crayola rant.

Just to note that that is also, DR. Harrison Schmitt, the first Ph.D. (geology) on the moon.

Scott Scarborough

None of the chemicals Gavin mentioned have ever been touted as destroying the world like Carbon dioxide has. Not once!


Climatology, like Scientology, but more crazy.

Jonas N

I think Gleick should be commended for actually having read what he wants to derride
‘That’s one small step for adult mankind .. one giant leap for Gleickhood’

John Tillman

Does gabbin’ Gavin report the income from his blogging on the public dime, or does he emulate his mentor, activist/bureaucrat Jim “Boiling Seas” Hansen, who tried to hide his ill-gotten, anti-scientific snake oil gains?

Frank K.

Well, well…look at this…
The History of Climate Change and the Future of Global Governance
Department of History, Columbia University
May 28 – August 16, 2013
The Hertog Global Strategy Initiative (HGSI) seeks talented undergraduates, graduate students, and mid-career professionals for its 2013 seminar on the History of Climate Change and the Future of Global Governance.
HGSI is a research program that explores how the world community has responded to planetary threats to derive lessons that will help us take on the challenges of the present and the future. Each summer, a select group of participants comes to Columbia University for three months to work with leading scholars and policymakers. This year’s initiative hopes to train a new generation of researchers and leaders who understand both the development of climate science and the changing nature of world politics.
The 2013 seminar will be taught by Matthew Connelly, Professor of History at Columbia University, and Jim Fleming, Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at Colby College. They will be assisted in the classroom by Deborah Coen, Paul Edwards, Mike Hulme, Anthony Janetos, Bill McKibben, Geoffrey Parker, Gavin Schmidt, John Topping, and many other leaders in the field.
Participants pursue original research both independently and in teams. Students will receive eight credit points for the seminar, the equivalent of two semester-long courses at Columbia.

Hmmm…Planetary threats?? Global governance?? CO2??


I read somewhere, once, that Buddhist types who were really devout would have an acolyte moving ahead of them sweeping the path so that no unseen insects might get killed by the passage of the devout one. It seems senseless and trivial but consistent with the faith of not causing harm to any living creature.
The Gleiks of this world are much the same. Their hysterical gestures in support of their faith may well be internally consistent but have zero effect in the real world. Let us hope that their cloying attachment to the somewhat naive folks in power soon wanes and thus allow society to continue its great march into the future.
Onward and upward folks, and for that we need energy, lts of energy.


The worst reputation must go to the chemical implicated in the most disasters…. now where is the link to the web site documenting all the evil consequences of rising CO2? I know it was posted at WUWT a while ago, but I didn’t save it to my favourites. I will now if someone will put it up again!

Dave L

Why would anyone even follow Gleick and Schmidt on Twitter? Perhaps just for laughs?????

Lars P.

pgosselin says:
May 9, 2013 at 9:09 am
What ever doesn’t agree with Holy Climate Scripture is false no matter what data or findings get presented. Happer and Schmitt to Gleick are like Galileo to the Catholic Church.
Correct. Only the climate scripture is called “climate science” or short even “science” to confuse the audience. So if you contradict it, you are “anti-science” (I have seen “anti-climate” too)

Lars P.

SCheesman says:
May 9, 2013 at 10:48 am
The worst reputation must go to the chemical implicated in the most disasters…. now where is the link to the web site documenting all the evil consequences of rising CO2? I know it was posted at WUWT a while ago, but I didn’t save it to my favourites. I will now if someone will put it up again!
You mean this?:


I can’t wait until Lewinsky joins the fun by tweeting an accusation of Schmitt being a moon landing conspiracy theorist. O_o

peter Miller

Leaders of cults are notorious for stamping their little feet, when confronted with unconvenient facts or the truth. So, as a cult leader he is obliged to rant and that is exactly what he does.

Tom in Florida

John Greenfraud says:
May 9, 2013 at 9:23 am
“With the climate rackets drying up, Gleick will do anything to get some press. However, in his defense, job opportunities may be limited for a liar and a thief in the real world.”
Sounds like a real nice resume for a seat in Congress.


After I read or hear about some of the tweets people send whether it is sports, entertainment, media, government, or science, and the instantaneous idiots they make of themselves, I know why I will never have a tweeter account. After a comment makes the internet, it never goes away and never can be successfully denied.


How’s the temperature meddling going at GISS?


Gleick! The scan! ROTFLMAO!
And he calls this “notes”? He invites any followers to “please continue”? Will we now get a bunch of comments from warmists who simply exclaim “False!” ??? Can’t wait! Cracking myself up.


It’s rather amusing that sulfuric acid is on Gavin’s list of horrors, since it is actually one of the main props of any industrial society. Practically anything you can think of is ultimately manufactured from or with three basic ingredients: sulfuric acid, crude oil and natrium chloride (ordinary salt).