Earth to Trump

by Judith Curry

Defending NASA’s Earth Science Division, in terms that the Trump administration can relate to.

There is much angst in the earth science community (particularly the climate science community) about statements made by President-elect Trump and his advisors.  A good summary is provided by an article in the Scientific American, excerpts:

Trump himself has been relatively mum about his plans for NASA. But in an op–ed published weeks before the election, two Trump space policy advisors—the former congressman Robert Walker and the economist Peter Navarro—wrote that the agency is too focused on “politically correct environmental monitoring” of climate change. Under a Trump administration, they wrote, NASA would prioritize “deep-space activities rather than Earth-centric work that is better handled by other agencies,” such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

In recent years Republican lawmakers have sought budget cuts to climate change–related Earth science programs at all three agencies. Now set to hold majorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans appear likely to support forthcoming Trump administration proposals to pare back NASA’s Earth science budget, which grew by some 50 percent under the Obama administration.

“Earth science’s preferred growth under Obama—the fact that it has grown over all of NASA’s other science—has created a big political target on its back and validated, in a sense, Republican interpretations of its partisan nature,” says Casey Dreier, director of space policy for The Planetary Society. “And this is taking place in a new political dynamic of strong, near-universal condemnation and skepticism of climate change by the Republican Party, without a Democratic president and key members of Congress that used to push back. That’s a bad double whammy for Earth science.”

“This is not ideological,” Walker says. “When we talk about ‘deep-space activities,’ we’re talking about planetary science and space-based telescopes and all those kinds of things. There have been concerns among some of us that those sorts of NASA programs were robbed in order to concentrate on Earth science, and we want to reestablish the emphasis of NASA itself on the things that go beyond Earth orbit and Earth-observation activities.”

Response from climate scientists (and others)

There is a new twitter hashtag, #ThanksNASA, on why people (mostly scientists) appreciate NASA [link to BusinessInsider article].  A few good points; others that are not particularly helpful in persuading the Trump administration.

Marshall Shepherd in the WaPo: Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat. He made  one point that might score with the Trump administration:

The engineering, ground systems, science, and support work of NASA earth science missions is supported by some of the most vibrant private aerospace and science-technology companies in the world. And they are U.S. companies.

Phil Plait in Slate: Trump’s plan to eliminate NASA climate research is ill-informed and dangerous.  I don’t think this argument will play well:

If this slashing of NASA Earth science comes to pass, it will be a disaster for humanity. This is no exaggeration: NASA is the leading agency in studying the effects of global warming on the planet, in measuring the changes in our atmosphere, our oceans, the weather, and yes, the climate as temperatures increase.  . . . climate scientists like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and Katharine Hayhoe are speaking out.

An article in the Conversation:Five reasons why cutting NASA’s climate research would be a colossal mistake:

  1. NASA’s satellites are our eyes on the world
  2. Climate science is a key part of NASA’s mission
  3. NASA attracts the best of the best scientists
  4. NASA has transformed climate change communication
  5. Climate science can be NASA’s next great legacy

Point #1 is important; points #2, #4, #5 are not helpful in persuading a Trump administration.

NASA Science Mission Directorate

Let’s take a quick look at the NASA Science Mission Directorate:

This is NASA’s science vision: using the vantage point of space to achieve with the science community and our partners a deep scientific understanding of our planet, other planets and solar system bodies, the interplanetary environment, the Sun and its effects on the solar system, and the universe beyond. In so doing, we lay the intellectual foundation for the robotic and human expeditions of the future while meeting today’s needs for scientific information to address national concerns, such as climate change and space weather. At every step we share the journey of scientific exploration with the public and partner with others to substantially improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education nationwide.

SMD organizes its work into four broad scientific pursuits: Earth Science, Planetary Science, Heliophysics and Astrophysics.

There is an old statement of the NASA mission (circa 2002), that I think was particularly good:

  • To understand and protect the home planet
  • To explore the universe
  • To inspire the next generation of explorers

. . . as only NASA can.

Looking specifically at what goes on now in the NASA Earth Science Division:

The purpose of NASA’s Earth science program is to develop a scientific understanding of Earth’s system and its response to natural or human-induced changes, and to improve prediction of climate, weather, and natural hazards.

NASA’s ability to observe global change on regional scales and conduct research on the causes and consequences of change position it to address the Agency strategic objective for Earth science, which is to advance knowledge of Earth as a system to meet the challenges of environmental change, and to improve life on our planet. 

Details about Earth Science research:

Earth Science Focus Areas

  • Atmospheric Composition
  • Weather
  • Carbon Cycle & Ecosystems
  • Water & Energy Cycle
  • Climate Variability & Change

Research and Analysis Disciplines:

  • Physical Oceanography
  • Terrestrial Hydrology
  • Cryospheric Science
  • Space Geodesy
  • Modeling and Analysis

The Research Program Structure is as follows:

  • Research and Analysis – mainly individual investigator competed activities, organized predominantly around scientific disciplines
  • Mission Science Teams – support for investigators affiliated with individual satellite missions or groups of closely related missions
  • EOS Science – includes calibration/validation for EOS (satellites) and interdisciplinary science, as well as EOS project science office
  • Airborne Science – includes operation of aircraft platforms and investments to support bringing new capability into NASA airborne science programs
  • High End Computing – includes investment in supercomputing capability to support community and infrastructure needed for its use

Here is where the tension lies:

  • Republican administrations typically enhance funding for ‘space’ (the other three Divisions), whereas Democratic administration typically enhance funding for ‘earth’, with Obama’s administration massively increasing funding for climate-related research (the neglect of the other Divisions, even within Earth)
  • ‘Discovery’ science — the gee whiz and exhilaration of fundamental new discoveries about our universe — versus the more mundane collection of Earth observations
  • The framing and selling of too much of Earth Science in terms of human-caused climate change
  • Using ‘as only NASA can‘ as a filter, there are clearly some elements here that other federal agencies do, and in some instances do better than NASA.
  • Politicization of NASA climate science by some NASA scientists in administrative positions.

Politicized science at NASA

A recent article in Business Insider:  A NASA scientist told us why Trump — his new boss — won’t stop him from studying climate change.  The NASA scientist is Gavin Schmidt, who is now Chief of Lab at NASA GISS.

The concerns about politicized climate science are focused directly on NASA GISS; Gavin’s predecessor as Chief of Lab was Jim Hansen. Jim Hansen is an activist and policy advocate, specifically related to eliminating coal and overall regarding the urgency of eliminating CO2 emissions. He was arrested in 2009 and 2010 in demonstrations, while he was still Chief of NASA GISS.  As the Chief of GISS, he had oversight over the GISS climate model, as well as the NASA surface temperature data set used to evaluate the GISS climate model.  There were some obvious concerns about objectivity; not just Jim Hansen personally, but his impact on objectivity of the entire institution of NASA GISS.

With regards to Gavin Schmidt, he is not an activist in the mold of Jim Hansen, and does not advocate for specific solutions to human caused climate change, although he has spoken of the need for zero emissions while acknowledging the practical issues of this and the need for adaptation.  The key concern about his objectivity relates to the blog RealClimate, which he founded and apparently still plays a major role, which has served as an outlet for a major activist/advocate: Michael Mann.  From amazon forum: Is realclimate real? Follow the money. Lots of details about concerns about RealClimate objectivity.

Yahoo poses  the following question: Is real biased? is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign. EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications. Fenton Communications are most known for their work with liberal causes such as and Greenpeace. Doesn’t that cast some doubt on   Yahoo’s answer: The correct answer is “NO”, not at all. The climate scientists writing for do so on their own time with NO compensation. The generosity of EMS to pay for hosting a web-site (something probably costing around $50/month – whoopee!!!) so the truth of climate change can be presented in a manner non-climate scientists can understand has no influence on the content.

You be the judge.  I don’t think ‘follow the money’ is relevant here, but all this clearly reflects the policy biases (and poor judgement) of the RC crowd  in selecting or even engaging with EMS.

Gavin and I have argued many times about the ethics and efficacy of scientists advocating for policies related to their area of expertise (in particular, climate change).  There is a downside to such advocacy that I did not previously discuss.  Advocacy can be favorable to your scientific career and your preferred policies if the political winds are blowing in a favorable direction, but when the political winds shift directions, there can be adverse consequences. So check your motives; if they are careerist, then don’t advocate.

So, when people in or near to the Trump administration talk about politicized climate science at NASA, they are pretty much referring to NASA GISS.  Take a look at what NASA GISS does:

  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison
  • Astrobiology – Nexus for Exoplanet System Science
  • Climate Impacts
  • Education Global Climate Model
  • Dynamic Global Terrestrial Ecosystem Model
  • Global Aerosol Climatology Project
  • Goddard Institute Surface Temperature Analysis
  • Global Climate Modeling
  • Glory Mission Science (a mission that failed on launch)
  • International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (I’m pretty sure this one has been handed off to NOAA)
  • Airborne Science – Polarimeters
  • Stable Water Isotope Intercomparison Group

As only NASA can? Hmmm . . .

Making the case for NASA Earth Science to the Trump administration

There are two issues here:  i) a near term  issue in terms of selecting the new Administrator of NASA and setting the broad agency priorities for the Trump administration; and ii) the longer range decadal scale planning, particularly for satellite missions.

The immediate/near term case for NASA Earth Science needs to be made in a different way than we have seen for the last 10 years or so (particularly during the Obama administration).  The case needs to be made as to what investments in NASA Earth Science mean for the taxpayer, for society  and for science, in a context of Making America Great and promoting economic competitiveness.

Here are some ways to frame the case for NASA Earth Science in ways that could be appealing to the Trump administration:

The 21st century is the Age of Information and the Knowledge Economy. Earth information from space is critical for: national security; monitoring natural resources; identifying environmental change particularly in the Arctic where we are on the threshold of a new area of commercial development and transport; predicting the weather and seasonal climate, which has a host of economic/industry applications; mitigating the harm from natural hazards, etc.  NASA plays a key role in developing the technologies for cost effective satellite systems and sensors to provide this information

American leadership in space is critical in an increasingly global competitive space domain, for both national security and commercial interests, which importantly includes Earth satellites.  At present, the U.S. fleet of Earth-observing satellites remains by far the most advanced and robust in the world.  A vibrant commercial space train is leaving the station; the U.S. needs to figure out how to foster innovation in the commercial space sector and redefine NASA’s role in basic research and development to support a flourishing private investment in space.

Protecting the home planet. Health, safety, and economic competitiveness depends on protecting the home planet: clean air and water, understanding our supplies of fresh water, documenting changes and health of global plant ecosystems, documenting global land use changes, monitoring wild land fires, etc.  Scientific research supports new satellite missions to make new or better measurements.

A rational basis for climate change policies.  We need to avoid having climate change policies be a political ping pong ball, getting undone and redone with each change in administration.  What is needed is a rational policy framework  that is informed by evolving state of the climate as observed by the global observing systems and climate research.  Global data from satellites is critical here – the Orbiting Carbon Observatory that is providing new insights into the dynamics of the Earth’s carbon budget; Global Precipitation Measurement System that is providing the next-generation global observations of rain and snow, etc. These satellite observations provide important input for scientific research, a reality check on climate model projections, and applications that support resource management and adaptation to extreme weather events.  Ted Cruz, a climate change skeptic in the U.S. Senate who is rather knowledgable, regards satellite data as a very important resources for understanding the climate.

Inspire the next generation of explorers.  NASA science, outreach to K-12 education, and  funding/internships for graduate students and young faculty members are critical for developing of a pipeline of technically educated scientists and engineers that can support the U.S. space program (science/NASA, defense, commercial).  Scientists and engineers that have somehow been touched by NASA are undoubtedly in many diverse positions in government, defense and the private sector.

In summary, there are a lot of important things that NASA Earth Science does — that only NASA can do — that don’t need to be framed in terms of ‘climate change.’ During the Obama administration, framing everything in terms of climate change was a ticket for more $$; it looks to be exactly opposite during the Trump administration.  From the Scientific American article:

Amid the acrimony over NASA’s attention to climate change, the researchers who rely on funding and data through the agency’s Earth science program argue that they study much more. They and the satellites they use also provide critical insights for a broad range of public and private activities that enjoy bipartisan support, such as weather forecasting, agricultural reporting, and disaster response and preparedness. 

In terms of the longer range selling of NASA Earth Science, particularly satellite missions, there is a forthcoming Decadal Survey on Earth Science and Applications from Space.  From the Scientific American article:

Along with William Gail, the chief technology officer of the Global Weather Corporation, Abdalati is leading the U.S. National Academies’ “decadal survey” on Earth science. Conducted once every 10 years, this poll of U.S. Earth scientists produces a wish list of future research priorities to guide policy makers setting the multibillion-dollar budgets for NASA and other science agencies. The survey’s final report is expected in the fall of 2017. It will likely include recommendations for new generations of satellites and instruments to monitor Earth with unprecedented clarity as well as suggestions meant to lower costs. But confronted with the possibility of a president and Congress hostile to NASA’s Earth science programs, many scientists cannot muster much confidence that many of those recommendations are likely to become reality.

The authors of the new decadal survey would be well advised to frame the rationale in terms of the changing political environment, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

JC’s personal reflections on NASA

I have received research funding from NASA over the past two decades, and NASA has probably been single agency that has provided me with the most funding.  Many of my Ph.D. graduates are in research careers that primarily depend on NASA funding.

I have served on numerous NASA advisory committees, most recently as a member of the Earth Science Subcommittee, NASA Advisory Council (2009-2013).  I have also sat on roughly equivalent advisory committees for DOE BER and NOAA Climate.   My impression is that NASA is better managed and overall more competent as an organization than is NOAA. Apart from its big budget (owing to the cost of satellites), I don’t see any particular reason to pick on NASA (apart from the politicization/activism/advocacy by a few individuals).

As Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, I started a space and planetary science program by hiring 5 outstanding young faculty members.  A number of other faculty members get funding from the NASA Earth Science Program.

Overall, I think it would be appropriate to roll back some of the Obama era funding that went into NASA climate science, and redirect it to Heliospheric Physics and Planetary Science.  In doing so, it is critical to maintain a strong capability to observe the Earth from space and provide critical Earth observations.  As for the rest of NASA Earth Science research especially related to climate science, I think that the ‘as only NASA can’ is a very useful filter.

I truly understand how disruptive it is to the careers of research scientists to have their funding stop.  My advice to research scientists is that you need to be flexible in terms of the problems you are capable of and willing to investigate, and not be overly dependent on the funding from a single source.

It is incumbent on the scientific research community to make the case for government funding for favored research programs.  Entitlement, expectations, the health of the existing research community, curiosity driven research, etc. are not convincing arguments to make.

This is a welcome opportunity to redirect NASA Earth Science research towards other topics that are not directly related to or motivated by human caused climate change.



295 responses to “Earth to Trump

  1. Pingback: Earth to Trump – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. NASA puts the satellites in orbit for the other agencies to manage and analyze the data. What’s wrong with that mission?

    • There are at least two things wrong, bearing in mind that space based data collection is very expensive. NASA has the biggest climate change budget of all the USGCRP agencies, over a bilion dollars a year, mostly for data collecting satellites and launches. Moreover, all data is not equally valuable.

      First, the choice of data collected is determined by AGW, so the data may not be particularly useful. Carbon cycle data for example. As Kuhn pointed out, the paradigm determines what questions are important and NASA has been operating under the AGW paradigm. Throwing money at AGW is a poor policy.

      Second, there was a huge budget increase to collect this AGW focused data, taking a lot of money from other research, including space research. This imbalance needs to be redressed, perhaps by phasing out the increase or redirecting the funding.

      • David Springer

        NASA Earth Science Division has been around since 1986. In 30 years it hasn’t managed to refine ECS estimates. This is an epic fail.

        This NASA division should be shut down and moved over to NOAA where it belongs. NASA is in the business of aeronautics and space exploration not earth science. NOAA can design satellites & earth observation programs and contract with public or private agencies for launch services.

        We should have a colony on the moon by now flying an American Flag but because NASA’s mission was compromised by environmental whackos, manned space exploration died on the vine and we have virtually nothing of value in return for that sacrifice.

      • It’s my impression that NASA-GISS has focused on proving AGW, rather than questioning it, as scientists are supposed to do. Who knows, if they had exposed their beliefs to strong internal criticism, they might have gained convincing proof of AGW. You don’t learn anything by concentrating on the familiar. The great insights and the Eureka moments come from exploring the unknown.

      • Harry Twinotter


        “It’s my impression that NASA-GISS has focused on proving AGW, rather than questioning it, as scientists are supposed to do.”

        GISS attempts to falsify AGW every time they calculate Global Mean Temperature. I call falsification tests “questioning”. You seem to have an issue with their falsification failing perhaps. Same with the climate model projections, they are also an attempt to falsify global warming due to greenhouse gas pollution.

      • David Wojick | November 28, 2016 at 6:09 am |says:

        “….the choice of data collected is determined by AGW.”

        I was not aware of this but if true, it is a criminal waste. This deplorable state of affairs was organized by James Hansen. Senator Wirth was instrumental in getting him into GISS and once in control, he changed their orientation from spce science to global warming studies. I keep pointing out that the warming we observe is not AGW and is simply a part of the natural world. There are several ways to prove this. I will start with the simplest case. First, plot the global temperature curve from 1850 to present. Now do the same for the Keeling curve on the same graph paper. Notice any difference? Global temperature goes up and down, and even has periods of cooling as part of its history but the Keeling curve does not. For example, using HadCRUT3 (to avoid undocumented changes in HadCRUT4) we find a 35 year period of cooling, from 1875 to 1910. And we also find a ten year cooling from 1940 to 1950. Together, these two cooling periods take up more than a quarter of the global warming curve since 1850. The Keeling curve contains all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, including the anthropogenic part from burning fossil fuels, but is completely smooth. That anthropogenic part is observable as a steady rise of CO2 over the time period involved. This particular increase, and not all of the atmospheric carbon dioxide, is said to be the cause of anthropogenic global warming that is currently costing us one billion dollars a day to fight. It is an unstoppable rise and there are no halts in it, especially ones lasting a quarter of the time as exhibited by the parallel temperature curve. A quarter of the time since 1850 global temperature does not follow the inmcrease of CO@ to0 the Keeling curve and goes in the opposite direction. To excuse it as “irregularities” issimpl;y not permissible. But if you are serious about such excuses, you must give a phyical reason for any and all such deviations. In the absence of a physical reason a temperature excursion is simply an aspect of the physical world, not an anthropogenic side trip. There are observable irregularities of this type in the global temperature curve but there are none whatsoever in the Keeling curve. All of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is shown in the Keeling curve and is accurately known too because data are compiled from more than one hundred observatories from all over the world. To summarize, if a warm peak exists that is part of the global warming curve you must demonstrate first that it was caused by carbon dioxide before it can be considered greenhouse warming. Absent this proof, it cannot be anthropogenic.

        Another way to prove that warming we see is not greenhouse warming is by the use of the Miskloczi greenhouse theory or MGT. It shows clearly that introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causes water vapor to condense and thereby nullify the greenhouse effect that the global warming advocates depend upon. His theory has been out since 2007 but it has been blackballed by the global warming establishment because their pseudo-science claims that water vapor doubles the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. Why is this important you may ask? It is important because they badly need it to justify their excessive warming predictions.

  3. A key issue is the actual retrieval of information from the satellite measurement, which is basically a voltage. So the algorithm development, calibration and validation are critical elements of turning the actual measurement into something that is recognizably a geophysical variable. Once the datasets achieve some maturity, they are made available to all researchers and to the public. That is how it is supposed to work.

    • With Respect – NASA Internet publications for K-12 circumvent the adoption oversight, are poorly written, lack fact checking, and are borderline Eco-propaganda.

      All is not well at NASA.

    • The real issue is the lack of standardized process and proper oversight. The UN is not scientific – it never has been and never can be.

      • Shut off all funding for UN climate nonsense and ensure US science agencies are science start to finish without political influence is a good start ; )

      • Perhaps the definitive solution, given the obvious lack of UN integrity, a USA Science council to support EPA and the Administration’s Science head? You’re the policy guru – what’s the definitive solution to unwind all the nonsense?

      • Is this a Hello Presidet-Elect moment or a Hello Dr. Curry moment?

        You’re the expert, please advise!

        Hopefully it’s not another Hello Kitty moment : /

      • Footnote: I read the post before commenting and disagree with a majority of your superficial suggestions. Protect the home planet was a great bit of humor.

      • I’m shaking my head in disbelief, after decades of effort to disprove you all emerge as lamed chattel.

        Eschew Your Mosser’s nose to ground without looking up at the stars?

        Where are the Curry yesterday?

    • Judith ==> Yes, so glad to see you (anyone) come right out and say “….information from the satellite measurement, which is basically a voltage. “.

      There is a terrific amount of mis-understanding and mis-information on what is actually being measured as opposed to what is being reported — I have written on this in the past, What Are They Really Counting?.

      There is a long and treacherous path between the voltage readings from a satellite based sensor and, for example, a report in the NY Times that global sea levels are rising an extra 0.04 mm/yr.

      The uncertainties in such reports are often (always?) brushed over, disguised by pseudo-averaging (which is said to somehow average out the initial measurement errors), and other factors.

      If we have trouble figuring out the temperature effect difference between bucket types used in the past for sea water temperature, how are we really doing on validation of satellite measurements of things we cannot measure for ourselves from Earth?

      Satellite data is very very important….but like climate models, we have to be very careful how we evaluate and use the information gained.

      Thank you for bringing it up.

      • Kip

        In terms of satellite measurements there are three important readings. That for sea levels, for sea ice area and global temperature.

        AGW enthusiasts enthusiastically endorse the first two but ridicule the latter.

        Is there any scientific reason for this?


      • “Is there any scientific reason for this?”

        Yes, I’ve answered this before for you.

      • Tonyb ==> Those are certainly the three most commonly reported, though I am not sure that they are the most important.

        AGW advocates like satellite based sea surface temperatures, particularly during an El Niño. They help pump up the LOTI — a non-physical “fruit-salad metric”.

      • Mosh

        Well, you have a brand new audience for your explanation so have at it


      • Two of them make observations of the surface to two meters above; one has not a lot of relevance to the surface to two meters above it.

      • KH, good point. For a variety of reasons covered in esssay PseudoPrecision the sat alt readings of SLR cannot be right. The annual delta rate may be ok (but probably not given instrument drift spec), but the absolute annual change connot be. Does not agree with long record diff GPS corrected tide gauges (there are about 40 in PSMSL) and does not close. Issues include waves, orbital drag, atmospheric humidity, and design spec instrument accuracy and precision errors. Radar altimetry of the ocean SL to an average 0.5mm height from hundreds of miles up is very difficult, in the Japanese idiomatic sense.

      • “Well, you have a brand new audience for your explanation so have at it

        Looking around I see the same faces.. exact same faces.

        Go look at the code.
        That is why people post it.

        Class is dismissed.

        Here is your first reading assignemnet

        Read that. read all the references, and every bit of code

      • here is your second reading asssignment tony

        Please note the CHANGE in version 5.6 to version 6

        Same data
        Different adjustments
        And the estimate shifts by up to .2C. Google structural uncertainty.

        good for Roy that he is finally highlighting all the adjustments and assumptions.

        That said the only people who are confused are skeptics who believe that there has to be one final best source of truth. That might work in sunday school, but in the real world.. well all data has warts.

        if it doesnt have warts, its probably fake.

      • third reading assignment

        the references here.

        OR you could just think about it this way.

        Measuring the height of the ocean requires you to measure
        the Time it takes a signal to travel. The satillite can measure time DIRECTLY

        Measuring the Area of Ice requires you to COUNT lit pixels in the sensor you can do this DIRECTLY.

        in both of those, however, you have to make some corrections. but the fundamental thing measured.. Time and area is measured directly.

        For temperature.. You measure brightness ( a voltage) and then you
        need a Physics model (radiative transfer) to invert brightness into
        the “temperature” of a volume of air MILES THICK.

        Its not that we trust one more than the other. All measurement involves models and theory. there is no such thing as raw data. The issue is and will always be the uncertainty. As it stands the uncertainties just happen to be higher for “temperature” products.

        Other folks want to pick and choose. best to consider all the data and understand the limitations.

      • Here Tony and All other skeptics I want you to CHEW ON THIS

        A while back I made some comments about the land mask used by UHA. I’ve been talking about land masks for a long time. Its not a trivial matter.

        Any way, They finally improved their land mask

        Let me see If I can explain. To Model the air temperature the first thing you have to do is ELIMINATE the surface signal. This is not an easy thing to do. There are a couple problems. 1) higher elevations will give you different reading than lower elevations. 2) the surface signal is a function of the surface properties,.. What STUFF is emitting.

        To handle #1 both RSS and UAH just mask out areas of high elevation because the surface return dominates.

        What about #2. Well, they treat the earth like it was two things. Land and Ocean and assume that all land has one emissivity and ocean likewise has its own average emmissivity. Crude, but a good first order approach.

        But #2 depends on your land ocean mask ( actually should be a land water mask… but they dont do that ) Before UAH used a rather crude
        land/ocean mask, A long while back looking at the differences between raw data and their processed data ( early berkely earth work ) you could clearly see some issues along the coasts.. basically the land mask was off .. all land masks are off.

        Anyway.. now they have improved the land mask,, Great! Guess what
        That :changes history… not really.. but our estmate of the past is now different.. Now nobody accuses Roy of fraud when he changes his approach and the “past” changes, NOBODY.

        here is an example of the changes a LAND MASK HAS

        ‘As a result, users can expect that there will be differences between old and new LT trends on a regional basis. Differences are also attributable to our use of a new, more accurate land mask in Version 6. For example, going from Version 5.6 to 6.0 the Australia trend increased from +0.17 to +0.24 C/decade, but the USA48 trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade. The Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade. Note that trends are noisy over Greenland, Antarctica, and the Tibetan Plateau, likely due to greater sensitivity of the satellite measurements to surface emission and thus to emissivity changes over high altitude terrain; trends in these high-altitude areas are much less reliable than in other areas. Future changes, probably minor, can be expected as we refine the gridpoint diurnal drift adjustments and other aspects of our new processing strategy.”

        let me REPEAT THAT

        ‘For example, going from Version 5.6 to 6.0 the Australia trend increased from +0.17 to +0.24 C/decade, ”


        what changed?

        the LAND MASK.. the land mask is a very simple map 0|1 with 0s for ocean and 1s for land. A grid. They changed the grid… and Look how much they WARMED AUSTRALIA

        .17 to .24


        personally I am not suprised. But ask yourself This.

        If WE changed our land mask and warmed Australia… Dont think malcon roberts and the dunces down under would scream fraud?

        Now ask yourself ths

        If changing a land mask has that big a change in their method…. how certain can it really be?

      • Mosher, there is an evidentiary/ jury trick I learned as a 2L at Harvard. Try too hard, and your expert witness can be exposed as suspect/biased. You just failed that test. Times three. Without even going to any possible substance. What on earth cauued you to become so blog unhinged here? No matter, jury. Just contemplate the unhinged facts and consequences and render your own conclusion.

      • Which is why it is not very likely the altimetry-derived GMSL series by NOAA, CSIRO, NASA, and AVISO have been demonstrated to be incorrect because of problems with closing the SL budget.

      • Sub-basin-scale sea level budgets from satellite altimetry, Argo floats and satellite gravimetry: a case study in the North Atlantic Ocean

        …Using the anisotropic Wiener filter on CSR gravity fields expanded up to spherical harmonic degree 96, it is possible to close the sea level budget in 9 of 10 sub-basins in terms of trend. Wiener-filtered Institute of Theoretical geodesy and Satellite Geodesy (ITSG) and the standard DDK5-filtered CSR solutions also close the trend budget if a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) correction error of 10–20 % is applied; however, the performance of the DDK5-filtered solution strongly depends on the orientation of the polygon due to residual striping. In 7 of 10 sub-basins, the budget of the annual cycle is closed, using the DDK5-filtered CSR or the Wiener-filtered ITSG solutions. …

      • “Here Tony and All other skeptics I want you to CHEW ON THIS”

        Some think people find the thing they are looking for more often than the thing they aren’t looking for, even if the person is attempting to not be biased. That’s why the different estimation.

      • Well done Steven, for revealing the hypocrisy of some *sceptics*.
        I actually called out a denizen on here at another place last night for the cherry-picked argument of UAH’s NorPol data, in supposedly showing a flat line since ~1998 (no surprise there then).
        Delving into the data file one finds that NorPol under v5.6 has an overall trend of 0.42 v the Globes 0.15. Under v6 beta5 that has become 0.24 v 0.12.
        Now after all our host says the Sat temp data is the “gold standard”.
        Well yes of course it is …. because it’s now the coldest.
        Well since RSS went to v4 anyway.

        Yet still the disconnect in data at the point of the Noaa15 AMSU sat take-over from the MSU on 14 is evident on RATPAC sonde data. Such that one or the other is plainly wrong. Which one? UAH assumes it was the MSU for no other reason than it’s brand spanking knew. Whereas RSS take the pragmatic view that they don’t know so they minimise the diff with v4.
        A fudge.
        The “gold standard” my arse.

      • Steven Mosher | November 27, 2016 at 9:05 pm
        “if it doesn’t have warts, its probably fake.”
        Told you that.
        Climate models do not have warts.
        Cowtan and Way does not have warts.
        Gisstemp does not have warts.
        Best does not have warts.
        Oh, wait……
        Yes, I’ve answered this before for you.
        But you do not listen.

      • Steven Mosher | November 27, 2016 at 9:38 pm |

        “To Model the air temperature the first thing you have to do is ELIMINATE the surface signal. This is not an easy thing to do.”
        as you have to use an algorithm!
        Time of year [insolation thereof]
        Time of day [or night]
        Color.[property of surface]
        Seems pretty easy, could land on the moon with more than that.
        Satellite drift, now that’s nasty, has to be calibrated every couple of years Steven will be pleased [cue call for unwarranted adjustments].
        Sorry he has already done that ib his alter ego of NOBODY [tm Mosher]

        “There are a couple problems. 1) higher elevations will give you different reading than lower elevations”.
        Really, now that’s a problem.
        A problem with thinking, not a real problem.

        “2) the surface signal is a function of the surface properties,.. What STUFF is emitting.”
        Really, now that’s a problem.
        How will they ever solve that one?

        “To handle #1 both RSS and UAH just mask out areas of high elevation because the surface return dominates.”

        The fact that at high elevation the temperature drops quite considerably and is very stable and easily measurable and is not greatly affected by surface radiation because the air is too thin and does not have to be heated by back radiation has nothing to do with it?
        Oh, Steven, now you have really spoilt my day.
        The surface return has virtually nothing to do with air temperature at high altitude, that is why it is safe to ignore it..
        It dominates the return spectrum because it was not impeded by the thin air, not the air temperature which is what Roy is trying to measure.
        Get the science right and all else follows, right?

      • Mosher says “All measurement involves models and theory.” This is true but at least UAH is an actual measurement. The surface global temperature estimates are not measurements. They are the output of questionable complex statistical computer models operating on availability samples of local thermometer readings and SST proxies.

        The error is probably far greater than in the satellite measurements. In fact statistical sampling theory says one should never draw conclusions about the whole population from an availability sample, which is precisely what the surface temperature modelers are doing.

        The surface models should be calibrated to the satellite readings but then there would be too little warming.

      • Note too that there is a bit of a semantic hoax here, because these computer model estimates of global surface temperature are called “data sets”, as though these crude estimates were observational data. GISS, HadCRU, etc., are all called data sets.

      • David said

        ‘The surface global temperature estimates are not measurements. ‘

        you may not remember dear old Jim Cripwell who died a couple of years ago and was a regular blogger here.

        He frequently used to take Mosh to task who would insist that an estimate was the same as a measurement. No matter how many dictionaries Jim would throw at Mosh or how many examples he gave, Mosh would insist they were the same thing. I reckon Jim easily overcome the assertions.


      • And Cripwell remains dead wrong, and Mosher is still correct.

      • The distinction is that between sampling a population and actually measuring it. Estimating the average height of the human population by taking a tiny availability sample is very different from actually measuring all the people. The surface statistical models do the former. The satellites do something close to the latter. The difference is enormous.

      • David Springer

        Istvan writes: “What on earth caused [Mosher] to become so blog unhinged here?”

        His global surface temperature hobby horse requires expensive taxpayer funded data sources. The taxpayer is tired of paying for data that has failed to yield any tangible benefit.

        Steven’s hobby horse is headed to the glue factory. That’s why he’s unhinged.

      • Springer ==> re: “blog unhinged”. Separating this out from any particular commenter here or elsewhere, I point out that there are a number of “recognizable names” in the Climate Wars that exhibit a tendency to lose nearly all rational collegiality when participating in the Comment Sections of the climate science blogsphere. Some are published climate scientists (professional or citizen) who you would think would place a high value on their reputations, yet can be seen to repeatedly reduce their Comment Section interaction to the level of your ubiquitous “angry tween-aged internet troll”. All of the major climate blogs have one or more, some of them inhabit most the the major blogs.

        I actually keep files of the worst examples (with the identity of participants obscured to protect the guilty) towards one day writing a comprehensive essay on the phenomena.

        It is a sorry spectacle to be sure. In regards to at least two of them, I have been assured, by people who know them, that they are, dealt with face-to-face, perfectly fine and easy going individuals — nice people.

        Go figure, huh?

      • tonyb

        “He frequently used to take Mosh to task who would insist that an estimate was the same as a measurement. ”


        You are a very bad reader.

        The argument was that Both measurements and estimates have error and so the relevant question is HOW MUCH ERROR!!

        In short you cant settle a debate, as jim tried to do, by MERELY pointing out that something was an “estimate”. You have to pay attention to the ERROR in both the estimate and the measurement. The difference between the two is not catgeorical.

      • “His global surface temperature hobby horse requires expensive taxpayer funded data sources. The taxpayer is tired of paying for data that has failed to yield any tangible benefit.


        1. GISSTEMp requires 1/4 man year of maintence.
        2. Hadcrut doesnt rely on us funding
        3. We dont.
        4. JMA does not
        5. NOAA I suspect is much less than a man year.

        basically, the global temp stuff just runs.

        The data used will continue to be collected because its used for weather prediction.

        Running the code is trivial. It just happens.

      • David Springer

        That’s good news, Steven! So it won’t make any difference when NASA Earth Science Division is scrapped. Thanks for your support in this.

      • rud

        “Mosher, there is an evidentiary/ jury trick I learned as a 2L at Harvard. Try too hard, and your expert witness can be exposed as suspect/biased. You just failed that test. Times three. Without even going to any possible substance. What on earth cauued you to become so blog unhinged here? No matter, jury. Just contemplate the unhinged facts and consequences and render your own conclusion.”

        I quoted Roy.

        They changed their land mask and the Trend in australia changed from
        .17 to .24

        Cross examination sucks.

        Explain why you put trust in a method that changes the trend so substantially when a land mask changes.

        You cant

      • david

        ” The surface statistical models do the former. The satellites do something close to the latter. The difference is enormous.”


        Australia is a good example.

        Go ahead and look at all the stations .

        Select any random 50.

        Compute the area average.

        Now select 50 different ones..

        repeat this.

        Report the range in trends you find from 1979 to present.


        look at the change in UAH.. version 5.6 had a trend of .17
        after they changed the land mask, according to roy, the trend changed to .24 for australia

        Ask yourself which approach you now trust.

        You actually have to read how the earth is sampled by satellites to understand how you can get such dramatically different answers by merely changing the resolution of a land mask.

        The problem is you guys have decided that the satellities are a gold standard..

        It just rusted.

        go figure

      • Kip

        I look forward to your essay. I started following this issue from the social psychology and political science angle. I find the behavior of many of the scientists to be intriguing and quite frankly, disappointing. When it gets a little bizarre, I can’t help going into my psycho-babble mode analyzing the underlying dynamics at play.
        While I don’t expect to make it , I would love to read a longitudinal case study of all these activities in about 2046
        Guaranteed to be a fascinating read, especially if the temperature trend turns down.

      • I don’t know. Steven’s explanation was very informative for me. For once Rud’s rebuttal was not.

      • Mosher’s argument:

        We have really good theories, ‘only the best’ theories.
        And we have really good models, ‘only the best’ models.
        And we have really good people, ‘only the best’ people.
        And we have really good ideas, ‘only the best’ ideas.

        All of this is used to develop ‘only the best’ explanations and conclusions. If you disagree with our conclusions, you have to adopt our methodology and you have to show that your theory, model, people and ideas are better.


        We don’t.

        We merely have to show that your conclusions fail. It doesn’t matter how good or ‘best’ your work is, if the dogs won’t eat it. And the dogs don’t like it. Because it fails.

      • “Australia is a good example.

        Go ahead and look at all the stations .

        Select any random 50.”

        Suggest you look at Jennifer Marohasy’s site before you crow about how much “better” BoM data is – there are several sites where the adjustments BoM makes change the trend by over 2C/century. Even where neighboring stations that are considered “pristine” (no site changes for multiple decades etc) show the same trend as the raw data.

        Read that again: the adjustments changed the TREND by over 2C/century, from mild cooling to significant warming.
        Think on what athro effects do – most warm the present compared to the past.

        BoM refuses to justify the adjustments to a credentialed, well published and respected environmental scientist.

        BoM colluded with CSIRO to stall parliamentary questions on this matter, while they marshaled political support to suppress it.

        BoM have previously told me in writing that the adjustments average to zero – true, but misleading.

        These are not acts that I would consider engender trust, respect or confidence. These are not acts that I consider to be in the spirit of disinterested investigation. In short, these people are withdrawing from the respect fund the huge amounts deposited by their predecessors in order to push their own agenda. This act of vandalism and hubris will not go unremembered.

    • This is NASA’s science vision: using the vantage point of space to achieve with the science community and our partners a deep scientific understanding of our planet, other planets and solar system bodies, the interplanetary environment, the Sun and its effects on the solar system, and the universe beyond. In so doing, we lay the intellectual foundation for the robotic and human expeditions of the future while meeting today’s needs for scientific information to address national concerns, such as climate change and space weather. At every step we share the journey of scientific exploration with the public and partner with others to substantially improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education nationwide.

      Let’s echew ….

      – clean vantage point
      – science community?
      – interplanetary bodies <– love this muse, Girls gone Wild
      – sun isn't the solar system
      – universe beyond <__ hello Kiddy
      – intellectual foundation based on What?
      – robotics are nonsense – use mimic and it's still nothing than foolish
      – national concerns – that's the nail
      – space weather – seriously LOL
      – improve Sciebce with public nonsense <__ surely you can and have done better
      – Improve – your Insghts Please!

  4. There is always a risk that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. NASA have done and still do some great things – earth sciences included.

    Simply removing any politically motivated scientific outcomes should be the initial number one focus. Clean the house instead of closing it down.

    • Easier said than done. Funding is the only instrument that Congress and the President have, when it comes to reducing the flow of alarmist propaganda from the science agencies.

      • Not true. There’s also legislation that changes and/or mandates procedures and authorized spending.

        Far fewer limits than when the President is in on it.

    • NOAA is a more logical choice to do Earth sciences, NASA to collect the data. Of course, since Earth is part of the Solar System, NASA could do a little Earth science. But NOAA should be the primary agency for that.

  5. Whatever is done, there are a few things which should be achieved.

    Avoid the effect of one single dominating, and possibly biased, body.

    Full independence between bodies observing climate and bodies predicting climate.

    Independent scrutiny of both observations and predictions.

    • David Springer

      The United States isn’t warming or experiencing any adverse effects from so-called climate change. Just the opposite in fact.

      Let those nations who believe they are adversely effected pick up the tab for research that confirms or denies it. The US has more important problems to address and too few resources for those more important problems. Enough is enough.

  6. Perhaps the real change should be to appoint a new manager of NASA who holds scientific integrity high and who has not wedded his career to the theory of CAGW but take the road where the data leads. The same goes for a new leader of NASA GISS.

    • Could, I as an outsider, recommend the great Professor Currie for one of those important positions as head of NASA or NOAA?
      That should tick most boxes, not sure how Mr Mosher would react.

  7. Left-wing political hacks at “Real” Climate: If you vote for Trump, your grandchildren will regret it forever …

  8. Personally, I would like to see government funding of research cut back everywhere. When Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex he was thinking of this problem. It has reached such a crescendo that now the only research that counts is publically funded research, as if that were the only research free from corruption. Well, we might think that is wrong, but many in the public believe it to be true. The logical conclusion is that the government should have a monopoly on research, does that make sense? I say reinstate the tax deductions for private and corporate research and take the money away from government agencies. Socialized research is no less corrupt than socialized industry.

    • I’ve suggested several times that corporations should be allowed to divert up to a certain percentage of their taxes to research of their choice, retaining a fraction of their IP rights. Less than the full patent rights they’d get for research they funded themselves (with tax deduction), but more than nothing.

      Some would be wasted, of course, but much would probably be channeled into oddball and off-the-track ideas that would never be funded by government science.

  9. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should be run by an aeronautical scientist or a space scientist, not a climate “scientist”.

  10. Henry Kissinger has met Trump and says he is not ideological, which I sense is true from his flexibility in ideas after he talks to the real experts. He is an open container for ideas on things that he has not thought through previously, which are many. This gives me more hope in his case that he will be swayed by the scientific evidence than an ideological Republican would have been. I don’t think NASA would have to hide or disguise climate motives when proposing new satellites if it was just up to him, but the Republican Congress is a different story, and they are already making things difficult.

    • I think you are correct, with one difference. The ‘evidence’ will be scrutinized no different than any business due diligence, and a lot if it in the climate arena will not pass muster.
      Trump is a senior exec, and evidently a good one or he not have turned $1 million into several $billion the hard way. Senior execs set tone and direction, and they pick people more capable and expert than they themselves to sort through the nitty gritty and come up with actionable specifics he can greenlight or alter. His cabinet level appointments so far with one possible exception (although Nikki Hailey may in fact signal a basic UN status shift (they are pretty useless) to the promised America first policy). Neither Clinton nor Obama understood that sufficiently. Bush 43 left this stuff to Cheney, perhaps too much so.

      • Whom he appoints as science advisor is one factor. The Republicans will probably push him in the direction of a few fossil fuel fanatics, but if he can see past that, it would be a big step. I am not optimistic given his picks so far, and his current desire to go back to inefficient coal for energy. He hasn’t had the right conversation on that yet.

      • USC coal can be 45% thermally efficient. Of course, old coal is only 34% and new CCGT is 61%. The markets sort it out with USC coal losing at any nat gas price below $8/mbtu. Just arithmetic.
        Politically, Trump removes all the Obama war on coal regs, (keeping political promises) then just stands back and let markets do their thing. Coal loses but Trump wins. Easy, peasy. Just shows how stupidly inept Obama was/is

      • Coal loses but Trump wins

        What about steel?

      • I think an argument can be made to increase coal energy production very slightly for energy security reason. There’s also small potential demand for steel production.

        My idea is that relying on NG for heat and base and peaking load puts too much risk in the system for potential winter weather disasters.

        I think NG should be used more for peaking. We should develop production capability and large amounts of storage for peaking demand, but not use it so much for base load. Produce below capacity and export some excess (since it travels well), leaving excess supply for demand shocks.

      • Ak, steel uses a completely different type of coal (coking steel coal is usually anthracite) than steam coal (bituminous, subbituminous, lignite). There are four basic types of coal. Do not get confused by those that are.
        Same issue with respect to petroleum. Source rock versus conventional reservoir. Conventional (API >10, porosity >5, permeability >10 millidarcies) versus unconventional. The world is complicated and subtle. To quote ‘the Music Man’, “you got to know the territory”.

      • Some perspective. As an industry, coal is small with 70k workers. Even Starbucks has more employees. Renewable energy employs ten times as many Americans as coal.

      • Jim D, perspective appreciated!

        I’m more concerned with energy security. I think we can agree that coal extraction itself won’t drive many jobs, but indirectly…

      • A previous comment:

        I actually think there may be good reason to revive the coal. I’d much prefer nuclear, but a modest increase in coal should probably be a small part of our energy mix.

        I think we’ve been neglecting a potential energy security problem. I don’t think we should be rely on natural gas so much for our base load. I think we should create excess capacity for production, distribution, and storage to weather shocks in demand (and supply). That makes some room for coal, and [more] hopefully nuclear

        Subsidies are tenuous and often grow out of control, but, in the past, they’ve probably been a necessary evil. They are a part of R&D, which lead to the technology that grew our fossil fuel industry which is responsible for much of our health, safety, and easy living (and are important for development of new technology we will need in the future).

        They also play a role in food and energy security. Disasters will happen and I think having excess capacity will allow us to respond. Coal is more expensive than gas and inefficient to transport, but it can be burned cleanly and fairly cheaply. If we develop gas, but use it below capacity, we will have it for emergencies. And, as a wealthy nation, using a variety of energy sources frees up this efficient fuel (NG) for export to the developing world where it can do far more good.

      • coal kills and it’s dead from a market perspective.

        Keep it in the ground and dont lose track of it.

      • Even in ‘Trumpland’ this is what matters: “it’s dead from a market perspective.” It’s not ‘dead’ yet, but even with life support the prognosis is dire.

      • Curious George

        Jim D: “renewable energy employs ten times as many Americans as coal”. How much energy do they produce?

      • …and the energy source is free and unlimited so the cost per unit is competitive.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “…and the energy source is free and unlimited so the cost per unit is competitive.”

        Free? So is oil, gas, or coal.

        One might even say those are unlimited in a practical sense.

        Hydropower is free, provided you’ve got a lazy few hundred million lying around. The “free” energy source is misrepresentation writ large. True, but totally misleading.

        If you ever find some free energy, I’ll have as much as you can spare. You might be good enough to give me something to put it in until I need it. I expect that will be free too!


      • We must burn coal to make our oil and gas last longer.
        As we deplete our fossil fuels we must develop our nuclear power.

        Renewables must compete in the marked and make it or not based on how much they really cost and how good they are. So far, they are worse than useless and cause more problems than they provide in usable energy.

      • Not sure how to make this comment go in the right place, in terms of Jim D figure of 70,000 employees in coal industry. this figure seems low – is it only referring to actual coal mining operations employees in the US? There are many more, probably an order of magnitude, who transport, handle, load and offload, etc., coal in its passage to end-user.

        In Canada, figured seems to be about 42,000 directly and indirectly employed in coal mining operations (see

      • Curious George

        Jim D – you are excellent a hand waving and avoiding questions. Here are U.S. 2015 numbers: renewable energy 10%, coal 16% – with 10 times fewer workers. Your contempt for those coal workers is staggering.

      • Yes, I don’t know why the unit costs of coal and renewables are so similar given the relative number of workers. Either the cost of salaries is a lower percentage of the cost of coal, or their salaries are that much higher, or somewhere in between.

      • Curious George

        Three times more expensive is “similar”. I wish I had financial resources needed for that kind of poetry.

