NASA global warming advocate Gavin Schmidt fights back

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

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.

Gavin Schmidt vs the satellite data

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.



  • Stosh

    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.

  • Brendan

    “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….

  • LocalFluff

    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.

  • wayne

    “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”

  • Laurie

    A tip of the hat to Tony Heller.

  • Edward

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *