Former NASA scientist disses @NASAGISS – says it's a "monument to bad science"

Climate scientist Dr. Duane Thresher:

Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson. I know from working there for 7 years that NASA GISS has almost been defunded several times in its life anyway. It’s a small group over a restaurant (Tom’s Restaurant from the TV comedy Seinfeld!) in New York City, nowhere near any other major NASA facility. Just the dedicated data link to the nearest NASA facility, GSFC in Maryland, is a big expense. GISS is the Goddard Institute for SPACE Studies. If you don’t need a rocket to get to it, it’s not space.”

Thresher rips former colleagues:

Physicists and mathematicians who couldn’t make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn’t make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science.”

“NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down.”

Read more here

h/t to Climate Depot

121 thoughts on “Former NASA scientist disses @NASAGISS – says it's a "monument to bad science"

  1. What is NASA doing with climate science, anyway? I can see providing space based data to NOAA or university contractors for general climate science, but The Goddard Institute for Space Science?

      • T-65B:
        You can if you can find one in good working order.
        Piece of junk, major reliability problems never resolved.

      • D B H
        “that’s an electric cable fuelling the fighter.”
        Wow….Amazing….Is the tanker powered by a windmill on top of the fuselage?
        Big battery for take-off power then the windmill recharges the battery……..
        Can they also recycle the MOABS?

      • Jones – as many studies have shown, ANYTHING is possible with renewables.
        What you can’t see in that photo however, is the incredibly long three pin plug connecting the tanker to the solar array on the ground.
        My concern is, someone might trip on it (that chord), and then we’d all be required to provide warning tape around any and all such chord connections.
        The caution tape however, would need to be non petroleum based (which is obvious) – possibly hemp based ( I would suggest)….assisting any or all cables and tape, getting ‘high’ all on their own.

      • D B H
        You clearly haven’t thought through that one carefully enough. It’s only a 10 metre “eco” cable (less plastic hydrocarbon insulation you see unless we accept the electrocution risks without) and the tanker is flying in a tight circle. This also has the merit of there only being a small (albeit conical) trip hazard zone. More of a decapitation risk really up to about 6 feet 5 inches. Higher if your name is Wadlow but that would be an outlier of course.
        Additionally, in view of the shortness of the cable between the tanker and the ground it would have a fairly rapid cycle and so could be used as a hedge trimmer at the same time. Can’t get more ecological than that.
        Otherwise I think you make very reasonable points.
        Thank you for your considered response.

      • Hmmmm, Jones – a hedge trimmer…I need one of those.
        I might strengthen my case somewhat, by mentioning that a chord is but an interim measure, as in most scientific journals I note, we are but a few years away from the next great leap in renewable technology…solar powered fusion reactor.
        I’ve put a small deposit on one, to show my commitment to ‘the cause’.
        Now, to convince others to do the same.

      • D B H,
        Heaven forbid that I appear to be contradicting you because you have convinced me but wouldn’t the reactor go out at sunset? Or does one just keep feeding in hydrogen once it’s up and running?
        Although I would agree that your system seems superior (on paper) my system also has the option of placing large magnets around my conical eco-power-cable-tanker setup which would generate power as per Faradays Law. If the tanker flies fast enough there would also be extra electricity to spare. DC of course unless the pilot changes direction, quickly.
        Oh, and it would be perpetual. I hope you can see that?
        Unlike your system.
        Thank you kindly.

      • Jones – I am now somewhat worried – as I thought the advice I had obtained via the scientific papers, prior to placing my deposit, clearly showed that the units being developed, would be the preeminent power source for generations to come.
        How then did they receive funding for all these years, from governments too numerous to list?
        This poses a greater question….the taxes (reasons) used to fund these studies, must also be flawed…and God (Gods, deities, prophets) forbid that our governments have been hoodwinked all these years.
        Surely not, as that would sound more like a conspiracy, and we are all aware that this would implicate far too many world leaders and authorities, for this to be credible.
        Sorry, but this would lead me to believe that denial and skeptic, might indeed be titles well suited to many here – that would lend support to this view.

