NASA Head Ducks Debate, Concedes No Rise In Hurricanes…Says We’ll Have To Wait For It!

John Stossel conducted an unusual interview, one where the head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, refused to appear together on the set with skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist at the University of Alabama.

According to Stossel about a dozen scientists had been invited to debate Spencer, but they refused to do so on air.

Great uncertainty

At the start Spencer tells Stossel that scientists in his opinion do not have a clue at this stage just how much of the warming can be attributed to man, saying it could be 10% or 90%.

Next a fidgety Gavin Schmidt appeared, insisting that the climate signatures of methane and CO2 “are very very clear“.

He then absurdly claimed that humans built its cities and infrastructure near the sea with the assumption that climate would not change and because “we didn’t expect the sea level to rise“.

Concedes Obama was mistaken

Surprisingly, at the 3:30 mark, Schmidt even conceded (reluctantly) that President Obama had been mistaken when he claimed hurricanes were increasing. When pressed by Stossel, the NASA GISS head was forced to admit that hurricane activity has in fact been showing no trend.

Problem is in the future

The inconvenient chart presented by Stossel actually suggests hurricane activity has been decreasing, which seemed a bit embarrassing to the NASA scientist. But Schmidt insisted the problem remained in the future (i.e. models): “Now what’s going on in the future, that is what we are concerned about.”

Ducks debate

When asked why not stay on the set and debate Spencer, Schmidt said: “I’m not interested.” And walked away.

Spencer returned and summed up telling viewers that the proposed green energy solutions were unrealistic and expensive, and that they would be far more damaging and deadly to the poor than the problem of climate change itself.

CO2 actually a good thing

Spencer told viewers that it is amazing how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere: “My long-term prediction is that eventually we are going to realize that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a good thing,” Spencer said.

Spencer ended the interview by telling that many scientists in fact agree with him, but that they are afraid to speak up about it for fear of losing funding.

 

36 responses to “NASA Head Ducks Debate, Concedes No Rise In Hurricanes…Says We’ll Have To Wait For It!”

  1. sod

    thanks for the video. link does not work for me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw

    1. ClimateOtter

      I suspect running it requires reasoning skills.

    2. AndyG55

      Hint to sob-sob…

      … See that sideways pointing triangle in the middle of the youtube screen… !!!

      1. toorightmate

        You need to say that slowly in upper class speech.

  2. Kenneth Richard

    Gavin Schmidt is trained as a mathematician (both BA and Ph.D. are in mathematics). And yet he believes humans have caused 110% of the climate changes since 1950.

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/real-climate-suffers-from-foggy-perception-by-henk-tennekes/
    “Roger Pielke Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!” —Dr. Hendrik Tennekes

    1. Josh

      ‘Gavin Schmidt is trained as a mathematician (both BA and Ph.D. are in mathematics). And yet he believes humans have caused 110% of the climate changes since 1950.’

      Now that is scary! He must surely know that human activity and attendant GHG emissions have a tiny affect on climate when compared to processes within the solar system.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        “He must surely know that human activity and attendant GHG emissions have a tiny affect on climate when compared to processes within the solar system.”

        Like many of his ilk, he’s likely quite persuaded by the argument from authority. His colleagues believe that the human attribution for climate changes is 110%. They’re smart. Therefore, they must be right, and anyone who disagrees is denying truth.

  3. cementafriend

    On a blog, Gavin Schmidt admitted that he did not know about the Schmidt number (Sc) and what it was used for. The main reason he will not debate anyone one with some technical understanding is either a) he himself has no technical understanding especially of heat transfer and he would lose his job if proven or b) he has been untruthful about his pronoucements and work about temperature at NASA/GISS and he will lose his job if found out. Going my his admission I lean towards a) that he lacks understanding of technology. (maybe he bought his claimed qualifications)

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      I lean towards both a and b, with a hefty measure of dishonesty to boot.

    2. Mindert Eiting

      I would suggest as a third possibility that he lost abilities he once had. Being for a long time in the AGW camp may have debilitating consequences except for producing language. I am not yoking: some time ago I had to explain to a chemist that carbon dioxide is plant food. I am not a chemist but we are of the same age and learned about the carbon cycle in our first year of High School around 1960 when education was not yet polluted with AGW knowledge.

  4. sod

    Fox news made an attempt to make Gavin look bad. he is simply right. on TV, a balanced view is not having one person speaking for something and one person speaking against it.

    To balance the fringe opinion by Roy Spencer, he should have to face 10+ scientists arguing the other way.

    Trump is changing the all of this. 99% of scientists now will realise, that having a stupid president who constantly lies about everything is a serious danger to their science. Expect them to start to act accordingly soon. the 99% will speak up.

