NASA global warming advocate Gavin Schmidt fights back
The head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), Gavin Schmidt, declared in a newspaper interview on Thursday that “Global warming doesn’t care about the election.”
The science community and environmental campaigners in the US have already begun efforts to persuade Mr Trump that climate change is actually real before he takes office next year. Dr Gavin Schmidt, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, signalled they would have allies among the federal science agencies. He tweeted a graph including new data from Nasa showing that last month was the second warmest October on record, putting 2016 firmly on course to be the warmest year. “No surprise here, planetary warming does not care about the election,” he wrote.
I would not be surprised if Schmidt ends up getting fired by Trump. His monthly graphs showing each month to be the hottest on record, such as the one he tweeted in the quote above, have been absurd campaigning, not science. For one thing, the differences from month to month have been in the hundredths of a degrees, well within the margins of error and essentially insignificant in value. To claim that his data has determined the “hottest” month on record from this is demonstrating that he is not a scientist, but a political activist.
Secondly, his data is not trustworthy to begin with. Schmidt has been in charge of all of the data tampering at NASA that has consistently altered the decades-old surface temperature record — without any clear scientific justification — to cool the past and warm the present so that the amount of warming is emphasized. While his graphs show the climate to be warming, based on surface data that he has been adjusting, the satellite data that NASA gathers that he (a NASA scientist) generally ignores, does not. The image to the right illustrates this, and shows that the divergence between his adjusted surface data and the satellite data has been increasing steadily over the years.
I fully expect Schmidt and the other global warming scientists in NASA and NOAA to team up with the press, as Schmidt does here, to defy Trump. Whether Trump will have the courage to fight back, something no Republican has been willing to do for decades, will be the key question.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
An Executive Order forcing ALL agencies to release their actual RAW data before making claims, rules or policies would go a long way to putting a stop to them.
Remember grade school math class…”Show Your Work”
Stosh: Just so you know, the raw data is available already. What has not been clearly explained, and is thus very suspicious, is the reasoning behind all the adjustments. Schmidt and his cohorts at NOAA have offered some explanations, but these explanations have been unsatisfactory for many reasons, number one of which is that they haven’t explained why a large percentage of the adjustments have actually exceeded the margin of error has noted in the original research.
“Schmidt and his cohorts at NOAA have offered some explanations, but these explanations have been unsatisfactory for many reasons…:
Including that they keep changing older records to “cool” them. The argument was that it had to do with time of day/night that the measurements are made, but there are good statistical methods that can deal with that. The yare not being used, and worse, what they are doing is hidden. The manipulation (which has been assessed by McIntyre and others at WattsUpWithThat) for approaching two decades is embarrassing to those who consider themselves scientists…
But it has given them cush jobs for that time….
If the apparent periodicity in the satellite data persists, there will be a cooling during the next administration. The important thing to understand about the climate panic is that increased CO2-emissions have advantages too. It greens the world, nourishes wild life and increases harvests per acre. Huge land masses in northern Eurasia and America are frozen. If temperatures increased (which they don’t) it be of great benefit for life.
Climate science don’t know anything about if a warmer climate is better or worse for people. That’s a moral subjective decision for each individual to make in a free society. Climate science basically doesn’t have any important inputs for climate policy decisions.
“It is a scientific fact that Global Warming provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable.”
— Laika The Space Dog
“Pascal’s Global Warming Wager: Amen and Hallelujah”
http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/pascal-s-global-warming-wager-amen-and-hallelujah-t1140.html
A tip of the hat to Tony Heller.
Isn’t it a strange coincidence that, just about the time that they gave up trying to explain the “pause” in the global temperature increase, the climate scientists decided that historical temperature data needed unannounced and unexplained modification (the very definition of fudged data)?
The scientists’ favorite hypothesis, that increased CO2 levels cause temperatures to climb, was in serious doubt. Because the CO2 levels continue to climb while the temperature does not, it looks for all the world that the scientists decided to fudge the data in order to keep their favorite hypothesis alive.
Even the decline from about WWII to about 1980 has been tampered with. Remember when the climate scientists insisted that we were entering another ice age? That was their favorite hypothesis, back then, widely announced in the news and on the cover of TIME Magazine. Temperatures were decreasing, and the conclusion was that government intervention was necessary in order to prevent the coming ice age. Laws were passed, lifestyles were changed, and now there is a conclusion that government intervention is necessary in order to prevent the oceans from rising — despite Obama telling us, eight years ago, that the oceans stopped rising due to his election.
Their favorite hypothesis needed an acknowledgement that somewhere between WWI and WWII, the world became so industrialized — complete with matching carbon emissions — that the temperature started to increase due to man’s industrious activity (during WWI, there was not enough industry to make enough ammunition to keep the war going at full force, but during WWII, there was enough industry to manufacture not only enough ammunition but additional weapons, ships, aircraft, tanks, etc., too). Thus temperature declines and pauses must be eliminated in the official record, otherwise it is further evidence that nature is stronger than mankind’s puny influence.
Otherwise they will have to explain why something(s) in nature is able to overwhelm the contribution to AGW that is made by mankind (if any).
If nature has more of an effect than humanity, then how can they keep saying that global warming, after the Little Ice Age, is caused by human activity rather than the same natural forces that caused the LIA in the first place?
I am grateful to Behind the Black for publishing this story. More people need to read this. Will donate to the cause soon.