    • The only rocket required is the one sent up GISS’s backside.
      Q How on earth did this clown show get so much influence?
      A The MSM who trawl and trail their coats for a headline made it happen.
      The destruction of GISS will not bring the headline “GISS GUILTY OF MASSIVE SCIENCE FRAUD”, rather it will be “EARTH SAVED FROM GLOBAL WARMING CATASTROPHE” (the catastrophe being trying to put the CO2 ‘toothpaste’ back in its tube with flake policy ‘toothpicks’ on the basis of the commonality of ‘tooth’)

      • Yeah… I love the constant hype they spread that always comes from the inflated GISS data while ignoring satellite data.
        They love satellite data for sea level. They have been able to adjust that to inflated levels that not longer match up with tide gauges.
        The do a lot of great work at GISS. Excellent at cherry-picking and past weather modification

  2. I can certainly see where there is an appropriate interest in earth’s weather and, by extension, climate when NASA is charged with developing instrumentation to measure all the temperature related variables pertaining to what is happening on earth. And I can see NASA’s interest in weather because it is very risky to launch space hardware in bad weather. But that is about it.
    The questions of earth’s thermal history (or lack of one) and potential changes and variations seems to be beyond what I understand is the scope of their interests. Certainly solar output variations strongly affects earth’s weather thus understanding how the sun works is vital to any space efforts.

    • NASA needs to study weather so that they can attempt to write circulation codes for atmospheric patterns. Reentry even into Earth’s well measured atmosphere is not without issue. Atmospheric dispersion can cause significant profile variations. Mars is going to be even dicier.
      The only planetary body readily available to study is the one we occupy. So, study it we must.
      BUT, use the studies to fine tune the models and validate the predictions. NOT the other way around!
      They have abandoned science and adopted soothsayer’s advocacy.

      • At the risk of overdoing this theory of human motivation, I am “borrowing” a quote from a Mundia and Modia essay:
        “Those institutions that have little or no exogenous criteria for success, like government, academia, or the non-profit sector, will inevitably come to be dominated by Modians.”

      • Further,
        Get Rid of GISS and anyone can still run the code.
        Its open.
        So do whatever you like to GISS there will still be a GISS temperature.
        Data from NOAA is fed into code that hasnt changed since the last re factoring.
        Jesus you guys

      • NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        Studying the air is part of their title.
        Their functions are manifold, of which only one job is to get to space from the surface of a planet or vice versa. As many other planets also have atmospheres, transiting that regime is necessary.

      • Mr Mosher just solved the NASA Climate debacle

        Steven Mosher September 14, 2017 at 3:49 am
        the temperature work is less than 1/4 of man year.
        They ingest data supplied by others and run code

        NASA only requires around $30,000 for Climate funding as all they need is 1 man for 3 months per year.
        ALL the rest is done by computer code … (and the monkey flips the switch)

  3. O-Kaaaay.
    Duane has got a blog, there are TWO highly qualified climate scientists in his little group (the other one being, yes no surprise there, his wife). Never mind – it’s a start. Anyway quite a good read and a lot of interesting views including great discussion of fr*ud and Michael Mann (not related of course). For me however the best bit was the tenuous link to N-rays. (Go look it up if not known).
    The reason this is the best bit in our own context of Global Warming is because it relates to EXPERIMENTS. So I will repeat yet again that what we need are some nice experiments to test various aspects of the global warming (claimed) science. No one can object to a properly set up experiment to test something, especially when it is all open and published and hence totally repeatable. By conducting some real world experiments (not computer models) we should be able to gain a better understanding of how the atmosphere really works and get some quantitative results as well.
    And in light of the N-rays debacle it will do no harm to properly test the “stupid” theories while we are at it just to be 100% sure they are indeed stupid and that it is not the squidgy thing in your brain that is stupid.

    • “Duane has got a blog, there are TWO highly qualified climate scientists in his little group (the other one being, yes no surprise there, his wife).”
      He has. And he isn’t modest about their (modest) qualification:

      We are the most qualified real climatologists to ever come out as global warming skeptics (including even more than Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Judith Curry, although we acknowledge their revolutionary courage).

      • Dr. Thresher points out that Hansen and Schmidt have no background in Climate Science — no degrees, no courses taken. He does.
        He follows the scientific method, they don’t.
        He provides further evidence that Climate Science is a corrupt political movement. Something anyone who read the Climategate emails already knew.
        What exactly is your point, Nick?

      • “Dr. Thresher points out that Hansen and Schmidt have no background in Climate Science — no degrees, no courses taken. He does.”
        Yes, he does. His PhD thesis is here. From the acknowledgements:

        First and foremost I would like to thank the members of my committee: David Rind (advisor), Gavin Schmidt and Jean Lynch-Stieglitz. In particular, Gavin has provided significant help in many areas over several years.

      • Yes, and just imagine where he would be if he had told THE TRUTH about Gavin back then
        You really are a very naïve little person, Nick !!

      • “Dr. Thresher points out that Hansen and Schmidt have no background in Climate Science — no degrees, no courses taken. He does.
        He follows the scientific method, they don’t.”
        When folks like Christopher Monckton write papers, degrees don’t matter. When Schmidt does, they do. Which is it, Reg Nelson?
        And in any case there are hundreds of climate scientists publishing with PhDs in climate science. Hundreds against 3.

      • “if he had told THE TRUTH about Gavin “
        Don’t you think he’s honest? Sounds like he means it.
        But of course the irony is that he’s accusing the main guy from his PhD committee of not being a scientist because he has no degree.

      • Yes, like Nick, I find this self-aggrandisement rather suspect. Better qualified than Lindzen? Right.
        with the state of climatology I would not be crowing about having got a degree in it and pretending this was “better or “more qualified than someone whose basic studies and qualifications were in a real science subject.
        When we learn that Dr Thresher is a “real” climatologist because he got a degree in that field and that his thesis supervisors were the people he is now saying are not qualified, that just points out how worthless his bit of paper is and how disingenuous his arguments are.
        He either has a personal axe to grind or a political axe to grind ( maybe both ).
        Since he gained his qualifications in a fatally flawed science subject from someone he says knows nothing, I will take his out-flowings in that context.

      • Chris
        “When folks like Christopher Monckton write papers, degrees don’t matter. When Schmidt does, they do. Which is it, Reg Nelson?”
        You are correct of course! Monckton and Wilis and all the others should be heard.

  4. Dr. Thresher is not fond of subtle language it seems, but then the topic is not deserving of gentle treatment. Great to have a person with first hand experience tell it as he sees it. Should I take any meaning from the discovery that GISS is supported on a foundation that is essentially a prop for a TV situation comedy about nothing?

    • Like this part of his blog (legal page):
      We are not afraid of lawsuits. We never say anything we can’t prove or, after doing our due diligence, don’t firmly believe (the lesser known part of libel law). We will represent ourselves and countersue for damages so the usual tactic of trying to make defendants lose by bankrupting them with lawyer fees will be less effective. Be assured that during discovery we will demand anything remotely relevant that you would rather keep private and a subpoena is harder to ignore than a Freedom of Information Act request. Also, you will have to sue in our jurisdiction. Determining that jurisdiction shouldn’t be too hard but we leave that as an exercise for the suer. Finally, we would appreciate the publicity.
      In fact, we may sue you first.

      • That is really dumb. After they get to defend fifty or so, even if they win them all, I wonder what will be left in their pockets. Lawyers don’t defend suits for free and in the American system, seldom are attorneys fees awarded to a winning defendant.

      • How much will be left in Michael Mann’s pockets (and his backers) after he loses his civil case against Mark Steyn?
        Mann, who brought the case, is now dodging discovery, just as he and the UVA, dodged FOIA requests when he worked there.
        To make matters worse, two Penn State admins are now in prison for ignoring and covering up the Sandusky child molestation scandal. These same administrators protected Mann.

  5. If only it were a science about nothing, we would be better off. Instead it is making something out of nothing, and if you can’t afford it, “no soup for you.”

    • OK, funniest line on this thread until now. Likely a weekly winner, and a contender for the best quip of the month, certainly.

  6. I’m so glad that Dr. Duane Thresher pulled his punches.
    Otherwise, they’d might leave a visible mark.
    Defund them, strip them of office and RIF them!
    (RIF = Reduction in Force)
    Investigate their questionable ‘paperwork’ and histories of data torture; prosecute any/all infractions.

    • If its trough-feeders can’t be fired, then send them to the Arctic and Antarctic to collect real climatic data.

      • From what I have read, the Aleutians sit in the path of major weather systems, and have much more unpleasant weather than the Poles. Shemya, perhaps?

      • Shemya is bigger than many and has a facility with runway.
        Drop them on an Aleutian island for research without any carbon emission capabilities.

      • T-shirt: Shemya, Alaska
        It’s not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
        No, I’ve never been there. The shirt belongs to a paving foreman at one of the companies I ran asphalt plants for.

  7. I guess I’ll have to read something else from the guy, but this piece and link is pretty awfully written. Sounds bitter and angry and full of ad hominems but with no actual content to it. What he says may be true, but presented like this it sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.

    • He points out how Hansen and Schmidt have no background in Climate Science. They are unqualified opportunists. That’s common knowledge. How exactly is that an ad hominem attack?
      Michael Mann labeled Dr. Curry a “denier”, then later “denied” that he did, and was proven wrong. How is that not an ad hominem attack in your book? LOL.

      • Hansen has a PhD in Physics. I guess that’s not good enough for you. Of course, articles from Chris Monckton, Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watt and Marc Morano are just fine, even though none have PhDs in atmospheric sciences.

      • Chris, DR Hansen was a physics graduate, to be an astronomer. He has ZERO background in Meteorology,or Geology.

      • Sunsettommy said: “Chris, DR Hansen was a physics graduate, to be an astronomer. He has ZERO background in Meteorology,or Geology.”
        Ok, so are you saying that we should not pay attention to papers or technical articles on climate change that are written by folks that do not have PhDs in atmospheric physics?

    • I don’t think that brokenyogi understands what an ad hom attack is. “People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science.” is the resulting opinion from their behavior. Its not attacking their behaviour on the grounds that they have shown up to be people who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science elsewhere.

  8. Stop paying climate scientists. The good ones are so into their science they will work for food, maybe less, maybe even pay to do it.
    Willie Soon is a good example. Pity the pittance used to raise a family came from (via the Smithsonian who took 40%) from Big Oil. That it was occasionally less income than from flipping burgers didn’t seem to matter to those making 10 times as much on the side

  9. While closing and defunding this clown show seems like a great idea, it will be difficult to do. What can be done, is moving the unit to Goddard (MD) and putting them under some adult supervision. Then titrate them away.

  10. Anthony Watts
    I read the extracts from Dr Thresher’s article and fell in love with him at first sight. Then I read the whole article. It contains
    1) the insane insinuation that France is in the hands of islamic extremists. I promise you that there is just as much nasty prejudice against Moslems here in France as there is in the USA.
    2) insinuations about President Macron, Prime Minister Teresa May and Chancellor Angela Merkel which are beyond description in their nastiness.
    3) private email addresses, with an invitation to harrass the owners.
    No to censorship, but will you please protect the reputation of this site with a disclaimer?

    • Geoff you’re not in the game.
      Macron is owned by Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and his Islamic supremacist co-funders.
      Duane knows what he’s talking about; you don’t!

      • “Geoff you’re not in the game.
        Macron is owned by Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and his Islamic supremacist co-funders.
        Duane knows what he’s talking about; you don’t!”
        Tin foil hats on sale on aisle 3.

    • he also suggests sending scientists to prison.
      The group
      And it looks like he denies that we can know the past was cooler
      No LIA for you! no MWP either.. because proxies bad
      And models bad too
      Interestingly he is really Pissed that his paper arguing how to use GCMs to improve proxy reconstructions
      was rejected.
      Sounds like his idea got rejected and he got butt hurt, so he now disowns the two field he worked in.
      Most of us would carry on if we felt we were right. Like Willie Soon. He doesnt let a few rejections
      get him down.
      But this clown seems extremely butt hurt.

    • This comment from Thresher is particularly dumb:
      “French President Macron has invited the rest to move to France so they will be fine. He’ll probably even provide free burqas for the women climate scientists.”
      He doesn’t seem to know that wearing a burqa in public is banned in France.

