NASA Announces New Role of Senior Climate Advisor

From NASA

Gavin Schmidt
Gavin Schmidt, acting senior climate advisor Credits: NASA

In an effort to ensure effective fulfillment of the Biden Administration’s climate science objectives for NASA, the agency has established a new position of senior climate advisor and selected Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, to serve in the role in an acting capacity until a permanent appointment is made.

“This position will provide NASA leadership critical insights and recommendations for the agency’s full spectrum of science, technology, and infrastructure programs related to climate,” said acting NASA Administrator Steve Jurczyk. “This will enable the agency to more effectively align our efforts to help meet the administration’s goals for addressing climate change.”

Climate adaptation and mitigation efforts cannot succeed without robust climate observations and research. With more than two dozen satellites and instruments observing key climate indicators, NASA is the premier agency in observing and understanding changes to the Earth. Furthermore, NASA enjoys broad public support and trust, lending credibility to its climate observations.

“The complexities of climate processes still are not fully understood, and climate adaptation and mitigation efforts cannot succeed without robust climate observations, data, and research” said acting NASA Chief of Staff Bhavya Lal. “The appointment of Gavin Schmidt will help ensure that the Biden Administration has the crucial data to implement and track its plan toward the path to achieve net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, and a healthier, safer, more prosperous planet for our children.”

As a representative of the agency’s strategic science objectives and accomplishments, the senior climate advisor will advocate for NASA climate investments in the context of broader government agendas and work closely with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget.

Specifically, the senior climate advisor will work to:

  • Promote and engage in climate-related investments in the Science Mission Directorate’s Earth Science Division.
  • Promote aeronautics and other technology initiatives focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and broad climate impacts.
  • Demonstrate and communicate the societal impacts and breadth of NASA investments related to climate.
  • Foster communication and coordination within and outside the science community at NASA.
  • Actively engage in amplifying the agency’s climate-related research and technological development.

Schmidt has been GISS director since 2014. His main research interest is the use of climate modeling to understand past, present, and future climate change, and he has authored or co-authored more than 150 research papers in peer-reviewed literature. He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was the inaugural winner of the AGU Climate Communication Prize in 2011. He also was awarded NASA’s Outstanding Leadership Medal in 2017. He has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Oxford University and a doctorate in applied mathematics from University College London.

For more information about NASA, its missions, and agency programs, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov

-end-

2.3 15 votes
Article Rating
149 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
alastair gray
February 4, 2021 2:09 am

Apparently you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to do well at NASA.
I would have given the job to Mikey M and then we could have had a Mann-ed mission to Mars – one way and no radio link!

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  alastair gray
February 4, 2021 5:30 am

Well they gave the job to Mike’s clone, so it’s all good. I notice that they promote Gavin’s big credential as climate modeler. He doesn’t get his head out of the models and look at the real world.

Redge
Reply to  alastair gray
February 4, 2021 5:54 am

Mouse?

Derge
Reply to  Redge
February 4, 2021 5:26 pm

Michael Mann

February 4, 2021 2:13 am

They are carefully selecting people to tell them what they already believe. What a great way to avoid learning anything.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Dave Burton
February 4, 2021 9:32 am

And the not so subtle irony of it is that Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist and knows nothing of science.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 4, 2021 10:14 am

Apart from being employed as a scientist by NASA (which seems like a pretty good qualification), Schmidt’s Google Scholar profile lists 20 pages of publications and he has 21654 listed citations. Is not a scientist someone who does science and publishes their results?

DonM
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 11:08 am

Does science?

Of all of those publications, has any one of them noted study data that didn’t match the pre-determined objective?

He does science hard.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 11:23 am

“Is not a scientist someone who does science and publishes their results?”

.

You just proved that you also, know NOTHING about science.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 12:08 pm

So, in your opinion, which of the two things do scientists not do?

a. Science.
b. Publish.

Emily Daniels
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 1:43 pm

There’s no such thing as “doing” science. Anyone can utilize the scientific method, and it doesn’t require a specialized degree. However, utilizing it correctly means constantly testing and questioning your own results and seeking out criticism of your work to improve upon it. Gavin Schmidt has never shown any interest in being honestly critiqued, so no, he is not a scientist by the classical definition.

Being published or cited is not a requirement to be a scientist. Only to be an academic.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Emily Daniels
February 4, 2021 1:52 pm

“There’s no such thing as “doing” science. Anyone can utilize the scientific method, and it doesn’t require a specialized degree. However, utilizing it correctly means constantly testing and questioning your own results and seeking out criticism of your work to improve upon it.”

I call all of this “doing science.” It saves 34 words.

“Gavin Schmidt has never shown any interest in being honestly critiqued, so no, he is not a scientist by the classical definition.”

Is that not exactly what the scientific literature is for? Schmidt publishes all of his work and opens it up for critical examination.

Last edited 23 days ago by Weekly_rise
Duker
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 4:14 pm

Ok them . Hows he doing in Retraction watch ?
https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/
Thats right he doesnt *do* retraction, all issues are ‘immaterial’

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Duker
February 5, 2021 5:42 am

Sorry, just to be clear, are you saying the fact that Schmidt doesn’t have to frequently retract his research papers is a bad thing?

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 7:50 pm

“opens it up for critical examination…

.

And HAS BEEN FOUND WANTING at every juncture.

Last edited 23 days ago by fred250
Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 9:51 pm

None of Gavin’s work constitutes science. Falsifiable theory and experimental test appears nowhere in his work.

All his work is with parameterized climate models, which are no different than engineering models. Unable to predict observables beyond their tuning bounds.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 2:49 am

Doesn’t matter what YOU call it, weak-one..

That is totally irrelevant.

Very few “climate scientists” do actual science.

Its all untested hypothesis and conjecture leading to untenable, unvalidated computer model games, and a whole heap of basically fraudulent data manipulation.

Lots of junk publishing though thanks to pal-review..

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 7:49 pm

Data MANIPULATION and ADJUSTMENT is NOT SCIENCE.

It is ANTI-SCIENCE.

You obviously don’t understand what science is.

Lrp
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 12:40 am

You can do both and still not be doing science.

Robert
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 1:14 pm

Gavin has a PhD in Mathematics from University College London. Then worked on the variability of the ocean circulation and climate, using general circulation models (GCMs) just as the term “climate scientist” was being invented in the early 1990’s. He has also worked on ways to reconcile paleo-data with models. He is a mathematician who climbed on the climate gravy train of government funding to get a job.

He is a computer modeler of GCMs’ which are a hypothesis (not a theory) created by others of how climate works. He takes other peoples science and creates computer models.

The important thing about GCMs’ is that none of them have been shown to be capable of predicting climate. None. Those modelers producing them continue to produce unending variations of their computer models to fit with what actually occurs.

In summary GCMs’ are at best a hypothesis on climate not a theory. So far they are of no use.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Robert
February 4, 2021 1:50 pm

You are affecting a pejorative tone in this comment, but underneath the vitriol what you seem to be saying is that Schmidt has an academic background in applied mathematics and has spent his professional career working on climate models. Is that correct? And he publishes the results of his work on climate models in peer reviewed scientific journals (judging by his prolific publication history), would you also agree?

What else could he be if not a scientist?

Duker
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 4:21 pm

Not always on Climate Models
Schmidt, G.A., 2020: <b>Unknowability in climate science: Chaos, structure, and society</b>. Soc. Res.87, no. 1, 133-149.

Hes now complaining that theres a big rise in people ‘doing climate science’

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 7:53 pm

NO, he has a background in DATA MANIPULATION…(which is NEVER “science”)

…. as opposed to data analysis. (which can be science)

Pity you are LOW in understanding of science, as to be totally oblivious to the difference.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  fred250
February 5, 2021 6:19 am

I didn’t realize University College offered postgraduate degrees in data manipulation!

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 12:09 pm

Yes, we know Gavin doesn’t do normal mathematics

He seeks out way to manipulate the data to his cause.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 9:53 pm
Weekly_rise
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 5, 2021 6:37 am

Pat, I’ve followed the discussion of your paper for a while now, and am still unconvinced of its veracity (but also not ready to simply dismiss it since I frankly don’t understand it all that well). However, it is abundantly clear that the actual observed differences between model projections and observed surface temperature trends are orders of magnitude lower than your range of uncertainty estimates. This heavily implies that your uncertainty estimates are deficient in some regard (I would posit that it is almost certainly because your uncertainty estimates allow for outcomes that are physically impossible – i.e. would violate the laws of physics – and thus not possible for the models to produce).

You speak of Gavin just being a mathematician with no understanding of physical error, but as far as I can tell your own error analysis is merely a mathematical construct (that may or may not be conceptually sound) without a physical basis.

Last edited 22 days ago by Weekly_rise
bigoilbob
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 7:58 am

Not to worry. His paper actually validates the peer review “magic of the marketplace” process. Better to let head scratchers in, and then see how often they are relevantly cited. His, not at all.

I read quit a few of these, on many subjects. Can’t recall a paper so ignored in superterrainea…

Pat Frank
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 5, 2021 8:15 am

Yet another scientifically invalid personal opinion, bob. You’ve yet to provide otherwise.

My paper presently has 142,913 views including 7799 downloads. That’s your ignored.

That it’s ignored by people invested in the AGW crock is no surprise at all. It’s to their shame.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 8:11 am

You’re treating uncertainties as though they were model excursions in temperature projection , W-r. They’re not. They do not say anything about possible temperatures.

They express the knowledge content of the projection. They are an ignorance width.

The very wide confidence intervals mean that the projections are well into the total ignorance regime and are pretty much physically meaningless.

If you’ve been following the discussion, you should have already encountered that difference of meaning.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 5, 2021 8:25 am

“They express the knowledge content of the projection. They are an ignorance width.”

I agree with this to an extent, which is why the width of your uncertainty envelope doesn’t sit well. Your uncertainty envelope encompasses a range of outcomes that are actually impossible for the models to produce (things that violate the laws of physics) – so the ignorance width you’ve calculated encompasses things we aren’t ignorant about. That means there is something missing from your estimate of our ignorance.