      • Jim D
        Why people tout Wind and Solar as sources for employment versus Coal seems counter productive. The fact that Coal is such an over whelming larger source of energy, suggest not economic validation, but economic inefficiency. The goal is to do more with less and thus liberate labor for other productive jobs, not see how many holes workers can dig and fill back up.

      • I agree with Rud on this one. Trump doesn’t have to subsidize coal or mandate it. He simply evens the field and if it still declines it is due to market forces, not government intervention.

        And if the science starts showing adverse impacts, he can then toss clean coal incentives out.

    • There is hope for you Jim.

      I would like to recommend you pay attention to what Trump says verses how it is reported. Reach your own conclusions, and not those someone would like you to reach. The NYT interview with Tom Friedman is a good example.

      • I am paying attention, but he usually changes it a few days later depending on who he spoke to last, so is it worth the effort to even listen? Most people will just tune him out if he keeps on changing his mind like this. He just doesn’t seem very deeply committed on anything yet.

      • In the end it is actions, not words.

        Trump has 4 years. A lot of us gave Obama 4 years. Only to be disappointed that a majority of our fellow citizens thought 4 more was justified. And we didn’t riot or melt down on social media.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        timg56 | November 29, 2016 at 12:24 am

        There is hope for you Jim.

        I would like to recommend you pay attention to what Trump says versus how it is reported.

        True ‘dat, Tim. Jim D, here’s how it works. Here are Trump’s exact words:

        When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

        But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

        Now, I don’t think that there are too many Americans that would disagree with that. Some people coming across the border are good people but a lot are not. Simple truth.

        However, this was reported in the news as some variation of:


        You can see why people think the media was in the tank for Hillary … because they were.


      • First of all, does he really think Mexico actually sends its people? I heard recently that Cuba had a stage where it did send its people, and they were the criminals and crazies, but Mexico did not do that.

      • A comment is in moderation because of “cr1minals”, but I was questioning whether Mexico sends people, or is this just a Trump belief? Note he only said it this way once, which is usually a good sign that he thinks it was wrong, and he is not committed to it.

      • Willis,

        I don’t particularly agree with the criminal storyline. Not that we don’t get those, but that I don’t think they are even a significant percentage of people entering illegally. My theory is we get people who generally want to improve their situation. To the point they take great risks. And many of them believe they will return home once they have achieved financial security.

        I think there is a lot to be gained by creating a process to take advantage of this. Wouldn’t surprise me if Trump would agree. But this is a separate issue from securing our border. The two are not incompatible and I’ll not challenge those who live in border states who think one part needs to take precedence.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        timg56 | November 29, 2016 at 1:58 am |


        I don’t particularly agree with the criminal storyline. Not that we don’t get those, but that I don’t think they are even a significant percentage of people entering illegally.

        Time, thanks for the reply. In the last five years, there were about 2,000 cases of child molestation by illegal aliens in Texas alone. Now, there are plenty of child molesters here, all over the country, to be sure … but that is 2,000 sexually abused children WE WOULD NOT HAVE if those folks had been stopped at the border.

        As to whether that is a “significant percentage”, I suggest that you ask those kids if they find it “significant” … once again, elitism rears its ugly head. You seem to think you are qualified to judge what a “significant percentage” is, but those kids would assuredly disagree …

        My theory is we get people who generally want to improve their situation. To the point they take great risks. And many of them believe they will return home once they have achieved financial security.

        And why should we care if they are planning to return home? If someone decides they want to move into your house with you, and they stay, eating the food you worked for, does it make it all better if they decide to leave two years later?

        And if a man came in illegally and was sheltered by say San Francisco and then murdered your daughter … I doubt you’d be lecturing us about how there’s not a “significant percentage” of illegal immigrants who are murderers. I doubt you’d be saying Oh, it’s OK, he’s planning to return home after he achieved financial security. (The City of San Francisco is currently being sued for letting the murderer out of jail when there was an Immigration Hold on him … sorry, SF taxpayers, and even more sorry for the parents.)

        I think there is a lot to be gained by creating a process to take advantage of this.

        Not sure how or why you would want to “take advantage of” a bunch of desperate people … what “advantage” are you talking about taking? Child labor? Domestics?

        Wouldn’t surprise me if Trump would agree. But this is a separate issue from securing our border. The two are not incompatible and I’ll not challenge those who live in border states who think one part needs to take precedence.

        I’m not understanding the “two parts”. One is where we secure our border. The other is … ?

        Tim, when you get around to taking some poor Mexican family into your house and you feed them and educate their kids for a couple of years, at that point you can lecture the farmers living in fear along the border about how there are two parts to the story.

        Until then … not so much …



      • Willis Eschenbach

        Jim D | November 29, 2016 at 1:00 am |

        First of all, does he really think Mexico actually sends its people? I heard recently that Cuba had a stage where it did send its people, and they were the criminals and crazies, but Mexico did not do that.

        No, Mexico doesn’t “send” them. So you can bust Trump for using imprecise language. But if you do that, you’ll have to bust the Statue of Liberty lady, who said “SEND these, the hopeless tempest tossed to me” etc. etc. …

        Like the Statue, Trump doesn’t do much “literal”, he does more “figurative”.


      • Willis,

        You read far too much into my comments.

        I said nothing about allowing illegals to enter. Nor have I argued against controlling our borders. I did suggest that pushing the criminal element line leaves much of the issue of illegal immigrants untouched. There is more to this than criminals coming into the country. In fact the criminal problem is bigger than just that of illegal immigrants. Lots of other criminal activities happening along the border.

        Same with your twisting my comment about taking advantage of those people who are only interested in coming here for the opportunity. The fact you do so speaks more to your mind set than mine. The simple fact is that people wouldn’t risk everything to come to the US if there wasn’t opportunity for them. Conversely, that opportunity represents a need for the services that these people provide. My reference to taking advantage of the desire on the part of people seeking to enter the US to work is that if the demand is there and the desire to fill that demand exists, the US should be able to develop the means and methods to allow more people into the US by legal means. Your best response is to dive into the mud and take the discussion as low as possible. Nice job.

      • W.E. says “But if you do that, you’ll have to bust the Statue of Liberty lady, who said “SEND these, the hopeless tempest tossed to me” etc. etc. …”

        That doesn’t say to let anyone in illegally. We have legal means to immigrate. Kick all the illegal ones out and make them start over.

      • Trump was being deliberately “imprecise” about “send”, so that he could go on to blame the nation of Mexico. It was calculated to fool those who did not know better.

  11. Seems to me NASA is about to reap the harvest from the seeds they sewed. Really have no sympathy for them what-so-ever.

  12. My reaction is that NASA should be focused on engineering. Their mission, and primary competence, should be around reaching space, operating in space, and traveling in space. Also operating and performing data gathering in non-terrestrial atmospheres etc.

    What real science they do (as opposed to engineering) should be primarily in support of engineering for their primary mission.

    The scope of their activity WRT Earth systems research should be limited to data gathering and support for same. They should not be running climate models, or even trying to produce temperature datasets, beyond what they need to calibrate instruments. (Rather, they should be acquiring and archiving raw data, making it available to other research organizations for theoretical interpretation.)

    There are many uses for space that have been “back-burnered” for decades, as well as some that are proceeding apace. Use of satellites for communication links is well under way, NASA’s roll should be primarily to administer orbital slot assignments and protocols.

    Space-borne manufacture has been stalled since the ’80’s. It may be that few or no applications really need zero-G, but if they do pioneering the technology would be within NASA’s scope.

    NASA should certainly take the lead, working with China and other polities as appropriate, to standardize the policies and protocols to eliminate existing and future “space garbage” and establish a safe and reliable system of orbital slot assignments.

    Same for communications, especially emergency and other fall-back systems and protocols. Also operation of, management of, and remuneration for rescue operations.

    There are probably a number of other activities that should properly fall within NASA’s scope, but climate advocacy, whether for theories/paradigms or policy, should not.

    • +

      • Space travel is a total loser. In today’s dollars, New Tang and plant another flag and leave some footprints in the moon dust is 150 billion dollars. A base? Krazy.

      • “Space travel is a total loser.”

        Only because of the cost.
        Don’t go to the moon or Mars – build a space elevator. Once you have cheap access to space you can do all sorts of things that you can’t do on a planet – foam metal, create drugs in large amounts that can’t be made in 1G, get quadruple the incident solar energy with no night, etc etc.

  13. I second Andy May’s observation.
    The government should stop trying to pick winners-and-losers in the marketplace. Seems to me their primary function should be to establish boundaries and insure the unscrupulous pay a penalty when willfully exceeding reasonable limits. In all too many cases, the government is aiding-and-abetting the thievery.

  14. There is a lot of duplicative research. When GISS problems in Iceland were pointed out (courtey Tony Heller) by Australian Senator Robert Malcom to Gavin, Gavin blamed the underlying NOAA GHCN. Fine, Gavin, ‘your fired’, lets shut GISS and fix NOAA. World has three other equally problematic surface temp records and doesn’t need to pay for a fourth. BTW, Why is the satellite temperature record provided by UAH and RSS rather than NASA?
    There is a lot of ‘wasted’ research, especially using climate models not fit for purpose. Fine, cut it severely.
    The climate research gravy train abused by Shukla has to be derailed. This will cause some underdeserved casualties; those can be fixed case by case as need be. That’s what executives get paid to decide.

    This is not Trump’s to do except to set the policy direction and pick the right executives to execute. Seems the NASA policy direction has been articulated, ditto EPA indirectly via transition head Myron Ebell and Trump’s statements about wanting clean air and water and doubts about climate change. Now put the executive team in place and let thoughtful change begin Jan 21. Sci Am hyperventillating at this point is expected and meaningless.

    • tucsonaustrian

      Appoint Tony Heller as head of GISS after firing Gavin

      • GISS should be gone. Tony Heller for the new subcabinet level post of National Climate Report ( congressionally mandated) data auditor. And Judith to head NOAA. You know, somebody competent rather than political.

      • You need to hire someone who knows what the triple point of water is, or is willing to look it up, or is willing to admit he made a mistake.

        Tony Heller is none of these.

      • You people are hilarious.

      • sullis02: “You people are hilarious.”

        Oh, I think he’s gone one better than that.

        He’s appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

  15. Has anyone there read “Limits To Growth,” or any of its updates?

    In the original, “Overshoot and Collapse” of global populations from starvation caused by our pollutants poisoning our planet’s oceans, weather systems, water and food resources was expected sometime after 2030 if WE FAILED to develop an effective response to our man-made chemicals. The update prior to Fukushima, changed the onset of that global famine from after 2030 to no later than 2024. This is relatively simple chemistry at work. Evidence, imho, can be found in the waters of Flint, Fukushima, off the coast of British Columbia and the Great Barrier Reef. Phytoplankton are dying and starving the food chains that depend on them in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. “Dead Spaces” are constantly being reported off the Washington coast and in Puget Sound. The same sound designated in 2009 as one of the two most “Poisoned Waters” in the US. Also the same year Ban Ki-Moon warned us at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen that WE had about 18 months to do something because “Nature does not negotiate.” We failed to listen, develop or negotiate an effective detoxification response; ergo, here we are.

    The “nature” to which he referred are the consequences of just a small set of the 90,000 manmade chemicals floating about in our spaceship’s biosphere. Global warming, climate change, the decreasing resources crisis, mass migrations, pandemics and conflicts for control of whatever uncontaminated agricultural resources remain are in that realm. Combined with our increasingly contaminated oceans, gets us a world to warm and unstable to grow healthy food.

    “Overshoot and Collapse” have been replaced by other phrases, ie, the Sixth Mass Extinction Event and more specifically global famine, sooner than anyone is willing to admit. Hair Drumpf, his SSTrumpettes and KKKonfederates are ignorant of that fate, which is likely to become rather important during their reign.

    Even if WE were able to stop dumping all those chemicals into our biosphere yesterday, the momentum of what has already been released will insure that few, if any, of us and the lower life forms upon which we depend, will be able to adapt and survive the catastrophic changes already begun.

    The debates about funding NASA, or national defense, or X, Y, Z are no more than a smoke screen to divert global panic and Blowback by the 95% of the planet’s population against the 5%, US, responsible for creating and ignoring the poisoning of their children’s future.

    Ask Dana Durnford what it was like to be charged with “incitement to riot” by the BC government for revealing the devastating decline of biodiversity his videos have revealed around Vancouver Island in the past five years.

    Bummer, ain’t it?

    • DG, read it and moved on. It was wrong then and is still wrong now. As for your chemical poisoning fears, grow up. Those chemicals that are true toxins get tightly regulated. (The linear no threshold model is nonsense). Those that persist in the environment especially so. Yes, we have stuff from the past to clean up. US is, China isn’t and makes more. Complain to China, OK?
      There are a couple of limits to human population on Earth. One is very soft, the other is fairly hard. Both say about ~ 9.2-9.3 billion by ~ 2050 take a few hundred million and ~ a decade compared to ~7.4 billion now. No crisis. Lack of metals, lack of water, and environmental contamination are not among those global limits. See my ebook Gaia’s Limits for a long hard slog through the data and reasoning. No models, computer or otherwise. Just inevitable diminishing marginal returns to ag innovation, and the realities of petroleum geophysics.

    • Wow. This doesn’t seem at all crazy. /sarcasm

      Though, there is some truth to the limits of growth concept. A bit of what has happened in the Syria region has to do with wealth driving growth beyond the productive capacity of the region. Over use of fossil water there and dependency on imported food and water that they may not always have the money for…

      Taking a global warming tack, I wonder if global warming hasn’t prevented the situation from being much worse than it could have. CO2 fertilization improving water efficiency, increased evaporation, humidity, and precipitation from the sea; these thing likely created excess reserves in good times. In bad times, a slight increase in temperature and DLWR mostly affect open bodies of water (IR is readily absorbed by bodies of water) but in the ground and plants is a smaller factor). But overall, I think likely a net benefit.

      • Or maybe it has to do with a ruthless SOB trying to kill-off his opponents. History once again repeating itself; climate does not create evil.

    • There used to be psychic hotlines for people like you.

      The whole limits to growth, the planet has a limited carrying capacity storyline has not only failed to come about, it has the embarrassing feature of having all of it’s proponents living a lifestyle 180 out from their professed beliefs

  16. If this slashing of NASA Earth science comes to pass, it will be a disaster for humanity. This is no exaggeration: NASA is the leading agency in studying the effects of global warming on the planet, in measuring the changes in our atmosphere, our oceans, the weather, and yes, the climate as temperatures increase. . . . climate scientists like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and Katharine Hayhoe are speaking out.

    Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and Katharine Hayhoe gave up real science when they became consensus alarmists and stopped doing any science and started just promoting alarmism. It is now useless and too late. We elected Trump to end this junk science.

    • Gavin has his hand in propaganda, but he is a scientist. When he isn’t spinning, he’s really reasonable.

      • But when he isn’t spinning is near 0 of his time. See critical comment deletes at RealClimate for examples. Oh, thats right, you cannot cause he disappeared them.

      • Does the realclimate “borehole” still exist? This is where all deleted comments used to go and could still be read. The link I had for it no longer works…

      • Gavin does not have a science bone in his body. He is a mathematician, not trained in the sciences. We already know 1+1=2.

  17. I’d not be inclined to push this one too hard –

    “NASA attracts the best of the best scientists”

    As far as I know, Gavin Schmidt isn’t even a “best of the best” mathematician, let alone a scientist. Maybe decision makers might be of the same opinion.

    NASA has done good work in the past, but seems no better or worse than similar organisations around the world. As NASA has demonstrated recently, slabs of cash, and the finest minds in the world, apparently, are unable to solve the longstanding diaper problem.

    They are hoping that a person outside NASA, whether in possession of the finest intellect in the world, or even a high school diploma, can solve a practical engineering problem. And for $30,000. What a joke!

    Funds are getting scarce – I’d guess they’re going to get scarcer.

    Maybe asking for money to solve existing problems could be an answer. Unfortunately, real problems need real solutions. Many academics might be ill-suited dealing with reality. They could always stick to teaching.

    Sorry, no answers. None acceptable to the Government funded “research” industry, anyway.


    • John Carpenter

      Please submit to NASA your solution to the diaper problem. The $30K is yours for the taking. You won’t, because you have no solution.

  18. Six months after I became our agency’s budget director, in anticipation of the effects of the 1981-82 recession, we began a process of identifying programs and functions that could be curtailed, eliminated or made more efficient. The entire top management team devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort prioritizing literally every dollar spent. Both the State and our own General Fund budgets were slashed 33% during that period as unemployment hit 20% in some of our major cities.

    When was the last time that major agencies of the Federal Government had to plan for a 33% budget cut? They may have identified where the growth forecasts were reduced but I doubt many programs have had nominal cuts in their budget. I think they would be surprised to find an abundance of opportunities to carry on with their most critical missions and achieve their top program priorities by going thru a top to bottom evaluation to find how to operate more efficiently. Carter made Zero based Budgeting a focus but I wonder how committed they really were to it.

    We called characters like Mann and Schmidt loose cannons. There are rules for how government employees conduct themselves and it appears they have not been advised of them. When one of our loose cannons adversely affected my relations with the legislature, we would have a sit down. If no corrective action was forthcoming then up to the Director’s Office they went. I can’t believe this kind of almost insubordinate behavior is countenanced. Hopefully, it won’t be in the future.

    • Cereso, an anecdote. A long time ago, I was the senior consultant ‘Lend Lease’ chief marketing officer at a struggling then Dow 30 company. One of the top six decisional executives, except not officially a company employee– instead the engaged consulting firm senior partner working two full time jobs simultaneously (which did not end well marriage wise). Word came down from the Board/New CEO that we had to cut costs (the alternative was immediate bankruptcy and termination of my multimillion dollar consulting contract to figure out how to fix a colossal mess, including a bad UAW contract with Canada complications, a completely screwed up dealer organization, a completely disfunctional product pricing policy, and an unbelievably stupid used product policy.) So, in one afternoon I sat with and fired ~15 loyal career employees nominally reporting to ‘me’ who had done nothing wrong. Victims of bad prioir senior management, that my newish consulting engagement was too late to stop. We did eventually save the company, and it did improve thereafter, but took 18 months. It still exists outside the Dow 30 today. But that single unfortunate afternoon is seared in my memory for the pain in their faces as anyone discusses Trump now. ‘You are fired’ are the most important yet least used until far too late words in the English vocabulary. When you use them, aim high, not low–management heirarchy speaking.

      • My dad has told us the most difficult thing he ever had to do was fire someone. And I know everyone he ever had to fire deserved it. Some to the point I would have suggested going medieval on.

  19. China is NASA’s biggest rival in space exploration with plans to land “taikonauts” on the moon by 2036 and Mars thereafter.

    Maybe NASA could copy or steal some Chinese technology – or Russian. Or employ Chinese or Russian scientists, as the US did with European rocket scientists after WW 2. It seemed to work then.


    • Given the current nastiness directed toward US scientists, many of whom are from China, the other possibility is China could abandon the vaaaypid policy of exploring space with astronauts, and hire way from the United States the NASA/NOAA scientists, Chinese or otherwise, who want to study the earth from space without the extreme political interference of a Trump White House.

  20. How about a real, detailed audit of NASA, NOAA, etc? How about a detailed audit of all communications in and out of NASA as far as climate goes? Do we really need duplicative programs? We are betting the economy on what these people are doing and we really need to closely examine their data, methods and results.

    • We must start doing things right, if we try to figure out all they have done wrong in the past, that will take all of our effort. Do not audit what they have done in the corrupt past, audit what they do in the better future.

  21. The title of this article alone made my day.

  22. I think I caught Gavin in some sockpuppetry about 9 or so years ago on an ABC Australia forum on The Great Global Warming Swindle.

  23. I can’t recall when a massive government agency did not survive an administration almost completely intact.
    The current location of deck chairs may be imperiled.

    BTW, he ain’t President yet.

    • RR, true. But I also cannot recall when a non politicitian last won the presidency. Stay tuned.

    • Rebel, you are right on the money with your comment. Even the vaunted Defense Departed reductions after Viet Nam cut only the uniformed military, the only group without true representation. Bases closed and units were deactivated, but the total number of civilians and contractors grew. The Federal Government is a well oiled machine dedicated to its own survival.

  24. You reap what you sow. Thank Jimmy bob Hansen. Maybe he can chain himself to the White House fence come Jan 20th

  25. Dr. Curry

    Before one embarks upon a new direction in policy and research, as I believe NASA should, one needs to clean house of those in NASA who are CO2 focused, which means Gavin has to go first and foremost. Next, the mission of NASA should return to launching and testing satellites for near earth orbit, then turn over to other parties data acquisition, storage, analysis, and reporting. Low earth orbit satellites are good, Gavin and his academically corrupt partners are to be expunged.

    Like pornography, I know it when I see it. and, these partners in manipulating media/data/policy have no socially redeeming value.

    Like a harbor returning WW II submarines having launched all their torpedoes, attached a broom to the periscope indicating a clean sweep. A Trump administration should launch all its torpedoes against the “CO2 causes all heaven and hell to collapse” meme imbedded in Government regulation and policy. First salvo, best start with firing Gavin and company. I look forward to a clean sweep.

      • aaron

        Thank you for the links. There are issues with the CO2 satellite:

        “…slight differences in the seasonal data sets do exist and validation is more problematic with increasing solar zenith angle and when surfaces are covered in snow and ice and have complex topography.”

        When taken as a whole, and when a holistic view of the instrumentation and process is taken, there has been stupendous advancement in our atmospheric CO2 understanding. Nevertheless, when launched, if I remember correctly, the CO2 satellite was proposed and built as a monitoring system for compliance with IPCC governed attainment of CO2 guidances. That it can have other useful services may become more relevant as the CO2 fertilizer effects and the agricultural burning impacts are identified. And, given the current quandary if the USA is willing to advance CO2 limits for scrutiny, a 1/2 billion + dollar satellite mission mistake (given the failure to deploy of the first satellite’s costs).

        Images and modeling that the earth is a marble circling the sun are wrong, and, earth’s warts and irregularities makes generalities of result of measurements somewhat suspect.

        I would hope the grain of salt precaution is still in vogue.

  26. Steven Mosher,

    Here’s a reading assignment for you –

    “The underlying assumption for the calibration at Bermuda is that the geoid height at the tide gauge is the same as at the SLR site. This, however, is probably not true.” – from NASA

    Here’s another –

    “Taken together, the measurements of height above the sea and the satellite position give sea-surface height in geocentric coordinates with an accuracy of ±4.7 cm. The geoid errors adds further errors that depend on the size of the area being measured.”

    Plus or minus 4.7 cm? Maybe you could tell me why this is not true? Is it perhaps a bit optimistic, even?

    Climatological cargo cult science followers don’t need to worry about tiny details like the Nyquist theorem. Or the tides, or the uncertainty of the shape of the geoid at any time and place, or continental or sea floor movement . . .

    Keep lecturing. Take a few physics courses, if you think it might help.


    • Mike Thanks.

      You proved my point.

      Think harder son.

    • Steven Mosher,

      I’m glad you believe I proved the point you didn’t make. Maybe you hid it with Trenberth’s missing heat?

      I hope you don’t mind too much if I ignore your admonitions. Why do you think I would take any notice of an English major in a discussion involving physics?

      Don’t bother answering if you don’t want to, of course. I understand your desire to deny, divert and confuse in the face of inconvenient facts.

      Keep believing. The Cult of Climatology seems to be losing a few true believers. Soon they’ll be reduced to publishing rubbish in predatory journals, or trying to pervert the peer review system in journals generating billions of dollars for their publishers.

      If they haven’t already.


      • Mike Flynn | November 27, 2016 at 11:55 pm | Reply
        “. Why do you think I would take any notice of an English major in a discussion involving physics? ”
        Below the belt.
        An English major does not preclude ability in other fields and he does have ability and knowledge in this field. His job depended on giving the right answers so he had to develop a belief system that includes the “right answers” is all.
        Sad but understandable.

      • angech,

        You’re right. I can only blame it on global warming.

        Any fool can claim to be a scientist, and some do. Obviously due to rising CO2 levels.

        I’ve smacked myself on the wrist. After all, I believe Gavin Schmidt claims to be a scientist. Michael Mann claimed to be a Nobel Laureate. Both could be true, I suppose.

        Damn. Here’s me believing the Earth’s surface was originally molten, and has since cooled – maybe that’s what comes of not believing the GHE brigade.

        Maybe scientists disagree. What do we do then?


      • Mike Flynn for science advisor for President Trump… a match made in heaven… pray for it.

      • JCH,

        Thanks for your support.

        Not necessary however, he’s quite able to read my comments and act accordingly.

        If he agrees there is not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2, he might decide to divert climate research money to rocket science, or research into cures for diseases, or similar.

        Climatologists could always resign en masse in protest.

        Maybe you could pray for that. I seem to be immune to the prayers of others – unless they’re praying for my continued health and prosperity. Those prayers seem to be working, so keep them coming, if you are one of the prayers. That’s prayers, as in those who pray.


      • That’s all right, Mike.
        Hard to take scientists seriously if they actually digress into fiction writing, though it would be something else an English Major could excel at.
        Slap on wrist all round.
        Steven Mosher | November 27, 2016 at 11:40 pm |
        “coal kills”
        very scientific with no emotional loading
        “and it’s dead from a market perspective”.
        Coking coal prices are going ballistic, jumping over 300% in a year Nov 11 2016 headline.
        Guess he must have a masters in Finance as well!
        Trump might make him Finance Director.

  27. Dr Curry with all due respect, your “tagline” IE “Earth to Trump” is about as disrespectful as you could possibly be… President Elect Donald Trump will be the next president of the USA (he he he, I just love saying that)

    How about a “Earth to Curry” tagline instead…

    For reference purposes the “Climate Science Community” has FAILED in all respects, the CAGW hypothesis is UNPROVEN. The Null Hypothesis; “Natural Variability Explains Everything” has won the day.

    “The people have spoken, the bastards!”

    These are the immortal words of Dick Tuck (b. 1924), an aspirant for nomination as Democratic Party candidate for the 1966 election to the California State Senate, on learning that he had lost to George Danielson.

    The people have spoken, the climate science community would be wise to listen carefully. Don’t come back until you have sound, and I mean really sound science to back up any claims of being able to predict the weather in a decade or so in advance.

    The “Climate Science Community” has a lot of soul searching to complete before you demand anymore taxpayers dollars to “count how many angles can dance on the head of a pin”

    Cheers, KevinK

  28. Understanding that global warming is nothing but a hoax and scare tactic, the president hopefully can protect the homeland from global warming alarmism– the planet is not in danger but the principles of individual liberty are under serious attack by NASA and the EPA.

    • Global warming is not a hoax, we have warmed out of the little ice age. Man-Made warming is the hoax, climate cycles are real, natural, necessary, and man does not cause them.

      • Global warming? The period described by Our time on Earth is known as an interglacial — which occurs during an ice age — and at this time, ‘Mass Gains of [the] Antarctic Ice Sheet [is] Greater than Losses’ (NASA Study): According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed  to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

      • David Springer

        Global warming is usually understood as that caused by human activities.

  29. David L. Hagen

    NASA had a superb Independent Validation and Verification
    e.g., Welcome to the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Verification and Validation Web Site of the NPARC Alliance!
    Validate Climate Models
    Require that it critique ALL existing NASA earth programs, starting with Climate Modeling.
    When tropical tropospheric models are running 300% hotter than actual satellite and balloon temperatures, there are very serious systemic error problems.
    Make models compete.
    Only fund the best 3 climate models based on accuracy of hind/forecasting. Junk the rest. Or combine the most accurate sections of all programs that can be validated/verified into the best three.

    • I wrote that too fast and did not check. this is a redo.

      Study natural climate change and figure out why the climate models are always wrong. They have something really wrong or they have left out something really important. Most likely both.

      I can tell you the most important thing they left out.
      They make earth warm and use that to remove ice extent. They make earth cold and use that to “add” ice extent.

      It snows more in warm times and that increases ice volume and that causes ice extent to increase and that does cause cooling.

      It snow less in cold times and that allows ice volume to deplete and that allows ice extent to decrease and allow warming.

      The ice cycles are not included properly in their consensus theory or models.

      This is simple, easy to understand, stuff. Occam razor simple.

  30. Dr. Curry,

    There seems to be quite a bit of ‘certainty’ in these statements:

    ” I don’t think this argument will play well ”
    “Point #1 is important; points #2, #4, #5 are not helpful in persuading a Trump administration.”

    Experience? Guessing? Inside info?

  31. I would like to see the bulk of the money now going to study “climate change” diverted to someplace more useful. The US is backwards in NWP – weather forecasting by models – and that field could use the money. A lot of those working on climate models could easily switch to meteorology – the science and the problems are the same. The true NASA related work – satellite remote sensing – could also be diverted to meteorology.

    As JC and others have documented, the field of climatology has been badly corrupted. Pulling most of the funding for the field most corrupted – climate change – is likely to be beneficial.

    I’m not a scientist, but my late father was a researcher who did a lot of remote sensing work on NASA’s dollar.

  32. Ok, I’ll be the judge. The problem with NASA is not the space based approach to climate science.
    The problem with NASA is confirmation bias in every aspect of their faith based approach to climate science in evidence. This definitely includes RealKlimat. This definitely includes Gavin.
    My very first comment here (as trunkmonkey) quite a while back was an appeal to reason that certainly SOME warming was human. I remain completely willing to believe on this basis of reasonability that this is the case. Yet I also remain philosophically data driven. After all these years I am still waiting for the first data that indicate the current warming is human…

    • Funnily enough, I was today thinking “what would I say was happening to the climate”. My first response is “I really cannot say” … if pressed I’d then have to explain: “it’s because so much of the trend has been introduced, that it’s impossible to know for sure how much is real and how much is not”.

      However, I then realised I would be asked: “well based on the people involved what’s your best guess” …

      And I realised, that my whole judgement about a supposedly data based assessment, boiled down to the extent to which I thought those involved were corrupt, or incompetent, deluded, etc.

      If I thought they were 100% deluded – I’d tend to suggest almost no warming at all (I could even contemplate cooling – because the truth is always stranger than fiction). And the less dishonest I considered them – the more warming went from nothing to what they suggest.

      And that’s what’s so disgusting. There’s no science involved, your perception of how much warming has occurred is largely determined by how delusional/dishonest/corrupt the people are.

      • What you say is true, but we don’t have to trust them. We can do our own investigations and ask them to provide data to support their positions. They respond only with data (sometimes adjusted) showing that the surface continues to warm.
        This is true, but the surface has warmed faster many times before. They make a leap of faith that THIS time it is different. They are not so much corrupt as blinded by faith. This faith is what must be expunged from NASA, and all the rest of government.

      • Too much of current view of global warming is agenda driven and politicized. This causes nearly total lack of acceptance what comes from the so-called scientists who themselves divide the world into deniers and in response are called alarmists. One of the most blatant in my view is Michael Mann who subverted otherwise innocent field into a political battleground with IPCC leading the front attack line of forcing the man made part of the warming spectrum into the spearhead position. Furthermore, appealing and receiving some governments’ endorsements and money, further exacerbated the divide to make the cult of global warming into an act of faith by which the ‘deniers’ are the enemy of the people and the science. -Very much like Lysenko who got Stalin’s imprimatur to shut off any dialogue from taking place. I suspected Mann made divide is here to stay until it becomes obsolete by mother nature herself.

