Gavin Schmidt Warns Donald Trump Not to Interfere with the NASA Climate Division

Gavin-schmidt-stossel

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has “warned” President-elect Donald Trump not to interfere with their climate activities. Schmidt maintains the GISS global temperature series, arguably the most adjusted of all the global temperature products.

‘Global warming doesn’t care about the election’: Nasa scientist warns Donald Trump over interference

Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results.

A senior Nasa scientist has told Donald Trump he is wrong if he thinks climate change is not happening and warned the President-elect that government scientists are “not going to stand” for any interference with their work.

Mr Trump has described global warming as a “hoax” perpetrated by China, vowed to unratify the landmark Paris Agreement and appointed a renowned climate-change denier to a senior environmental position in his transition team.

The science community and environmental campaigners in the US have already begun efforts to persuade Mr Trump that climate change is actually real before he takes office next year.

Dr Gavin Schmidt, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, signalled they would have allies among the federal science agencies.

In an interview with The Independent, Dr Schmidt, who was born in London, said: “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.

Asked if he would resign if the Trump administration adopted the most extreme form of climate change denial, Dr Schmidt said this was “an interesting question”. It would not cause him to quit “in and of itself”, he said.

“Government science and things generally go on regardless of the political views of the people at the top,” Dr Schmidt said. “The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way or asked not to talk about your results. Those would be much more serious issues.”

But he added: “Trump is obviously unique. It’s not just the same as Bush again.”

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nasa-global-warming-climate-change-denial-donald-trump-interference-science-a7421416.html

President-elect Donald Trump has already stated that he intends to refocus NASA on its original mission of space exploration.

“I will free NASA from the restriction of serving primarily as a logistics agency for low Earth orbit activity… Instead we will refocus its mission on space exploration.”

Read more: http://www.inquisitr.com/3710152/forget-mars-trump-wants-nasa-to-visit-jupiters-moon-europa-and-explore-the-solar-system/

The needless duplication of climate work between multiple federal agencies has been noted before – in 2015, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, introduced a bill calling on NASA to spend more of their time and effort exploring space.

Advertisements

583 thoughts on “Gavin Schmidt Warns Donald Trump Not to Interfere with the NASA Climate Division

    • NASA should concentrate on space, and as far as weather is concerned, the space weather driven by solar activity should be in their domain of activity.
      Another well known NASA scientist, Dr. David Hathaway, made a prediction (with which I strongly disagreed at the time) that dismally failed, but he was brave enough to come back and publicly acknowledge it.

      Btw, Dr. Hathaway only yesterday published a new paper with this conclusion:
      “We find that the polar fields, as given by the axial dipole strength and the average field strength above 55◦
      , indicate that Cycle 25 will be similar in size to (or slightly smaller than) the current small cycle, Cycle 24. We also find (weaker) evidence that the southern hemisphere will be more active than the north. Small cycles, like Cycle 24, start late and leave behind long cycles with deep extended minima [Hathaway, 2015]. We expect a similar deep, extended minimum for the Cycle 24/25 minimum in 2020”

      This time he appears to be a on right track.
      For solar buffs interested the paper can be found here

      • If Gavin said a similar thing to President Obama or a President Hillary Clinton, Gavin would be labeled a racist and misogynist respectively, investigated for hate crimes, have his tax returns pulled, and be fired.

      • Gee…this could spell the end of the 97% meme. Gavin and the other 3% might walk off the job due to a lack of funding and leave the actual 97% to repair their collective damage

      • “Gavin warns Donald not to mess with NASA Climate division.” Donald: “What NASA Climate division?”

        *Hands Gavin his transfer to the new weather station at the old Bengazi Diplomatic campus.*

    • You have to love this man’s honesty. I quote –

      “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

      And then the jackass takes the position that we CAN control the climate, even though he says nature has the last vote. what a bonehead. This boy needs to go back to school to learn how to think and present his views.

    • Great point bill p, we need an “ist” word for rich white male hatred. but if we use our secret decoder rings Schmidts message translates to don’t mess with my paycheck I’m still making mortgage payments and have an eye on a new BMW.

    • Congress, please enact this one-sentence law: Any and all climate change laws or regulations enacted by the Government of the United States of America shall state how many years the habitability of Earth will be increased by the law/regulation and shall provide scientific proof substantiating the stated increase in habitability.
      This will take the onus off climate change deniers and place it on the scientists promoting climate change legislation where it belongs.
      It doesn’t take a scientist to know that Earth will only be habitable for a finite period of time. Even the most astute scientist knows that it is foolish to try to make that an infinite time period thru climate change laws.

    • Dear Mr. Schmidt,
      I’m not sure how to put this so I’ll keep it short —
      NASA Climate Division does NOT belong to you!

      Regards,
      D. Trump (President elect)

    • All Right!!!

      Listen up now!! The great Gavinator needs all the support he can muster, to show Ebell, they are serious!

      Everyone in all Federal and State Agencies raise their hands and shout if you support Gavin! Please, be sure to send in confirmation using official Federal email.

      heh heh heh

    • Yes, Gavin has just identified himself to Trump as a high priority target for “YOU’RE FIRED”. Gavin believes in too many of his own lies and elevated his own importance. GK

      • If not he will stamp his little foot and resign. Perhaps Donald will send someone with some boxes to help him pack. U-Haul and relocation companies are going to be busy come January – book early. Has one been booked for Samuel L Jackson to move him to South Africa? I do hope so.

    • How are you Chasmod ??

      Gavin Schmidt probably knows more about twiddling with climate science than anybody.

      I can’t keep up with the rate he diddles the numbers to fake what has actually been measured and reported by his own agency.

      Is he that stupid, that he doesn’t know that we follow his every re-observation of the past, closer than we watch election results.

      Well he’s probably got enough in his taxpayer pension fund already so he might as well resign, and go and enjoy the last days of our Goldilocks Climate.

      G

    • Yeah, somehow I’ve a feeling that telling someone with Trump’s personality WHAT NOT TO DO could backfire spectacularly. So all these worried climate alarmists, Gavin included could just be takng the wrong approach to influencing The Donald

    • No, he’s quoting a headline writer in the Independent. Neither seem to be quoting Gavin. Though he did suggest that he would resign if asked to skew or not talk about results. Which does seem to be the only honorable thing to do.

      • Schmidt succeeded Hansen as Skewer-in-Chief and GISS has managed the demonstrably most skewed climate data series for decades. So if Gavin expects the new administration to skew it a bit more they should get along just fine.

      • “demonstrably most skewed climate data series”
        So who has demonstrated it? In fact, GISS doesn’t adjust data at all. They use ERSST and GHCN adjusted, both from NOAA. The task of integrating these to form an average is straightforward, and their code is public. I do the same myself, and show the results prior to GISS each month. They are very similar, even though I use GHCN unadjusted.

        It’s about time some skeptic did “demonstrate” by calculating an index, instead of just talking about it. I think the last to do that was Muller, with BEST.

      • Nick Stokes —

        Gavin is not afraid of being told not to talk about his results. Rather just the opposite. He is scared that they are going to make him tell how he got his results. When that happens he will resign to try to save his rear end.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • “In fact, GISS doesn’t adjust data at all.”

        No , they CREATE it out of nothing.

        Nearly 50% of land data, and most of sea surface data

      • “He is scared that they are going to make him tell how he got his results. “
        No force required. The data is public – I use it myself. The code which reads in the data from public sources and produces the results is here. Notably, the British firm Ravenbrook reproduced the code in Python, and got identical results. No mystery there.

      • Though he did suggest that he would resign if asked to skew or not talk about results. Which does seem to be the only honorable thing to do.

        Well since not talking seems to be his substitute for adult scientific debate and skewing results is what they do best, you are right : the most honourable thing for him to do would be to resign.

        The only problem is that he has not honour or integrity either, so I’m not holding my breath.

      • ” the question is why would NASA reproduce work that’s already being done by NOAA”
        Well, GISS did it first. Would you be happier if there was just one index?

      • Greg
        “Well since not talking”
        He runs a blog on which he writes rather prolifically.

        “The only problem is that he has not honour or integrity”
        It puzzles me that people are so confident in the wrongness of GISS when they can’t muster the skill or energy to try to do their own

      • GISS and co are obviously wrong, satellites should set the base for correction to the models that are homogenization/infill of the crappy land data. anyone who looks at this closely enough would come to the same conclusion, so this little game of pretending the land based data sets are somehow superior and correct is just a pathetic set of lies.

        we end up with ridiculous situations like BOM in Australia claiming worlds best practices (GISS type homogenization) for stations like rutherglen –

        http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/06/audit-general-dismisses-need-for/

        worlds best practice?? do you people who defend this crap really believe that you are fooling us?

      • Nick: I greatly appreciate that you continue to post here and maintain decorum and class. Many on either side could benefit from your example. I’m curious. You have shown a link to the algorithms that alter the data. Do you have a link to the data as originally recorded? Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that the British at a minimum can’t find all of those numbers anymore.

      • Nick, it’s only reproduced because they did the same thing, make up data from most of the planet. If you look at what was actually recorded, there is still warming, it just can’t be from Co2 because there has not been any measurable loss of cooling at night.

      • he would resign if asked to skew or not talk about results….

        What a f’in little piece of slime…..implying that Trump would do that

      • Hi Nick,

        Can you give us a step by step instruction on how to get the GHCN unadjusted and I mean fully raw data.

      • Nick is right — it’s the NOAA data that is skewed. While the adjustments are clear, Karl was also clear that he had no intention of justifying his adjustments to the people before he retired. The same people who provided his paycheck for over 40 years.

        I find it interesting that in his bio, he moved from his home state of Wisconsin to the University of Oklahoma, he decided to then work for the ERL in Raleigh. “I think the overwhelming Oklahoma heat was what really led to my final decision,” Karl said.

        If only he grew up in Oklahoma and moved to Wisconsin — then we’d be talking about global cooling.

      • It’s about time some skeptic did “demonstrate” by calculating an index, instead of just talking about it.

        I’ve been building mine for about 6 or 7 years now, and while temps have gone up in places causing the average to go up, it’s not global, nor is it from co2 because there hasn’t been any loss of cooling. You need to look at both min and max trends instead of using average, it hides the truth.

      • So if it is actually NOAA that is Gissing our climate; and I believe you NIck, what the hell is NASA even doing being in another agency’s business.
        Publish NOAA’snumbers, and get Goddard the hell out of the way, and back to rocket science.

        G

      • Nick stokes —

        When you create temperature readings for areas that have no actual data — the result is not data. And when you eliminate colder data from an area and then fill that area in by using data from warmer surrounding areas — that is fraud.

        Remember — Michael Mann’s friends kept saying that they had replicated his Hockey Stick Graph when all that they did was repeat exactly his fraudulent methods using his cherry picked data — and getting his same fraudulent answers.

        Gavin’s data methods are fraudulent and you claiming to replicate his results using that fraudulent data as a base is past silly. Its is Gavin’s methods of altering data he is going to be questioned about and rather than answer he will resign.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Micro6500,
        I completely agree with you that averages can hide a multitude of ‘sins,’ and that one needs to look at both TMax and TMin.

      • Stokes,
        Are you going to respond to the request from John Eggert and Bill Ellis for a link to the raw data?

      • george e. smith November 17, 2016 at 9:05 am

        Good afternoon george,
        the answer to your question on why the adjusted dara comes out of NASA and not NOAA is NASA has the rocket science guys or a lease it did in the past. Who you going to trust NASA scientists or conspiracy theorists? That was the image they were trying to create in the public’s mind. They suborned the real purpose of GISS to gain credence for their whack-a-doodle activists obsessions.

        As long as they did not have to be subjected to serious government scrutiny they could get away with it.
        Now we have a administration that is hostile and suspicious of their methods, motives and announcements.

        If it is true as many of us believe that they have been deliberately falsifying data that is used in to formula United States foreign and domestic policies they are now on a precarious footing. One foot on the banana peel with the other slipping.

        michael

      • John Eggert,
        “Do you have a link to the data as originally recorded?”
        The GHCN data is posted every month in this directory. You’ll see that there are two sets of files, one marked qcu (unadjusted) and one qca (adjusted). Each has a tmax, tmin and tavg.

        The GHCN data is compiled directly from the CLIMAT forms, which are submitted monthly to WMO by world met offices, and are shown on this site. You can check that those numbers are transcribed directly to GHCN. Even the quality control doesn’t remove or alter data – it just flags anything suspect.

      • “When you create temperature readings for areas that have no actual data — the result is not data. And when you eliminate colder data from an area and then fill that area in by using data from warmer surrounding areas — that is fraud.”
        The Earth’s global temperature is sampled. That is inevitable in any kind of measurement. If you want to value how much iron ore you are shipping, you sample. To measure your body temperature, you sample. You can’t measure everywhere, and because you can’t, that dowsn’t mean you know nothing.

        I don’t know the evidence for removing colder areas. But that misses the point of anomaly. The mean for that location is subtracted, so whether they are usually colder doesn’t affect the average.

      • Nick Stokes November 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm

        “If you want to value how much iron ore you are shipping, you sample. ”

        No. You determine the exact amount. Exact weight. Iron ore can have impurities that change the content thus one sample can have a different weight from the next. Think of what happens it there is ether a greater or lower weight on a train.

        To use temperature to measure climate the station must be reliable and the equipment used calibrated and capable of meeting the requirements on repeatably and accuracy.

        We don’t have that. and Nick the silly little bit about the iron ore, its not to mock you or discredit you, very few people truly understand how difficult it is to get accurate and repeatable measures.

        I agree you can’t measure everywhere. but where you can measure the locations and instruments used must not only withstand any level of scrutiny but also be subjected to it a constant and continuous basis.

        The present methods and reliability of the systems used in determining NOAA’s and GISS temperature findings would not even be acceptable for use in a teddy bear factory.

        michael

      • “You determine the exact amount. Exact weight.”
        Actually, assessing (by sample) iron ore for shipping (Aus->China/Japan) is something I know a bit about. The key issue isn’t weight, but Fe content. And negatives like phosphate etc. A load is many thousand tons, and is assessed by analysing sample test tubes. OK, maybe big ones. Australia exports about $50 billion a year – the actual amount paid is determined by that sampling. The error is considered a fraction of a %, which is still a lot of money. The ore is sampled both on despatch and receipt, so the measures had better agree fairly well. They do.

        Sampling is universal in science, and much of life. And the idea of estimating by sample average – ie extending the results to the unsampled region, is inherent. There is no other reason for sampling.

        As to the actual measurements and location – that’s the data we have. GISS isn’t responsible for that, nor even NOAA in most of the world. Their job is to do the best with what we know. It isn’t nothing.

      • Not sure if Gavin is going to have to resign. Aren’t those kinds of appointments “at the pleasure of the President”? Rather than threatening the President-Elect, he should be job hunting about now.

      • An example of sampling is that they use Arctic land base stations to represent the temperature of the entire Arctic.

        Except, that makes no sense. If water is 1% ice or 99% ice the temperature is the same. {Keep in mind that the NSIDC reports the surface area with 15% of ice on the very surface. Even if it is a puddle on top of the ice, it counts as water.} The air above it would respond to that temperature. It doesn’t work like this on land. But, the Arctic is reported to be the are warming the fastest.

      • ‘Aren’t those kinds of appointments “at the pleasure of the President”?’
        No. Jastrow was GISS director from 1961-1981, Hansen from 1981-2013 (Reagan to Obama), and Gavin since.

      • “Except, that makes no sense. If water is 1% ice or 99% ice the temperature is the same”
        No, it’s general experience that Arctic temperatures, even over sea-ice, are not bounded below by -1.8°C. Basically, sea ice separates land and water, so temperature over it is like land.

        But now we have satellites. Here is a recent paper based on AVHRR surface data. The following fig shows trends measured since 1981. Notew that it finds Arctic trend of 0.69&degC/decade, similar to GISS Arctic 0.60.

      • Nick Stokes
        November 17, 2016 at 1:38 am

        No skeptic needs to calculate his or her own series. How about just using NOAA’s own GASTA from before it started gross, unwarranted adjustments?

        Then go with figures that haven’t been bent, folded, spindled and mutilated beyond their mother’s recognition for after that time, c. 1998.

      • It’s not up to us to fix the problems with your network. The fact that even outsiders can see the problems means that you should have been able to see them as well.

      • Sorry for the late reply:
        Would you care to explain away the emails that were leaked/hacked from GISS 5-6 years ago between Hansen and some of his team which clearly indicated that the series were being regularly “adjusted”. We have evidence that would foolish to deny that all those ‘adjustments” follow the same pattern – past gets colder, present gets warmer.
        And the fact that the GISS series are the ones that differ the most from the RSS, UAH satellite and the radio sond Lower Troposphere data series? We are far beyond the point of accepting that stuff as some sort of happenstance and the GISS at face value. Naivety comes in various forms – I’ll take the hazmat suit.

      • Nick,

        Gavin is clearly without a shred of honor. He’s a lying weasel and abject coward, with the waste of trillions in treasure and deaths of millions of people (not to mention birds and bats) on his greedy, grubby, bloody hands.

      • ‘Would you care to explain away the emails that were leaked/hacked from GISS 5-6 years ago between Hansen and some of his team which clearly indicated that the series were being regularly “adjusted”. ‘
        Until November 2011, GISS used GHCN V2 unadjusted, and made their own homogenisation. From then, they used GHCN V3 adjusted, and didn’t do their own. GHCN V3 came out in 2011.

    • The quote is,
      ‘in contrast to Mr Trump’s remarks about a hoax, Dr Schmidt said the scientific evidence for climate change was robust and defended the researchers studying it.’
      Good for him.
      next all he has to do is prove that climate change is catastrophic and anthropogenic.
      If he does that, his job and the jobs of thousands of his fellows will be safe and secure.
      If he does not, then the money spent on him and those thousands of model builders and helpers will be diverted to something else productive.
      Maybe its time for a debate.
      He has nothing to lose, after all, the planet and nature does not respect position or power.

      • next all he has to do is prove that climate change is catastrophic and anthropogenic.

        Gavin’s problem is manyfold.

        Prove there is a significant AGW,
        prove the AGW is significantly dangerous,
        prove mitigation works,
        and suggest what mitigation methods politicians have.

        I think the first is doable, the second is difficult, the third is just untrue, and the fourth is consists of ridiculously inefficient or harmful methods.

      • To me, ” data ” is what it says on the thermometer’s readout. I know how to read a thermometer; any kind of thermometer.
        Now I have never seen an ” Anomalometer ” so I wouldn’t know how to read one of those, unless it is a whole lot more intuitive than Micro$oft Office.

        I believe that the middle OA in NOAA stand for Ocean(ic) and Atmosphere(ic), and I suspect that those are two of the three places where any manifestation of ” Climate ” actually happens; the third being ” Land(ic) “.

        As far as I know, once you are outside of planet earth, in outer space; there isn’t any such thing as “climate “, so for the life of me, I don’t see what it has to do with NASA or rockets.

        And I still don’t understand why you report any numbers besides the ones that you read off the anomalometers.

        Anybody who ever had anything to do with process control, knows that if you want to control the value of a process variable (v), with feedback system control loops, you MEASURE the instantaneous value of (v) and you force that to the ” set point “.

        What you NEVER do, is MEASURE something (anything) ELSE, and then ASSUME some rigid formal relationship between (v) and anything else, and base your feedback set point on something else, rather than (v).
        Systems that do the latter are often called ” bombs “. because they often blow up.

        The reading on a thermometer (or anomalometer) is something real that you can observe.

        Anything else that you can do with that reading (number) is a creation of the fictional art form known as mathematics, and does not belong in the universe of real things.

        G

      • Hugs
        November 17, 2016 at 6:42 am

        IMO significant AGW has not been proven and probably can’t be. Whatever warming has actually happened since CO2 started rising monotonously after WWII is nothing out of the ordinary, hence the null hypothesis can’t be rejected. There is no human fingerprint, thus no significant AGW, if any Anthropogenic sign at all.

        The biggest, yet still negligible, human effect on GASTA (to the extent it can be measured) may be from cleaning up the atmosphere since the 1970s, thanks to environmental efforts by the so-called First World, then after the fall of the USSR, the Second World. China and India are dirtying it back up again, but globally we’re still better off than when the developed countries had polluted air.

        People also contribute to cooling by our aerosols. So we don’t even know the net sign of human effects.

      • @Nick Stokes.”””””….. The Earth’s global temperature is sampled. That is inevitable in any kind of measurement. …..”””””

        There’s THAT word.

        I would probably agree that as far as UAH and RSS, the earth’s Temperature is “sampled” sans the extreme polar latitudes.

        As far as surface based data measurements are concerned, that’s a joke to say the Temperatures are sampled. They are sampled in the sense that the Yamal Christmas tree was a sampling of Russian Temperatures.

        “Sampling” means obtaining a minimum of 2Bt INDEPENDENT measures of a band limited (B) function per second for a time variable sample, and the corresponding number for a spatial variable sample.

        In the case of the surface Temperature sampling, the twice a day, or min-max samples are only sufficient for a Temperature cycle that is strictly sinusoidal with NO harmonic content whatsoever, and nowhere on earth experiences such a diurnal Temperature cycle.
        And for the spatial samples, that a total joke, and is short of the minimum by many orders of magnitude. Well Hansen says you only have to measure every 1200 km. You can have hundreds of spatial Temperature cycles over a distance of 1200 km at the surface.

        So NO the global surface Temperatures are NOT sampled; not even half pie sampled.

        G

    • Nick Sokes wrote:
      “It puzzles me that people are so confident in the wrongness of GISS when they can’t muster the skill or energy to try to do their own”
      So Nick, if one doesnt create and compute one’s own overnight interbank lending rate, one is disqualified from noting the abject and widespread fraud associated with the LIBOR?
      Your rationale seems to me, to be absurd.

      • Well Nick, I can’t play a Beethoven Symphony all by myself either, but I have no need to even contemplate doing so, because there are plenty of competent orchestras that are quite capable of doing that any time I want to hear a Beethoven Symphony.

        And as for wanting to know what earth’s global mean Temperature is doing; I have no interest whatsoever in that, as it hasn’t done anything magical for the last 600 million years; nor have I noticed any untoward changes anywhere I have been in the last 3/4 century at least, so I have no interest in knowing what the global Temperature is even thought to be, let alone what it is.

        G

      • EternalOptimist:
        We can of course make up stories about space, but we shouldn’t make claims about how space works in real life unless we’ve actually studied it. We can always speculate, but we shouldn’t claim that our speculations are more worth than the estimates of scientists who’ve spent years researching it. That said, I do believe that it’s valuable to listen to all scientists in the field, even those with controversial views, although it’s important to not just cherry-pick a few but try to get as broad a view as possible.

        george e. smith:
        If you have little or no interest in the subject, then you should leave it to the experts who know how to write symphonies to settle if there is a threatening man-made climate change or not, and stay neutral on the topic yourself.

      • Hannes: The problem is that it is patently obvious to even a casual observer that the so called “experts” aren’t doing that.
        The claim that a few thousand measuring stations concentrated in 1 to 2% of the world’s surface is capable of measuring the earth’s temperature to within a tenth of a degree is utterly laughable. And I haven’t even started with the numerous, well documented quality control problems with most of the sensors.

    • Nick — those answers are night and day. When you test the iron and then ship it to the customer, someone will check it on the receiving end. If they don’t, then you may find the actual iron content slowly drifts down over time because there are $50 billion at stake. If there is a disagreement, then you will find an independent third lab to reconcile them — else the customers will find a new supply of iron. No business would get conducted without these verifications.

      There is no receiving end on temperatures. When people criticize the results, then are demeaned, mocked and ostracized as oil industry plants. This is the phenomena of sampling temperatures. We need to have someone independently verify these results so that we can rely on them. Failing that, we have legitimate doubts. Instead of $50 billion, there is trillions at stake.

      • “There is no receiving end on temperatures.”
        Actually, there is. We’re talking about the simple act of calculating the time/spatial average of a whole lot of data in the public domain. That’s the point of my simple challenge – instead of endless kvetching, calculate your own. Then you can have some basis for asserting how right or wrong it is, instead of just windy assertions.

        “We need to have someone independently verify these results so that we can rely on them.”
        Don’t just talk about it. Do it. I do.

    • Nick Stokes November 17, 2016 at 4:46 pm

      Thanks for the reply.

      I miss read ” If you want to value how much iron ore you are shipping,”
      All of us compare to many apples and eggs, which cloud the issue.
      Sampling may be acceptable for financial transactions but for the level of precision needed for determining slight changes it won’t work.

      michael

      Nick as a worker bee, I have shut down assembly lines on much less cause. And I was right.

  1. Good point about criticizing the new president verses the out going one. We are in for many desperate battles with climate change being just one. For every action we take to dismantle the self interested bureaucracy we should take a very public action that is popular.

    Let them fight the people.

  2. Sounds like Schmidt is admitting to significant levels of hanky-panky going on over at NASA.

    Sounds like the best thing Trump can do is investigate and drain the NASA swamp too!

    Those climate hucksters and shysters won’t be missed.

    Not. One. Bit.

  3. Schmidt’s smug, condescending attitude towards those seeing constructive climate debate is unwarranted – unless he has an agenda and/or is trying to hide something…..

    Should Schmidt decide to resign: Happy Thanks Gavin-ing!

    • Don

      “Schmidt’s smug, condescending attitude” is common to all liberal “elites”. They “know” that they are smarter, better educated, and better informed than anyone else and will not tolerate any disagreement with their vastly superior opinions. Your “facts” have no bearing because they already know.

      Where’s Grif when you need him? Has he created his new ID yet?

      • Anyone who has a teenager has heard the phrase “I just know it!’ It the first indication of an unformed, malformed, deformed, etc. brain that isn’t fully matured. The connections just aren’t there to allow rational, logical thought. Anyone that is liberal and over 30 will probably never achieve those connections and will just keep on saying that “i know what you should be doing or I know how you should live”.

  4. “Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has ‘warned’ ”

    Every time I see the word “warned” in an article like this, I think “threatened”. Who is this guy to be telling his new boss what he is allowed to do?

    And isn’t this an awful case of the pot calling the kettle black? Under Gavin Schmidt, NASA has interfered in the official climate record to an obscene level.

    • to warn is not to threat and trump is not his boss… but it is quite a political statement from schmit… usually scientist have to convince polticiansthat theirs researchs are “good” for country in order to be funded..here, schmdt sees that trump may not agree so he tries to shortcut him and talk to the people directly..he wants to change the rules of a democratic country and make scientists above democracy..
      in a word scientists alone should decide themseves about funding science.

      • Jacques
        The new administration will very much be GISS/Schmidt’s boss as of January. Trumps has made his views on climate just as explicitly clear as the current occupant of the White House and those views do not bode well for a lot of people across the various US climate/energy related agencies who have built and have been riding the green alarmist gravy train for years.
        And they all know it. Last week we learnt that the EPA has made available counselors to help employees there with the “grief”…. As they say: knowing you’re going to be executed at dawn singularly focusses the mind.

      • yeah the hard light of democracy is pretty tough for those who don’t believe in it. I hope they have lots of money left for creating “comfort zones” and buying extra teddy bears for their staff to hug. It’s going to a very difficult time . Sob, sob.

      • Not only will Trump be his new boss in January.
        His old boss Charlie “Muslim Outreach” Bolden will be gone.
        Maybe better to keep your head down.

    • Ya gotta love the gavinator’s attempt to frame the argument as “climate change”.
      Not that he can fool many people, outside of confirmed alarmists, believers and pseudo journalists.

      Misdirection and sleight of hand.

    • “Under Gavin Schmidt, NASA has interfered in the official climate record to an obscene level.”

      To a criminal level, imo, considering all the harm their CAGW deception has done to the entire world.

    • I discovered that tactic back when I was a beginning 19-year-old card-counter at a small casino in Northern Nevada. To draw attention away from one’s own cheating, accuse the victim of cheating you. The dealer was cheating ME, but accused me of bending the corners of certain cards to help identify them. Actually, he was stacking the deck on me.

  5. I like this statement by Gavin Schmidt

    “Government science and things generally go on regardless of the political views of the people at the top,” Dr Schmidt said. “The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way or asked not to talk about your results. Those would be much more serious issues.”

    So skewing your results is bad but skewing the source data is acceptable
    AND
    Not sharing your results is bad but not sharing your data is good
    Sounds like yet another hypocrite with far too much power
    Definitely time to refocus NASA’s efforts on their primary mission and if Gavin doesn’t wanna play, let him go home.

      • Right – the Alarmists love to use science language such as “results” and “studies” and “data” and even sometimes “experiment” when in fact all they have are unproved models and output from unproved models.

    • Agreed. Normally bureaucrats and their minions, perform the same tasks no matter who is in charge.

      It is a whole different case where activism has pushed aside honest work. Correcting and re-orienting a department’s work is not difficult. Nor will any investigations be difficult, if any evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered. Substantial malfeasance ensures that investigations will not overlook retirees.

      • Why bad models? For over twenty years!?
      • Why use models instead of actual temperatures?
      • How much of the science uses models built upon bad models?
      • Why use an inhomogeneous network of thousands of poorly placed, poorly maintained, errors ignored unique temperature placements, summed into an alleged average that fails to represent Earth?
      • Why, in spite of Nick’s claims, adjust the past colder and the present warmer?
      • Why adjust temperatures ever!! Adjusting a temperature due to TOBS differences is guessing, not correcting!
      • Why fill in empty data with station data smeared from up to 1200km away?
      • Why adjust SST because of shipboard engine mount temperatures?
      • Why use CO2 models when a perfectly good OCO-2 satellite is visualizing CO2 concentrations?
      • Why summarize data from origin through manipulation without keeping track of actual error rates; then present the final numbers with proper error rates calculated.

      Yeah yeah, 38% certain; can one yell louder, I do not know!

      And that “peer reviewed” science claim regarding CAGW science will be properly respected. heh heh.

      • ATheoK said, “Correcting and re-orienting a department’s work is not difficult.”

        Au contraire – it is extraordinarily difficult and time-consuming to correct and re-orient a department’s work, even if activism is not at work. To intentionally and purposefully change the way things are done – and the attitudes that led them to be done that way in the first place – sometimes requires years of effort, because the people involved are entrenched in a certain way of thinking and doing. Some people will quit. Some people will change. And some new people will be hired. But it won’t be easy for the folks who are responsible for making the change happen.

      • It is not hard.

        What you state is people unwilling to change. No that is not unusual. But people rarely quit unless provoked. Oddly the ones who do quit are often both the most ingenious, yet the least tractable.

        People that you would like to quit rarely do.

        I’ve locked up hand and desk calculators, removed accounting tablets, hid excess pens and pencils leaving only red ones; then after repeated education attempts, excessed employees and eliminated their positions.
        The department then got analyzed, positions rewritten that explicitly demand requisite skills and experience with the necessary technology. One department completely restructured and reorganized with two thirds of the staff retuning to work floor environments.

        Another method is to take a department and seek out work despised by other groups.
        It is amazing to watch qualified people eager to prove their worth by conquering impossible/difficult tasks; first as individuals, then as a team. That reorganization was far easier, with most of the work convincing disappointed unenthused employees of their value, one day at a time; and sometimes one hour at a time.

        Again, it is not difficult. It does take determination, a boss that backs your work and obstinate refusal to believe “It can’t be done”.

        e.g. A County hired a tough new police Commissioner who waded into police departments that refused modernity.
        There are a number of applications that go through police channels.
        The Commissioner informed his staff that changing to a paperless environment mandates eliminating manual paper work.
        He got a lot of grief and claims that such programming would take years.
        So the Commissioner walked into the stations and went through the paper work. He held each paper application up and declared that each form would be computer processed with 48 hours, until a quicker program was developed.
        Officers that refused to do the work were disciplined and reassigned, until he reached younger officers who were not afraid of computers. The newer officers developed their own programs within months.

        That was just one way, a new Commissioner changed an entire County’s police department to be more efficient, more responsive to the public and less distanced.

      • Government science is like regular science only slower, much more expensive, unaccountable and WRONG!

      • Government Science is science bought by use of government funding requiring a political bent to garner further government funding. It’s called feeding the cash cow to get more money

    • “asked not to talk about your results”… as was the EPA scientist “skeptic” whose results destroyed the EPA claim of dangerous CO2 “pollution”.

  6. The Gavin Schmidt tail will be docked. The corruption of the NASA mission by the climate-ecomongers at GISS will come to an end.

    • Schmidt should be just be let go. His manipulations of data would be enough to fire anybody from their job, be it NASA or the corner grocery store

      • Frog march him right out of there and secure the hard-drives until they can be copied and examined … I’ll bet that Schmuckzie has his own personal server ;-)

  7. Resign??? that would be a great way to clear the decks of the Climate Hustlers. I think everyone sees that.

    GS civil service protections make firing somewhat difficult. Maybe @climateofgavin could become @mailroomboyofgavin?

    • The only words Schmidt s ever likely to hear from President Trump are..

      YOU’RE FIRED

      Good luck finding a park bench Gavin..

      There will be lots of your fellow scammers seeking them out as well.

    • @joelobryan
      As someone who has existed in the NASA realm.
      I can assure you that raising the ire of your superiors is a good way to find yourself “repurposed”.
      “Hey Gavin, we need a new Director of Paper Clip Allocation”

    • Having done research for EPA for over 20 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, I know how changes are made with regard to career employees and political policies. First, there are several layers of top level political appointees that are sworn to support the administration’s policies, Second, reorganization both within and between agencies, Third, and most used is reassignment of individuals to positions that they want like so they will either retire or resign.

      • Mr. Schmidt knows it, too.

        Asked if he would resign if the Trump administration adopted the most extreme form of climate change denial, Dr Schmidt said this was “an interesting question”. It would not cause him to quit “in and of itself”, he said. …

        IOW: He’ll stay unless he is “reassigned.”

        Hm. How about that new position in the Arctic? (from job listing) Weather Station Maintenance Technician — North Region — Help us keep the Arctic safe for polar bears. Responsible for calibration, data collection, and general upkeep of all Arctic weather stations. Travel required. Proficient with shot gun. Must have completed Survival at Subzero Refresher Course within 2 weeks of hiring. Excellent pay and benefits (afteryouhaveworkedtherefor5years).

    • Gavin Schmidt ought to consider himself lucky if he is offered the opportunity to resign. He should have been dismissed quite some time ago for perpetrating the real fraud that contributes to the hoax.

    • Firing a government bureaucrat is hard. Doing Reduction in Force, “RIF”: is much easier. Eliminating the entire GISS temperature calculation group as redundant and uneccessary, accomplishes more. and quickly. They can scurry for appointments elsewhere say at NOAA can supply a refuge for some. The way to stop that is to notify associated agencies of planed manpower reductions, thus providing no home to run to, eliminates the future exile resistance as well.

      You just have to know how to play the federal employment game.

  8. Warning the President? What is he going to do if President Trump closes GISS, change all the temperatures back to the original?

  9. Schmidt should look outside and see if that building on Broadway his office is in has a for sale sign on it yet!

    Put it up for bid! Heck maybe then it could be bought by Ivanka and converted into a grand Trump Hotel?

    Schmidt thinks he is going to resign if Trump starts messing with his area. What do you suppose will happen first? His resignation or his position being eliminated? We ought to start a pool on that.

  10. Didn’t NASA use to spend their money on space research and getting American astronauts into space ? Now they have to hitch a ride on a 1960s Russian space taxi to get there while the bucks get spent on Gavin’s folly .

    • As one who was born in 1958, & witnessed all the efforts of NASA, the successes, & the tragic failures, getting to the moon first & beating the Soviets, it saddens me deeply that this once wonderful & inspiring organisation, has fallen & plumetted the depths of arrogance! Whenever I need a lift, I watch Apollo 13!

      • NASA has all the talent and hardware they need to get back into space in a big way. What NASA needs is a leader with vision, not a bureaucrat, who never looks up.

        NASA could do twice as much at the same cost with a good leader who actually sees the Big Picture. There are people out there with the qualifications. The problem is getting the right person in the right job at the right time. Kind of like putting Trump in Office.

        We have the right person in the White House. Now, we need to get the right person to lead NASA and the human race into deeper space.

      • As an employee of Rocketdyne and JPL in the 50s and 60s (and an avid SF fan) “getting to the moon first & beating the Soviets” always struck me as a reprise of the effort of Lief Ericson, or the Chinese Armada. The Earth is still awaiting its Space Columbus, to make a lasting contribution to extraterrestrial expansion.

  11. Sounds like an invitation for the new administration to take a closer look at the “things (that) generally go on” there.

    • Absolutely. Trump start a process to make the inner workings of GISS open. I suspect GISS is very politicized.

    • The closer you look at Obama the more difficult it is to not reach the conclusion that he is indeed some kind of deep undercover mole attempting to bring down the US. Never been one for conspiracies but can that statement about NASA’s highest priority really leave any serious doubt?

    • It was clear from the start that Obama hated NASA because Americans were proud of it, so he changed its mission to things like Muslim outreach, which fundamentally transformed our pride to revulsion.

      The left have done the same thing with the NFL and for the same reason, First, injecting racial and political divisions, and now having players insult America, thus repulsing former fans from the game.

      • I disagree. Pushing for NASA to use commercial launches wherever possible is one of the few good things Obama has done. Unfortunately, Congress ignored him, and ordered NASA to build their own rocket that will cost 10x as much to launch as the commercial options, if it ever flies.

      • MarkG November 17, 2016 at 7:12 am

        No MarkG I like the fact that the private sector is trying to get into the near earth orbit game, but still no man -safe system. To many launch failures. The new NASA system which now in the test stage will be capable of deep space missions, Mars and possibly Jupiter. None of the private sector system are past the design stage.
        While there are some capsules that could be rated man capable the launch vehicles are still to unreliable.
        Only NASA has the expertise and financial resources for such enterprises. Russians are still using the original Soyuz capsules. China copied it for their program.
        Also it needs to be pointed out that these private companies are funded by the US government, which amounts to a duplication of effort which we can not afford at this time. Sometime it just has to be accepted, there are somethings that government do better and that only governments can do. Space exploration at this time is one of those.

        michael

      • “To many launch failures.”

        The shuttle killed its crew one time in sixty. It’ll be pretty hard for a private launcher to have a safety record that bad.

        And SLS will do little that Falcon Heavy won’t do, except cost 10x as much and keep a lot of people employed in important Congressional districts.

      • MarkG November 17, 2016 at 7:29 pm

        “The shuttle killed its crew one time in sixty. It’ll be pretty hard for a private launcher to have a safety record that bad.”

        True we lost two shuttles. Now add in the Mercury Gemini and Apollo, also add in Soviet – Russian launchs.
        Considering the private sector can not even reliable deliver lunch let alone send a manned mission up.
        Lets be honest the Russians have to keep a booster ready to back stop our private sector fails. We are suppose to be pulling our weight, how many times has Ivan had to rush a shipment of borscht up to the space station because we are playing corporate welfare with are space program.

        Game over, turn things back over to the folks who know what they are doing.
        If you want to subsidize private section okay, lets see if they at least get delivering lunch down pat. But stop paying Ivan ro back stop them.
        Or did you think Putin did it for free.

        michael

        Oh I also know about White he and the other two were childhood heroes

  12. “the climate is changing and you can try to deny it”

    When has any sceptic denied that the climate has changed, will change, changes? He’s so full of sh1t his eyes are brown.

  13. I met Gavin at a conference back in 2008 or so, and we discussed (sort of) the climate of Alaska. I had just finished a report which showed that there was NO global warming trend up there, looking at the entire period of record data (since the 1899 gold rush). His first words were “cherry picking”, which apparently is his first and only response to anything that shows he’s wrong.
    So use of all the data for the whole period of record is cherry picking, in Gavinworld.
    Such an arrogant puffball.
    Now as a “civil servant” he is warning his new boss.
    Aren’t civil service jobs to serve the country, not the servant?
    Get rid of him.

  14. Something unusual happening with temperatures at the DMI Daily Arctic mean temperatures north of 80N.
    Way above normal for this time of year and prolonged.
    Either DMI has some more serious explaining to do or something weird is happening to the climate.
    I certainly hope the former.

  15. The BBC has the story as NASA warning Trump. The BBC is pushing the story as if its the whole of NASA that is warning Trump. The reality is that its a has-been desperate to save his job making up a story, but then the BBC is a climate war monger.

    • @sadbutmadlad
      Just a comment. I know from long history that NASA does not antagonize those that hold the purse strings. A President Trump would fall into that category.

  16. “Dr Schmidt said. ‘The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way….’.”

    I’m holding my sides. I think I may have hurt myself.

  17. Cut the funding and they’ll all go away. If their research is legitimate I’m sure they’ll find private investors to “fight the good fight”.

    • that is the good test , if they really are out to ‘save the planet ‘ will they carry on after the glory and the cash is no longer there , or fade away because the planet in the end does not need saving ?

  18. I think we shouldn’t be too harsh with these guys. However clever you are it is hard to grapple with opposing points of view when your continued employment depends on your not grappling with it. Besides he is a mathematician, a humble modeller, and may not have the experience to evaluate real world data

  19. Never really understood why NASA was doing climate anyway. I guess in today’s world its a way to snag funding. Looks like the Data Massager In Chief is going out fighting.

    • yarpos —

      In the public mind NASA had a sky high reputation. Climate fraud has hid behind that reputation right from the beginner. That is why NASA was brought into doing climate. It was the perfect front for the coming intended fraud.

      Eugene WR Gallun

  20. Gavin Schmidt is use to bullying people. He may not get a chance to resign.
    Oh and if he has destroyed any records he might as well cover himself with jelly cause he’s toast. No one is going to spend any effort to protect him, they will all be making their deals.
    Also the progressives are still looking for a sacrificial lamb, since he is really not one of them, he can be thrown to the wolves.
    Cagw was President Obama’s legacy in waiting. None of the progressives are going to tie themselves to his ego. Once the facts start bubbling out everyone will be pointing fingers saying well he (Gavin Schmidt, or spin the wheel) was the expert I never dreamed he would deceive or mislead me. Oh dear!

    michael

  21. Ding Dong the witch is dead!

    Trump doesn’t understand much about climate science but Obama had it exactly wrong for 8 years and Trump is going in the opposite direction.

    The climate munchkins are celebrating their freedom.

    Which old witch, the climate witch(-:

    • Nobody can know everything. The trick is to surround yourself with trustworthy people who know the things that you don’t.

      • Yes, but you must be able to understand what those trustworthy people tell you, or else you won’t be able to determine if they are trustworthy or not.

        Blindly relying on others to tell you what you don’t know is… not good.

  22. ” “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

    Mr. Schmidt, could you explain to me, when was the climate NOT changing ?

  23. Asked if he would resign if the Trump administration adopted the most extreme form of climate change denial,
    he answered , not has long has the gravy train keeps rolling and to be frank I would have a hard time getting a job anywhere else . No I am looking to count down the clock to retirement, and walk away with fat pension and to do that after doing virtual nothing that was any use to anyone else but my own ego .

  24. Proud to say that not a single comment I have ever made on RealClimate™ has made it through moderation. Not even in the “borehole”. Not one.

    • My own record in this regard is sullied by one very innocuous comment that was posted…out of maybe fifty. My notion is the moderators have to read them.

      For them the debate is over, the science settled. All they are willing to do is commiserate with the choir boys on that site.

  25. ” Schmidt maintains the GISS global temperature series, arguably the most adjusted of all the global temperature products.”

    This is not true. The only adjustment that GISS applies is the UHI adjustment, based on satellite observed night lights..
    GHCN adjusts met station data, but GHCN is a NOAA subdivision, not GISS/NASA.
    GISS simply use met station and SST data as they come, delivered by NOAA..

    • So you’re saying that GISS further manipulates the already manipulated ‘data’ as they come from NOAA … that’s manipulation by an order of magnitude, no wonder they can’t be trusted. So Schmukzie really is just the last crook in the congo line of ‘climate’ shysters.

      • GISS V RSS (5 year averages matched at 1981)

        And you say GISS is cooling the real data .. seriously , you have to be JOKING.

        roflmao..

        There are so many places where the real data is cooling , but GISS and the other mal-adjusters have changed it to warming. Its a FRAUD and a FARCE.

        You can ignore all those.. but it only make you look like a propaganda fool.

      • O R November 17, 2016 at 2:18 am

        Yes, GISS cool the temperature trend of the real world, to that of a fictive non-urban world..

        Here’s a shocker:

        2.7% of the world’s land (excluding Antarctica) is occupied by urban development. link

        The above link makes the point that even 2.7% may be an overestimate.

        The vast majority of the world is non-urban and the vast majority of the climate happens in non-urban areas. It is a problem, then, if climate data over represents urban areas. It is also a problem that vast areas of the planet have no surface stations and are represented by estimated data.

      • commieBob —

        Only 2.7% of the earth is urban. Thankyou for calling OR on that. I was going to call him an idiot but didn’t have the data on hand to back it up.

        Eugene WR Gallun

        PS — Maybe OR is counting all the floating cities that cover our oceans, do you think?

      • O R
        November 17, 2016 at 2:18 am

        YHGTBSM!

        GISS is so corrupt that their algorithm for UHI adjustment actually makes the “data” series hotter rather than cooler.

        On Trump’s first day, he should shut down the criminal enterprises of GISS and NCAR, effective immediately. And banish all NOAA leadership drones who can’t be fired to Alaska, Siberia not being available. Better yet, the South Pole.

      • commieBob,
        I’m glad to hear that the effect is so small globally (but still on the conservative side). However, in densely populated European countries, typically 10% of the total area is considered urban.
        And yes, it is important to restrict the influence of urban met stations to urban areas only, when making large scale/global averages.

        The need for near complete global station coverage is somewhat exaggerated. The global warming signal is easily picked up by very few stations.
        I did this exercise i while ago. If UAH only were allowed to retrieve satellite readings from 18 points, equally spread worldwide, few people would notice the difference when it comes to global change..
        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewadExwM3VOaVJBUU0

      • “The global warming signal is easily picked up by very few stations.”

        If you choose those stations carefully.

        Do make sure they are urban stations, though or at least have a strong urban signal.

      • Actually, let’s choose the SoPol region as one of those measurements shall we.

        and just to check

        Here is Japan from 1950-1990 the 40 year of strong development

        There was a slight step mid 1990’s then this

        And just for good measure . lets choose the NoPol region this century before the current El Nino.

        Yep.. warming signals everywhere.. NOT !!!

      • Because everyone knows that urban and El Nino and AMO/PD effects are the ONLY warming in the whole satellite record.

      • Actually.. that’s a thing about the satellite data.. urban effects are basically gone, because, unlike GISS it isn’t HIGHLY BIASED towards urban measurements, but also measure way more than 50% of the surface.

        Fabrication of data is not required like in GISS.

      • To AndyG55, the guy who can’t find a straw in a haystack….

        Here is some “trend-dropping” from the North Pole region, 80N-90N, 1997-2016:
        Plain averages for what is found in the zone, missing gridcells ignored…

        Satellites
        RSS 3.3 TLT 0,7 C/decade
        UAH 5.6 TLT 0.7 C/decade

        Surface
        Gistemp loti 0.9 C C/decade
        Cowtan & WAY 1.4 C/decade
        CRUTEM4.5 1.5 C/decade
        GHCN/CAMS 0.9 C/ decade

        Reanalyses 2m temp
        MERRA2 0.9 C/decade
        NCEP/NCAR 1.2 C/decade
        ERA-interim 1.7 C/decade

      • AndyG55, if you think I cherrypicked 18 points, that’s not true. Its a regular pattern and first try.
        Only 0.17% of the global spatial temperature information is used:

      • Population data is easy to acquire. The census bureau provides population data broken out geographically.
        The only reason to use night lights to estimate population is because you don’t want to produce accurate results.

      • For those who can read: In the Hansen 2010 paper where they used unadjusted GHCN 2, the UHI adjustment brought down the CONUS long-term trend by 10%
        Nowadays when GISS use adjusted GHCN 3, the nightlighs UHI adjustment has no significant effect, because the GHCN algorithm has already eliminated UHI bias.
        This phenomenon is well known; a belt has little effect on your pants if you already are wearing suspenders..

  26. ” The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

    Of course the climate is changing! What sort of scientist is this guy?

    Why dosn’t he prove that it is the fault of mankind if he is so smart?

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  27. “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.

    ADFAIK DT never disputed that the clamate is changing – and will be changing until the Good Lord takes other decisions.
    I hope that DT manages to get the databenders off the trough.

  28. Gavin Schmidt refused to even sit at the same table as Roy Spencer when John Stossel interviewed the both of them 2 years ago. What Gavin and “climate inc.” wouldn’t and won’t admit is the uncertainty of their suppositions, which always ends with their invocation of the precautionary principle. “But, what if were right?” Yes, let’s spend 10% of GDP on non-solutions to non-existent problems so that nerds can virtue signal.

  29. I reckon he’ll be looking for a new job. Donald loves people who tell him not to do things. On ya bike, sport.

  30. Quote: The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.

    Who could possibly disagree?

    Breaking it down:
    The climate is changing – correct
    You can try to deny it – correct
    You can appoint people who don’t care – correct
    Nature has the last vote – correct

    Here’s hoping Mr Schmidt and associates get everything they have coming to him.

  31. “It is expected that there will be discrepancies between models and observations. However, why these arise and what one should conclude from them are interesting and more subtle than most people realize. Indeed, such discrepancies are the classic way we learn something new.” — Gavin Schmidt on RealClimate.org https://www.ted.com/speakers/gavin_schmidt

    Learned something yet, Mr Schmidt??

    • Give it time and he may learn the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln’s words: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

    • Isn’t it odd that the main thing which is to be learned i.e. that the models and by extension the hypotheses and assumptions they encapsulate are simply wrong is the very thing which must never even be considered. This is how we know that what we are dealing with here is completely outside of the purview of science and lies solely in the supernatural ‘Magisterium’.

  32. Two quotes from Gavin Schmidt :
    “If the models are as flawed as critics say you have to ask yourself, ‘How come they work? ‘ “
    and
    “It’s the whole or it’s nothing.”

    It might come as a surprise to the NASA’s supremo that models don’t work, not whole, not even partially; and as you said Gavin the climate models are worth ‘nothing’.

  33. A new NASA brief and Judith Curry as new head of GISS. Then have the data processing by Gavin c.s. vetted by the physicists of the Argonne Lab or the National Bureau of Standards. There won’t be much left of it, but the new analysis would produce an authoritive temperature record, which then in its turn will expose the machinations going into the other data sets.

    • Why? Dump GISS. Get NASA back in the space exploration business. We have NOAA to worry about our weather, climate, ocean and atmosphere. The whole idea of needing multiple government agencies to do the same thing is ridiculous and as a taxpayer I feel cheated and abused.

      You’re fired Gavin.

  34. I think Gavin Schmidt is simply worried about being shuffled off “down the hall” to NOAA, instead of NASA… the office where weather studies, climate research (legitimate or otherwise) & other Earth-observing missions should have been in the first place. I’m quite certain he understands very well indeed that saying “I work for NOAA” is pretty cool, but “I work for NASA” is waaay sexier. ~_^

    In all seriousness, having put himself “out there” in the media eye, now if he gets fired he can claim “oppression” & get all sorts of street cred from those who firmly believe that the next Administration is nothing more than the Second Coming of Adolphus Minimus. The usual Soros-funded “advocacy” groups will no doubt reward him handsomely to trot out his sob story at every opportunity, to weep publically about how his “deeply held, eminently scientific views” were “discriminated” against, and how he “lost everything” at the hands of this “denialist” Administration.

    Oh, the humanity. :P

  35. I do hope that Trumph/Cruz/Smith will set up a commission or two to look into the GISS and NOAA temperature records as well as U of C Boulder satellite sea level measurements and how they spliced these on to gauge measurements without continuing gauge measurements for comparison and adjustment. If US universities will not produce the qualified scientists and statisticians to man such commissions then I am sure that Trump’s oil and gas connections will find competent scientists and statisticians from their own ranks who have demonstrated competence in having their projections confirmed with actual finds. This needs to happen asap after 12.01 on 20 January 2017. We need to know from sources other than Tony Heller and a few others what actually has been happening to the original readings to produce “man made global warming”. This is essential to be able to confront and destroy the various UN agencies (including IPCC) plotting to extract $100 billion p.a. from the so-called “developed world”. Steinbeck would not recognise NOAA’s USA temperatures in the thirties as they are today.

    • I vaguely recall there being some Canadian chap with a mining background who’s a bit of a whizz at number crunching. Perhaps he could help?

    • John Peter November 17, 2016 at 1:53 am

      +1.
      In particular the comment about data scrutiny from other people. NASA/GISS and NOAA’s data should be put through the wringer. If it’s found to have been tampered with or wrongly adjusted, well there’s ways of dealing with the guilty parties.

      • Antarctica is far too close, at least to me, and why offend the gorillas by sending him to the Congo. In keeping with the original aim of his organisation might I suggest Tranquility Base?

      • Richard of NZ:
        What? Send Gavin into space on one of those rockets he didn’t help design?
        I like it!

        And you think the gorillas will refuse to sit at debate tables with Gavin at the same time? agin, you’re probably right.

        But Tranquility aside, Congo it is!

    • Tom Halla — No physical data from central Antarctica’ Send Gavin there to remedy that. — Eugene WR Gallun

  36. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results….”

    Astonishing irony in that comment, knowing that NASA GISS temp is the most highly adjusted (tampered) dataset of all the products, by a mile!

    And what is Schmidt so afraid of if there was an audit of NASA climate practices to check the veracity of their GISS data set through:

    – The highly questionable and radical temperature homogenisation techniques of ‘cooling the past and warming the present’.
    – Spurious temperature in-filling.
    – UHI-effected, poorly sited temp stations?

    Furthermore, the people, the tax payer own NASA, its data and pay Schmidt’s wage.

    It is not climate activist-in-chief Gavin Schmidt’s private playground to tamper data to fit the “global warming” narrative, and use the (once) respected name of “NASA” as a platform to spread blatant climate change activist propaganda with genuine religious zeal, dismissing all remnants of scientific rigour and open enquiry, in favour of, IMHO, open scientific fraud.

    Time to “drain the (climate change) swamp”!

  37. Trump is winding back the clock, http://retrostarwars.com/post/770770301/reagans-star-wars-on-the-cover-of-time-happy Doesn’t he want to spend more on protecting America by increasing Americas military budget and giving the finger to other nations that don’t want to live the American way. It’s no use saving the people from scary CO2 if were only going to blow it up anyway. Imagine what the population of the world would be if all those horny 16 to 25 year old men and boy’s that died in wars would be now. And they died for what , so we could have more of the same down the track. Over time I don’t see man has learnt much at all regarding how to live together. Man still lives by the rule ” if you can’t root it, shoot it or electrocute it ” War is a way to cull the population. When your poor and have no money , sex is the most fun you can have without laughing. that’s why poorer nations have a population problem. We should be helping poorer nations slow down their population growth . A farmer knows how many stock he can have per hectare, well governments look a people the same way, they farm people. The better their fed and the fatter they get means the happier they are and less chance their going to jump the fence looking for greener pastures. A well fed herd will make you more money. All hale the fast food franchise. While I was ranting on I had a good thought on how to help poorer nations deal with overpopulation. We could open up a McDonald’s in every city and hand out the “contraceptive with cheese burger ” or we just get the military to drop “contraceptive with cheese burger” bombs . / SARC

    • jmorpuss

      If this is what you want.

      “We should be helping poorer nations slow down their population growth” .

      then make them prosperous, the countries with the lowest birth rates are the wealthiest. It has nothing to do with war. The US population after WWII was larger than before it started.

      JW

    • jmorpuss

      If this is really your plan…

      “We should be helping poorer nations slow down their population growth”

      then you should make them prosperous. The nations with the lowest birth rates are the wealthiest.

      War has nothing to do with it, between 1935 & 1945 Japan’s population increased by about 5%.

      jw

    • jmorpuss

      If this is really your plan…

      “We should be helping poorer nations slow down their population growth”

      Then you should make them prosperous. The nations with the lowest birth rates are the wealthiest.

      jw

      (Mods, this is my third attempt to post this comment)

    • jmorpuss

      If this really is your wish…

      “We should be helping poorer nations slow down their population growth”

      Then you should make them more prosperous, the nations with the lowest birth rates are the richest.

      jw

  38. I want to see all climate funding stop and I do mean all. Universities, NOAA NASA UKMO EU France. The lot. It has zero commercial value and zero value of any other kind. Defund totally the UN down to the maintenance of the security council and its functionaries.
    Concentrate on a 20 yr, usable, doable energy policy and improve weather models. Blue sky research at 5% of total research budget should allow reasonable progress and a concentration on LTSR up to feasibility and prototype testing.

    • Climate data doesn’t have zero commercial value. I became interested in global warming when I moved to an Arctic project office and had to figure out where/how to build a loading terminal and associated transport vessels.

      So what do you recommend? That we use the Bible to figure out 30 year trends?

  39. It isn’t cause ‘of and by itself to force resignation’ because he won’t find another job like it, with these benefits. If the job does become ‘space based’ he’ll be down the road anyway. Then see how many back their belief with a job offer.

  40. Gavin Schmidt is a liar whose “global warming will kill us all” con has cost millions of people. Many have died in the “heat or eat” scandal we read about in the UK.

    It any swamp needed cleaning, it is the nasty propaganda outfit run by Gavin Schmidt — the workers there should be fired and Gavin should be tried for treason.

      • Scottish Sceptic —

        Republican hold on the Senate is too narrow to appoint any senators to the cabinet. I think Trump knows that.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Not quite. Gov Abbott of Texas is also a Republican, and rather conservative, if not as conservative as Cruz. Abbott would appoint Cruz’s interim replacement, and in Texas, winning the Republican primary for a statewide office has been tantamount to election.

    • Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

      Proverbs 16:18

      Either way it doesn’t look good.

      I expect he’s more worried that the truth about how he faked the moon landings will come out.

  41. So many contributors talk about the scientific data that Schmidt has skewed over he years. For those of us who are not closely involved with the science, could anyone list the many falsehoods that he is being accused of over the years so that we have it on record?

    • no, because they aren’t falsifying anything.

      The adjustments and the reasons for them are there as well as the raw data.

      • TA
        “The fact is, going by the UAH chart, 1998 is the hottest year, with the exception of 2016.”

        Translation…. even with the most conservative of measurements, one that denies the ocean heat… we are warming. But I will use this slither of hope to stick my head in the sand.

    • “could anyone list the many falsehoods that he is being accused of over the years so that we have it on record?”

      Compare the current Gavin surface temperture chart to the UAH satellite chart. See the difference? The UAH chart is the honest chart and the Gavin chart is the dishonest chart.

      Note the year 1998, on both charts. Do you see the difference? The UAH chart is unchanged. The Gavin chart was changed to cool 1998.

      Gavin says it was necessary to cool 1998. Yes, it was necessary in order for Gavin and other climate alarmists to be able to declare “hottest year evah!” as part of their attempt to scare the public about CAGW. Gavin and the guys have been declaring “hottest year evah!” for many years now, and are able to do so by pointing at their bastardized surface temperature chart, but if they used the UAH satellite chart, then they wouldn’t be able to declare “hottest year evah! until Feb. 2016. From 1998 to 2015, 1998, was the “hottest year evah!” according to the UAH chart, but that didn’t fit the CAGW narrative, so Gavin decided to manipulate the surface temperature chart to make it look like just about every year was hotter than the last.

      The surface temperature chart is a propaganda tool, and really the only “evidence” the climate alarmists have that they can show someone. Without that surface temperature chart, they would have had nothing to talk about for the last almost 20 years.

      • TA
        Could you post a more ridiculous statement. Hello…. knock knock. UAH and GISS measure different things. The most obvious being GISS measures heat in the atmosphere and the ocean. The ocean, where most of the heat is going. So, yes of course they look different. And still waiting for the GWPF to do what they said they would and investigate the data. Like most skeptic groups, they just blow hot air. And that is helping no one in a warming world.

      • Simon, GISS is a FABRICATION .

        It comes from data covering barely 50% of the land surface and who knows how little of the sea surface.

        And most of the land surface data they do use, comes from places and stations that are of highly dubious at the very best.

        The discrepancy between GISS and REALITY is a JOKE.

        Here is the 5 year averages normalised to 1981.. It is a FARCE and a JOKE.

      • AndyG55 November 17, 2016 at 12:53 pm
        “Simon, GISS is a FABRICATION .”

        So they must be all fabrications then are they? GISS, Hadcrut, NOAA, Japanese met service. They all show close to the same warming. Isn’t that interesting? That is the only line you lot have. “It’s all made up.” Well can I suggest you wake up….

      • Simon wrote: “Could you post a more ridiculous statement. Hello…. knock knock. UAH and GISS measure different things. The most obvious being GISS measures heat in the atmosphere and the ocean. The ocean, where most of the heat is going. So, yes of course they look different.”

        This Hadcrut3 surface chart also measures “different things” yet its profile is very similar to the UAH satellite chart, with 1998 being the hottest year on the chart. Measuring different things and coming up with the same number.

        Then, modifications were made to the later Hadcrut4 surface chart and changed the chart profile so it did *not* resemble the UAH chart and cooled 1998 so it was not the hottest year on the chart.

        UAH and the surface temperature charts were cruising right along with similar profiles, and then something happened to make them look entirely different. Something that enabled the CAGW meme of “hottest year evah!”. The climate alarmist flim-flam men at work.

        The surface and satellite charts used to have similar profiles, then the CAGW proponents manipulated the surface temperature chart for political purposes. I suppose they would have done the same to the satellite data, too, but UAH has honest people guarding the gates.

      • Simon
        November 17, 2016 at 2:29 pm

        Was NOAA lying in the late ’70s when its data showed pronounced cooling since the ’40s, or is it lying now, when the same period has been warmed up?

        Was NASA lying when it showed 1998 much warmer than prior and following years, or is it lying now, when that El Nino year has been cooled?

      • BTW, here’s NOAA’s latest “hottest year evah! claim put out today:

        http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/17/science/ap-us-sci-hot-october.html?ref=aponline

        Earth’s Warm October Not Record; 2016 Likely Record Hot

        By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

        NOV. 17, 2016, 2:07 P.M. E.S.T.

        WASHINGTON — While last month merely tied for the world’s third warmest October in history, 2016 is still on track to be the hottest year on record, federal meteorologists said Thursday.

        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the globe averaged 58.4 degrees (14.7 Celsius), which is 1.3 degrees (0.7 Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average but not as warm as Octobers in 2015 and 2014.

        From May 2015 to August 2016, Earth set monthly heat records for 16 straight months.

        Scientists blame continued man-made climate change from the burning of fossil fuels, goosed by a now-gone El Nino. El Nino is the occasional natural warming of parts of the Pacific that changes weather worldwide.

        The first 10 months of 2016 have been the hottest year to date, averaging 59.15 degrees (15.07 Celsius). That beats 2015 by .18 degrees (.1 Celsius).

        NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden said it is likely that this year will eclipse 2015 as the hottest year on record . If November and October are just average for the 21st century, it will set a new record. But Blunden said a weak La Nina, the cooling flip side of El Nino, provides a small possibility that 2016 will slip slightly behind 2015.

        Still, 2016, 2015 and 2014 will go down as the three hottest years on record “however they stack up,” Blunden said. Records go back to 1880.”

        end excerpt

        The fact is, going by the UAH chart, 1998 is the hottest year, with the exception of 2016. No year between 1998, and 2016 was hotter than 1998, and 2016 got hotter than 1998 by one-tenth of a degree for one month and has now declined below the high point of 1998.

        So this claim: “Still, 2016, 2015 and 2014 will go down as the three hottest years on record “however they stack up,” Blunden said.” , is incorrect.

        Also, the 1930’s was 0.5c hotter than 1998, which makes it hotter than 2016. So we are still in a slight downtrend from the 1930’s, that is continuing. In order to break this downtrend 2016, or subsequent years would have to increase in temperature by at least 0.5C from where we are now. If that happened, then that temperature would be equal to the hottest temperature of the 1930’s. Still not unprecendented. We have to go higher than that to get into the unprecedented area. So the claim that 2014, 2015, and 2016 are the hottest years on record is ridiculous. They couldn’t say this using the UAH satellite chart, so they have to create a chart that would allow them to make these bogus claims.

    • I do not know who is behind USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network). But this might be the best correlation ever seen within climate science. Unfortunately, it demonstrates near perfect correlation between increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere and the adjustments by scientists!

      Here are som more examples of how the adjustments tend to increase the warming trend both in radiosonde and satellite data series:
      All Temperature Adjustments Monotonically Increase

    • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/09/17/raising-walhalla/

      Anthony Watts / September 17, 2007
      An odd twist has developed in the past week regarding some data sets that surfacestations.org volunteers have been using to look at individual stations. The data has changed on NASA’s GISS website with no notice whatsoever.

      steven mosher September 17, 2007 at 4:28 pm


      For a moment I thought I had taken crazy pills.

      NOW, when I go back to replicate those early studies the data is SERIOUSLY FUBAR AND DIFFERENT!

      History is being revised.
      You thought it was 13C on
      August 1, 1967. Well, Today, we changed our minds. It was 13.2C. errrr
      wait.. it was 13.6C… errr wait it was 12.9C.

      WHAT YOU SEE IS HISTORICAL RELATIVISM BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES.”

  42. Thanks Anthony – Gavin would best be advised to look for a new job, or at best keep his head down and hope Trump ignores him. He certainly shouldn’t be raising his profile by threatening the new president – in a fight he’s no chance of winning.

  43. ON A SERIOUS NOTE

    We’ve now got one presidential term, to reform the way measurements on climate are taken so that never again can a bunch of politically motived eco-activists take over the show and start using their control over the adjustments to control goverment policy, not just in the US but globally.

    My own preference is to scrap all the present measurements (or at least not put gov money into anything like NASA) and to replace them with an institute (or better institutes) tasked solely with compiling the best metrics of climate without any interpretation or comment. So you’d get fired for even saying “global warming is/isn’t happening” – because that is a political interpretation. Instead, you would be forced to say nothing at all except publish the raw data – and defend their accuracy – leaving a free field to everyone else to say what it does or doesn’t mean.

    So, we remove eco-politics from the measurements – and then we sceptics and the alarmists both have credible data and we can slog it out as to what it means in public.

    The key, is that because there is almost no “science” except the science of measurement, there is no need for idiots like Gavin – and so they will have no part of place in compiling the data they abuse to create their fake global warming. However Gavin can still have a job if he can find one – using the credible data to “prove” his warming – but only if it were actually warming (rather than upjusting the figures as they do now)

    Instead of “scientists” like Mann, Gavin, etc., the institute will be filled with instrumentation engineers and similar practical meteorological experts (Like Anthony) who …. will not be that dissimilar from the people posting here. Indeed, I would not be surprised if many sceptics were employed in the institute (although you couldn’t obviously have the more vocal ones)

    • It’s hard to know where/how to gather data unless the available data is being checked, analyzed and its value reestablished. The key us to have guidance which establishes what the data will be used for, what decisions can be taken, and the cost of choosing an option using incomplete information.

      This is what we call “value of information”, we can perform an analysis to figure out whether data is worth obtaining – or continue obtaining. The cost of obtaining the data can change over time, new technologies appear to make data acquisition cheaper and/or feasible. The last thing we can do is create a bureaucracy with such a dumb barrier (take data but don’t interpret it).

      The key is to take the politics out of the science as much as possible. This is largely accomplished by changing a few supervisors, and giving the organization a neutral stance.

      For example, NOAA can be asked to gather and interpret data useable to establish the actual net energy flow, the temperatures, humidity, cloud behavior, etc. And to develop improved methods to forecast future climate on a global and regional basis, based on variable emissions and concentration scenarios.

      • Fernando, as soon as you say “science” you are bringing politics into the climate, because in reality measuring the climate is instrumentation and meteorology.

        And just as we have accountants – who measure money – who are not known for the political involvement and economist who interpret what that raw data means (but who are often heavily politicised) so we need to create a fire-wall between the job of impartially obtaining the raw data and the more political job of interpreting what it “means”.

        What we need is to have is an organisation that prides itself on the quality of climate data that it produces. One which does not in any way try to predict the future using models and therefore never has any need to employ any of the notorious people who spent their lives trying to get their models work – by changing the data over which they had control.

        The key problem was that when the models failed, those involved found it easier to manipulate the data to match the model than to admit the models did not work

        That is why the two areas need to be removed from each other so that those producing models have absolutely no control in any shape or form over those producing the data. Which means those producing the data must not in any way be modelling the climate.

      • First, just who are the “we” you are referring to? From your monologue of, “value of information” and the handling there of, I get the impression of data collection to fit YOUR model.

        Second, in my general science class in high school (1960) I was taught that the value of data is unknown, is undetermined until after it is evaluated. Further, data that at first seems dross may on reconsideration may be golden. A single repository of unaltered data that accessible to all is what real science needs.

      • Yes, Fernando!

        Bring in some data engineering experts to evaluate data collection, errors, accuracy, aggregation possibility, locale effects…

        Just because numbers look like they can be added and divided, or even estimated, does not mean they should be. Adding disparate isolated sources makes a sum that is irresponsible.

      • Just because numbers look like they can be added and divided, or even estimated, does not mean they should be. Adding disparate isolated sources makes a sum that is irresponsible.

        I have a question about this.
        I added a temp to Radiation, and radiation to temp function, so I can convert temps to SB radiation values add and divide fluxes, and then turn it back to a field. Interesting results.

        But, surface radiation isn’t coming from air temp, air temp is a proxy for a very complex process between the earth and the 2 meters above it.

        So what I can do fancy conversions if the resulting answer is meaning less.

        It also reminds me that in all of this climate talk, we seem to not spend enough time discussing what is actually what is warming the air, the earth. The Sun have little effect directly on a gas, it’s the warm surface that warms the air.

      • I don’t think there is any politics in this organisation.

        what the Trump viewpoint wants to do is put Republican politics into the science, to get a pre-ordained result.

      • “what the Trump viewpoint wants to do is put Republican politics into the science, to get a pre-ordained result.”

        What is pre-ordained from the skeptics’s side is requiring proof, when someone declares something is true, before believing it.

      • Griffie, given your “I don’t think there is any politics in this organisation.” I wonder if you have ever ventured outside your mother’s basement.

      • You can never wholly remove politics from science. Both are human artifacts. Yet, we can do much to limit it. Remember Ike’s warning. Everyone recalls the military-industrial complex. Few recall the government-academia complex. Outside of stuff pertinent to national defense, get government out of science. Government is a corporation, yet unlike the normal commercial ones, the corporation known as government wields force and coercion.

      • It’s worse than ever now. Not just with NOAA’s latest, totally unwarranted adjustments to SST “data”, but now no one can even trust the “raw data”, since NOAA’s flunkies are putting their thumbs on the thermometers to produce bogus “observations”, leading to cooked books before any statistical manipulation.

        The climate stables need a thorough cleaning, from top to bottom.

      • Griff

        “I don’t think there is any politics in this organization”

        well your pretty much the only one

  44. “Government science and things generally go on regardless of the political views of the people at the top,” Dr Schmidt said.
    So as a scientivist Gavin does “Government” science. It seems that he is suggesting that all other science comes under “and things”?

  45. The present series of temperature measurements must continue and must continue to be published…

    Anything else would be a dishonest manipulation of science for political ends.

    By all means investigate how the data is produced and how it is adjusted.

    Any honest investigation would find what Berkley Earth already did – the data is valid, not distorted by urban heat effects, the planet is warming as published science establishes.

    And an honest investigation can’t just be US scientists and certainly not just skeptic scientists, some of whom have certainly taken the fossil fuel industry’s shilling.

    (And future research will rely on a continuous series of data -otherwise people will be claiming the before series is not accurately mapped to the after series)

    • Griff

      “And an honest investigation can’t just be US scientists and certainly not just skeptic scientists”

      Why, the investigation has been done by pure zealot dishonest warmist to this point. why not have an honest investigation by skeptics and what’s wrong with US skeptics are they some how inferior to skeptics from the rest of the world? The world was a much better place when independent mind private US citizens were the ones doing the investigating, now that you have government operatives from every corner of the world trying to use the globalists agenda to socialize the world for their elitist bodies the world is a big ball of chaos.

    • Sorry AndyG55, griffiepoo is not sane.

      “The present series of temperature measurements must continue and must continue to be published”

      You are in luck, griffiepoo! I’m sure the present series of temperatures will continue, if not as ‘adjusted’ as before; and of course they will published, as examples of how not to handle data!
      Textbook examples of data misuse, storage, analysis and presentation.

      The same sensors will be used, of course! Hopefully with proper maintenance and site preparation, along with their correct error ranges. Given the habit of wildlife station infestations, Argo and buoy sea life encrustation and using a field deployment of laboratory sensors; error ranges likely exceed alleged warming claims.

  46. Isn’t it time for someone to grumpily write “gee, I wish we would only talk about science here, and not politics.”

    As Gavin himself ruefully knows, this fight was NEVER going to be resolved scientifically, UNLESS it was resolved politically.

    • Did you, wws, mention discussing science?

      Why don’t you talk science!?

      There are many comments above where science is discussed! What haven’t you engaged with any one of them?

      Nah! trollies, prefer to pretend they read stuff and to post comments “Argumentum ad Ignoratium”; color us totally unsurprised by you wws.

    • As Gavin so inconsistently stated, the CAGW fraud will be resolved by nature, as more decades go by without its happening. With Trump in office, and politics turning against the hoax, maybe only a few more years of abject failure of the con game will be needed.

    • No. No it wouldn’t. It would be an unmitigated disaster. Much as I respect Dr. Spencer and his work and consider that he leaves his supernatural beliefs outside at the lab door, because he’s a good scientist, I don’t think it would be beneficial at all to have a creationist in that sort of position at this most sensitive of times. The alarmists would have a field day.

      • The alarmists would have a field day.

        Good for them, we need politicians with the brass to tell them to f off. Should have been done long ago, but better now than later.

      • Spencer, Lindzen, Curry and Soon are frankly guilty of letting their political views influence their science.

        Not a one of them has any respect in the wider scientific community.

        If you are going to audit NOAA, NASA, GISs or whatever do it with as wide a set of science viewpoints as possible – include scientists from across the globe.

        you’ll find out once again the data is valid and it is warming.

        but shutting down the data or putting people on the enquiry who are only of an extreme skeptic view is nothing but McCarthy all over again.

      • A bit late for that Griff. There’s been a decades long politically financed voodoo pseudoscience coup d’etat in the scientific establishment and a “let’s all be reasonable chaps” plea just isn’t going to work. CAGW is a trivially idiotic hypothesis with zero supporting empirical evidence and those who don’t buy it are not people with an “extreme skeptic view” but are actually people with a pulse.

      • For some reason, Griffie is still trying to push the notion that only people who agree with him are scientists.

      • Sorry Griff, but Spencer, Lindzen, Curry and Soon are HIGHLY RESPECTED by REAL scientists.

        “Climate scientists™”.. not so much… they are becoming a LAUGHING STOCK

      • The pathetic Griff actually states without apparent sarcasm that the skeptical scientists are the ones letting politics interfere with science. Besides Griff demonstrating his vacuous ignorance, it raises the question of whether Griff is a failed troll or merely stupid.

  47. “It’s about time some skeptic did “demonstrate” by calculating an index, instead of just talking about it. I think the last to do that was Muller, with BEST.” Nick Stokes above at November 17, 2016 at 1:38 am

    Exactly right, but not “some skeptic”. Above I proposed an independent commission consisting of renowned scientists and statisticians unconnected with the +/- of “Climate Science” so that their impartiality and knowledge of the science and statistics stands out. They should start from the original readings, their time taken and equipment used. Look at distribution and changes affecting positioning and the growth of urban areas as it affects readings. Look at the omission and inclusion of stations and change of equipment. Frequency of calibration and how areas without temperature readings are covered. Are unsuitable stations used to assign temperatures to such areas? What are the uncertainties assigned to the various areas and times in the record? It is not enough to do what Stokes propose and a single “skeptic” cannot possibly do this on his own. This requires a commission empowered by the President which is recognised as impartial and with unrestricted access to all available material and to the individuals currently and previously involved in the homogenization of the original readings. This needs to be done and verified. There is no other way that this can be achieved for the USA and the World surface temperature records land and ocean separate and merged. They should also as a priority look at the University of Colerado sea level record and in particular the splicing og gauge and satellite temperatures without a long record of running both side by side in the record to eliminate any bias.

    • John Peter —

      And how many years would that take? When you are dealing with crooks you don’t set up a commission — you send in the cops.

      Eugene WR Gallun

    • “Above I proposed an independent commission consisting of renowned scientists and statisticians unconnected with the +/- of “Climate Science” so that their impartiality and knowledge of the science and statistics stands out. “
      Well, GWPF proposed that, too. You may remember it trumpeted by WUWT, April 2015. “An international team of eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians has been assembled under the chairmanship of Professor Terence Kealey”. They called for submissions by June 30, 2015. But then, three weeks later, they announced that they would not write a report. Nothing has been heard since September 2015.

  48. Nick Stokes-
    ““The only problem is that he has not honour or integrity”
    It puzzles me that people are so confident in the wrongness of GISS when they can’t muster the skill or energy to try to do their own”

    If the problem is so simple and easy why do they have a staff of around 50 to do it? I think I could do it easily with a staff of 50 or so.

    This really intrigues me:
    ” A multi-year smoothing is applied to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs.”
    I would really like an explanation of how averaging(smoothing) adds information to a dataset. 5+10=15/2=7.5 . Voila! 2 pieces of data become 1.

    At the GISTEMP data page a number of descriptions of methods raise significant questions:

    The analysis method was fully documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), including quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change. This was done by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability.”

    A self referential analysis- data->statistical model->global climate model->error estimate doesn’t produce any new information. Particularly since global climate models have been show many times to do a poor job of replicating results regionally, much less at individual station locations.

    • Smoothing can’t add information, it can, at best, only attenuate noise, and only when the noise model is completely understood. In the case of temperature data (the processed version), it is inherently corrupted with nonlinearities that cannot be undone. Smoothing ultimately produces misinformation. Nick Stokes either knows this, or should know this given his background.

    • “If the problem is so simple and easy why do they have a staff of around 50 to do it?”
      I very much doubt that more than one or two are involved in Gistemp, and that part-time. More would be involved in GCM modelling. Here is Gavin’s own account of what he spends his time on. Gistemp isn’t mentioned. Here is Giss’s summary of its activity. Again, not much about Gistemp.

      “doesn’t produce any new information”
      Read it again. The GCM is used to help calculate error estimates. That involves particularly, estimating how different the result would be if sampled at different locations. Obviously, that can’t actually be done, especially in the past. But GCMs can tell you how much the result would vary.

    • The first thing I thought of when I read this post was, ‘wow, what a twit that Gavin jerk is’. The second thing I thought was that the Donald should use his famous line with him; “You’re Fired!”

      And I read through all these comments getting more and more excited that I could be the first to recite the Donald’s; “You’re Fired!” But no. Someone had to beat me to it.

      I salute you, sir! Best wishes.

    • roger: “I won’t debate.”

      “YOU’RE FIRED!”

      That is a very good idea. That would be simple irrefutable way to show that he is not fit to do the job he has been entrusted with.

  49. Gavin Schmidt, isn’t he great, folks! Such a terrific man. Terrific! Thank you, Gafvin, Thank you.

    You’re fired.

  50. Now that the warmistas have stopped using “global warming” and substituted “climate change” they have completely changed their position. It’s like saying a person is alive so his heart must be beating. Of course there is climate change – it has been happening for millenia and will continue to happen as long as the earth exists. But anthropogenic global warming is what President-elect Trump is skeptical of. And I think Trump knows BS when he sees it.

    • I don’t think nearly enough is made of this point by the sceptic community. Whilst it was ‘global warming’ that was fine. A hypothesis that co2 is the primary driver of global temperature and co2 is always positively correlated with temperature. The hypothesis makes a prediction and if temperatures stop going up while co2 continues to do so then the hypothesis has been falsified.

      To move the goal posts to ‘climate change’ when it is a scientifically verifiable fact that the climate has always changed is to render the hypothesis completely and forever unfalsifiable and therefore not even lying within the remit of science at all.

      Gavin is right. There is no debate. There can be no debate because what has been proposed is not a scientific question. You may as well propose that tiny little pixies are responsible for pushing water molecules around in waterfalls and as each and every eddy and whorl materialises you exclaim in rapture that it is clear supporting evidence for your conjecture. Poor old Russell though his teapot was the clincher for these types of argument – but apparently not.

  51. Well Schmidt, perhaps you need to go out into the private world and find financial backers who will pay for your research with their money. Then you would only have to answer to them. I am quite sure there are enough wealthy believers in AGW that you should have no problem finding them.

    • Tommy Steyer and Geo Soros come to mind.
      They both have billions to spend on trying to rig our election so let them give it to Gavin to spend to try to prove CAGW.
      They’ve got a few years til they can try to get Chelsea Clinton elected president.

      • Mike, you ruined a perfectly good day by bringing up Chelsea Clinton. Only two things could keep her off our backs. She got: 1) her father’s ugly looks; and 2) her mother’s nasty temper.

  52. So, he has conspirators in government science(?), to come to his aid? I suspect, if they are half as smart as they think they are, they see Schmidt’s Alligator mouth just overloaded his Hummingbird ass. He may have a lot fewer friends than he believes

  53. What people like Gavin seem to fail to understand is that climate skeptics agree climate change is real, we even understand the climate is, on average, warming. The question “Do you believe climate change is real?” is somehow supposed to be equivalent to “Do you believe human emitted CO2 causes major problems with Earth’s climate”. If Climatologists were really honest, they would be correcting EVERYONE who conflates the two. Only skeptics openly admit they are totally different questions that have completely different policy implications. Skeptics understand that if CO2 is such a problem, every month of every year should be setting new hot records – that we don’t see this tells us that natural variability is significant.

    I lost all trust in Climatologists when I looked for the same trends that datasets like GISS show in the raw station data – and yes, I cherry picked my stations by picking remote rural ones that were least likely to be affected by UHI. I haven’t yet found one which doesn’t show that natural variability is huge compared to any long term trend. All rural stations I have seen show small, slow, steady upward trends entirely consistent with a world still slightly warming after the end of the last ice age. Sea level shows the same trend. Volcanoes, earthquakes, pandemics, asteroids and zealots scare the crap out of me. These are the forces that shape our world. We, as a mostly rational species, have attained a level of consciousness that allows us to control, or at least mitigate, many of the catastrophic risks our species and our planet face as a result of those things. But based on the temperature evidence, I see nothing that persuades me the human component of CO2 emissions is worth any time worrying about at all.

    If I were to create a temperature index I would select stations on islands that have little urbanisation and simply add all the raw hourly data together. Missing data is the problem with all these aggregation exercises though. Probably safest to take the average of the equivalent month in the two adjacent years. If you could pick enough from the Northern and Southern hemispheres then any seasonality would largely cancel out. But as you point out Nick – such an exercise takes time and most of us just can’t be bothered, what good would showing such a trend do? Is the Climate establishment suddenly going to turn around and say “Sorry, you’re right, we got it wrong!” and dismantle hundreds of bureaucratic enterprises, small businesses that count carbon and large ones that service renewables? No, they’d attack as they like to do. We would be accused of cherry-picking, or being too simplistic, or any number of possible criticisms that subject-matter experts can level against intelligent non-specialist. Nope, better just to sit back and let nature have the last word, although I tend to think it will be the markets that really sort this out long before nature really plays its hand.

    • Not to be argumentative, what defines the end of the latest ice age? Is it possible that the latest ice age has yet to end?

      • And if you start from the 1930’s, we are not in a warming trend at all, we are in a cooling trend. The highpoint of the 1930’s was 0.5C hotter than 1998, and the highpoint of 2016 is one-tenth of a degree hotter than 1998, which makes 2016, cooler than the 1930’s. A downtrend.

    • Earth has warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age during the Maunder Minimum over 300 years ago, but the long-term trend of the past more than 3000 years is cooling.

  54. NASA gas been infested with rent seeking swamp people for a long time. Time to drain the swamp (NEPA not required).

  55. I don’t care who has the data. I don’t even care much if they are adjusting it. Tighten the belt. Just one agency should have the data and should be responsible for giving us accurate weather reports of what was, and are trying to improve predictions of what weather will be.

    It seems to me that the rocket men and women of NASA should not be spending my dollars on weather and instead should be working on their space mission. If Gaven has a role to play in that endeavor to get us back in space fine. If not, he should be reassigned to the one weather agency. And then please, please, leave climate research to the Ivory Tower universities. Maybe Gaven can become an associate professor somewhere in some university. As a government employee he does not appear to be making the grade in my opinion because weather prediction accuracy sucks. Come on Donald, say it: You’re fired.

    • Sorry Pam, I disagree with you on two points. First, science depends on honest data. Adjusted data is biased and can be trusted only in the area for which the adjustment was made.

      Second, Gaven Schmidt has demonstrated his poor judgement. Poor judgement in climate science brought us AGW. Poor judgement in technology brought us Challenger.

      Schmidt needs to be completely out of any government operations.

      • “Gaven Schmidt has demonstrated his poor judgement.”

        It is more than poor judegement. It is dishonesty. A deliberate dishonesty that has cost the U.S. and other nations untold billions of dollars in wasted effort. It’s Fraud on a grand scale. People go to jail for committing fraud.

      • I see value in a government-funded weather department if only for the protection of interstate trade. Meaning that weather prediction at the federal government level should be drastically reduced in focus and then done only to support the interstate infrastructure of our nation, meaning airports, road ports, water ports, rail ports, and the ocean shores, rivers, roads, and railways that connect us together and lead out/in from/to our borders.

        So folks that are hired to do this may indeed need to re-adjust data in order to improve their predictions. That seems reasonable given the deplorable conditions of the data sets. But do it for the reason I have given above.

        Bottom line, the governmental creep of what each department is responsible for can be compared to an uninvited yet intrusive nonetheless invasive species that we need to seriously check. Then hire the best available for the renewed and narrowed focus to clean up and get moving in the corrected direction.

    • Great idea. End the massive redundancy that exists across so much of government. The arrogance of a civil servant rudely telling the President Elect his demands and instructions should be condemned by anyone who cares about civil society.

  56. Gavin Schmidt and his fellow Global Warming of Doom cultists have victimized millions of people with unaffordable energy prices and loss of jobs. It’s time for Trump to remove Schmidt and other GWOD hogs from the government feeding trough.

  57. If I were the president, I wouldn’t “mess” with their Climate Change division, I’d audit them and make ALL of their emails and data and source code public, then I’d defund them.

  58. STOP ! THINK !

    Gavin Schmidt, public employee, is setting the stage for his up-coming Congressional
    testimony before Republican controlled House and Senate committees, with a
    Republican executive branch that may not have his back.

    Mike Mann, Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al. have STILL never testified under
    oath and under penalty of perjury as to how they arrived at Mann’s “hockey stick”
    depiction of climate change.

    All his bluster is an advance platform for screaming “harassment of the messenger”,
    in an attempt to influence their unwanted depictions of “global warming/climate
    change”.

    In baseball, the Schmidt interview could be considered a brush back pitch to warn
    batters to stand back from the plate.

  59. Yes, Trump better watch out. He has allies! Look at them all over there – edging away – hey! Stop that! Get back here! Careful, I might just maybe perhaps quit, or something. Then you’ll be sorry!

  60. I don’t think the GISS temperature anomaly series is an official NASA data product (I could be wrong). In any case, NASA GISS should NOT be in the business of publishing that index, but rather leave it to NOAA and specifically the NCDC. Moreover, the raw data and ALL processing codes should be in the public domain, with extensive documentation on how the data are “corrected”. Transparency!

    Meanwhile, since the U.S. is suffering from massive government debt and deficits, we should institute cost cutting measures and reduce redundancy in the government sector. For example, NASA GISS should NOT be in the climate code writing business (their code is crappy anyway). Let NCAR take the lead – their code is MUCH better and probably more accurate. Next, move GISS out of their VERY EXPENSIVE New York City office and put it somewhere less expensive, such as Minot, ND. NASA employees could then move to North Dakota and experience a new life outside the liberal urban bubble.

  61. If anyone reading the blog has a personal relationship with Senator Sessions, please have him put in a suggestion for Dr Christy to head NOAA and Dr Spencer to head GISS. This is the leadership we need for those agencies.

  62. If Trump simply required that they maintain a raw set of data in addition to the adjusted data, including the historical datasets, I think that would be a great service. Rather than asking him to “skew” his results, that would provide the evidence to determine whether he is doing his job in a straight up, unbiased fashion. It would be good policy for all agencies for that matter: EPA, Labor, Education, Commerce, etc. Let’s look at the data both before and after it has been “digested.”

    • Not sure of the relevance to climate, just a basic point about science. I guess it’s nice your for boss never to hear anything they don’t want to hear. But I can’t help worrying it will end badly.

      Maybe I’m misreading, but the quote – that is what Schmidt is alleged to have actually said – from the above article is “The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way”.

      If Schmidt is skewing results then getting politics out is the answer, not getting different politics in.

  63. Gavin Schmidt: “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

    I find it incomprehensible that anyone could possible take Schmidt seriously. Embedded in this absurd statement is the revelation that any vestige of introspection is long gone. The blatant hypocrisy of his utterance boarders on the insane.

    I am hoping that the type of great folks at NASA and its myriad supporting organizations (you know who you are) that are responsible for the breathtaking success of the Mars Rovers, Pioneer and Voyager Spacecraft (among many others), will be emphasized as the core of this once great agency. There is nothing quite like the reality of either smashed expensive bits of technology strew across the universe, or practically unending streams of data returning from distances and environments that boggle the mind. Successful understanding of the complex reality around us is demonstrated by only one thing: Can you successfully predict some element of the future within previously stated and understood limitations? If you can’t do that, then whatever you are doing is defective …and we will be taking pictures of the debris with something that did work. True scientists relish this set of circumstances because it is a very humbling and extremely effective learning experience.

    • Gavin Schmidt: “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

      This is what is so typical, what he said is exactly true, he just uses it to imply humans are the cause, while I’d rather understand what the data says, and the data says co2 does not effect cooling in any measurable way (and no, ir spectrum is not proof of an effect from that same ir).

    • vuk: When I heard that this was on the cards – via the BBC – I wrote to my MP to ask how (according to BBC) the Paris COP21 agreement could become ‘law’ in the UK, bearing in mind there had been no vote in the HoC to make it so. This is the reply he sent me (which I have fisked and replied to):

      Thank you for contacting me about the Paris climate change agreement. The Prime Minister has recently announced that the UK will ratify the Paris agreement by the end of the year, hence the BBC coverage.

      The deal takes a significant step forward to reducing emissions. For the first time ever 195 countries, including the world’s largest emitters, have now committed to act together to combat climate change and be held equally accountable. The deal will limit global temperature rises and avoid the worst impacts of climate change, which is vital for our long-term economic and global security.

      The UK played a critical role in securing that deal, indeed, the British minister was there at the start of the conference and helped created the crucial momentum needed. The deal sets out the long-term goal of net zero emissions by the end of the century, showing that the world is committed to decarbonising. Progress will be assessed every five years and new, more ambitious commitments will have to be made. There will also be $100 billion mobilised from private and public sources for vulnerable nations in order to mitigate and adapt
      to the effect of climate change.

      Perhaps the most important area of work is helping developing countries. The actions of these nations is vital, but too often they are the ones who cannot afford to take the necessary measures. For our part, the Government has announced a 50 per cent increase in the International Climate Fund, for helping developing countries to tackle and adapt to climate change.

      Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
      Yours sincerely,
      RT HON JEREMY WRIGHT QC MP

      • Mr. Passfield, thanks for the that

        “The UK played a critical role in securing that deal, indeed, the British minister was there at the start of the conference and helped created the crucial momentum needed.”

        It just confirms what I suspected for a long time that the British ministers are just as if not more ‘guilty’ as the rest of them. The Brexit or no Brexit and regardless of the Trump’s action or no action, I expect that the green and carbon taxes will stay on for a foreseeable future.

      • There is so much WRONG with that response one is hard pressed to respond short of writing a book! But here is the worst (IMHO) – “There will also be $100 billion mobilised from private and public sources for vulnerable nations in order to mitigate and adapt to the effect of climate change.” THAT is sickening! Who decides the definition of “vulnerable”? And when does a nation become “vulnerable”? And how much does “vulnerable” nation A get as compared to “vulnerable” nation X? And what qualifies a “nation” to be considered for vulnerability status? Etc., etc., etc. It’s all BS and the $100 Billion will never be enough. It’ll become $300-500 Billion. Global redistribution of money! Nothing more. An attempt at Global Socialism/Communism, one world-ism at it’s worst. Excuse me, but I have to go take an anti-nauseous pill.

      • What I find interesting, but not surprising, is that he didn’t bother to answer your question.
        Like most leftists, if the goal is good, any method is justified.

      • Markw: I found out later that all that was needed to make the PA law in the UK was for the agreement to be ‘laid before parliament’ for 21 days and if no-one objected to it it became law.
        Someone once said, we get the government we asked for/deserved (?) Seems we have a spineless one in the UK.

    • I cannot even begin to express how depressing I find this. Really did think that Theresa May had more about her. Even if she privately believes in cagw I thought she would have sufficient sense to understand that there is absolutely nothing the UK could even in principle do about it and just go for lip service like many others. But no. After all that’s happened the UK is still in the business of gold plating bureaucratic insanity as a means of virtue signalling to the World while our industry runs away to the east. Bravo.

      Are we sure about this? She was fast out of the blocks to dump the climate change department so could it not still be possible she plays some canny game here?

    • Let’s all pray to Cloacina that it is so.

      O Cloacina, Goddess of this place,
      Look on thy suppliants with a smiling face.
      Soft, yet cohesive let their offerings flow,
      Not rashly swift nor insolently slow.

  64. nature has had the last vote

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    (Twice! After WWII (CO2 UP), cooling. After industrial CO2 production waaay up and climbing (1990’s on), no warming after 1997/98 El Nino effect dissipated.)

    Game over.

  65. Seems a perfect time for a GISS audit, no? How about a Trump submitted FOIA on internal communications? Hummm, Gavin may have to delete his Yoga emails first since a precedent has already been set.

    I think he should be forced to sit next to Dr. Spencer, just for good measure, at the next congressional hearing.

  66. Perhaps Trump should invite Gavin and leading skeptics to a debate with the outcome of the debate to determine Gavin’s funding. No show to the debate = no funding.

  67. 8″ of snow here in north central WY today and still snowing. CO2 is still up there at 400 ppm and we could use a little global warming.

  68. Seems to me that with Trump this attitude will almost guarantee the shutdown of the global warming section of the climate division at the least. YEA!

  69. Next, it’s get all the school children to cry out, “Help Mister Gavin! Help Mister Gavin!! AGW is REEEEUUUUHHHHLLLLL”

    I DO believe in fairies!

    (youtube — Peter Pan with Mary Martin)

  70. ‘Global warming doesn’t care about the election’?
    Curious – the election didn’t care about global warming, nor did the voters.

  71. In an interview with The Independent, Dr Schmidt, who was born in London, said: “The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.

    Did Gavin just admit that climate change is natural? Seems to me that you could appoint people who care, dont care, believe , dont believe, it doesnt matter, nature has the last say!

  72. Hello everyone. My name is George the Fox, and I along with some of my fox friends are in charge of the hen house here at the Old McDonald family farm. We take good care of the chickens here at Old McDonald. I realize you may have heard reports that some of the chickens in the hen house may have been predated on. I can assure you that those reports are false—there is no truth to them whatsoever.

    So now you can just move along folks, there is nothing to see here….

  73. Gavin Schmidt retweeted Michael Mann on the morning after the election:

    Climate scientists more vulnerable than ever in new political environment. Consider donating to the @ClimSciDefense: http://climatesciencedefensefunddotorg

    If your research is so unbiased and providing a good service to the public, why would you be so worried about defending yourself from political attack?

  74. Dr Schmidt, who was born in London, said: “The point is simple: the climate is changing
    ================
    The earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age, long before CO2 could have . No-one has ever shown why the earth cooled during the LIA, or why it warmed after. It is simply assumed to be due to CO2.

    The argument that the LIA is regional is a nonsense argument, because the current warming is also regional, being mostly confined to the Norther Hemisphere Arctic regions.

    The LIA lowered global average temperatures because it was not offset by warming in other region. The current warming has raised global average temperatures because the warming in the Arctic has not been offset by cooling in other regions.

    A large part of the problem is that science has been mislead by the use of averages and anomalies. This has masked the underlying statistics of natural variability, giving a false impression that current temperature deviations are somehow not consistent with past deviations.

    In point of fact, there are multiple examples of past natural variability on timescales as short as a single decade far in excess of current warming. As such there is no statistically significant evidence that current warming is anything unusual.

  75. I’m a “government scientist” who directly works on these issues (air quality and climate change NEPA analysis for BLM). I for one welcome some adults in charge for a change. Who know’s, might even see some real science again from these agencies instead of social engineering masquerading as science.

  76. “Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results.”

    They evidently don’t like competition.

  77. Civil Service rules make it nearly impossible to simply can Schmidt, however it does not impede “reassignment” of him to the North Slope of Alaska or Puerto Rica. That management technique is known as an “executive firing” and would be well-known to Trump.

    • You can certainly slash public funding for any GISS activities not related to the study of space and use this to help with the $20 trillion debt.

      Why should the public fund GISS to maintain REALCLIMATE.ORG, or was Gavin posting exclusively outside of office hours on his free time?

  78. It seems implausible that NASA spent $$ billions developing a scientific way to measure global temperature with satellites. Also, NOAA spent $$ billions designing and building a modern network of USA weather stations to measure CONUS temperature. In addition, NOAA spent $$ billions building and maintains a global balloon temperature measuring system.

    NASA and NOAA rarely show the results from these systems in a press release describing temperature changes. Therefore, I suggest that they show all the facts on their reports to the public, such as;

    1. The raw temperatures as originally recorded.
    2. The adjusted NOAA and GISS temperatures.
    3. The Radiosonde temperatures since inception (59 years).
    4. The UAH and RSS satellites temperatures (37 years).
    5. When showing USA temps, show the USCRN results from inception (~13 years).

    The data can be shown in actual or anomalies, as appropriate.

    A few skeptical websites show some of these data on one chart indicating the stark difference in measurement techniques. I believe the public should be aware of these differences.

    • Anomalies skew the data and hide peak to peak real information.
      They should collect and record the data including error bars…no adjustments.
      Then we would see that the temperature isn’t any worse than it’s been throughout this interglacial.

  79. Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has “warned” President-elect Donald Trump not to interfere with their climate activities.
    ==================================

    Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    their climate activities

    So Goddard is getting money to study space, and they are using this money to study climate, using data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    While it seems that NOAA certainly should be studying climate, why is GISS studying climate? Shouldn’t they be studying space?

    It appears to me that NOAA is improperly using the public’s money to engage in activities outside their charter, and should have their climate budget slashed to zero, to help pay off the $20 trillion public debt.

    • More than you think know that global warming is a scam and a waste of tax payers money. After awhile you notice these guys are divorced from the reality that climate changes very slowly and that there are things that threaten the American way of life, i.e., disappearing jobs, that are occurring a lot faster.

  80. Bill Illis November 17, 2016 at 6:42 am
    Hi Nick,
    Can you give us a step by step instruction on how to get the GHCN unadjusted and I mean fully raw data.

    How’s that coming Nick?? Have you found it yet? It’s so easy – right?

    What I find curious is that Bill asked how to get something that you apparently have access to (that he doesn’t) that should be readily available to everyone. That data is being collected on MY tax dime, not that I would know how to interpret it or use it, but others here would. AND isn’t THAT what has been said here and other places before that would solve the problem? Provide everyone easy, free access to the raw, unadjusted data (from ANY source and used as the basis for ANY study) and then have OPEN, on the net, “peer” review. And let the chips (temperatures) fall where they may. It’s been asked here before but I will again – Why should anyone have to file a FOIA request for data collected on the tax payers dime?
    Suggestion to President-elect Trump: Day one write an executive order that ALL scientific data collected using tax payer money either directly or via Gov. funded grants, is now available FREE (with instructions on where to find it & how to interpret it) to anyone who wants it.

    • “What I find curious is that Bill asked how to get something that you apparently have access to (that he doesn’t) that should be readily available to everyone.”
      That is absolute nonsense. I responded above (at 8.11am local time) to point to where the data is made available to anyone who bothers to try to find out. If it helps, I keep a list of links on my data page. There have been a lot of posts on it at WUWT. Why such helplessness?

      • milwaukeebob November 17, 2016 at 10:10 am
        Bill Illis November 17, 2016 at 6:42 am
        Hi Nick,
        Can you give us a step by step instruction on how to get the GHCN unadjusted and I mean fully raw data.

        How’s that coming Nick?? Have you found it yet? It’s so easy – right?

        You do know that Nick lives in Australia?
        In any case he posted a reply.

        I did as well:
        Phil. November 17, 2016 at 8:56 am
        Bill Illis November 17, 2016 at 6:42 am
        Hi Nick,

        Can you give us a step by step instruction on how to get the GHCN unadjusted and I mean fully raw data.

        This would appear to be the link you need:

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php

      • I have downloaded and used more climate data that just about anybody.

        The GHCN database and the instructions on that page lead absolutely nowhere.

        And they certainly do not lead to the raw data.

        What comes out is a pile of useless garbage.

        It is the modern age and I want to know where the real useable database from the NCDC/NCEI that Nick uses and GISS uses is held at. This is what I was saying about insiders seem to be able to get a hold of different database that is more functional.

        This is what it says about the software needs to run this database.

        |
        |
        V

        ————————- System Requirements —————————–
        # This package runs on most versions of Linux or Unix. See below for some of the
        # required components. The user should have an intermediate or advanced level
        # knowledge of this type of operating system in case their configuration needs work.
        #
        # Scripts are Bash, Several utilities used are Gawk, Sort, and Make,
        # Source Code has been compiled with both gfortran(v4.1.2) and lf95(vL8.10b)
        #
        # For execution the example requires 400Mb for your-run-directory
        # and about 3.6Gb RAM + 3.8Gb Virtual memory
        # and an hour for execution at 2.9GHz
        # To fully expand the phav52i_results file requires another 400Mb
        #

        # ——————- Install and Run the Test Package ———————-
        #
        # The User must be able to create and use two directories:
        # your-source-directory – destination of the source codes and the benchmark data
        # your-run-directory – destination of “make install”
        #
        # For instance if:
        # your-source-directory is ~/pha_src
        # your-run-directory is ~/pha_v52i

        # 1) Untar/gunzip the phav52i.tar.gz in your-source-directory
        cd ~/pha_src
        tar -xzf phav52i.tar.gz
        # This will make a subdirectory
        # NOTE: Do not untar the testdata/benchmark.tar.gz –
        # the next step will do this into your-run-directory

        # 2) Install current PHAv52i test:
        cd phav52i
        make install
        # NOTE: You can change the place to install the Project with
        # make install INSTALLDIR=~/your-run-directory
        # NOTE: If the MAKE errors for any reason, then the test package will not work.

        # 3) Execute the test package
        cd ~/pha_v52i (or your-run-directory)
        nohup ./testv52i-pha.sh world1 tavg raw 0 0 P > runlogs/testv52i-pha.log &

        # 4) To check the execution, you may download the data results from our run
        # Download the phav52i_results.tar.gz and:
        tar -xzf phav52i_results.tar.gz
        # This will expand into a ./data-results directory containing our results
        # including all of the data files and the output logs

        —————————

        After you do all that perfectly, you get a pile useless garbage and Nick and Mosher saying you used it wrong.

      • “And they certainly do not lead to the raw data.”
        This gets silly. As I said above, there are many articles at WUWT on GHCN and ERSST. I don’t usually agree with the analysis, but the authors had no trouble downloading the data. It is the raw data that I download and process daily. I keep a log of all datafiles downloaded here. That’s all I use. You just have to gunzip and untar. The R code I use is equivalent to:

        require("R.utils")
        f="http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz"
        g="tmp.tar.gz"
        download.file(f,dest=g,mode="wb")
        gunzip(g,"ghcn.tar",overwrite=T,remove=F);
        untar("ghcn.tar",exdir=".");
        

        That gives a 52 Mb text file – one line per station.year.

      • There is a facility in the data portal here for getting individual GHCN (annual) station data. Click on GHCN stations, top radio button. You see a long list of 7280 GHCN stations. Choose one, click the radio button, and data (raw and adjusted) will pop up in table or CVS format.

    • Terry
      November 17, 2016 at 10:17 am

      Everyone in every govt agency that has anything to do with agw ought to be getting their resumes up to date.

      That could be a large amount of unnecessary effort – far simpler to learn off by heart “would you like fries with that?”

      SteveT

  81. Nature has the last vote on the climate, and we are fine with that. No signs that she will do what has been predicted, by the clim-astrologists.
    The taxpayers have the last vote on how much climate propaganda we are willing to fund, and spend our precious private time refuting. We voted for your new boss, when he declared his position on the matter. If you think whinning about it will be effective, get a sign and join the rent-a-mob. It may be your true calling is mal-content crybaby. The taxpayers are the ultimate customer’s of your service, and they are not satified with the quality of your work.

    • I’ve had my posts, critical of AGW, censored from the website. A website that my tax dollars help pay for.

      Maybe I should become a whistle blower. Isn’t it illegal to use public funds to advertise a false emergency in order to get more public funds?

  82. Obviously all the warmist pols and scientists are desperate, because of Trump and the sun’s lower activity.

    It’s not as though inside their thought-bubble they aren’t aware of the sun’s low activity creeping in on their action, at a particularly bad time for them. Under no circumstances would they dare draw any attention to the sun’s temp influence, so they focus exclusively on Trump & CO2, Alinsky-style, to distract the public.

    After the election we’ve all heard from all the top warmist politicians, Obama, Gore, Kerry, Moon, et al, and all their sycophants around the world, how we just have to all kowtow to their phony treaty, their Paris ‘agreement’, in order to avoid ( theoretically ) that awful 1.5 degree limit, now down from 2 degrees – as their dramatized sense of urgency needs to be continually updated, hyped & scare-mongered.

    In the warmist’s theory, warmer temps mean more extreme events, property damage, etc from more and more powerful tornadoes, hurricanes, and flooding. 2016 came closer than evah to their new T limit, but we saw no such effects from the supposedly record warm temps in 2016. Case closed. They are wrong.

    Gavin is behaving politically here. His very telling comments weren’t particularly constructive.

    Schmidt’s comments are consistent with the Democrat disruption strategy aimed at overturning the election.

    Let’s hope Hillary’s & Soros’ purple color revolution fails to sway enough electors on Dec 19, and Trump has Gavin Schmidt replaced in January.

    The warmists are desperate and dangerous. The sun and Trump are ruining their plans, and they didn’t see it coming because they understand nothing about how the climate operates or the people.

    The sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme events, not CO2!

  83. The biggest threat to ‘climate change’ NOT being eviscerated by Trump is the potential for huge lawsuits from affected industries. Imagine the fallout if it’s proven that government agencies were fraudulently adjusting data, on the back of which entire industries were trashed into oblivion. Would any president admit such liability and see his country face ruinous financial consequences or instead quietly kick the can down the road on his watch?

  84. Before terminating the functions of NASA GISS, I’d like to see a full enquiry into and analysis of all of the adjustments to temperature records that both NASA GISS and NOAA perform. As part of the analysis I’d like to see that all urban and airport temperature stations are omitted from any compilation, no “homogenization” technique of temperatures is done and that only stations with long term temperature records at the same location are included. Then perhaps it could be established with some certainty whether or not there are locations/countries/regions around the world that do have a genuine significant long term warming trend and whether such locations are clearly in the majority. Clearly there can only be “global warming” if there is a significant majority of the world’s temperature stations that show a genuine long term warming trend.

    If it can be conclusively demonstrated that there is a worldwide majority of warming stations, and that it is not just a few regions, then the next question would be whether such global warming is due to natural phenomena or not. Conversely if it cannot be shown that warming stations are in the majority, then the theories of global warming and AGW and atmospheric carbon dioxide as the cause would not need any further analysis and study and could be discarded.

  85. If 195 countries want to gather and spend $100B or so on something, I suggest we and our new found wealthy friends use it to eliminate world wide terror…then we can go after CAGW.
    Evidently CAGW can wait, since they say we have until the middle of the century to reduce global warming.
    I don’t think we have that much time to stop terrorism.
    Let’s move the UN and it’s IPCC to Pakistan.
    They can work on the climate and world peace at the same time.
    Maybe we could move Greenpeace and WWF there with them.
    You never know, they might learn the true meaning of the word catastrophe.

  86. Schmidt says: “The science community and environmental campaigners in the US have already begun efforts to persuade Mr Trump that climate change is actually real before he takes office next year.”

    The skeptical side needs to be active in presenting the view that CO2 as a cause of harmful warming is unproven to President-elect Trump. He is a smart guy who should hear both sides. It sounds like Schmidt is trying to pressure Trump into accepting a failed scientific theory.

    • ” It sounds like Schmidt is trying to pressure Trump into accepting a failed scientific theory.”

      Yes, he is, along with thousands of other climate alarmists.

      Expect the alarmists to get real noisy. Trump will have to have strong convictions about the fallacy of CAGW to hold his ground against the mass attacks that are coming his way from the climate alarmists, some of whom, I’m sad to say, are genuinely afraid for their lives over climate change.

      But Trump will be the president, so the forces arrayed against him cannot force him to do anything, all they can do is browbeat him, which in normal circumstances, with a normal Republican politician like a Romney, it would work.

      I happen to think Trump is up to speed on CAGW and won’t be easily deterred, but we will just have to wait and see. It’s going to be interesting watching all this unfold.

      Trump’s pick for EPA administrator will set off the first of the attacks.

  87. This graph and the graph below is a visual indication of the problem.

    There is case after case, where it is obvious that the climate ‘science’ was been ‘fudged’ to create a crisis that does not exist.

    If a person has been directly involved with the ‘fudging’ (incorrect climate models, manipulation of the temperature record, and so on) and has been directly involved with the CAGW movement how can they be trusted?

    One lie, leads to another.

    • Apparently GISS decided after the 1998 El Nino that they would no longer worry about divergence with satellite observations, which naturally showed cooling and flatness until the 2016 El Nino. Instead, they proceeded just to make sh!t up as they went along, whatever it took to keep up the scare and the funding. Being unhinged from the only reality check must have been liberating for them. Hansen of course was already fully unhinged.

    • Where are the 95% confidence levels for the above graph?
      Oh, and how much does stratospheric cooling affect UAH TLT.
      Why has RSS dropped V3.3 TLT?
      Why does UAH and RSS diverge from the Radiosonde data at inception of the AMSU on NOAA15?
      Such that RSS v4.0 TMT is at least less wrong now?
      Why dont you show an up-t-date graph of surface temps vs (95% conf)?

      How about I do….

    • William Astley,
      After Spencer and Christy’s infamous “Cadillac calibration”-cherrypick, when merging the MSU and AMSU instruments, UAH v6 TLT suffer from a significant divergence from real thermometers carried aloft by balloons.
      Since 2000 UAH v6 TLT is losing about 0.2 C per decade vs RATPAC A:

      Your second chart demonstrate other cheap tricks by S&C. With use of their wide unphysical TLT or TMT-layers, they mix cooling stratosphere with warming troposphere.
      The true story is that the troposphere warms more or less as expected by the model average, whereas the stratosphere cool much faster. The latter is considered as a fingerprint of increased greenhouse effect, at least since the late 1990-ies when influence of volcanic eruptions and ozone depletion had ceased.

  88. Put a true climate change skeptic in charge of the data modification process, thats all I would ask. It should not be up to the head of the climate change division to determine the adjustments because he is going to adjust the data to show more warming to make his job seem more important and protect the empire he has built. It is a clear conflict of interest to have anyone getting paid by climate change budgets to decide what adjustments should be made to the data measuring climate change.

      • thanks Mosh.

        You have just told us all that GISS uses ADJUSTED data.. ie .. NON-data. !!

        Your sales skills will never get you a new job once you get kicked from your current one through incompetence.

      • AndyG55 November 17, 2016 at 2:10 pm
        thanks Mosh.

        You have just told us all that GISS uses ADJUSTED data.. ie .. NON-data. !!

        Just like UAH adjusts its satellite data to account for changes in orbit and new satellites, is that non-data too?
        In any case the the unadjusted data is available as Nick Stokes has pointed out above.

      • The largest single “adjustment” ever done, is the “cadillac calibration” choice made by Spencer and Christy, when merging the MSU and AMSU instruments. They chose the 0.2 C/decade lower trend…
        The choice is not even based on sound scientific principles, objectivity and validation of alternative outcomes, it is a blatant cherry-pick motivated solely by an anecdote, and likely with ideological inclination..

        As a contrast, the RSS team doesn’t choose, they use the average because they are truly not certain which one is right, Validation of the choices with weather balloon data suggests that Spencer & Christy are wrong, whereas RSS only is half wrong..

  89. “Schmidt maintains the GISS global temperature series, arguably the most adjusted of all the global temperature products.”

    Err.. no he doesnt
    and
    No it isnt.

    NOAA makes the adjustments.
    If you look at the last revision of GISS they actually COOLED the record.

    facts matter
    get them right and THEN your criticisms will have more weight.

    • “facts matter
      get them right and THEN your criticisms will have more weight.”

      They, of course should be Steven.
      But myths are preferred here.
      They never die.
      Once formed they have a life of their own.
      Why?
      Because of lazy confirmation bias Googling.
      There’s plenty of Contrarian *Climate science* on display over it’s pages.

    • ‘If you look at the last revision of GISS they actually COOLED the record.’

      Mosher’s favorite shell game. They always cooled the record… just not as much as they used to right?

      Funny that they didn’t think to do that until after two decades of model fails.
      That’s called changing the unit of measurement in order to get the desired result.

  90. I see we are back to “Global Warming” again. What happened to “climate change” and, my favorite, “global climate disruption”?

    Not smart enough to keep up.

  91. Here’s a great idea that climate alarmists will quake over but find hard to turn down now because they’re at risk of losing billions in finding.

    Let’s have a set of public debates on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory — alarmists vs. skeptics. And let’s have all of the questions/topics published in advance so that nobody can gain an advantage via espionage.

    After all, we are now spending vast sums of money on this policy, but the public has NO voice in this because technocrats (and let’s be honest, communists) refuse to discuss it, save when they’re claiming that the sky is falling or else name-calling skeptical scientists whose only crime is healthy skepticism of a deeply flawed theory.

  92. ‘Global warming doesn’t care about the election’

    Jeez, now we’re back to the old term for it, are we? Maybe “climate change” looks to be too “cold” of a term?

  93. THAT’S his threat? To resign? Boy, wouldn’t it be great if everyone in the Climategate community did the same? Sort of like all these Hollywood types ‘threatening’ to move to Canada.

    Please don’t throw me in that briar patch, Br’er Bear.

  94. To Nick Stokes
    You wrote:
    “The only problem is that he has not honour or integrity”
    **”It puzzles me that people are so confident in the wrongness of GISS when they can’t muster the skill or energy to try to do their own.”**

    Energy does not = time (well, priorities x time + physiological energy or some combo) but the reason many believe that GS is FOS is the assumptions and reasoning for the biases introduced all along the way in all of the homogenizing products. Especially when you consider that CO2 : Temp correlations show a confirmation bias that is SO off the scale as to render the HOMOGENIZATION changes to data not worthy for use in ANY policy (or other) decision process.

    • “the reason many believe that GS is FOS is the assumptions and reasoning for the biases introduced all along the way in all of the homogenizing products.”
      I don’t know how many ways I can say this, but neither Gavin nor GISS do any homogenising. Like much of the world, they use homogenised data.

  95. The fraud this man has pushed brings to mind a recent chant I read about at Trump rallies…..”Lock him up”.

  96. Let’s not only get rid of Gavin Schmidt, but also GISS. Whatever honest contributions GISS makes should be transferred to other agencies far, far away from Columbia University. All taxpayer funds flowing to Columbia should be terminated.

  97. NASA needs to get out of the Muslim Outreach business.
    And since the science is settled the modeling group needs to be disbanded.

  98. Perhaps Gavin can try politics as his next profession? Can someone please explain why the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is focused on climate, headed by a “climatologist”.

    PS. On Gavin’s website: *Please note that emails sent to government addresses may be subject to disclosure under FOIA and that you should have no expectation of privacy. If you want to contact me in a non-official capacity, please do so via my columbia email. (Replace the -at- with the @ sign).

  99. “Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results”

    Is that meant to be a credible threat….. ROFPMSL …..

  100. Looking at the election map it is easy to see why a President Trump would want the earth to warm and all the ice to melt… ;)

  101. I suppose civil service rules make it almost impossible to fire Schmidt, but surely there’s a weather station in Alaska that needs a new attendant.

  102. Don’t these guys know not to get into a fight with him? If he notices, he is more likely to cut the funds.

  103. Gavin and his cronies in crime should not just be fired with cause, but join the Clintons in orange jump suits at Club Fed.

  104. It’s manipulations again, folks, he’s getting it into the minds of the true believers that that skewing of results might actually be intended. That way, when the fr@ud is uncovered, he was wave his little hands in the air and cry out, “See what he did?!”

    He’s making ready to cover his rear-end, that’s all, passing all blame for all wrong-doing over to evil deplorables.

    Either that or he’s trying to scope out what is intended so he can decide if he can carry on manipulating as is, or whether it’d be better to make for the airport before January.

  105. Gavin actually called what he does “government science”. As we have seen Gavin’s “government science” has little to do with real science. I would really like to see NASA focused once again on exploring space, not creating trends that do not exist in the data.

  106. Mr. Schmidt, I want to thank you for bringing your important role to my attention. Unfortunately, your job falls outside of NASA’s primary mission, space exploration. Please make plans for an exciting new position more appropriate for a person of your abilities and temperament. You may send your resume to the soon to be formed government funded reality TV show, Overpaid Propagandists Posing as Government Scientists.

  107. The Deplorables have spoken . It must be terribly upsetting to see your whole world crumble .

    Imagine your company just got taken over and a top executive goes to the media and says the new owners better not mess with his department. He wouldn’t have to worry about his department much longer is a safe bet . .
    Everyone knows climate changes and we can be happy the long term warming trend continues . There is no need to spend $$ Billions telling us what every Grade 3 grad knows . Climate science is not settled and until the elephant in the room , natural climate variables are better understood scary pronouncements about a trace gas , CO2 , are highly speculative .
    Sure hope all that bullet proof adjusted scientific data doesn’t disappear in the next two months , tax payers own it and have every right to a second or third opinion if Congress wants it .

    Look what happened to the CRU’s data once Climate gate showed up ? Gone . IS that real science at work ?
    What happens when the protective cover of the White House disappears ? Elected officials messing with the science will be the least of NASA’s concerns . There is a lot of explaining to do and it would make no sense to fire the people who have created the data while the investigation continues .
    After all $Trillions of tax payer money has been spent on the basis of climate models with doom and gloom “record” temperature claims used in scary global warming propaganda . The public has a right to the heaviest most detailed audit possible without even a whimper . Get that before anyone leaves the country to spend more time with their family .

  108. Warns???( Oh, I’m going to love these years).

    NASA GISS is the most unless, adjusted, “fudged” temperature series in the world.

    It’s worse than NOAA’s manipulated garbage!

  109. If there are ANY climate model makers left at NASA there are almost no weather stations in Antarctica .
    Considering it is a chunk of ice bigger than the USA and Mexico combined any remaining NASA climate
    scientists should be moved there to get up front and personal with – 40 F . You know study the impact to penguins of the – 40 to -38 degree F warming . Drowning penguins perhaps ?

    Taunting Congress and the next President to get fired , how convenient . Clearly there is a misunderstanding of who is paying salaries here . No where to run no where to hide .

  110. Survey I got from Trump campaign cuz they want more moolah from me. See items 10, 11 and 18 (most rating options edited out):

    100-Day Plan of Action Survey

    Begin constructing the wall along the Southern border.
    Highly important
    Somewhat important
    Not important
    No opinion
    Repeal and replace ObamaCare.

    Appoint a strong constitutionalist to the Supreme Court in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Sign into law the Senate’s existing bill to build the Keystone Pipeline.

    Introduce an infrastructure package to modernize our country.

    Unleash the Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act, which will cut taxes for middle-class families and simplify the tax brackets in order to streamline the process.

    Announce our official withdrawal from the TPP.

    Renegotiate NAFTA into terms that protect the American worker.

    Propose a constitutional amendment to impose terms limits on all members of Congress.

    10. Lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars worth of American energy, including shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal.

    11. Cancel billions of dollars in payments to U.N. climate change programs, and use that money to fix our own country.

    Allow Americans to deduct childcare and eldercare from their taxes.

    End all federal funding to sanctuary cities that circumvent the law in order to provide protection to illegal immigrants.

    Begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants.

    Suspend immigration from regions compromised by terrorism and where vetting cannot safely occur.

    Introduce plan to defeat ISIS.

    Set the standard for an “America First” foreign policy that ends regime-change, nation-building, and instead focuses on a motto of peace through strength.

    18. End bans on offshore drilling in order to end our dependence on Middle East oil and make America energy independent.

    Cut the government regulations that lead businesses to leave our country in the first place.

    Enact a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

    End the defense sequester in order to rebuild our depleted military.

    Pass the Restoring Community Safety Act in order to reduce crime, drugs, and violence in our cities, and provide funding for programs that train and assist local police.

    End Common Core and bring education supervision to local communities.

    Pass school-choice measures that redirect education dollars to give parents the right to send their kids to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious, or home school of their choice.

    Reform the Department of Veterans Affairs in order to provide proper treatment to America’s forgotten heroes.

    Let veterans receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice.

    Direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

    Pass the Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act in order to “drain the swamp” that has polluted our capital for decades.

    Cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by Obama.
    Highly important
    Somewhat important
    Not important
    No opinion

  111. Rather than mess with it, the division should be eliminated altogether. After all, the science is settled so there is nothing new that can be learned about it. The federal government is alreasy deep in debt with huge annual deficits. The federal governemtn needs to cut spending where ever it can. Considering the current adminiatration, the President is years late with the budget cuts that were suppose to go along with the tax hike on the rich and the ACA taxes as part of the President’s balanced approach to deficit reduction. Such useless organizations should have already been eliminated.

    • And if he can’t be fired for cause, then reassign Gavin to collect data for polar bear and sea ice computer models in the high Arctic, especially in winter. The necessary work could take years. Even decades.

      Or temperature readings and modeling as permanent computer gamer in residence at the South Pole.

  112. “The true story is that the troposphere warms more or less as expected by the model average, whereas the stratosphere cool much faster.”

    1) The CO2 concentration in the stratosphere is the same as the troposphere.
    2) The stratosphere is void of H2O, the major GHG

    How could an increase in CO2 possibly lead to a cooling of the stratosphere? If CO2 was the cause, you would expect a warming of the stratosphere through a shifting down of the temperature gradient. CO2 according to MODTRAN has no impact on the energy balance in the lower 3km due to H2O overwhelming the system. Only as H2O drops out of the atmosphere does CO2 demonstrate an impact on temperature. CO provides a floor for temperature, it doesn’t appear to lead to warming. 13 to 18µ IR is consistent with a black body of -80°C.

    • CO2 according to MODTRAN has no impact on the energy balance in the lower 3km due to H2O overwhelming the system. Only as H2O drops out of the atmosphere does CO2 demonstrate an impact on temperature. CO provides a floor for temperature, it doesn’t appear to lead to warming. 13 to 18µ IR is consistent with a black body of -80°C.

      You can see that cooling at night is nonlinear, and it’s somehow related to water vapor being converted to water. But is you watch the cooling rate when rel humidity goes up, cooling slows.

      And I wonder is anyone runs MODTRAN with a changing water vapor profile, cause as it cools, rel humidity changes!

      • You can see that cooling at night is nonlinear, and it’s somehow related to water vapor being converted to water. But is you watch the cooling rate when rel humidity goes up, cooling slows.

        I’m pretty sure that as H2O precipitates out, temperatures will cool more rapidly.
        1) Concentration is an exothermic process, so it released heat in the upper atmosphere as it condenses. Once it releases that heat, it is gone.
        2) A comparison to the cooling at night in a rain forest vs a desert at the same latitude pretty much proves CO2 doesn’t trap much heat Sleep naked in a desert and you freeze to death, sleep naked in a rain forest and you are very comfortable.

      • But it doesn’t at night unless the air is already dry.

        What are you saying? That the air doesn’t cool rapidly as the H2O condenses out, and then level off? Condensation is a rather rapid exothermic process. There is no phase change related to CO2.

  113. Congress needs to form an independent oversight and review body to analyze scientific findings by tax- payer funded entities. A double-blind analysis of this data would expose the fraud. No real scientist would accept “tricks” intended to “hide the decline.” The other way to address this would be to have an “Open Source” temperature reconstruction like “Linux” and “Bitcoin” where all information is made public, and a panel selects the best code/date for the final version. There is complete transparency. Right now you have a small group of biased, corrupt, dishonest and deceitful people controlling the entire process. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  114. William Astley,
    After Spencer and Christy’s infamous “Cadillac calibration”-cherrypick, when merging the MSU and AMSU instruments, UAH v6 TLT suffer from a significant divergence from real thermometers carried aloft by balloons.

    This makes my case for an “Open Source” Temperature Reconstruction. The one-side points the finger at the other-side, and the other side points the finger right back. That is the old Saul Alynski trick of blaming the other of what you are guilty. Only one side is telling the truth, so the deceitful side has no option but to blame the other for their crime. Criminals do that in trials all the time. The political left writes books about this tactic. Anyway, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency will bring all this global nonsense to an end. As long as we allow it to degenerate into he said she said arguments, the truth will never be known. Only transparency will expose the truth.

  115. The RAW temperature data should be published. Public comments should be accepted on how and why the data should be “adjusted.” If there is agreement and a well-documented reason for adjusting the data, then the adjustment is made to the open source data reconstruction. That way everyone can know what the real data is, what the adjusted data is, and the reasons the data was adjusted. Once again, transparency is the greatest weapon against this global warming nonsense. No open source group, exposed to public scrutiny, would ever pass “tricks” to “hide the decline.” That only happens behind closed doors among a group of like-minded dishonest and deceitful activists. We need a “Sunlight Law” like the activists are demanding for Exxon Mobile.

    [the RAW data IS published by NOAA, publicly available via FTP -mod]

    • [the RAW data IS published by NOAA, publicly available via FTP -mod]

      That is true, but public policy is based upon the “adjusted” data. Was there ever any public testimony as to the construction of the “Hockeystick?” Single individuals are allowed to “adjust” the data as they themselves seem fit. Michael Mann created an entire reconstruction effectively by himself that single-handedly repealed all data reconstructions before it. How is this possible in any real “science.”

  116. Take a look at this chart. One thing people are missing is that the first IPCC Meeting was in 1990. I assume that the chart before 1990 was based on actual data, and then post 1990 are forecasts. If these models come from the 1995 IPCC meeting, there is clear fraud. Look how the data is curvilinear up to 1995, and does a good job modeling the temperature. The R^2 looks to be above 70 for the early period of this chart. After 1998, however, there is a complete meltdown, and the chart goes from curvilinear to near linear, and the R^2 drops to near 0. Just from an eyeball observation, those IPCC models are a joke. They have and model curvilinear data, and then transition it to a linear model. That makes no sense what so ever unless you are trying to produce a result that isn’t supported by the data. That divergence is also why the data has to be “adjusted” upward to make the models appear valid. This is clearly an example of Orwellian forces at work.

  117. Once again, look at this chart. The “Forecasts” are linear, the actual modeling is curvilinear. why would any forecast model take curvilinear data and forecast a linear outcome? 1983 to 2000 is clearly a wave or curvilinear, post-2000 is linear. That is a complete joke of a model. In the financial world that would be prosecuted as fraud.Where are the disclaimers of past performance is no guarantee of future results? We need an SEC type body to oversee this field of Climate Change.

  118. Congress, please enact this one-sentence law: Any and all climate change laws or regulations enacted by the Government of the United States of America shall state how many years the habitability of Earth will be increased by the law/regulation and shall provide scientific proof substantiating the stated increase in habitability.
    This will take the onus off climate change deniers and place it on the scientists promoting climate change legislation where it belongs.
    It doesn’t take a scientist to know that Earth will only be habitable for a finite period of time. Even the most astute scientist knows that it is foolish to try to make that an infinite time period thru climate change laws.

  119. Dear Gavin,

    We won’t interfere with your important work, nor your ability to publish your conclusions.

    We won’t pay for it anymore, of course, but we certainly wouldn’t dare interfere.

Comments are closed.