It would be like coming up with an uncertainty estimate for a model of projectile motion of a baseball tossed from a window, and the calculated uncertainty envelope allowing for the baseball to wind up inside the earth’s core. The ground provides a pretty solid boundary of uncertainty. You might insist, “the math allows for it!” But I would say there is more to the story than your math.

Last edited 22 days ago by Weekly_rise
Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 9:25 am

Uncertainty widths wider than the physical bounds means that the projection has no informational content, W-r.

You’re still treating the uncertainty as though it reflected a projection range of possible air temperatures. It does not.

Uncertainty says nothing about where the projection ends up.

Nor would it say anything about the physical trajectory of your thrown baseball.

It would say something about the extent of your knowledge about a baseball’s trajectory, given considerable ignorance about the initial conditions: little knowledge of the force, little knowledge of the azimuthal or radial angles of throw, little knowledge of windspeed, etc. Each of those parameters have a wide range of equally likely values.

You don’t know force or angle. What is the range of positional ignorance in a throw projected out to 50 yards?

Note that you never know where the ball actually goes. And your uncertainty calculation starts prior to the throw.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 5, 2021 12:03 pm

The uncertainty encompasses the range of values that the true quantity might assume given the estimate of the quantity and its uncertainty. Your calculated uncertainty allows for the true quantity to take on values that would violate the laws of physics. Ergo your uncertainty estimate is nonphysical and incomplete. There is no uncertainty whatsoever that the true temperature will be a value consistent with the laws of physics.

I guess another way to say this is that, as a layperson who can’t really evaluate your mathematics effectively, I have to conclude that you must be wrong about how uncertain we are about LWCF. Our uncertainty about LWCF isn’t so great that the forcing can violate the laws of physics. That is why I am unconvinced by your paper.

Last edited 22 days ago by Weekly_rise
Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 5:09 pm

W-r, you wrote, “The uncertainty encompasses the range of values that the true quantity might assume given the estimate of the quantity and its uncertainty.

No, it does not.

You wrote, “Your calculated uncertainty allows for the true quantity to take on values that would violate the laws of physics.

No, it does not.

You wrote, “Ergo your uncertainty estimate is nonphysical and incomplete.

Not it is not. In both your senses.

Uncertainty is a statistic. It is not a physical magnitude, nor a magnitude of physical error.

Well, I do agree that the uncertainty is incomplete in the sense that it is a lower limit of uncertainty, only. A complete estimate of uncertainty in projected air temperatures would be easily 10x larger.

Section 10.2 of the SI of my paper has a long discussion of uncertainty. Please.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 6, 2021 5:44 am

From the JCGM:

“uncertainty (of measurement)
parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand.”

This is exactly consistent with my description above. I actually agree with much of what I read in 10.2 of your paper, but none of it addresses my central concern. If I have an object of length x and a 1 foot ruler of length ~2x, you will have a hard time convincing me that your calculated measurement uncertainty of >1000 feet is valid. The uncertainty is constrained by my knowledge of the fact that the object is not longer than the ruler.

Last edited 21 days ago by Weekly_rise
Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 6, 2021 8:40 am

Model projections are not measurements, first.

Second, if your 1 foot ruler is no better than ±1/8th inch, and you make 10 measurements to determine the length a board, the uncertainty in your final combined measurement is ±0.4″.

Growth of uncertainty in result occurs when calibration error is propagated through a lengthy calculation or series of measurements. We can’t avoid it.

See eqns. S10.1 and S10.2 in the SI, also from the JCGM.

Uncertainty and its growth have been discussed and explained endlessly here at WUWT.

My paper shows a lower limit calibration error for climate models, in simulation of cloud cover. That calibration error puts an uncertainty in simulated atmospheric thermal energy flux, which is the determinant of air temperature.

That uncertainty in simulated atmospheric thermal energy flux conditions the very first step of a projection.

It is present in every single subsequent step. Each step is incorrect in result, and then incorrectly projected.

How can stepwise uncertainty not grow across a sequential series of calculations?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 7, 2021 3:32 pm

By the way, W-r, regarding your, …

I have to conclude that you must be wrong about how uncertain we are about LWCF.

… my paper cites three published evaluations of LWCF error due to incorrect cloud simulation. There’s no doubt that its annual average is about ±4 W/m^2.

I’ve also updated the work to CMIP6 models, which show no effective improvement. In that post, I cited a published estimate of the annual average CMIP6 LWCF error.

CMIP6 LWCF error is again so large as to render meaningless every bloody air temperature projection recently published, and likely to be published over the next 5 years (at least).

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 10, 2021 6:18 pm

By the way, W-r, the physical basis of my uncertainty analysis is that it propagates the physically real calibration error of climate models as they simulate physical cloud cover.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 12:10 pm

“and am still unconvinced of its veracity”

.

No you are just still clueless about the mathematics behind it

And always will be… by choice..

Last edited 22 days ago by fred250
Weekly_rise
Reply to  fred250
February 5, 2021 1:16 pm

I understand the mathematics pretty well. Not quite well enough to say I’m comfortable dismissing the paper offhand, but certainly well enough to give me serious doubts about it.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 6, 2021 10:12 am

It takes more than understanding the math, W-r.

It takes understanding the meaning of uncertainty, and knowing the difference between uncertainty and error.