  11. Did the politicians enable the climate conmen or was it the other way around ?
    Bottom line citizens have been duped by the combination of rent seekers , bought politicians
    and a few scientists who apparently couldn’t make it in their chosen field .
    Ta Da … Interests aligned . Throw into the cocktail the globalist agenda of the UN
    and you have the biggest con game ever played .
    NASA can salvage it’s reputation by getting back to it’s mission . NOAA forget it .

    • Einstein’s 1936 paper was an absolute disaster and Hawkings put a pile of junk in 2014 in which he proved there were no black holes. Pretty ironic since the now 3 gravity wave detections and a few more more currently in review.
      So according to Steven Mosher, Einstein and Hawkings are what … clowns? So we should throw out all the work that is basically what you are saying isn’t it.
      This is the problem with Global Warming discussions selective amnesia by all sides and you get better discussions out of a 2 year old.

    • Mosh,
      The difference being that with paleoclimate, you have actual data, whereas with using GCM to forecast out to 2100, alarmists simply invent “data” based upon nonphysical assumptions not in evidence.
      I’d have thought that key distinction was obvious.

  12. Eh, not really interested in trash talking or insults from either side.
    The unfortunate thing about GISS and other temperature constructs is that so much of the “data” is from infilling and a lot of the infilling and “corrections” of data came after the AGW hypothesis was accepted and well funded. There is a valid concern that global warming is not just man made, but in part at least, man fabricated. While constant corrections continue to take place and while most data is guessed by people with a vested interest in AGW, there can’t be any complaints that people don’t trust the data.
    Alas, things don’t change. There is no attempt to move away from massive infilling by spending some of those hundreds of billions on actually maintaining a vast land and sea record.
    I don’t make allegations of outright fraud, but climate gate showed a certain blasé attitude with what climate scientists consider to be not on message or blips.

  13. The problem is millions of progressives, rabid lefties and various political institutions do not care how bad the science is.
    They believe it to be justifiable and useful means.
    That is how and why Hansen and Schmidt have been able to perpetrate what they have without any consequences.

    • It’s simply just neomarxism making up a problem and science and politicizing it to attack the Western World and again try to promote their utopian ideology that already have been tried and failed X times the last 100 years

  14. Want a good laugh? Compare the wikipedia pages of GISS and Marshall Space Flight Center which details the agency’s accomplishments.

  15. That is some serious ranting and totally out of bounds. Would be much better if he would stick to the scientific shortcomings. I suspect it’s true, but not appropriate.
    As for young women dating climate scientists… who would do such a thing?…LOL. I was outnumbered 20 to 1 by geeks in my collegiate days in atmospheric science. I only knew one climatologist. He had no funding. Times have changed.

    • Very important, deserves careful study. Questions may be asked later. You will not be allowed to use the word “photon” in your answers. The student who claimed that heat energy can be transferred from a cold object to a warmer one will be required to construct a working model over the weekend.

  16. Mary B.,
    Given how “out of bounds” some of the alarmists activities seem to be, I ‘m thinking that a little more “out of bounds” behavior by really smart people might be in order.
    … especially given the energy configurations of the two sides, (1) alarmists ALLOWED to be heated, passionate, emotionally effusive spokespeople, and (2) real scientists SUPPOSED to be calm, collected, level-headed, matter of fact.
    Now which do you think is more likely to win mass support? Squeaky wheels, or well oiled quiet wheels?
    Social expectations automatically give alarmists the message-marketing advantage.

    • I believe it was months ago that I suggested you should SHOUT YOUR OPINIONS out. If you hear a falsehood CALL IT OUT. One of my pet favourite sayings this past month has been the simple “You are wrong, the atmosphere doesn’t work like that”. The conversion rate is low but at least it is positive with one relative and my gardner now moving in the right direction.

    • I like to stick to the science and let the Chicken Little’s do all the screaming and yelling. Then I politely ask “Who is denying science here?”
      Also, I only work on people who have their mind partly open. No sense screaming at closed-minded partisans.

Comments are closed.