A troubling omission of condemnation by NASA's Dr. Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin

Wow, this is really something. Three days after a declaration about “faking climate science” to be “more emphatic” Not a peep from NASA GISS head Gavin Schmidt.

That’s a troubling omission of condemnation, especially since both sides of the climate debate should be condemning this. Science is no place for “faking graphs”. Period.

Here’s the screencap:

And here is the link to the Twitter thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/o_glyndwr1404/status/982373647905062917

I’ve said before (after the OIG report slammed them) that NASA GISS is wasteful and redundant, and should be closed. Now it appears they may be under mendacious leadership as well.

h/t to Dave Burton.

UPDATE: For those that say Gavin shouldn’t bother, etc. there’s this:

“Silence is an advocacy practice,” declared Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA’s climate division, when he spoke at the annual Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society conference in February this year.

That post here: https://daily-climate.weebly.com/blog/april-08th-2018


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Eh ignoring trolls is usually a good idea

Joel Snider

Except that wasn’t a troll, was it? That was a like mind, impatient with us skeptics.
Schmidt doesn’t want to discourage THAT.
Just like Mosher isn’t over at all the alarmists sites, telling them to tone it down, or correcting their math.

No, Joel, it turns out we were trolled. It turns out that “Owain Glyndwr” is no friend of Gavin, and his tweet is not an example of a climate alarmist exhibiting “Gleick ethics.” After reviewing tweets by “Owain Glyndwr” (@o_glyndwr1404) it is pretty clear that he is someone on the Right who parodied unscrupulous climate alarmists.
Gavin probably recognized that for what it was, and just ignored it.

Joel Snider

So – ‘on the right’ means ‘skeptic’.
Just to be clear about your equals signs.

John Bell

Once you are faking graphs it is no longer about truth, but power, money and control.

Curious George

Mr. Owain Glyndwr was probably sarcastic.

Leo Smith

Glyndŵr is portrayed in William Shakespeare’s play Henry IV, Part 1 (anglicised as Owen Glendower) as a wild and exotic man ruled by magic and emotion.
With his death Owain acquired a mythical status along with Cadwaladr, Cynan and Arthur as the hero awaiting the call to return and liberate his people. In the late 19th century the Cymru Fydd movement recreated him as the father of Welsh nationalism.



Ernest Bush

@Curious – LOL@you. Progressives don’t have the sense of humor to even be sarcastic.

Curious George

Ernest, he does not strike me as a progressive.


Yes, he was being sarcastic. Well done, sir!

Brad Grubel

As it always has been.

Louis Hooffstetter

They are faking the graphs (indirectly) by faking the data used to make them:

william matlack

I have to send this even if its off topic. The headline on the WIRED UK says THESE STARTUPS ARE TURNING CARBON POLLUTION INTO SOMETHING USEFUL. Wow whoda thunk it ? Imagine carbon being useful


These graphs aren’t emphatic enough. We need to kill the arguments of climate deniers. If that means faking graphs then the means justify the ends.

Wouldn’t that mean that the lies are so important that it doesn’t really matter if CAGW is real or not?


Wouldn’t that mean that the lies are so important that it doesn’t really matter if CAGW is real or not?”
The writer of that text is showing that AGW has nothing to do with science, or even global warming. Try reading http://green-agenda.com/index.html


Is it going to far to say that the skeletons in the cupboard are breaking out.
There seems an extraordinary number of revelations, back tracking (oops, I almost typed backsliding) media articles, and sceptical academics etc. stepping up to have their say these days.
Or is it just my optimistic enthusiasm running away with me?
I kind of get the sense it’s all going a bit Pete Tong for the alarmists.


Read the Green Agenda site which I gave the link for. Unfortunately your optimism is probably somewhat premature, I am sorry to say – but we appear to be having a step in the right direction.


Optimism is only ever one step at a time, although we always hope for more. 🙂
And as an optimist, I believe a step in the right direction is never premature.
It may prove a step in the wrong direction, but at least it’s a step a pessimist wouldn’t make in the first place.
I’ll have a read at the green agenda site, but I think I may have already.
Try this http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-bureaucracies-and-crony-capitalists-stifle-innovation/


IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental
Straight from the horses mouth.


It is a natural impossibility for any government or for any “authority” to transfer and redistribute an amount of prosperity without at the same time transferring and redistributing an amount of poverty that is greater than the amount of prosperity that is redistributed. Governments are, by many times over, the leading causes for the existence of poverty among the governed.

Not to mention getting the cliche wrong. “Means justify the ends” just confirms his ignorance.


Maybe he didn’t? Maybe that’s exactly what he meant? At this point, what do you think they value most? Knowing the truth or maintaining the lies?


Actually, it’s only the means (the data, the analysis, reason) that can justify (lead to or “prove” a plausible conclusion) the ends (the answer to the question).


with the best will in the world, I don’t believe for a moment either side of this debate has sufficient evidential science to prove anything about the climate.
Sadly, alarmist’s believe their own PR. Sceptics simply examine the evidence.


For religious zealots “the end [glory to god] justifies the means [Crusades]” is the first battle cry.

Mark L Gilbert

from LBom “For religious zealots “the end [glory to god] justifies the means [Crusades]” is the first battle cry.”
mmm Not exactly, that is more a Nietzsche style “will to power” tactic. Christianity teaches that if you cheat, you do not actually win. The ninth commandment says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). The game is more important than an individual winning. Nietzsche IMHO is just plain justification for evil, but your mileage may vary.


Nietzsche was that uncommon breed of honest atheist who made a serious effort to think through the implications of his (un)belief.


August 26, 1900: “Nietzsche is dead”- Good.

F. Leghorn

I don’t understand why you intimate the Crusades were evil but you don’t condemn the Muslims who conquered the Holy Land in the first place.
(Don’t want to hijack the thread, mods. Just something that needed to be said)


zealot, by definition. Don’t need the qualifier.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Potchefstroom

Oh my, oh my, oh my! They are going to regret that tweet.
Now we have the triple travesties of hidden declines, redefined peer review and faked temperature charts (as if Gavin proffering an annual global temperature record of 0.001 degrees with 38% confidence wasn’t fake enough).
The CO2 concentration is shooting up. The temperature isn’t. If your bread and butter is claiming they rise together, I guess the only destination left is the corner of Crap-Data Crescent and Libel Lane.

& neither is the rate of rise in sea-level!!!


Crispin in Waterloo but really in Potchefstroom
Honest to God Crispin, you must be the easiest man in the world to track across the globe.
Every time you post a location I’m quite sure the greens are cross referencing your travel itinerary and one day they’ll track you down and toast you over an open fire to make an example of you suffering the fate of a global warming sceptic. “Ve haf vays of making you talk”
Unless of course, you really are ~whisper~ Jimmy Bond, 007.
Please, please tell me you are Bond, leading them a merry dance.
[The mods do reequest Crispin wash his/her hands thoroughly before leaving the PotsChef’sRestRoom. .mod]


Can I borrow a car and a bird for a week please?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Potchefstroom

It so happens I am sitting in my ultra-efficient car with not one but two birds so today may be posting from Parys and Vanderbijl Park.
I am prepared to meet the greens on the subject of emissions any time. I am reducing their dreaded magic gas production more than any of them. But I am doing it in the name of assisting and uplifting the poor, not punishing them for being surplus people.
It is one thing to be deplorable, but being surplus is an existential, personal threat.

Jeff Alberts

“as if Gavin proffering an annual global temperature record”
That right there is fake enough. No more need be said.

This sort of mind-set has been on display before.
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

The correct expression is “the ends justify the means”. Obviously not an educated person!

Pop Piasa

A cornegg victim?

Killer Marmot

Who knows who Owain Glyndwr (an ancient Welsh ruler) really is or what his/her point actually was. I would have ignored the post as well.

F. Leghorn

I think it is an anagram of “winy wrong lad”. But I could be in error.


Killer Marmot
Welsh Rugby Union player from memory.
No point to the game, but it’s a lot of fun.


Either “Owain” is just an average greenie-dope or he’s actually spoofing/baiting Gavin.


The scale on the left-hand side says it all—going from 0.2 x 10-13 concentration to 2.0 x 10-13 still means that at the 10-13 power, SO2 is worth ignoring entirely.

Rick C PE

Yes, forget the stupid response tweet, the graph is terrible. No X-axis scale, title says “SO2 Emissions N. Am.” but units are not identified. No matter what the actual units of measurement are, 2 or 3 Ten Trillionths is essentially zero. I would question the competence of anyone presenting such a useless and incomprehensible graphic.

Alan Tomalty

Gavin Schmidt should have been the 1st person fired by Trump. I cant understand why Trump hasnt done it yet.

Pop Piasa

Maybe he a minority?


Fired? The guy should be lynched for this.

Well, not “for this,” zazove. It turns out that “Owain Glyndwr” is no friend of Gavin, and his tweet is not an example of a climate alarmist exhibiting “Gleick ethics.” After reviewing tweets by “Owain Glyndwr” (@o_glyndwr1404) it is pretty clear that he is someone on the Right who parodied unscrupulous climate alarmists.
Gavin probably recognized that for what it was, and just ignored it.

x-axis scale is date. It got clipped in the screenshot, but if you look at the tweet it is there.

J Mac

‘Owain Glyndwr’ may be a pseudonym….

Nick Werner

In Gavin’s defence, I can understand thinking it’s not worth responding to a “dispatches-from-the-gutters” type suggestion from some tool masquerading under the pseudonym of a Welsh ruler that’s been dead for six hundred years.


But Gavin did say…. “Science is Advocacy”…..

I suspect “Owain Glyndwr” is not serious and is just winding up Schmidt by alluding to GISS’s track record in faking! I don’t understand, though, why he has inverted the cliche.

Tom in Florida

Perhaps you have answered you own question. All is not what you read.


Yeah, the comment sound ironic to me.
But interesting that the comment was not called-out, as if the site agreed with his sentiment.

john eyon

you might check Owain’s tweet history – he actually appears to be be a Right-wing anti-Alarmist troll (i was skimming his tweets and found it hard to pin him down) – if so – it’s kinda depressing that he wouldn’t hesitate to post a tweet in which he might have been trying to define the flaw in Gavin’s graphic

How do you know Owain Glyndwr isn’t just a troll who is best ignored. On March 31 he retweeted this from Steven Goddard. I see nothing in his twitter feed to say that he is someone Gavin should take seriously. Or that this tweet should be taken at face value.

Reg Nelson

Don’t know about that, but Gavin has a history of cowardice. Check the Charlie Rose video clip where he refused to even appear on the same set as Dr. Roy Spencer, fearing he would have to debate him.
Why anyone would defend him is beyond me.


“How do you know Owain Glyndwr isn’t just a troll who is best ignored.”
It’s clear he thinks AGW is a hoax, and has other rather unsavory views. It should be obvious that his tweet was sarcastic.

His last recent climate tweet was a retweet from Steven Goddard, Mar 31. But he tweets a lot about Trump. For example
18 Mar
“He’s right. President Trump will not destroy America. He will make it great again”
14 Mar
“I dont care even if President Trump has indeed colluded with Russia. He’s still our president for 8 glorious years.”
18 Feb
“Yes, President Trump is a nice person. I honestly believe that. Hillary, on the other hand, is an evil witch who should be in jail. Preferably a jail in Haiti where the good people can repay her for robbing the country.”
Doesn’t sound like a Gavin fan.


Not to mention
1 Mar
4k people, over a period of 20 years, state that AGW is happening. You have no idea of their credentials. But you believe them to the point that you think the human race should spend 2% of global GDP on climate change – which we do: $1.5 trillion is 2% of global GDP.
17 Jan
“Unlike the hoax of “man-made climate change”, this is a real and tragic issue which needs urgent action. However: these photos are as fake as a $7 bill.”
18 Nov

I deny AGW too.

Bob boder

Have to agree, Gavin is slime but I would have ignored this tweet too!


Owain Glyndwr or Owen Glendower as he was called in Shakespeare’s plays was renowned as a braggart who claimed magical powers and who “was thought, through art magic he caused such foul weather of winds, tempest, rain, snow, and hail to be raised for the annoyance of the king’s army that the like had not been heard of.”

Taylor Ponlman

Good find on Owen Glendower, Taphonomic!
Looks like the perfect pseudonym for a climate troll.

Well Shakespeare was famous for pro-english propaganda sucking up to the monarch of the day (e.g. macbeth). He was writing close to 200 years after Glyndwr who is regarded as a Welsh national hero.


Yep, but the quote is from Holinshed (from whom Shakespeare got much of the meat for his historical plays).

Taphonomic April 9, 2018 at 2:31 pm
Yep, but the quote is from Holinshed (from whom Shakespeare got much of the meat for his historical plays).

Indeed he did but that didn’t stop Shakespeare from altering it to please his patrons (initially the Tudors then the Stuarts (Macbeth)). Also Holinshed was English too and given his origins near the Marches was certainly no less biased against the Welsh.


But other than having Glendower engage in copious amounts of braggadocio, Shakespeare portrays Glendower quite fairly, as someone who beat back Henry IV multiple times. So I’m not sure exactly what your complaint is.


Owain is taking the mickey out of Gav


oh man, WUWT is complaining about mr. Schmidt ignoring a troll. This might be even worse than putting words into the mouth of the long deceased Einstein, from the post a while back. Please focus on increasing the quality of your reporting, if only a tiny bit. Don’t feed the trolls, remember?

Joel Snider

I prefer the Billy Goat Gruff approach to trolls.

Joel Snider

‘Ends justifying the means’ seems a common mantra as a substitution for ethic – kinda the Progressive approach on everything.


That scientist just undermined every paper he has ever written, now suspect. Who knows where he thinks the ends justify the means?

The tweet has been deleted, perhaps before Gavin could see it. No posts were made by Gavin to the thread after “Owen Glendwr”‘s It also looks like this Owen Glendwr guy is a tad conservative. I can’t see any alarmist green nor climate alarmist posts made by him. So maybe someone was baiting Gavin?
PS: I’m all for legitimate criticisms of Gavin, and there are plenty to be made. Not this.


Can’t see the point of this thread at all…

The tweet is not deleted. It’s still here:
and here:
and here (sorta):
Twitter’s threading is a mysterious to me. I posted a comment in what I thought was the same thread, but it doesn’t show up when you view the comment by “Owain Glyndwr.” This was my tweet:
I don’t know who “Owain Glyndwr” is, nor whether he was serious, but the tweet does seem to accurately reflect the attitude of some in the Climate Movement, such as the Movement’s top ethicist, Dr. Peter Gleick. He was the Chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s Scientific Ethics Task Force when he committed fraud, identity theft, forgery & defamation to smear Heartland.
Note that Gleick’s crimes didn’t seem to hurt his career much.
Pacific Institute quickly reinstated him as their President (now “President Emeritus”).
The AGU let him “resign” for “personal, private reasons” as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, and did not revoke his AGU membership.
The NAS did not revoke his membership, either.
The Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Democrat Zachary Fardon, refused to prosecute Gleick for his crimes, stonewalling until the statute of limitations had run out.
Gleick was subsequently rewarded by National Geographic’s (now defunct) ScienceBlog subsidiary, with a blog there. He was their resident “scientist, innovator, and communicator” on “global water, environment, climate” (and presumably identity theft, fraud, character assassination, and forgery):
Michael Mann still loves him:
HuffPo loves him, too:
I think the dishonesty of Climate Movement activists like Peter Gleik is a lot like the dishonesty of the Piltdown Man hoaxer.
I don’t doubt that the PIltdown hoaxer truly believed that men and primates are descended from a common evolutionary ancestor. He just ginned up a little fake evidence to bolster the case for what he was already sure was true… just like Climate Movement activists like Gleick forge documents, manipulate & withhold data, blackball skeptics, etc., to bolster the case for what they are already sure is true. They don’t even think of themselves as dishonest, they’re just using a little deception in support of a greater truth.
The response of those duped by such deceptions is instructive, too. When a belief has been held for a long time (or even for a short time, for less-than-careful thinkers), it settles into the mind, and becomes comfortable there, and is reluctant to leave. People who have been convinced of something by false evidence, if they have held that belief for a long time, rarely become unconvinced of it if the evidence that convinced them is later shown to be false.
That’s why the Big Lie works so well.
How many people changed their opinions about evolution, in even the tiniest detail, when Piltdown Man was revealed to be a hoax? How many CAGW true believers are now doubters in the wake of the Climategate revelations?
Few. Precious few.


So this is modern day science . A conspiracy to defraud the public and governments response is
silence . Oh that’s right they are government operatives encouraging lying . Sadly no surprise
Climate gate opened that view of the science fiction in the scary global warming industry .


I have been coming here for a while and would have to say not all the graphs that support the skeptic narrative are entirely accurate. And it would also be fair to say that these graphs are swallowed by the faithful with no correction offered by the moderators. Does this mean this site condones fake graphs? I think that would be a bit unfair, as it is to say Mr Schmidt should have done anything with this tweet other than ignore it, which is what he did. It is certainly a stretch to say he supported it in any way.


But then on an unfunded, enthusiast occupied blog, I think some inaccuracies can be forgiven.
However, from wildly excessively funded, government supported sites, should we expect inaccuracies, far less rank incompetence or, otherwise, blatant lying?
And if you have been coming here as long as you maintain, you might notice that sceptics, are as sceptical of their own, as they are of alarmists.
That’s kind of the job of sceptics.
Almost a self correcting phenomenon.


This is some nutbar making a nutbar statement. Why should give it any time at all? I wouldn’t bother.


The refuge of the alarmist scoundrel.
Start calling people names.
Nanny Nanny boobie.

Brett Keane

Aw Simon, does this mean you want to be one of us now?


De[ends what one of us is?

Coeur de Lion

I think ferget it!

Gunga Din

CO2 doesn’t cause “Global Warming” or even “Climate Change”.
Scum does.


“War is Peace / Freedom is Slavery / Ignorance is Strength”…… and now, “Advocacy is Science”.
Gavin is so Orwellian, it’s scary…. Bizarre times indeed.

Bill Illis

The issue is about SO2 emissions to be used in the upcoming IPCC modelling.
They are saying that SO2 emissions are way higher than what was used in IPCC AR5 (CMIP5).
SO2 emissions lead to “cooling” in the models. SO2 reflects more sunlight, and it makes clouds thicker which also reflects more sunlight. It offsets some of the warming expected.
So are they using fake increased SO2 aerosol levels to offset some of the GHG warming which should have shown up? Well, they have used this offset since day one so it is not surprising that they continue to make it even bigger.
The real SO2 emissions from US are here. Not UP, but way, way, way frickin’ DOWN. This is the issue. [US only, Canada and Mexico are not quite as good as the US but they are falling very fast as well].comment image

I’m surprised only at the 1970-to-1975 drop. I thought U.S. SO₂ emissions didn’t begin to drop until the late 1970s.
1970 must have been approximately the peak. That giant Homer City chimney was apparently built in 1977 (to abate ground level particulate / aerosol pollution from the power plant there).


Bill, what’s the GLOBAL picture on SO2 emissions though? I would think China may have taken up some of the slack?

Ed Zuiderwijk

Scrubbers and the big switch to gas.


Has anyone bothered to look through Owain Glyndwr’s timeline? He’s clearly a troll or an idiot, why should anyone waste time to point out an obvious sarcastic insult.


Have you tried reading comments? He is clearly not an idiot, rather setting up some cheap satire.
Call that trolling if you are offended. My pleasure.


“Have you tried reading comments?”
Yes, most of them took it that he was a climate scientist accidentally revealing some hidden agenda. eg

“Except that wasn’t a troll, was it? That was a like mind, impatient with us skeptics.”

“Once you are faking graphs it is no longer about truth, but power, money and control.”

“So this is modern day science . A conspiracy to defraud the public and governments response is
silence .”

“Oh my, oh my, oh my! They are going to regret that tweet. ”

“That scientist just undermined every paper he has ever written, now suspect. Who knows where he thinks the ends justify the means?”


The thing that Owain Glyndwr doesn’t realize is that NASA/GISS and NOAA/NCEI are *already* faking the data with adjustments as much as they can. Were it not for the adjustments, the cooling would already be evident.


Judging by a brief read through some of his tweets it wouldn’t surprise me if he does believe NASA are faking data.


From the article: “These graphs aren’t emphatic enough. We need to kill the arguments of climate deniers. If that means faking graphs then the means justify the ends.”
The Alarmists have already tried the fake graph ploy (HadCRUT, Hansen’s Hockey Stick, Best, etc).
Maybe they mean they need to fake *more* graphs, in addition to the previously faked graphs produced.


Liars lie to promote their lying narratives.
And flee from possible uncontrolled questioning and reviews.


Truth fears no question. So what are they so afraid of?


If Gavin had said it then that would have been something. But frankly I dont want thinking sceptics tarnished by trolls who post rubbish here and I dont think Gavin should be judged by what people tweet at him either. Whether he openly condemns it or not.

What he said.


Why is NASA in the climate manufacturing business ? They are going to need all the coin they can muster
to get to Mars once the Fed budget gets hacked next week .
Let the UK make up weather stats to help justify the fuel poverty population reduction strategy they are so good at .
President Trump has got to find the cash to build the wall . Why not make it a giant solar panel ?

Friends, we’ve been trolled.
I just did a review of the tweets by “Owain Glyndwr” (@o_glyndwr1404). He doesn’t have much to say for himself, but he does a lot of retweeting — and a lot of what he retweets is from Trump supporters, Brexit supporters, and climate skeptics. (He also likes cats, and boxing.) I didn’t find any retweets of Gavin and his friends.
I hate having to admit this, but that “Owain Glyndwr” tweet is
not an example of a climate alarmist exhibiting Gleick ethics. It is someone on the Right parodying such people.


The sheer amount of these accounts in the net prompts the question: who pays to these people, and why? I hope it’s not me via taxes. No actually I do hope so!


“The sheer amount of these accounts in the net prompts the question: who pays to these people, and why?”
Are you suggestion Glyndwr is a Russian bot? Seems more likely he’s doing it for himself, for free.

I think he’s a Welshman.


“It is someone on the Right parodying such people.”
Don’t underestimate the Left’s deviousness. That may be what they want you to think. 🙂

Michael Ozanne

The BBC is beyond parody ever since the referendum and the election of Trump. It’s a pity because I wouldn’t want to be without it, but I think the current crop are putting the whole organisation at risk.


I’m pleased certain people did eventually notice the graph was about SO2 and not CO2. Took several hours before Bill Illis posted something about SO2 and not CO2….

Ed Zuiderwijk

If you fake an already faked graph you are in danger of getting the truth.
Just a thought.