I have yet to encounter a climate scientist who understands the first thing about propagating error, or about calibration, or about the meaning of systematic error — especially recurrent error — or even about the difference between accuracy and precision.

Parsing accuracy and precision seems to be especially difficult for them. Something grasped by first year physics and chemistry students is consistently out of reach for PhD climate modelers.

And I’ve encountered well more than 2 dozen of them. These people are not scientists.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 11:59 pm

Climate models are NOT SCIENCE

They are just glorified computer games.

NO SCIENCE INVOLVED !

The fact that you even think there is, tell everyone just how little you understand about actual science

Lrp
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 12:44 am

Just a modeller, no science

JaneHM
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 6, 2021 2:16 pm

A mathematician? Look up ‘scientific method’ to see what the difference is.

Mikee
Reply to  Robert
February 4, 2021 5:51 pm

Summarising, modelling is in! Observations are out!

-ron
Reply to  Robert
February 8, 2021 12:51 am

I disagree.
GCMs are not (scientific) hypotheses.

To be a hypothesis requires an outline for a reproducable experiment. GCMs offer no such test.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  John in Oz
February 4, 2021 3:09 pm

The paper is referring to medical research, but on some level it is certainly true that much published research turns out to be wrong – that’s literally how science advances. One wonders what the probability of Loannidis’ paper being wrong is, and what implications that has for his hypothesis/the space time continuum.

I don’t pretend to know what goes on in other people’s heads or what their personal circumstances might be. I don’t think whether Schmidt answers a blogger’s questions on command determines whether or not he’s a scientist.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 7:56 pm

And “climate science” is WAY BELOW medicine as a scientific endeavour.

Off the charts LOW, in fact

So much of what passes pal-review in Cli-Sci , is just atrocious agenda-driven GARBAGE.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  fred250
February 5, 2021 6:22 am

I’d love to learn your method for quantifying the ranking of scientific endeavors. Seeing the chart that climate science doesn’t even make it onto would be a real treat as well.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 9:28 am

There’s no science in any of AGW consensus climatology, W-r.

Negligence, Non-science and Consensus Climatology

The whole field lives on false precision.

Except proxy paleo temperature reconstructions, which qualify as full-blown pseudo-science.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 5, 2021 12:14 pm

Cli-Sci seeks no validation against reality.

It in fact DENIES such validation.

That what makes it a total NON-SCIENCE.

If it was about proper scientific procedure, Cli-Sci would have died years ago.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 9:46 pm

Gavin’s Ph.D. is in Applied Mathematics. He has no training in any field of science. He knows nothing of calibration or physical error analysis.

His climate modeling papers are no more than subjectivist narratives decorated with mathematics. All of them assume what should be proved, grant his assumptions the weight of data, and are invariably confirmatory.

Not one of his publications includes any evaluation of the physical reliability of his model expectation values.

You may think that’s science, but it’s not.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 10:02 pm

When someone’s”work” is only fit as twisted and corrupted PROPAGANDA

It is NOT SCIENCE.

JaneHM
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 6, 2021 2:12 pm

His qualifications are in math from the years at Oxford when that meant zero courses in the natural sciences, let alone specialist upper level courses in atmospheric physics.

fred250
Reply to  Dave Burton
February 4, 2021 11:27 am

Whatever they do, don’t set up an interview with Schmidt and Roy Spencer on the same stage.

Gavin will disappear up his own primary waste orifice !

leitmotif
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 2:39 pm

That strange interview on the John Stossel show where Gavin Schmidt turned up with Roy Spencer but would not be on the set at the same time as Roy Spencer was absolutely hilarious.

Schmidt’s reasons were just not believable and it showed in his quavering voice. He knew he would be destroyed if he had to share the stage with a sceptic.

Roy Spencer was cool; John Stossel was merciless. Great tv.

marlene
February 4, 2021 2:13 am

Translation: NASA will be corrupted, er a conformed, to the official, and false, narratives that support the biden global reset.

starzmom
Reply to  marlene
February 4, 2021 4:28 am

It is a good thing they have farmed out actual space launches, since they probably don’t have or want the technical expertise to do that anymore.

Reply to  starzmom
February 4, 2021 8:46 am

They can now model space flights (poorly).

Ron Long
February 4, 2021 2:16 am

“The complexities of climate processes are still not fully understood…”. Wait a minute, Biden/Kerry/NASA et al are willing to damage our economy severely and there is still not understanding of “climate processes”? Gavin is a
mathmetician from start to finish, so he’s going to utilize data filtered through models to find the most useful answer. Useful to whom?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Ron Long
February 4, 2021 3:32 am

…and yet, in the next breath, they tell us “the Science is settled”.

observa
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 4, 2021 7:33 am

The grants forever need fine tuning.

barryjo
Reply to  Ron Long
February 4, 2021 7:06 pm

So now, instead of boosting muslim points, NASA will be boosting climate change. I thought the “S” in NASA stood for space.