  33. I would think that the more reasonable minds in the topic of climate should consolidate and take the message to the administration as to what is important in climate research.

    NASA is an agency of NOAA that has the responsibility for weather. It is an extremely important function of NASA to assist in that area. Where the wheels have come off is in taking on multiple missions of long term modeling and spreading alarm and propaganda using dodgy science.

    As it is there are lots of people living in fear of everything from UFOs to nuclear reactors melting their way through the core of the earth to China. To all these things there always is some thread of plausibility but it seems so totally irresponsible that a national agency has taken the lead if promoting irrational fears.

    This blog has been preeminent in acknowledging uncertainty. Clearly the mission for NASA is in the area of atmospheric research and data from space instruments. All this has direct applicability to NOAA’s mission for weather and the operation of space craft.

    The key to knowledge of any affects man is having on the climate will arise without effort out of understanding the natural systems as opposed to just assuming how they work then engaging in efforts to describe the results in 100 years.

    One can go back to the days of claims of manmade contributions to climate change overwhelming natural variation. That has been proven absolutely false and proven that natural variation is every bit as important, if not more so, than human affects. I would think it would be a refreshing change to no longer require the words Climate Change in a request for funding and instead focus on known issues of life, limb, property, and economics where the cost can be measured in terms of truly expected benefits.

    I was listening to Tim Ryan today explain how the democrats needed to connect to workers by explaining to them that building windmills would create the jobs they want. But it seems to me that Tim Ryan needs some lessons in sustainability as I don’t think many people missed that message. Just that the more typical American realizes that the tree that bears the funding fruit has limitations, you can’t expect it to create sustainable jobs unless there is a big return on the sales of windmills. . . .like sometime in the reasonable future. The average American budgeting his way from year to year knows that better than anybody.

  34. NASA lost their way when they decided to put all their eggs into the shuttle basket. There was a tremendous amount of anxiety over what kind of a backup plan exists if the shuttle mission fails. History is pretty clear that there was no backup plan as far as boosters go other than the USSR. NASA has been in freefall ever since. They are desperately lacking in administrative braintrust. I doubt whether we’ll ever see an energized NASA again…. they have lost their way.

  35. There have been concerns among some of us that those sorts of NASA programs were robbed in order to concentrate on Earth science

    There was no concentration on Earth science, there was a concentration on climate alarmism, nothing to do with actual science. Actual science would have been ok.

  36. The purpose of NASA’s Earth science program is to develop a scientific understanding of Earth’s system and its response to natural or human-induced changes, and to improve prediction of climate, weather, and natural hazards.

    They have not actually studied natural changes in a really long time. In has not really been mentioned in decades. It is way past proper time to move that to the top of the study list.

  37. NASA will get back on the right track if Trump appoints as NASA administrator Harrison Schmitt – the last man and first scientist on the moon, former Republican senator, university professor, climate skeptic

  38. Obama’s administration massively increasing funding for climate-related research

    They did not do any increase for actual research, they did increase funding for brainwashing people to accept their alarmist policies. They have bragged about how many they have trained to spread their alarmist message, worldwide. Consensus people do not do actual research, you must be skeptic to do actual research.

    • Obama had no business or any acumen to enter this comedy of errors. Making coal the bad witch of the West backfired badly on Hillary Clinton who swore to put coal miners out of business and they put her out of business. China , India and many other countries with a tongue in cheek promised to abide by Obama protocol by 2030 while building new coal fired power plants at a rate on one a week in China and India. Once electric power freed people from the drudgery of manual labor, the demand for it cannot be stopped anymore. What one modern kitchen uses in electric labor saving devices would take 40+ slaves to accomplish in ancient Rome affluent household. We will be stuck in the mire of PC for many years to come, with the battleground shifting from Ozone to global warming to climate change to CO2 panic currently the lithmus paper of belonging in the echelons of planet Earth savers. -As the world turns soap opera of 21 century.

  39. So, gonna persuade the Trump administration with articles in The Conversation, Slate and WaPo.

    NASA. You have a problem.

    • In fact. I’ve been reading WaPo lately, just to see what the BS du jour is gonna be. Honestly, RT and the National Enquirer have more cred than they do nowadays.

      • The Washington Post believes they have a solution to that.

        It’s called fake news. Anyone who you don’t agree with gets labeled fake. Great way to thin the competition.

        Lucky for some of us none of them believe in 2nd amendment. Can’t fake that.

    • I have a feeling that our hostess may be asked for input. She’s one of a handful of fully qualified scientists who have rejected the political kool-aid.

      So your best bet is to offer proposed modifications to her advice if you have any, along with whatever persuasive arguments you think might help.

      • AK, You are correct. Dr. Curry is one of a very few that the Repubs in Congress are likely to take at her word, so her word is pretty important at this point. (I suspect the apparatschiki will realize this, as soon as they calm down, which will be interesting.)

        I myself can’t say which NASA programs are more or less important. Pure science is about Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns, Who’s to say which Unknowns we need to know the most? Not I, fer sure.

        My feeling is that the Administration and Congress will be looking for programs that are likely to produce direct benefits for the U.S. Economy in the foreseeable future. Maybe that’s best, but I don’t know that either.

        The only advice i could offer Dr. Curry is to always tell the truth as you see it. Change your mind as you learn, but never, ever, try to “spin” your message for an audience. (this went badly for the MSM very recently.)

      • AK and KW,
        Right you are. One of the problems in politicized science is the loss of credibility and trust. When the models don’t replicate observations and are only useful for projections hundreds of years in the future and cannot be falsified.

        I hope Dr Curry can get hearings from Senate and House testimony. NASA and GISS likely to be dramatically reined in. Hopefully some advisors can help restructure the future efforts without losing everything learned over the past 30 years. It will be nice to turn off the UN funding spigot and let that fall.


      • Dr Steve Koonin was another effective leader with wide knowledge of the fields and enough remaining credibility to help put the shattered consensus of a more sustainable scientific path.

        We can have him lead another APS review of climate science with Dr Curry, Dr Lindzen and Dr Christy giving updated presentations and others presenting the CAGW side.

      • Dr. Koonin might make a good choice for science advisor.

    • Liberal arts graduates, people who manhandle the media are hardly qualified to render their opinions they actually post as scientific facts by their books of knowledge, which seem to fall into steps of religious catechism rather than reporting the fact without editorializing. It does not take much to identify and ignore the most flagrant of them. Unfortunately, out of 79 papers in USA, 77 are the perpetrators of the misbegotten consensus. In many ways reading the world press today reminds one of reading Stalin’s Soviet Pravda (Truth) on the 1930s. to 1950s. Russians learned to read between the lines to deduct what is actually happening. One anecdote talks about the race between American and Russian car, allegedly Pravda reported as follows: American car came next to last. Russian car came second to winner.

  40. NASA Climate is only one of many programs and departments that need their budgets pruned. Let the great wailing begin.
    It ain’t over til the banshees scream.

  41. Reblogged this on Wolsten.

  42. A few years ago I found an interesting historical document produced by NASA which explained how it invested a lot of money into eco-activist programs in order to change public opinion to support its earth monitoring programs. I’ve no doubt that they brought in Hansen with the explicit intention of stoking up the fires of alarmist in order to force the US politicians to give NASA a lot more money.

    I don’t think NASA ever intentionally turned itself into an alarmist organisation – instead alarmism became important to secure funding. But once you start riding that beast – it takes you where it wants not the other way around. And unfortunately, once you’ve got a culture of alarmism – without some kind of McCarthy style investigation of each individual to find out who is causing the eco-activism and alarmism, the best you can do is just shut the organisation down.

    • This former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo agrees that the US NAS (National Academy of Sciences) President Ralph Cicerone probably required federal research agencies to endorse AGW dogma to get NAS approval of their next fiscal budget.

      I personally warned almost every member of Congress about NAS abuse of budget-review of federal research agencies in 1976, after the late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I were ambushed for trying to present evidence at the Spring National AGU meeting in April 1976 in Washington, DC: The Sun made our elements and birthed the solar system about 5 Ga ago.

  43. I got the cubs home [whoever they are] at Lucia’s so I will have a try here.
    Judith is too intelligent and well credentialed to ever get a job with Trump.
    In Australia we call this mozzing someone.

  44. We got along fine in the 50s. Nothing was missing from science.

    Add more money than there’s room for in science, and you get a waste of money coupled with a political lobby to ensure their flow of money, which this might be a good example of.

    The lack of these funds back then left science to those actually curious about something, which was where science got the good reputation that’s today being traded on.

  45. An interesting comment from twitter: why not move GISS to NOAA? My response is that the value proposition of GISS is not clear for either NASA or NOAA, IMO

  46. I just spotted this on NOAA NESDIS page (their satellite division).

    this is a much better defense of earth satellites than is provided by NASA. Why do we need NASA? NOAA satellites mostly use 1990’s technology.

    • We need NASA to manage and coordinate the process of getting those satellites into orbit. (The actual launches should be performed by competing private enterprises, IMO.)

      NASA should also be coordinating the US part of an international process to assign orbital slots.

      They’d also probably be the best choice to coordinate R&D towards 2010’s/2020’s technology for data gathering. NOAA should be taking the lead WRT what data they need gathered (i.e. requirements).

      I don’t know who (if anybody) is working requirements for data gathering for other planets, but I’d guess there’s considerable overlap with Terrestrial data gathering. Especially when it comes to technology.

  47. This is interesting. Of one Trump’s ideas was to divert money spent on foreign countries back to the US. From the article:

    National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
    NASA and USAID have been collaborating for more than seven years on various technology and development efforts aimed at leveraging both agencies’ technological expertise and assets in addressing international development problems. On April 25, 2011, Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NASA to formalize the strong partnership between the two agencies and lay the groundwork for further direct collaboration in Geospatial Information Systems (GIS), LAUNCH, and the applications of technology solutions to international development problems.

    Currently, SERVIR addresses eight of the societal benefit areas highlighted by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO): disasters, ecosystems, biodiversity, weather, water, climate, health, and agriculture. The program maintains regional nodes in Panama City, Panama; Nairobi, Kenya; and Katmandu, Nepal.

    LAUNCH is a unique government and private-sector partnership led by USAID and NASA. Its goal is to identify, support and help take to market creative technologies and other solutions that address global sustainability problems — especially those related to international development.

    National Institutes of Health

    USAID and NIH staffs have piloted collaborative activities, including the Science for Development meeting in Mali and an Evidence Summit on Protecting Children Outside Family Care. USAID and NIH staff will continue these successful collaborative activities with a focus on child survival, and further enhance the partnership by developing and implementing a collaborative research grants program called Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research on Health (PEER-Health).

    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

    To this end, USAID and NOAA hosted a workshop during March 2011 to discuss in detail areas of possible collaboration. A cooperation committee has formed to work together to create opportunities to deliver on the ideas which came from the workshop which includes data sharing for geospatial analysis and modeling, seminar series, and staff exchanges

    National Science Foundation
    In July 2011, USAID signed an MOU with the NSF to leverage their respective investments to support collaborative activities between agency personnel, higher education institutions, researchers, faculty, and students in the U.S. and in developing countries. The initial program under the MOU is the Partnership for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) – a collaborative research grants program to directly support developing country investigators who collaborate with NSF-funded U.S. investigators. USAID and NSF have been strong allies, supporting mutual work in the area of science & technology for development.

    U.S. Geological Survey
    The Agency is at a nascent stage in developing a partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Areas of possible collaboration include:

    Geospatial data for country development;
    Biodiversity and ecosystems – their sustainability, impacts on human health and economic development and impacts of climate change;
    Remote sensing for food security, water, human health, and land change –land use;
    Hazard assessment, mitigation, and response;
    Resources for development;
    Water for sustainable development

  48. Willis Eschenbach

    An article in the Conversation:Five reasons why cutting NASA’s climate research would be a colossal mistake:

    NASA’s satellites are our eyes on the world
    Climate science is a key part of NASA’s mission
    NASA attracts the best of the best scientists
    NASA has transformed climate change communication
    Climate science can be NASA’s next great legacy

    Point #1 is important; points #2, #4, #5 are not helpful in persuading a Trump administration.

    And point 3 is a total lie …

    My vision? NASA puts up the satellites and collects the data, and fires 90% of their advocate-laden “scientific” payroll. PRIVATE scientists study the data, perhaps with NASA funding, perhaps not.

    Gavin Schmidt is going to retire on a fat government pension, paid for out of my taxes, while I’m retired on my Social Security. I am tired of scientific pluted bloatocrats making a very good living out of telling us how not to live while they jet around the world and live high on the hog … drain the swamp.

    And while I’m at it, could we get rid of government pensions? The politicians and bureaucrats think that Social Security is fine for folks like me, but Gavin and Nancy Pelosi NEED a big fat pension … Social Security for all, government pensions for none.

    Lots of draining needed, can’t come soon enough for me …


    • Curious George

      The system subsidizes Tesla cars for the richest 1%. No subsidy for the man on the street. (Of course you are welcome to buy a subsidized Tesla – if you can afford it.)

    • “…scientific pluted bloatocrats”? You mean scientific bloated plutocrats, I assume. Or is this a joke?

    • Willis Eschenbach

      scraft1 | November 29, 2016 at 8:12 am | Reply

      “…scientific pluted bloatocrats”? You mean scientific bloated plutocrats, I assume. Or is this a joke?

      Thanks, scraft1. Yeah, my humor is a little strange at times … I like to make my words work overtime and then not give them overtime pay. It keeps them sharp.


    • Gavin Schmidt is a particularly adamant about sanctity of his Earth saving mission, to the point of not stooping down to face one too well informed (Roy Spencer) ‘denier in the same room at the same time. Gavin Schmidt does not seem to know himself too much, but it never stopped him from putting the icon of Michael Mann on his highest pedestal even without the last person sanctifying himself with Nobel price lapel button. I would add a pacifier to sooth his wounded ego.

  49. Defund NASA entirely. A nation that is bankrupt cannot afford it or many other indulgences. Climate research can be funded by industry, academia and NAS if necessary.

    I often wonder who otherwise reasonable people who are concerned about govt overreach have no problem with NASA spending billions each year.

    I guess such people don’t realize that we need to cut the Federal govt spending by about 50% to survive as a nation, and at the same time we need to boost defense spending by 25%. Only choice is to cut, cut, cut – everything that isn’t necessary to survival.

    But no. People “love” NASA. Lol. I grew up scrapbooking the Apollo missions and had that love of space exploration as a kid. But I grew up. And learned arithmetic. And figured out that space exploration is a luxury. And having NASA research climate is even more of a waste of money.

    • I guess such people don’t realize that we need to cut the Federal govt spending by about 50% to survive as a nation, and at the same time we need to boost defense spending by 25%.

      Do you have any idea how much our present and future military posture depends on space and space technology?

      • Lol, so your claim is that we wouldn’t advance military technology without NASA? Are you familiar with DoD’s and the Air Forces efforts in space? And what private efforts are doing? And academic? There would of course be plenty of research into space and the required technology without NASA. And the military could sponsor whatever else is needed. And beyond that, we could use NAS to fulfill this need – without NASA.

        But please, tell us, what would you cut? How would justify NASA if you had to cut 50% of all govt spending? Imagine you live in reality and can’t borrow trillions every year – what would you cut?

        Do you really think NASA isn’t a luxury?

      • David Springer

        You can keep borrowing until you can’t. Then you can go bankrupt. Fortunately we have PEOTUS who understands that and has mucho experienso in negotiating with creditors. He’s one bad hombre in that regard.🤑

      • David Springer

        Making American Great Again necessarily means manned space exploration. The nation needs heroes not zeroes.

      • I do wonder what happens if interest rates increase. I recall the James Hamilton projected that the Fed would stop turning a profit around mid-2017 if it continued its easing operations.

        A few things have changed since then. QEII and QEIII. The Fed made a massive windfall off of TARP (could buoy the Fed, make it willing to operate at a small loss for a while). And the fed probably backed off easing a little after the election (just a supposition).

        If interest rates go up, what does that do to our budget?

      • The first thing Obama did in early 2009 was to shut down Cape Canaveral and fire 5,000 knowledgeable people. -thus our ability to launch anything worth doing was nixed. The second thing Obama did do was to allow Iran to develop their nuclear weapon and missiles to carry nuclear heads as far as necessary to eliminate the American ‘satan’ and ‘evil’ Israel. There seems to be a motive to Obama global actions. Trump has his job laid out.

    • Careful what you wish for:

      Marcia McNutt is now president of NAS (National Academy of Sciences)

      In an editorial published in Science magazine on July 3, Marcia McNutt, Editor-in-Chief of the Science Journals, removed all doubt concerning the direction that this once prestigious journal is taking. In “The beyond-two-degree inferno”, she wrote: “The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.”

      That quote demonstrates a loss of scientific integrity, as illustrated by the following quote:
      “The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”
      – Karl Popper

      • Indeed, NAS is a mess. I used to think it was a govt success story but in reality it’s filled with rent seeking hacks too, just like the rest of govt.

    • David Springer

      scribblerg | November 28, 2016 at 10:46 am | Reply

      “But I grew up.”

      Into what?

      • A sentient, responsible and financially sentient adult. How about you? Do you really think it’s responsible to spend tax payer money on anything non-essential when we are 20 trillion in debt? Put another way, if you can’t get your mind around cutting a luxury like NASA, what can you cut from govt? Where are you willing to cut to save our country? Science geeks seem to believe their preferences are universal, but it’s not.

  50. Global warming?

    Tokyo Receives First November Snow in 54 years…

  51. Roger Pielke Jr sent references to two really interesting papers on the history of the US Global Change research program

    • This was pretty interesting– In hindsight, was Bush naïve to believe Western academia would rise above self-serving political patronage to actually provide “useable information”?

      While Senator Gore and President Bush began from distant points on the political spectrum, their different concerns resulted in similar conclusions about the structure of global climate change research: before policy could move forward, scientific uncertainty must be addressed through research. Therefore, when Senator Gore advocated a global change program it is likely that he expected it would demonstrate conclusively and convincingly the need to respond comprehensively to global warming. At the same time, when President Bush signed the bill establishing the program it was consistent with his policy of “no regrets” which also called for certainty in research prior to any comprehensive policy actions. President Bush likely expected that such certainty would not be immediately forthcoming. “Certainty” versus “uncertainty” were common points of reference between the opposing camps and thus it was in this manner that measures of scientists’ opinions and estimates of levels of uncertainty became important in the climate change debate. Global climate change became a matter of narrow debate over “ye”‘ or “no” on whether global warming was actually underway. Alternative notions of “usable information” to aid in the process of policy development was lost in the clamor of this narrow political debate.

    • While historically interesting indeed, these two papers sound as though the USGCRP is a coordinated research program, which implies an element of central planning and/or control. I do not see that, despite tracking the USGCRP since 1992.

      Each of the 13 Departments and Agencies in the USGCRP is doing work that is separately planned, authorized by often different Congressional (Senate and House) Committees, and funded by different Appropriations Committee subcommittees. All the USGCRP Coordination Office seems to do is to write an annual report (Our Changing Planet) that summarizes these disparate activities.

      What is unifying is the dedication to the AGW paradigm. I have a bit on this:

      • In fact “Our Changing Planet” used to include a fairly detailed breakdown of the funding for each agency, by type of effort. In NASA’s case science versus satellites for example. That ended under Obama. When I asked the Coordination Office about it they said the agencies no longer gave them that data. So I see no central coordination whatsoever.

  52. David Springer

    EMS estimates have not improved in 50 years.

    NASA Earth Science Divsion mission: FAIL

    Scrub it. It’s just throwing good money after bad.

  53. Here’s bunch of spending that can be cut right off the bat. It can be re-directed to domestic programs or simply just cut. From the article:
    International Offices of U.S. Agencies and Organizations
    These lists provide links to federal science and technology agencies with information pertaining to international dimensions of science and technology. A second list includes non-government organizations with international science and technology components.


    The following federal science and technology agencies have information specifically about international matters. Use these links to reach the main “international” component of their site. These agency sites may also contain additional international information.

  54. JCH | November 28, 2016 at 9:38 am |
    “And Cripwell remains dead wrong, and Mosher is still correct.”
    I get your drift JCH, not that it is very funny.
    Still, WUWT “Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year”
    My turn for the next year?
    A pause in your comments?

    Satellites drift and data has to be corrected to take this into account.
    Mosher is incorrect. He does not admit the drift.
    ” You have to pay attention to the ERROR in both the estimate and the measurement”. “basically, the global temp stuff just runs.”
    No correction for errors then.
    “if it doesn’t have warts, its probably fake.”
    “Version 5.6 to 6.0 the Australia trend increased from +0.17 to +0.24 C/decade, but the USA48 trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade. The Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.Look how much they WARMED AUSTRALIA. If changing a land mask has that big a change in their method…. how certain can it really be?”
    Some warts there, but the prince focuses on cherrypicking the one hot example ignoring the two cold he gave.
    I presume Roy balanced the energy budget just like Zeke does when they cool the past land temperatures but adjust the past sea temps up to keep the overall budget.
    There is a good one , Mosher claims the oceans had to be warmer in the past despite our GW.
    Satellites drift Mosher.
    Get it?
    adjustments have to be made periodically for satellite drift.
    There is nothing wrong with having to do those adjustments.
    Where it is wrong is to take real data and make adjustments based on your job demands or ideology rather than on science.
    Care to lower that ECS?

    • Dream on

      You really don’t get it. Land is less than 30% of the global surface. It would take a huge change in land surface temperatures to SHUT ME UP, and you ain’t got one and you ain’t about to get one.

      NOAA, October:

      North America_____6th_________7th______
      South America_____8th_________15th_____

      2016 October, 3rd warmest:

      2015 October, warmest of all:

    • adjustments have to be made periodically for satellite drift.
      There is nothing wrong with having to do those adjustments.
      Where it is wrong is to take real data and make adjustments based on your job demands or ideology rather than on science.

      The above is completely unproven HS speculation… starts with pony, not hockey.

      Care to lower that ECS?

      The most recent science most likely means a higher ECS. Try to keep up.

      • JCH: “The most recent science most likely means a higher ECS. Try to keep up.”

        No, “the most recent science” shows nothing of the kind – very much the opposite, in fact.

        YOU try to keep up.

      • catweazle666 | November 28, 2016 at 8:46 pm |
        ”No, “the most recent science” shows nothing of the kind – very much the opposite, in fact”
        “Land is less than 30% of the global surface. It would take a huge change in land surface temperatures to SHUT ME UP”
        “Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C – their biggest and steepest fall on record.”
        That should do but here you are.
        I am very happy at the moment. Pause about to reappear, La Nina even if weak for next 6 months.Earth getting colder and colder as we blog.
        Only thing wrong is Trump reducing funding rather than directing funding to be applied appropriately.

      • No, Û try to keep up. I put a little pointer on there just in case you don’t know what direction up is.

        Professor Curry linked to it about one week ago.

        angech, are you loony 24 and 7? BOM has the system pulling out of La Niña in the the spring 2017:

        Once ONI bottoms, ONI starts going up. Following? When ONI starts going up, the GMST usually starts following it.

        Think I’m wrong, look at the little black dots for August (.99 ℃), September (.90 ℃), and October (.89 ℃). That’s ONI going down. Now put on your thinking cap and reverse it. Wow. Cool, huh?

        In 2014 there as a record warmest year with ENSO neutral throug all but the last two reporting periods.

        ENSO neutral is not your friend. 2017 could easily make 3rd warmest, and just might shock and be 2nd warmest.

        Why? Because the oceans did not cool very much in the Super El Niño.

        OHC through June 2016:

        OHC through September 2016:

        The oceans are hot.

      • JCH “Why? Because the oceans did not cool very much in the Super El Niño.”

        I presume you mean something else but since you were so nice.
        I’ll put a little pointer on here just in case you don’t know what direction up is. The oceans should heat up during an El Nino, JCH.

        The people doing your little OHC grapgs need a lesson in mathematics as well,
        “Of the net energy the earth absorbs from the sun, 84% went to heat oceans to 700 meters deep…… only 4% heated air.”
        “Land is less than 30% of the global surface. [JCH] so 7/10 of the sunlight falls on ocean, that is only 70% .
        Given that the land stuff went mostly straight back out and the air over the oceans absorbed another 2.8% that leaves only 67.2% actually hitting a cloudless ocean.
        Claiming 84% Ocean absorption with less than 67.2 % available is a shocking mathematical mistake.
        Remind me again who did those graphs please? Someone should write to them.
        Unless it was you of course.

      • JCH | November 28, 2016 at 11:04 pm |
        “angech, are you loony 24 and 7? BOM has the system pulling out of La Niña in the the spring 2017:”
        List of failed BOM predictions follows.
        alpha to infinity.
        Pull the other leg JCH, I have been nearly flooded out of house and home due to rainfall at the end of El Nino, 88 mm for 4 months in a row, that BOM never predicted.
        Ever since BOM did these predictions they have always predicted to the high end, they finally got one right after 3 years and that makes the other predictions all right?
        It is close to ENSO neutral, it always goes back to neutral so if I was a betting man I would say you are 55% likely to be right on the graph. History is that there could be a decent spill the other way after a big El Nino. Point is, nobody knows.

      • “No, “the most recent science” shows nothing of the kind – very much the opposite, in fact.”

        Links to peer-reviewed papers on same?

      • angech:
        From your *gripe*…
        “…. absorbs from the sun”

        That’s right where you went wrong in your *argument*.

        You are conflating energy recieved as energy absorbed.

        You score an own goal to boot by saying, “land stuff went mostly straight back out”.
        Compounds your lack of comprehension.
        Let me explain:
        If it goes straight back out then it cannot enter the equation as being absorbed.

        You are conflating energy received as energy absorbed.
        The oceans are ABSORBING ~90% of TSI.

        Is a “is a shocking mathematical mistake.”
        No, a shocking mistake in understanding on your part.

      • What we were told here… screamed at me at one point by the usual CE thugs… the Climate Etc. way… was the oceans were going to jettison a boatload of heat into the atmosphere during the recent El Niño.

        2010 – an El Niño warmest year… this November 2010… this is what was being screamed at me was going to happen this year:

        This is now… November 2017:

        I said it wasn’t going to happen; it appears it did not. The system is primed for more warming… soon… likely before 2020.

        As for BOM not predicting weather… maybe somebody upstairs thought a good drenching would wake you up.

      • Shocking mathematical mistake… oh my gawd?

        In what decade did an alien ship fly over Australia and fire off a bunch of iq shrink waves?

        Unlike land, the oceans have a sort of lid right on top. Sunlight that enters the water is 100% in the oceans. 100% of it has to leave or the oceans will either warm or cool. Beginning heat content plus energy IN minus energy OUT equals ending heat content. For several decades on end, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, the overarching equation has been more energy is staying in than gets back out. The reason is Minnett’s GHG lid. The earth’s surface’s only respite from Minnett’s lid is Matt England’s anomalous wind… the kimikamikaze… the great cooling Pacific wind… sank two Chinese fleets… saved the Japanese twice… you’re banking on a freakin’ random wind miracle… pray.

        Even a graduate of new math elementary school can figure this out:

        Did you ever think the big guy upstairs created The Pause as a puzzle to sort out the true “stewards” of his earth? If so, who just flunked?

      • JCH

        On another post I provided a couple dozen SLR rates from the NOAA global tidal gauge system. In case it was too painful for you to read, let me give you a few. Dublin . 07mm/yr, Madras, India .32 mm/yr, Easter Island . 33 mm/yr, Falkland Islands . 55 mm/yr, Sydney .
        65 mm/yr, Los Angeles . 88 mm/yr, Brest 1.05 mm/yr, Honolulu 1.41 mm/

        The list went on and on. I know thermosteric sea level rise is only part of the budget. And I know it is not spatially distributed uniformly. But looking at your OHC trend lines and those for dozens of tidal gauges makes me wonder if we are talking about 2 different planets.

        What do you think accounts for this divergence? The difference in trend lines remind me of the the graphs showing the monstrous gap between the models and the observational data of global temperatures.

        Of course it could be that near these tidal gauges are major ice cube factories and they’re dumping their waste of cold water nearby which would slow down OHC in that area.

      • Tony Banton | November 29, 2016 at 4:24 am |
        “angech:From your *gripe*…“…. absorbs from the sun”
        That’s right where you went wrong in your *argument*.
        You are conflating energy received as energy absorbed””.

        Tony ,not at all.
        Incoming energy can be absorbed or reflected.
        If it is reflected it cannot be semantically be said to have been received [absorbed] It can be said to have arrived but been rejected.
        Tricky, I know.
        the degree of reflection is known as the albedo.
        It is about 4/10th of the incident energy
        This presumably can be any wavelength but the majority of the incident energy is at shorter wavelengths and incoming infrared is more likely to be absorbed rather than reflected in the air. Most heating in air comes from the outgoing infrared that the earth surfaces produce.
        All surfaces have to give back the energy they receive when they are in balance Hence the sea has to give back the energy it receives just as the land does. The land receives 30% of the incident energy. It absorbs it and sends it back out. The Oceans receive 70% and send 70% back out.
        There is no way for the oceans to have a higher percentage of heat to absorb than they receive. They cannot absorb more than they get.
        Hence “a shocking mathematical mistake.”

        “You score an own goal to boot by saying, “land stuff went mostly straight back out”. Compounds your lack of comprehension.Let me explain:
        If it goes straight back out then it cannot enter the equation as being absorbed.”

        The comment was to show that the energy received by the land did not go to the oceans, Not a comment on how it is absorbed and emitted.
        In case you are unobservant the graph said the heat went to 700 meters deep. much deeper than light can penetrate. Land the light only goes a few mm but it heats down to perhaps a meter.
        Consequently one warms up a lot more than the other during the day and gives most of the absorbed heat back very quickly. The ocean on the other hand heats up more slowly giving off less heat immediately but more when the sun is not shining, hence not mostly straight out. Over 24 hours though they both give back the same amount as they absorb.
        Enough snark and misdirection. You know these facts but choose to misrepresent them to press a view rather than the science. Keep going , it is most amusing.
        “Earth has an average albedo of around 0.39*, which means that it absorbs a little more energy than it reflects.
        The Earth’s average albedo depends on the composition and physical state of its surface. Land and liquid water have relatively low albedos (10 to 40 %), while ice and snow have higher albedos, typically between 70 and 90%. Multiple factors and processes can change the albedo of a surface over time. For example, as water turns to ice the albedo increases, and as soot and dirt settle on fresh ice or snow, the albedo decreases. Similarly, vegetation cover influences the albedo of the landscape: deserts have albedos of 20-35%, savannas are around 15%, and rainforests are around 5%.”

  55. Here’s an idea: For Earth science, let NASA do what it does best: Build great space-borne instruments, maintain them, and be a repository for the raw data. Let other agencies (NOAA, NSF, EPA) analyze and draw conclusions related to their respective missions. If NASA is responsible for generating good data (period) it remains outside the political arena. The data repositories then become available for everyone from NSF funded scientists to citizen scientists to download and analyze to their heart’s content.

  56. Everybody above can say what they what they want, but one thing is for sure IMHO – and that is it’s a sure thing that Dr. Curry has written the most lucid, and seemingly fair, summary of what goes on at NASA, along with the expansion of the Earth Sciences section. If you want a climate fight all you
    have to do is say “Gavin Schmidt”. It’s great blog fodder but it’s like arguing which is the fairest format in amateur golf – gross or net.