    1. Pethefin

      Sod the gullible. Look up Einsteins comments to a publication called Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein from 1931.
      Your comment showed how even a fool like you understands that the alarmist views are indefensible and a debate can be won by alarmists only by shouting down the scientifically sound views by outnumbering the realists by 10:1. Pathetic.

      1. sod

        who is Einstein in this comparison? Roy Spencer?

        Einstein had brilliant and new ideas. He was not some guy taking money from oil companies and publicly stating a different position than the internal data suggested.

        Your comparison is apples to Jupiter moons.

        1. AndyG55

          Yep, the data shows that CO2 has no warming effect, so Roy should not be cow-towing to that particular LIE of the AGW scam.

          But yes, you would need 10+ “climate scientists” to even have a chance of balancing out even a lukewarmer like Roy.

          I’m glad you realise just how pathetically woeful the AGW scam religion is that it needs a 10 to 1 advantage.

    2. AndyG55

      Nobody needs to help Gavin make himself look bad.

      Just like nobody needs to help you look stupid.

      You both do a great job, all by yourselves.

      You have a fantasy view of balance, just like you have a fantasy view of everything else. A putrid far-left totalitarian sludge.

    3. pmc47025

      “According to Stossel about a dozen scientists had been invited to debate Spencer, but they refused to do so on air.”

      Sob, congratulations on regurgitating a 1:10 talking point. It’s tough to organize a 1:10 debate when “about a dozen” snake oil salesmen hide from a real scientist.

      1. AndyG55

        Perhaps they KNOW that they need the odds to be at least 20:1

  5. Josh

    The refusal of so-called ‘climate scientists’ to enter debate with scientist who have a different point of view or to share their data and findings is such that it amounts to a kind of confession.

  6. Pethefin

    When a scientist (again) declines to defend his claims in a debate with another scientist, you know that the claims are indefensible. Another sad day for science.

  7. sod

    Looking at the debate in Germany, the extreme right wing inside the CDU has just written a paper on climate change.

    their position is at least one step further still. they do not doubt the physics, nor do they expect the effect to be small. Instead they are running on the utterly stupid notion to embrace the change and top see the positive aspects of 2+°C changes.

    http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2017-06/klimaschutz-pariser-abkommen-cdu-csu-berliner-kreis

    1. Kenneth Richard

      “they do not doubt the physics”

      What physics? The ones that hypothetically claim that varying CO2 concentrations by + or – 0.000001 over a body of water becomes the dominant source of heating or cooling for that body of water? What physics are those?

      1. sod

        “varying CO2 concentrations by + or – 0.000001”

        i would avoid this line, because every scientist will be able to name you a ton of examples in which such small amounts make all the difference.

        The discussion in Germany is totally different though. they are taking the next level of defence: climate change is real, let us deal with it.

        That is still a stupid approach, but it makes much more sense than trying to contradict the science.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “i would avoid this line, because every scientist will be able to name you a ton of examples in which such small amounts make all the difference.”

          Great, there’s a ton of data on oceans being heated by CO2 molecules whose heat can’t penetrate into the ocean. You should be able to answer this question, then…

          So how much will the 0-4000 meter layer cool down with a decrease of -0.000001 (-1 ppm)? Support your answer with physical measurements.

        2. AndyG55

          sob-sob.. you nor anyone else can tell of ANY even remotely possible potential issues with a variation of + or – 0.000001 atmospheric CO2 concentration.

          There IS NONE

          You do know your padded inner-city ghetto basement probably has upward of 2000ppm most the time, don’t you ???

          Adding 0.000001 aCO2 is like adding one drop of water to a bath with toe deep water.

        3. AndyG55

          “but it makes much more sense than trying to contradict the science.”

          But that is EXACTLY what the AGW meme does.

          It contradicts all known science.

          What they should be saying is…

          “how the heck we let ourselves get SUCKED-IN to this load of anti-science, anti-life nonsense.”

        4. Josh

          ‘That is still a stupid approach, but it makes much more sense than trying to contradict the science.’

          Except the science underpinning the AGW fraud is shoddy and has been a great disservice to science. to say the least. CO2 is the elixir of life, we can embrace a bit more of it.

  8. sod

    meanwhile in the USA, nobody dares to answer the question, what Trump thinks about climate change.

    Scott Pruitt is taking a totally clueless position:

    https://psmag.com/economics/scott-pruitt-lobbies-for-lower-emissions-through-technology

    Technology follows the rules. it is not the other way round, if you want to establish new technologies into a market that runs on 60+ years runtime technology.

    1. AndyG55

      hey sob-sob.

      gotta love this line, hey …

      “our innovation to nations who seek to reduce their CO2 footprint to learn from us”

      USA is one of the few nations actually reducing its carbon emissions, and is offering to help other countries, like Germany, figure out how to do it.

      And its isn’t with solar or wind.

    2. AndyG55

      “taking a totally clueless position”

      Poor sob-sob.. do you feel he is going to challenge you for your #1 clueless position ???

      Sorry, little child.. but Scott Pruitt’s toenail clippings have more clues than you will ever have !

    3. M E Emberson

      President Trump bases his withdrawal from the agreement on economic grounds. Please therefore argue on these grounds.

      Also tell me why ‘ – Schmidt insists…“Now what’s going on in the future, that is what we are concerned about.” Has he a time machine?

      The use of projections of what will happen is based on what data you put into them , isn’t it?
      You can’t know if all the relevant data has been included. You can’t know what data is relevant.
      That no one can, is my assertion. So projections can be based on anything one fancies.

    4. Josh

      Trump understands how intellectually bankrupt the arguments behind AGW are.

  9. AtleD

    The most interresting within climate-science is not the stands between the the “trenches” within science but the direction we are heading in; one would think that with all the theories beeing so “well established” more and more scientists should come to the same conclution; “it’s CO2”.

    However, that is not the case. The opposite is what is happening. And Trump’s decision will surely accellerate science on other areas. History shows us this is not very uncommon. The popular perception in an area of science will not back down until PROVEN wrong beyond a doubt, and that will be the case for what drives climate too.

    It has to do with three basic things; economical reasons, personality and prestige. All else is speculations. Consider this; what you FIRST learned in an area of life tends to stick with you over time. If one or two or even several bricks in that foundation of knowledge is taken from you, well it can be tough. And instead of embracing new knowledge (in areas of expertise and interrest) it is often easier to defend your stand. Within scientists – as for personality – history tells us there is basis to say they in majority are less dynamic than let’s say stockbrokers. Good in terms of beeing perservering, but bad in terms of adopting to new ideas.

    Bringing me to my next point; this makes thus the (correct) science of other basises/new knowledge, a work chasing windmills. Because it goes against the very foundation of so many others. The examples throughout history are vast. We just don’t like to consider it. The world was flat until proven otherwise. AIDS was a mental illness until proven wrong. Even recently ME was a mental illness until proven otherwise. The Peruian indians were of South American orign until Thor Heyerdahl proved it not to be so. Sigarettes were fantastic until they weren’t. The ideas and perceptions we have had throughout history – that turned false – are worth a sciencepapers just by themselves. We are flawed. As per definition.

    Throughout history so many trashed theories have ended up beeing the ones chasing windmills. And whether or not old ideas have been scrapped fast or rather slowly, has also come to economics/personality/prestige. Even on a societylevel. Due to consequenses within those areas…. We still smoke (me too) even though we collectively know it to be bad. It took a generation to abolish asbestos even though we knew it was wrong. In the aera of climate-science those incentives have become immense. Both economical, personal and prestige-wise.

    That is why it is so extraordinary pertinent to seek other voices – in terms of economical, personal and prestige-wise incentives when considering the facts this time. You will never hear this from IPCC or the mainstream of climate-scientists, but those Columbuses, Magellans, Kopernikuses, Heyerdahls, Edisons, (Carl) Smiths and likes are living among us today too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories#Lists

    The proof WILL be found, we just don’t grasp the complexity of it (combined in a whole) yet. This shold be our guidance, but again, history has shown us it isn’t so. Macrounderstanding is too complex for most to even grasp. That is perhaps who most mainstream climatedebate tends to focus on micro. In different areas. We should all be humble enough to recognize that we do not have the knowledge to fully understand climate. In time perhaps we will. Giving us opportunities e never before had.

    Speculative note: I tend to think we will know a lot more within 2-4 years. Reason beeing the sun. This is still to be proved, but on the mentioned timescale we should know a LOT more on the dynamics of solarcycles. And within that timeframe we can disguard or embrace it as main source. That said, beeing a dynamic (personality), is exactly the course the US President sets out on. Hopefully to fund (economics) and embrace diverse sciencevoices (prestige (the sound one)) so that more needed macroresearch will surface. In basic understanding of science that is a good thing.

  10. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

    […] NoTricksZone notes that there has been no rise in hurricanes […]

  11. Jeff Norman

    How old is this video?

    1. sunsettommy

      Here you go Jeff,

      Published on Apr 7, 2013

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw

  12. yarpos

    They arent very creative. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, when pressed on the downward trend in cyclones, now takes the position that we will have less of them but they will be more intense. I guess that will buy them a few years.