Carl Friis-Hansen
February 4, 2021 2:23 am

From NASA’s own page:

The driving force, of course, was the launch of Sputnik on Oct. 4, 1957,
followed by its even weightier successors. In the midst of the Cold
War, a country that aspired to global preeminence could not let that
challenge pass. Although the United States already had its own
satellite plans in place as part of the International Geophysical Year,
the Russian events spurred the Space Age, and in particular gave urgency
to the founding of an American national space agency.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_29.html

Apparently not so anymore. The original purpose put in the background and the much more important scaremongering of unpleasant weather put in foreground so “Sleepy” Joseph Biden and his handlers can score points by the green faced mob.

My question is: Don’t the Greens have enough agencies already, to take care of the (political) climate?

observa
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
February 4, 2021 7:37 am

The grantees forever need fine tuning.

fretslider
February 4, 2021 2:23 am

More models

Just when NASA seemed to be getting back to doing real science…

Peta of Newark
February 4, 2021 2:26 am

First thing I saw/thought was:
But how, that job’s already been filled

From, bless her, Auntie Beeb. (Cudda bin The Grauniad, no difference)
Quote:
Boris Johnson ‘risks humiliation’ over coal mine
From the mouth of, some may have guessed, this guy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55923731

I got to thinking, what if the UK took on, apart from the usual tsunami of Plastic Tat and Insta-Rot Steel, some of the ‘thinking‘ and ‘diplomacy‘ of The Chinese.

Metinks we know what sort of, well justified, response he’d have received
Short and sweet:- F*** O**

Some on Boris, have some backbone.
pleeeeeeeeeeeeze. for once, or has The Princess completely sucked you dry?

Last edited 23 days ago by Peta of Newark
Ghowe
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 4, 2021 3:41 am

Well! If isn’t the old Mr. “I’ll find a way to keep him out the journals” guy! I’m stunned….

Ghowe
Reply to  Ghowe
February 4, 2021 1:18 pm

Oops, I think I got the wrong guy. Maybe it was PJ.
Your guy turned up thermostats, I think. I try to keep up, but it’s all so silly….

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 4, 2021 5:51 am

BoJo will do nothing against the Green agenda until after COP26 at the very earliest – he can’t afford to. After that circus is over for another year we’ll just have to see what happens.

William Haas
February 4, 2021 2:28 am

“The complexities of climate processes still are not fully understood, and climate adaptation and mitigation efforts cannot succeed without robust climate observations, data, and research” So we should not be taking any actions to affect climate until we really know what we are doing. We do not know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. Actions taken without appropriate knowledge may turn out to be counterproductive.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  William Haas
February 4, 2021 6:33 am

It appears that the science isn’t really settled, but the goal remains the same.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 4, 2021 2:45 am

Damn Skippy! And the great appointments just keep on rolling out of D.C. It would be very satisfying to wipe that smug expression off Schmidt’s face….

DonM
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 4, 2021 11:11 am

… OMG, you are right … that is indeed his face.

Tom Halla
February 4, 2021 3:19 am

Well, it could have been Michael Mann.

fretslider
February 4, 2021 3:19 am

Is there a climate loon morphology?

The size, shape, structure and features of the heads of examples like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt seem to bear that out.

Reply to  fretslider
February 4, 2021 5:10 am

By their beards….

Beards.png
Scissor
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 4, 2021 5:40 am

I see 5 out of 6 who wish they could have competed against girls in high school sports.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 4, 2021 7:35 am

Hey!! I resemble that remark!

Pat Frank
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 4, 2021 9:43 am

Peter Gleick is missing from the lineup.

Reply to  Pat Frank
February 4, 2021 5:56 pm

That’s not the only lineup Gleick should have been in.
comment image

Even by the climate industry’s Mannly standards, Gleick is remarkably crooked:

https://www.sealevel.info/Peter_Gleick_DeSmogBlog_and_the_Fakegate_Scandal-Burton.html

Dr. Peter Gleick’s “Fakegate” crimes were especially notable because Gleick was Chairman of the AGU’s Scientific Ethics Task Force — i.e., the climate industry’s top ethicist — when he committed fraud, identity theft, forgery & defamation to smear Heartland Institute’s climate skeptics & advance @AGUSciPolicy.

Gleick got away with his felonies because the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois stonewalled and refused to prosecute until the statute of limitations had run out.

Last edited 23 days ago by Dave Burton
Pat Frank
Reply to  Dave Burton
February 4, 2021 10:03 pm

Chairman of the AGU’s Scientific Ethics Task Force” I found that bitterly ironic, too, Dave.

Jennie Scott had just just hired Gleick to be one of the NCSE‘s climate advisors (along with Jim Hanson). She hot potatoed him immediately.

John Tillman
Reply to  fretslider
February 4, 2021 5:44 am

It definitely helps an alarmist loon to look like Lenin.

Right-Handed Shark
February 4, 2021 3:22 am

And I thought the position of “Groom Of The Stool” was done away with years ago.

Writing Observer
February 4, 2021 3:43 am

NASA must have it’s outreach to radical, murderous religious fanatics.

Joseph Zorzin
February 4, 2021 3:59 am

“Foster communication and coordination within and outside the science community at NASA.”

Translation to English: “prepare the official party line and let all know within NASA that their careers depend on how well they tow it”

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 4, 2021 6:36 am

Nice translation, but it’s “toe the line”.

