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.
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.
The Donald should make Dr Roy Spencer the boss of Gavin!!! Snaaaaaaap
Here you go Gavin, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=online%20resume%20builder
What should Columbia repurpose the GISS building in New York for?
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.
Your’re FIRED
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.
This graph and the graph below is a visual indication of the problem.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-16-at-10.17.48-PM.gif
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.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
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….
Error bars of a whole degree in range produce a graph that is useful for what, exactly?
Data adjusted to attempt to match the models..
Your point is?
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:
http://postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png
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.
http://postmyimage.com/img2/588_Ratpaclayersvsmodels.png
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.
For the most part GISS dont adjust data. NOAA does
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..
“Elections have consequences.”
“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.
Mosh, our resident English major, lectures us on science. Study more, comment less
‘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.
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.
Why not just dip a spider in ink and let it run across the graph, just as relevant.
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.
*finding = funding
http://www.mustardweb.org/mustardpics/monkey_large.gif
‘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?
Oh, sorry Proud Skeptic, I should have checked to see if anybody else thought like me on this.
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.
We can’t let them go without probing IRS audits. These people have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and what do we have to show for it? Propaganda?
Agreed.
He might resign? That’s an invitation that might be too hard to pass up!
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.
The fraud this man has pushed brings to mind a recent chant I read about at Trump rallies…..”Lock him up”.
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.
NASA needs to get out of the Muslim Outreach business.
And since the science is settled the modeling group needs to be disbanded.
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 @ur momisugly sign).
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/
“Replace the -at- with the @ur momisugly sign”
Gavin
Internet bots searching for email addresses are programmed to do exactly that.
Gavin is a mathematician. We already know 1+1=2.
There’s not a science bone in his body.
Re-deploying budget resources into real science and NASA missions would help that agency.
“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 …..
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… 😉