A new incendiary blog by Dr. Duane Thresher and Dr. Claudia Kubatzki unleashes on NASA Goddard Institute (one of the two main motherlodes of climate activism), calling for them to be defunded because they are “ignoble”, with “herds of do-gooders”, and “NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down. Take the money and buy a rocket.”
They are a husband and wife team, both producing peer-reviewed climate papers. He worked at NASA GISS for seven years. Since they came out as skeptics in California, they’ve had to move house. Thanks to Marc Morano for the tip.
His latest post calls on the new NASA head, appointed by Trump, to just turn off the tap, cut the cash:
Everyone assumes climate scientists are noble. Fighting to save the planet. What nonsense. Not even close.
They write about a wave of new money into climate science and the decay of the field:
Enter opportunists, carpetbaggers, the corrupt, the ignoble.
What to do? Stop paying climate scientists. The good ones are so into their science they will work for food, maybe less, maybe even pay to do it. French President Macron has invited the rest to move to France so they will be fine.
Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson.
Thresher is an MIT graduate in electrical engineering, and went on to study Atmospheric Science (climate modeling), has done Antarctic research, got a PhD from Columbia and worked for James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS. His wife Kubatzki, is a meteorologist, climate modeler, pollen proxy analyst and a a native German. She’s worked at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany.
Being a whistleblower is always risky:
If you think neo-Nazis are bad, try being a global warming skeptic in the Bay Area of California, where we had to move from for our own safety.
Gavin Schmidt “couldn’t make it” in maths so he became a climate scientist
Thresher is scathing of the quality of the talent that flowed in to the field with the sudden influx of money:
And then there are the not qualified who become climate scientists. When the science bureaucrats (if you can’t do real science be a science bureaucrat) decided global warming was the next big thing, there was a huge influx of money, which meant a huge influx of unqualified into climate science since there just weren’t enough qualified and the money HAD to be used. Enter opportunists, carpetbaggers, the corrupt, the ignoble. Physicists and mathematicians who couldn’t make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn’t make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science.
This influx into climate science of unqualified [people] also meant they threw out good scientific practices, like not pretending climate models can actually predict climate when they were just invented to study it by experimentation.
Given the save-the-planet nature of the field, the unqualified included herds of do-gooders, particularly women. (Note: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki agrees with this assessment.) They love committees. Protection by the herd. Power without sticking your neck out.
NASA GISS has got nothing to do with space:
[NASA GISS is] a small group over a restaurant (Tom’s Restaurant from the TV comedy Seinfeld!) in New York City, nowhere near any other major NASA facility. Just the dedicated data link to the nearest NASA facility, GSFC in Maryland, is a big expense. GISS is the Goddard Institute for SPACE Studies. If you don’t need a rocket to get to it, it’s not space.
He could have pointed out the irony that NASA GISS uses land based thermometers and ignores the satellites.
No tip-toeing-about on the about page. There are “huge weaknesses” in both models and proxies
We are the most qualified real climatologists to ever come out as global warming skeptics (including even more than Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Judith Curry, although we acknowledge their revolutionary courage). Unlike most scientists counted in the scientific consensus on global warming we are real climate scientists. Our graduate careers included numerous courses in climate and we have done extensive research in climate, including climate modeling and climate proxies (past climates). Doing both is unusual. Not only have we actually used and run climate models but we have actually programmed them and so fully understand their (huge) weaknesses. Unlike many we don’t just ignorantly use the climate proxy data produced by others but we have taken courses and done research on climate proxies and so fully understand their (huge) weaknesses.
Six reasons skeptics will not get published
Thresher and Kubatzki argue that publication and funding bias will produce a “consensus”.
Climate model/proxy research that does not show global warming will not get published or funded because of:
- Non-publication of negative results (no global warming found)
- Fearful self-censorship
- Conflict of interest (a need to get results, regardless of validity, that further careers)
- Corrupt and/or unqualified scientists
- Censorship by consensus scientists in a fundamentally-flawed peer review process
- Corruption of climate science overall (e.g., see Corrupt German Climate Science)
Scientific revolutions are called revolutions because before a wrong theory was overthrown there was a scientific consensus that it was right.