    I enjoy the comments when you try to put personalities aside. In the scheme of government agencies, assuming one is going to study climate science, where does it belong? We don’t need multiple agencies studying it, do we? Sharing data is fine and appropriate.

    Secondly, we don’t need advocacy or promotion from department heads, or from anyone else in science agencies, do we? To me (a layman), the state of the science in general terms is pretty clear . The head guy (or gal, forgive me) should be able to explain the science in plain English without making every appearance in a Congressional committee a big fight. State the science and let congress-folk indulge in the politics. A parade of skeptic and “consensus” witnesses is ridiculous. Dems and Repubs are still going to fight this out – let ’em do it.

    Nothing can be more helpful in the climate wars than making it less of a war. Somehow, the policy end of it needs to be removed from the science agencies. How much we spend and on what is a political decision. This is for the Congress.

  57. Note to Steven Mosher (and other trend followers) –

    Trends are wonderful until they change.

    Unfortunately, the next change in a trend tends to be in the future. Unknowable. Even worse if the trend is based on correlation which may be totally misguided – say, associating temperature changes with changes in CO2 surrounding a thermometer.

    Good luck with that. Don’t be too surprised if you discover that you confused a byproduct with a cause. Something like assigning the heat from a fire to CO2 produced by combustion, rather than from the combustion process itself.

    No GHE. More CO2 good. Less CO2 very bad. It seems as though plants are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, using it for food, and sequestering the carbon in carbohydrates. Only plant haters are likely to think this is bad. Where will this trend lead? More food, perhaps?


    • John Carpenter

      “Trends are wonderful until they change.”

      Ya, but I can think of a tedious trend that never changes. And I don’t expect that trend to change despite the future being unknowable.

      • John Carpenter,

        I am happy to see that you are starting to perceive the truth.

        You make an assumption about the future, and rationally act on it. All rational people do. And I assume that you will stick with your assumption until new facts cause you to change your mind. Once again, rational behaviour.

        However, sticking with an original assumption, in spite of new facts emerging, might not be rational.

        For example, assuming that the luminiferous aether exists, or that atom is indivisible, or that Gavin Schmidt is not an undistinguished mathematician might have seemed rational at the time.

        Even accepting that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize, or that the GHE exists, could have been accepted initially. Alas, all the foregoing have been shown to be untrue.

        You may be able to propose a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2 – nobody else has managed it to date. Until such appears, the GHE remains speculation. Fantasy, as it is impossible to falsify.

        Something like myself claiming that there is a celestial teapot circling the Earth, and then demanding that you eithe disprove my assertion, or worship the celestial teapot.

        “Russell’s teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.”

        Heat causes temperature increase. CO2, not so much, no matter how much you convince yourself it traps, amplifies, or augments heat. Surrounding a thermometer, exposed to a heat source, with CO2, lowers the thermometer reading. Capably demonstrated by Tyndall and others.


  58. Since Obama increased NASA’s Earth science budget by 50% – to support his ideological beliefs about CAGW – Trumps’ should start by reducing it by 33%. Then go from there until all the ideological contamination is removed.

  59. Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  60. @curryja: “This is a welcome opportunity to redirect NASA Earth Science research towards other topics that are not directly related to or motivated by human caused climate change.” Absolutely.

    There is a tendency for bureaucracies to focus on their own survival and success rather than the mission for which they were created.
    @Scottish Sceptic above has some good points.

    If you want to improve the way an existing agency performs its mission, you can either provide more money or reorganize the agency to be more useful. The way to get the agency to voluntarily restructure itself is to remove the mechanisms put in place to ensure survival by symbolically, at least, destroying the organization. Its survival mechanisms will then force restructuring into more valuable directions.

    I submit this is what Trump, an artful negotiator,is doing.

    If so, we can be of greatest help by prioritizing the functions that
    are unique and beneficial so the rest can be redirected. There is no
    shortage of agencies doing climate research.

    And if he were to remove an entire agency (“You’re fired!”) he can be sure
    of diligent attention to any future restructurings.

  61. If one believes in the theory of debt deflation (which Trump is unlikely to move against), I would rather see the coming austerity hit the science establishment than social security, etc… etc….
    Of course, I’d rather see the banks destroyed.

      • A very thought provoking read. I’m not as pessimistic as the author but he makes a lot good points about banking having more of a disconnect with its traditional role of supporting production and the basics of economies. They seem to be in the business of making money for the sake of making money rather than being an integral link of economic activity. Or as Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman, once said “The only useful innovation by banks in the last 30 years was the ATM.”
        His criticism of the economic profession, with a slightly different tack, sounded like Paul Romer’s piece Rebel Economist in the latest Week in Review.

        Nothing wrong with a little self criticism.

        He seemed to dance around the debt issue a bit. Explaining why debt should not be eliminated but warning about growing debt at the same time. The real issue is that burgeoning debt service costs can begin to crowd out other more productive uses for economic growth and increases in standard of living.

      • @cerescokid

        I find Hudson very interesting. He has a great book:

        His basic theory is that so much wealth has flowed into the hands of the elite that they basically just buy everything (speculation), drive the prices up, then give out loans that turn the economy into an modern day version of the Rentier economy, but based on interest, not rent.

        So basically your average Joe has very little money left over after paying the bills, and the true economy is strangled.

        Seems to make much sense.

    • Speaking of banks being destroyed, watch the Italian banks plus deutsche bank if the Italians vote no in Sundays referendum


      • Tonyb
        Southern Europe has to stabilize the tier of Italy, Spain and Greece. Germany lent them big amounts. As they say, “If I owe you $10,000 I have a problem. If I owe your $200,000,000,000 you have a problem”


      • Scott

        All very true but this time we have the prospect of 8 italian banks failing who could bring down deutsche bank which has lent heavily to them. Merkel has refused to bail out the banks and could find she can not make an exception for deutsche.

        This huge lending and provision of QE in order to buy up bad debts including bad loans and overpriced assets is a recipe for disaster. The merry go round has to stop somewhere.


      • Tonyb
        In the long run it has to stop.

        In US bank crises they said, ” While the music plays you have to keep dancing.”

        Also Keynesians say” Maybe in the longrun, However in the long run you are dead”

        Sorry but I love quotes.

        Lots of problems in the EU. Congratulations on Brexit, at least there is a chance to regain sovereignty.

      • Scott

        The EU are determined to stop us, as once one of he inmates has left the asylum they fear others will follow. Hopefully Austria, France and holland will have the courage to defy their elites. Italy is an EU enthusiast but would call a referendum on the Euro should renzi be deposed.


      • Interesting, thanks for the tip.

        Have to write down the loans, the only way.

        Which will never happens, it seems, because the ‘economy=wall street, the banks and the 1%’ must be saved, basically at the cost of the people, national assets, pensions, etc….

    • do you mean investment banks or consumer banks?

  62. “Of course, I’d rather see the banks destroyed.”

    If they keep loaning nations who are already in debt to them for $20 trillion dollars you just might get what you wish for. Reckless lending and reckless borrowing has the potential for banks being paid back with middle fingers. Bad borrowing is and certainly can be a problem, but bad lending is a bigger problem.

    • Not until the people demand it. For the moment the governments just start selling off public utilities, raiding pensions, etc… etc…. to meet the debts.

  63. Curious George

    Psalm 1: Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked.

  64. Trump to Earth … Wisconsin was a 3+ million dollar waste of time. (And as I do my happy dance) from the article:

    Madison — Green Party candidate Jill Stein paid $3.5 million Tuesday to clear the way for Wisconsin’s presidential vote recount but had a judge reject her lawsuit to require all Wisconsin counties to do the recount by hand.

    Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn said the effort to force the hand recount – which was backed by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign — did not meet the state’s legal standard for prohibiting the use of machines in the recount, saying that the two campaigns did not show a hand recount, though more thorough, was necessary or show there was a clear and convincing evidence of fraud or other problems.

    Bailey-Rihn said there were good reasons to do a hand recount but no legal basis for her to mandate it.

    “I follow the law. That’s who I am despite my personal opinions,” said Bailey-Rihn, who was elected to the bench last spring. “It’s (the counties’) decision. It’s their discretion. I may disagree with it…but I must follow the law.”

  65. Harry Twinotter

    Dr Curry.

    “This is a welcome opportunity to redirect NASA Earth Science research towards other topics that are not directly related to or motivated by human caused climate change.”

    Staying on message, hey?

  66. “Overall, I think it would be appropriate to roll back some of the Obama era funding that went into NASA climate science, and redirect it to Heliospheric Physics and Planetary Science.”

    Fund them to only research the solar forcing of natural variability, then they may supply some useful climate science.

  67. OT: Ted Cruz has a senate hearing coming up titled “The Dawn of Artificial Intelligence”. It should be interesting.

  68. Time to stop eating Kellogg’s anything:

    “Kellogg’s announced on Tuesday its decision to pull ads from conservative media giant because its 45 million monthly readers are not “aligned with our values as a company.””

  69. The guy who invented the internet is having second thoughts (No, not Algore!) From the article:

    Wide-ranging surveillance powers which passed into law yesterday will undermine our “fundamental rights” and have “no place in a modern democracy”, the inventor of the internet, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has said.
    The Investigatory Powers Bill, which was yesterday given Royal Assent, extends the powers of GCHQ, MI6, MI5, and the police to hack into people’s computers with a warrant, but without their knowledge, as well as requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to keep a record of every internet user’s browsing history for twelve months for use by a range of government agencies and public bodies.

    Berners-Lee was unequivocal about the law: “This snoopers charter has no place in a modern democracy – it undermines our fundamental rights online,” he told the BBC.

  70. From the article:

    The proposed bill would penalize protesters who engage in “unlawful disruption of transportation and commerce,” and if passed, those found in violation of the law could face punishment of up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
    The proposed bill would also go after organizations and funders backing the protests by forcing them to pay restitution at a rate of three times the calculated amount of damage. In an interview with the Seattle Times, Ericksen specifically named philanthropists George Soros and Tom Steyer, as well as the Sierra Club organization, as intended targets of the legislation.
    “We are not just going after the people who commit these acts of terrorism,” Ericksen said in his press release. “We are going after the people who fund them. Wealthy donors should not feel safe in disrupting middle class jobs.”

  71. Kelloggs sells products in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK. See this list for products and countries.'s

  72. From the article:

    Nearly 2,500 refugees from terrorism hotspots around the world are bound for the U.S. after being rejected by Australia, but not even top lawmakers can get answers about who they are.

    In an unprecedented move, the U.S. State Department has classified details on refugees to be resettled in America via a secret deal made with Australia. The bi-lateral agreement, which Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called a “one-off,” involves 2,465 people currently being held in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who will now be transferred onto U.S. soil.

  73. Pingback: Global warming research in danger as Trump appoints climate skeptic to NASA team. – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  74. Well, its interesting to see that people in high places are reading this blog! Must read

  75. Pingback: Chascarrillos: ¿Judith Curry para la NASA de Trump? |

  76. From the article:

    On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news”, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017”, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”

    As ActivistPost correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.

  77. In a … TOTALLY AWESOME!!! … development, from the article:

    Washington (CNN)Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein said Saturday she is dropping her bid for a statewide election recount in Pennsylvania.

    Citing a major cost placed on voters due to a court ruling that says the voters requesting the recount must pay a $1 million bond, Stein also said she will be making a “major announcement” regarding her next steps in the recount process at a 10 a.m news conference Monday outside Trump Tower in New York.
    “The judge’s outrageous demand that voters pay such an exorbitant figure is a shameful, unacceptable barrier to democratic participation,” Stein said in a statement. “This is yet another sign that Pennsylvania’s antiquated election law is stacked against voters. By demanding a $1 million bond from voters yesterday, the court made clear it has no interest in giving a fair hearing to these voters’ legitimate concerns over the accuracy, security and fairness of an election tainted by suspicion.”

  78. NASA’s success came to a screeching halt when President Obama was sworn in.

    Obama increased NASA’s budget for environmental programs by 63% at the expense of its exploration budget. Obama twice stymied the Constellation program, designed to take humans back to the moon, and eventually to Mars. Obama’s NASA budget shifts money from NASA’s exploration and robotics programs to its environmental sciences and “outreach” programs. Obama’s budget manages to cut programs including planetary science programs, technological development programs, and many important future Mars missions, without saving any money.

    Obama shifted 2 million of the budget money to cover global warming science issues. The money will be specifically allocated to improve climate modeling, weather prediction and natural hazard mitigation. In comparison, NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the budget proposal.

    Meanwhile in recent months, China launched its second space station, built the world’s largest radio telescope, and deployed the world’s first hack-proof satellite in August. By abandoning plans to return to the Moon, the administration invited the rise of China as a leader in space. Our allies stand ready to partner in an ambitious exploration program, unfortunately the current administration won’t allow NASA to propose one.

    China’s annual space budget is less than the U.S.’s, but most of NASA’s cash is spent on environmental issues and other fields not directly related to space exploration. Meanwhile, Beijing has poured billions into such ambitious scientific projects and also has a military-backed space program. The divide between China’s military and civilian space programs isn’t a strict one and that most space activities were ultimately controlled by the Chinese military.

    Now, satellites guide Chinese aircraft, missiles, and drones, while watching over crop yields and foreign military bases. The growing number of missions involving Chinese rockets and taikonauts [astronauts] are a source of immense national pride. China has already staged a spacewalk, landed a rover on the moon, increased its cooperation in space with Europe, and launched a demo space station all since its first manned space launch in 2003.

    China has been heavily militarizing space as well. The communist country successfully targeted and destroyed one of its own satellites in orbit in 2007, and has likely tested a ground-based missile launch system to destroy objects in orbit in 2013. A report published in August by the U.S. National Academies found that the Department of Defense “urgently needs” new policies to defend U.S. satellites, since both Russia and China are developing space weapons capable of knocking out U.S. satellites in any future conflict, giving them a potentially catastrophic edge in war. Chinese plans in space are presently technologically inferior to NASA and face serious problems currently.

    Conclusion: Get NASA out of the climate realm and get back to it’s main purpose, Space exploration. Let NOAA handle the climate issue as some incarnate of it. NASA can luanch the satellites.

  79. OK so we put satellites to monitor climate change and Gavin Schmidt has press conferences and always its the satellite data in favor of land and sea based. So what’s the point of the satellites? Of course Mosher keeps rinding us that satellites are alt-science anyway.
    Ifyou want to convince Trump you’ll need to explain what practical purpose it has. If the science is already decided perhaps it’s time to close shop and move on to project.

  80. Berényi Péter

    1. NASA’s satellites are our eyes on the world
    Nope. Earth observing satellites are scientific instruments collecting geophysical data. No need for cheap poetry like “our eyes on the world”.

    Also, NASA’s role is to do measurements and publish data in a consistent &. unbiased manner, nothing else. It has no legitimate role in evaluating or adjusting them, neither in doing “climate research”. It is utter nonsense to assign a duty of keeping temperature records to a thermometer manufacturer.

    That said, it is imperative to keep extending existing datasets, like CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). However, it should be published using a standard revision control system, not haphazardly, as they usually do. In that case all later adjustments could be traced back transparently, hopefully with enough metadata provided at the point of adjustment to enable any third party to evaluate the process.

    Loaded phrases like “leading to a better understanding of the role of clouds and the energy cycle in global climate change” for example should be removed ASAP from the CERES site, especially the reference to “global climate change”, which has nothing to do with the project, only serves as icing for enthusiasts.

    That is, observations should be continued, all else, including climate related activities at NASA GISS, abandoned.

    There are plenty of independent organizations to do research based on raw data provided by NASA, no need to keep it in-house.

  81. Pingback: Pesquisas sobre aquecimento global correm risco sob nova indicação de Trump para Nasa | Mundo Sustentável