DonM
Reply to  Paul Johnson
February 4, 2021 11:21 am

I know it’s ‘toe’, but when I see someone use ‘tow’ I just envision an unending line of useful idiots pulling an unending 3″ rope as far as the eye can see.

‘Tow’ is easily the active useful idiot and ‘Toe’ is the passive useful idiot. I support the morph in the idiot idiom.

Ghowe
Reply to  DonM
February 4, 2021 12:53 pm

“I support the morph in the idiot idiom”

I assemble that remark.

Joseph Zorzin
February 4, 2021 4:02 am

“Actively engage in amplifying the agency’s climate-related research and technological development.”

Translation to English: “Actively engage in exagerating the agency’s climate-related research and technological development.”

Rod Evans
February 4, 2021 4:19 am

It begs the question, how many people do NASA need, to make unnecessary adjustments to good basic data?
Haven’t they got enough of those type of helpers already?

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 4, 2021 5:12 am

you need at least a hundred to get a 97% consensus.

ResourceGuy
February 4, 2021 5:23 am

I guess the ocean cold cycles will have to speak for themselves.

Mumbles McGuirck
February 4, 2021 5:25 am

“NASA enjoys broad public support and trust, lending credibility to its climate observations.”
Using the past effort and sacrifices of astronauts, engineers, and scientists to provide cover for unethical data manipulation and other shenanigans is a sure way to squander that trust.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
February 4, 2021 12:24 pm

My thoughts exactly.

We probably should distinguish between NASA and NASA Climate. We don’t want the BS (Bad Science) formulated at NASA Climate to bleed over and contaminate the reputation of the NASA we know and love.

Scissor
February 4, 2021 5:35 am

I’m surprised they dropped Muslim outreach.

Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2021 7:10 am

The Muslims wanted to leave at least 15 times the number of people needed for a proper slave society. 1.4 billion would be quite excessive when you only need 100 million or less to appropriately serve the master class.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2021 12:26 pm

Muslim outreach consisted of sending a bunch of muslim kids to Space Camp.

DonM
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 5, 2021 11:19 am

and the budget item for muslim outreach was?

I don’t know, but I am curious.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DonM
February 5, 2021 5:24 pm

I think the figure I heard was $500,000.00.

ResourceGuy
February 4, 2021 5:36 am

As Col. Kurtz would say, he’s a good errand boy.

Kenji
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 4, 2021 8:01 am

sent by communists, to collect your taxes

Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2021 5:47 am

This idea that NASA, by virtue of its satellites and “instruments” is able to “observe” the climate is laughably idiotic.

Peter W
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2021 10:25 am

According to Danish scientist Svensmark, NASA should, indeed, be able to observe the climate. Of course, they would first have to know what needs observing, and how.

RelPerm
February 4, 2021 5:48 am

He should have appointed Bill Nye, the Science Guy!

Coeur de Lion
February 4, 2021 5:49 am

With those qualifications and departmental resources, he’ll be the first to spot global cooling as it arrives.

Richard M
February 4, 2021 5:58 am

With the likelihood of cooling over the next year for sure and probably beyond, Gavin is going to have to explain why we are not warming. The new pause could easily expand back to early 2013 if we have a 2 year La Nina. That would be close to a full decade at the end of 2022 when the midterms could change the balance of power.

Of course, he’d probably be hiding somewhere by then and all we would see is propaganda and lies. Still, it will be nice to know he is squirming.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2021 7:02 am

Actually, Gavin Schmidt has just been bestowed with more governmental power to hide the current “pause”.

Coming soon to a theater near you.

Peter W
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2021 10:27 am

It will also be interesting to see how things go with the new solar cycle.

fred250
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2021 11:34 am

“Gavin is going to have to explain why we are not warming.”

.

But COOLING with become the new “warming”…. after Schmidt’s adjustments.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 4, 2021 6:16 am

In the early days of RealClimate, there were real discussions possible between modellers and real life observers. A.o. about the role of human aerosols in cooling the earth. That role is important as that was (and still is) used by the modellers as an offset to explain the small cooling 1946-1975 while CO2 was already increasing. Depending of the offset, CO2 has a small to large influence on temperature…
See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/ with my comment at #6.

After a few years under Gavin Schmidt’s rein of terror, about half of my comments disappeared in cyberspace, without any explanation, even when always “on topic”…

Since then RealClimate is just another echo chamber for everyone with the same opinion…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 4, 2021 12:39 pm

“That role is important as that was (and still is) used by the modellers as an offset to explain the small cooling 1946-1975 while CO2 was already increasing.”

It wasn’t really a small cooling, it was actually a cooling of over 2.0C degrees.

Here is the US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999). This chart represents the *real* surface temperature profile of the Earth. All unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the U.S. chart which shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

comment image

As you can see from the chart, the temperature reduction from the 1930’s to 1980 was 2.5C

The link below compares the Hansen 1999 chart to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature chart.

The Hockey Stick chart creators purposely and artificially cooled the 1930’s into insignificance as a means of promoting their Human-caused Climate Change narrative, which says it has been getting hotter and hotter, for decade after decade and we are now at the hottest temperatures in human history. The unmodified, regional surface temperature charts put the lie to this claim.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Any chart you see that does not show the Early Twentieth Century to be just as warm as today is a distortion of reality and is a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. You will see a lot of them while studying this subject. Don’t believe any of them.

Last edited 23 days ago by Tom Abbott
Mickey Reno
February 4, 2021 6:32 am

We need a cage match between Gavin and Corn Pop.

DonM
Reply to  Mickey Reno
February 4, 2021 11:26 am

Corn Pop has passed away. But even so, I wouldn’t be opposed to putting both of them in the same cage for a while anyway.

DonM
Reply to  DonM
February 4, 2021 11:36 am

Note that Bidens’ exaggerations expand when the subject has passed away.

His wife was killed by a truck driver that ‘drank his lunch’ (after the driver had died and couldn’t respond), says Biden to a group of MADD … ‘ I know the pain of being impacted by drunk driving’.

More Biden scumbaggery that most people don’t know about.

Ghowe
Reply to  DonM
February 4, 2021 1:05 pm

I remember the truck drivers daughter being very upset with Mr. Biden. She was on tv, some “60minutes” show. Of course, it was broadcast years later after his remarks. Or at least well after he had won his re-election as a senator. from the state of Con

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DonM
February 4, 2021 12:56 pm

You mean Cornpop is not a figment of Biden’s imgination?

I thought Cornpop was in the same category as U.S. Senator Cory Booker’s imaginary friend, T-Bone.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  DonM
February 4, 2021 1:31 pm

Well, if not the Delaware deliquent, then Corn Pops the breakfast cereal. Gavin might stand a chance if you poured the milk on and let it sit and get soggy for a while.

Here’s a Gavin Schmidt / Corn Pops joke.

One day, Gavin was sitting at the breakfast table, watching his bowl of Corn Pops get soggy. His wife asked him, are you going to eat that, or should I dump it down the garbage disposal? Gavin said he didn’t want to burn his mouth, so he was waiting for it to cool off, because the back radiation had heated it to a boil.

Epilog to joke: Gavin’s wife cleared the table and dumped the soggy, room temperature cereal and milk into the garbage disposal, but yelled at her husband for being a big p***y (it’s okay when women say it, like when black rappers use the N word) and for wasting food. He objected and ran out of the room, yelling that she just didn’t understand science. She replied by saying “I bet Roy Spencer eats his Corn Pops after he pours on the cold milk and they’re boiling hot.”

Gordon A. Dressler
February 4, 2021 6:57 am

I guess that John Kerry just wasn’t enough of this foolishness.

WXcycles
February 4, 2021 7:00 am

 Science Mission Directorate’s Earth Science Division.

I remember when “Earth Sciences” was synonymous with the study of geology.

They’ve hijacked that to seem sciencey too.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  WXcycles
February 4, 2021 8:58 am

Geology is geology. The term “Earth Sciences” came about when the political climate started drifting towards ‘tree hugging’ and other pursuits with less rigor.

Charles Higley
February 4, 2021 7:05 am

Gavin, William Connelley, Michael Mann, Phil Jones (and many more in the Team) all lied to the public about the climate and now that we have a dementia patient in the White House, they are all getting second lease on lying because the fading hands-on (the girls) Prez will do anything his handlers want.

TallDave
February 4, 2021 7:07 am

at least we can be confident in his rigorous objectivity and unimpeachable ethics

Charles Higley
February 4, 2021 7:07 am

The way the SFB & the Ho are going, they will direct NASA to try to land a man on Madagascar, thinking its another planet.

Law of Nature
February 4, 2021 7:28 am

The first thing I thought about was McIntyre´s post
https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/04/gavins-mystery-man-revealed/

where he uncovers a seemingly very unethical behavior by G. Schmidt, in the words of R. Pielke
“Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it.”

In my opinion unethical liars should not hold position of importance, v#but maybe the further he gets from science the less damage he can do to it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Law of Nature
February 4, 2021 12:59 pm

Unethical liars tend to get promoted in the Democrat Party.

Andy Pattullo
February 4, 2021 7:52 am

He is fully qualified for this role in this government. He has demonstrated tremendous ability to bend the rules of veracity in the cause of persuasion to a new religion. He has volunteered every day a willingness to sacrifice his own credibility in return for wealth and stature. What more could one ask for in a democratic demigod of mythological Armageddon.

Walter Horsting
February 4, 2021 7:59 am

Tony Heller YouTube: https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU

fred250
Reply to  Walter Horsting
February 4, 2021 11:40 am

One comment cover the appointment of Schmidt to a “t”

EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY WRONG !

Olen
February 4, 2021 8:00 am

NASA, aeronautics and space! They have, no doubt, a role in studying the Earth’s atmosphere but not to a predetermined outcome. The goal seems to be proving global warming using a prestigious agency for credibility.

From the article: Administrator Steve Jurczyk. “This will enable the agency to more
effectively align our efforts to help meet the administration’s goals for addressing climate change.”

Kenji
February 4, 2021 8:07 am

A most impressive educational background. However, as Bobby Zimmerman penned …

You may be a businessman or some high-degree thief They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief But You’re gonna have to serve somebody

This man has found it quite lucrative to serve the eco-leftists spending other people’s tax money.

