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.”
…
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.”
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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)
my bad
J Wurts Here’s some stats from the N.Y Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/what-every-person-should-know-about-war.html
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
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?
Why would you even bring religion into this.
I thought we did already!
At least the alleged error rates make more sense using the bible.
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.
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.
Gavin is a civil servant, I wonder if here has heard of —
Under the Hatch Act of 1939, civil servants are not allowed to engage in political activities while performing their duties — to do so is illegal! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
But who’d prosecute him? You’d need something crazy … like … like Ted Cruz being attorney general … only something really crazy like that would scare our Gavin.
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.
Cruz is from Texas. His replacement would be just as conservative.
he even looks like…well see for yourself….
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/Beards.png
Pretty dumb comment Leo, every man and his dog has a stubble beard these days. Even the hair to the throne.
If you limited it to the silly little chin beards that seem popular with lefty climate scientists you may find a “trend”.
But those are silly little chin beards and they are all academics,greens wannabes or politically left..
Tats and beards are the new stupid
Nice comment Leo, presumably somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I wouldn’t totally rule out a partial psychological explanation without evidence.
Where’s Lew and Cookie when you need them?
My Edwardian grandmother used to say that beards ‘were a sign of a weak chin’
I had trouble with the second from right photo. It looks like V.I. Lenin but the photo is much better than the technology permitted when he was alive. It’s a wax figure.
Never trust a man with a beard
I resemble that remark!
Where’s my shaver?
Gavin Schmidt.. the very definition of ARROGANCE./
Pride before a VERY LONG FALL !!
Tha fall itself isn’t the problem, it is the impact.
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.
Perhaps Gavin Schmidt could be the first bloke Donald wilkl fire.
……will fire.
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!
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-04-18-24.png
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.”
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.
Surely there never has been a redder rag to a bull.
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.
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 wish I could edit posts………..
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.
It’s only political when I disagree with it.
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
What Climate Division, Gavin? It’s gone.
“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”?
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)
How much personally would you lose Griff, if AGW was shown to be almost completely bunk?
I’d say he would lose his sanity…. but he doesn’t have any.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t mess with crime. Crime doesn’t recognise elections.
Has he got dual nationality?
Wouldn’t it be great if Gavin was replaced by Roy?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“I won’t debate.”
“YOU’RE FIRED!”
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.
Gavin Schmidt, isn’t he great, folks! Such a terrific man. Terrific! Thank you, Gafvin, Thank you.
You’re fired.
Let’s translate Gavin’s bloviation into plain words: “GIVE ME THE MONEY OR ELSE!”
I was thinking of that line from “Blazzing Saddles” where the sheriff holds a gun to his own head and tells the crowd, “Back off or I’m going to shoot this n****r”.
MarkW — Laughing so hard I nearly choked to death!!! — Eugene WR Gallun
Trump will be interfering.
Trump *should* be interfering. We are wasting billions of dollars on this BS (bad science).