PS … my youngest son has a degree in applied mathematics from UCLA. Is he smart? Yes. Does he know how to build computer charts and graphs? Yes. Does his degree give him any insight whatsoever into geoscience? Nope.

pochas94
February 4, 2021 8:44 am

We’ll soon be competing with Red China for most oppressive government.

TonyG
February 4, 2021 8:56 am

Great! Now can he please advise the climate to lay off the rain in NC for a while?

Peter W
Reply to  TonyG
February 4, 2021 10:32 am

And the cold weather in Florida.

bonbon
February 4, 2021 9:27 am

Under Biden, Not A Space Agency anymore.

He will ground Artemis with a Mars chimera, exactly as OBambam did with Constellation.

His blue hat reads I Stole Your Space .

Jean Parisot
Reply to  bonbon
February 4, 2021 10:07 am

I see a mandate to convert SLS to biofuels, that will set it back another decade.

bonbon
Reply to  Jean Parisot
February 4, 2021 11:12 am

Musk, with some success, does talk about methane as a rocket fuel. Very interesting chat on youtube.

Ghowe
Reply to  bonbon
February 4, 2021 1:24 pm

His cub press sec. let slip her thoughts on DoD’s new space agency.

rickk
February 4, 2021 9:58 am

Thank the baby Jesus Elon Musk is around – NASA has given up on space

Robert of Texas
February 4, 2021 10:04 am

NASA has collapsed into a incompetent political bureaucracy. It is so sad a fate for a once “can do” orgination that lead us to the Moon and back.

Since his main expertise is “modeling climate”, perhaps he will just go model the human race and use tampered data to show that they are all on board with the climate message.

I believe the only thing that will stop this nonsense is for it to start growing colder in a natural climatic shift – which could take decades or even hundreds of years. No amount of common sense seems to work on these people.

Peter W
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 4, 2021 10:34 am

Keep in mind that the last time it grew colder (1970’s ice age scare) they blamed that on the human race, too.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peter W
February 4, 2021 1:06 pm

Yes, they did. Human-caused Global Cooling. I remember it like it was yesterday. I remember waiting to see confirmation of this theory. I never saw any confirmation. Year after year, and no confirmation.

Then things started warming up and everyone pivoted to Human-caused Global Warming. Some of the same guys promoting Global Cooling switched over and started promoting Global Warming. They had their finger in the air, it seems.

Human-caused Global Cooling was what honed my skeptical sense, and it’s why I’m not buying the same type of scam today. What both concepts had in common was there was never any evidence showing any of these claims are true.

fred250
February 4, 2021 11:32 am

GISS et al have never been worth the toilet paper they were printed on.

Now they are going to print it on used toilet paper. !

DHR
February 4, 2021 11:39 am

Just why is NASA even involved in climate issues? Is NASAs job not aeronautics and space, like the name says? The US atmosphere organization is NOAA, which also covers oceans, like the name says.

Duker
Reply to  DHR
February 4, 2021 4:42 pm

You are right
“The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is a laboratory in the Earth Sciences Division (ESD) of National Aeronautics and Space Administration‘s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The ESD is part of GSFC’s Sciences and Exploration Directorate.
Following approval by NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan in December 1960, the institute was established by Dr. Robert Jastrow in May 1961 (originally as the New York City office of GSFC’s Theoretical Division) to do basic research in space sciences in support of GSFC programs. Research areas included the structure of Earth, Moon, and other planetary bodies; the atmospheres of Earth and the other planets; the origin and evolution of the solar system; the properties of interplanetary plasma; Sun-Earth relations; and the structure and evolution of stars.”
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/
I think it was Gavins predecessor Hansen, who was a working ‘space scientist’ who came up with the climate gig as bureaucracies do, expanding from beyond the atmosphere to within it because they used satellites to look down on Earth.

observa
Reply to  DHR
February 4, 2021 6:24 pm

“Just why is NASA even involved in climate issues?”

Well when a President says we’re going to put a man on the moon everybody jumps. Then when you’ve done that and the in-tray is empty they naturally look around for something else to justify their salaries. So when another President says we need to curb men driving to the office they all say that’s good you’re taking our advice but this is a big project and we’ll need more of the right people.

Steve Bensen
February 4, 2021 9:46 pm

There is no CO2 based man-caused global warming catastrophe. It is a lie and a hoax. We are having a Grand Solar Minimum which will quickly put the lie to ‘global warming’ as we slip into an ice age lasting up to 300 years.

rah
February 5, 2021 2:28 pm

Well ole Gavin and the rest of the liars will need to get some pencils with heavier lead to “correct” the temperatures much of the US is likely to see during Feb and early March. The dreaded “polar vortex” is descending upon many of us with very cold temps and enough wind to really drive the wind chill down there.

Joe forecasted that this was coming a couple weeks ago despite the major climate models not picking up on it. And he is thinking that Feb into early March will be considerably colder than average for many of us and that Spring weather will come later than normal.

So keep you warmies handy. And that goes for you folks in the Sunshine state too. Your blasts of citrus damaging cold are not over.

%d bloggers like this: