Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt

In a shocking display of contempt and hubris, NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt and Potsdam Institute climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf lashed out in response to questioning… and insist “leading climate scientists” don’t need policing by “policy folk” and that the questioning is “tiresome” and “silly”.

Two days ago, German green-energy proponent Dr. Oliver Geden commented at Twitter on an editorial by Katherine Hayhoe, asking: “Why would climate scientists want to talk about ‘solution’ they obviously aren’t experts on?” Geden then added that it shows the “pitfalls of solutionism”.

Geden, a proponent of green energies and a warmist, is the Head of Research Division at the Berlin-based think tank German Institute For International Security Affairs.

At Twitter Geden publicly wondered about the wisdom of allowing climate scientists to be the leaders in the redesign of our complex civil infrastructure – you know, a job that traditionally and wisely was left to licensed architects, master builders and professional engineers – and not academics in lab coats.

Above the rules…We don’t need no “policing”

Reaction to Geden’s thinly veiled criticism came swiftly, especially from NASA GISS Director Gavin Schmidt, who pointed out that climate scientists don’t need no “policing”, thank you:

I’m blocked at Twitter by Gavin and his gang (even though I rarely even commented at their accounts), but an insider kindly provided their tweets.

According to Schmidt, getting policed by policy folk is “tiresome and silly” and he and his elitist academic high-flier colleagues shouldn’t have to put up with any of it.

Rahmstorf’s towering self-importance and superiority

Another real doozy of a reaction came from alarmist Potsdam Institute scientist, Stefan Rahmstorf. Most climate science skeptics are aware of how ugly Mr. Rahmstorf can get at times, and his most recent tweet totally lives up to that reputation:


Firstly it needs to be noted that Dr. Geden’s achievements are in fact quite impressive. What Rahmstorf needs to understand is that the people with the most “academic achievements” are not always the ones who get to make policy. That is the job of policymakers.

Secondly, we really have to wonder if it is wise for our policymakers to let themselves be advised by persons who harbor such contempt for other viewpoints and open debate.

Above questioning

Thirdly, Rahmstorf also reiterates Gavin’s position that “leading climate scientists” don’t need any “policing”. They seem to think they are above all that.

Geden is right: Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf are not really the only kind of people we may want formulating public policy and the ones we want our elected policymakers to be exclusively listening to. The heart of policymaking is open debate. Schmidt and Rahmstorf obviously despise it and so appear to not even understand even the most rudimentary element of democracy.

For them it’s: Shut up and let us run things because we’re the smartest.

People like Mr. Geden are also very smart, and they do need to be listened to.

“The art of climate communication”

How did Geden react to Rahmstorf’s nastiness and hubris? He called it “the art of winning a dispute on science communication.”

Gavin Schmidt and Prof. Rahmstorf owe Dr. Geden an apology in the least, and owe the public a bit more.

Dr. Oliver Geden is the Head of the Research Division at the Berlin-based German Institute For International Security Affairs, an Associate Fellow ; a lead author for IPCC_CH AR6; currently a visiting fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology & the CGG at the University of Hamburg.

42 responses to “Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt”

  1. CO2isLife

    I just finished a post highlighting why we do need policing. There is a reason CLimate Scientists fear oversight, they know what they are hiding, and their sophistry is easy to expose. The following link demonstrates how easy it is to expose the wrongdoing. Innocent men don’t fear the police.

    Climate Data Doesn’t Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures

    1. SebastianH

      they [climate scientists] know what they are hiding, and their sophistry is easy to expose

      Conspiracy talk and overconfidence in one’s ability to properly “discredit” climate science …

      Your “Refresher” list does little more than showing us where you are coming from. That “does not penetrate or warm water” claim alone is pretty telling about your understanding of radiative heat transfers.

      Here at CO2isLife we have maintained that CO2 actually works to cool, not warm the atmosphere. That claim sounds absurd until you look at the physics behind the GHG effect.

      Nope, it will always sound absurd because it is incorrect. It’s fascinating to see what disinformers like you “invent” to support a claim like this one. You even use the “spectral cooling rates” graph 😉

      From the above chart, one can see that CO2 increases at a near-linear trend. “Adjustments” made to the ground measurements tend to make global temperatures more linear. On the surface that appears to support the CO2 drives temperature theory. Problem is, as we will see later, CO2 shows a logarithmic decay for its absorption of energy. The Climate Sophists have the physics wrong, but they know most of the public doesn’t know or understand the underlying physics of the GHG effect.

      You seem to be that public that you are talking about. There is another part of the public which does understand that the current temperature increase isn’t the end state for the current CO2 concentration. If we could somehow fix the concentration at 400 ppm, the temperatures would still increase because there is still a forcing imbalance.

      I’ll stop now. Anyway, if you guys find the behavior of those scientists above (in the article) “displays contempt and hubris”, then what do you think of disinformers like this CO2isLife blogger?

      1. Josh

        Disinformers? How ironic Seb.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          It’s SebastianH’s latest name-calling tactic, since he really doesn’t have substantive responses and he is not allowed to call us “deniers” like he used to. So he copies pseudo-words from the blogs he relies upon for information.

          Over the years, I have explained why ‘denier’ is not my preferred term. I tried to coin the terms ‘delayer’ and ‘disinformer’ for those who make a living spreading disinformation about climate science —  and I still use the term ‘disinformer.’

          “Climate disinformer Patrick Moore talks to deniers at the GWPF”

      2. AndyG55

        “disinformers like you “invent” to support a claim like this one”

        Yet poor seb, master of AGW fantasy, has not been able to “invent” one single piece of evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth

        You really have to work harder on your sci-fant, seb.

        You are, as always, FAILING MISERABLY

      3. AndyG55

        “I’ll stop now”

        I bet you can’t. Your arrogance and egotism, up there with the two irksome nerks in question, won’t allow you to.

        A parrot must squawk.

        A chihuahua must yap.

        “If we could somehow fix the concentration at 400 ppm, the temperatures would still increase because there is still a forcing imbalance.”

        What a load of zero-science, scientifically unsupportable claptrap. !!

        A standard seb comment.

      4. AndyG55

        “That “does not penetrate or warm water” claim alone is pretty telling about your understanding of radiative heat transfers.”

        The fact that you still remain totally ignorant of the effect in LWR on water … that alone is pretty telling of your TOTAL LACK of understanding of anything to do with radiation.

        Your own FANTASY version of physics, devoid of resemblance to reality.

  2. Climate Data Doesn’t Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures – CO2 is Life

    […] Read More […]

  3. tom0mason

    Stefan Rahmstorf, and NASA’s Gavin Schmidt are easily two of the nastiest, hubristic, arrogant a**hole involved in the CAGW scam. Katherine Hayhoe’s comments range from the banal anti-science drivel to voicing her God-given crusade to change people’s living conditions for the worse.

    Long may they comment publicly and damage their precious ’cause’ in the eyes of the public.

    All of them (and many more) appear to view humans as largely anti-nature, none of them seem to notice that we are in fact part of nature. Sentient, upright, very adaptable and often (but not always) intelligently self-aware, and like all in nature rightly self-protective and determined to survive and flourish.

    1. Georg Thomas

      tom0mason, I agree with you — especially with the last paragraph of your above comment.

      We human beings are incapable of experiencing a pure juxtaposition of man here and nature there, as if in the presence of two personalities or parties capable of holding rights.

      There is only one way for us to experience nature: through OUR perception of her. This implies that for man nature is always his relationship with nature. We cannot damage nature or do nature good. All we can do is affect our relationship with nature in ways hat WE deem positive or negative.

      Nature isn’t a moral agent and she is incapable of arguing with us or anyone else. This being so, the best option for mankind to deal with nature is to shape our relationship with her to OUR own best advantage.

      Humankind has been very good at this for millions of years, turning its biggest enemy — nature — into its servant.

      This is because the resources offered by nature may be limited, but human ingenuity is not. It does not decline with use, rather to the contrary. The network of human experience and intelligence is growing all the time, allowing our species to come up with new and ever improved ways of harnessing nature to make us safe and comfortable.

      History clearly shows that humans are extraordinarily good stewards of (a benign relationship between man and) nature, and have never been more successful at this stewardship than today.

      This is what we ought to be proud of, opposing the perverse reversal of the truth by green zealots who try to reframe our ideals under the central tenet of a new religious dogma according to which man is born with a sinful disposition to do harm to nature (Gaia).

      At the risk of repeating myself: I refuse to use phrasings like “man is hurting nature” or “man is healing nature”. They are based on infantile anthropomorphism (like a discussion with your teddy bear). All we can speak of is the relationship of man with nature as man perceives it. And of this relationship I claim it has been managed fantastically well, especially since man has learned (a) to escape the Malthusian trap and (b) harness fossil fuels.

      1. tom0mason

        Well said!

      2. tsash

        tomomason Well said, indeed! A delight to read and a delight to ponder. Your comments echo many of the comments in Alex Epstein’s excellent book, the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

    2. Josh

      I agree. I question Hayhoe’s christianity, knowing the implications of CAGW policies for the people.

      1. AndyG55

        Quite frankly, I don’t think she has a clue about the implications of CAGW agenda policy on people.

        She is like the first two monkeys combined.

        … we could all just wish that the third monkey would STFU !!

        1. Josh

          It’s people like her and Supertroll Seb that caused me to question the credibility of the CAGW theory in the first place.

  4. An Easy Way to Prove Climate Skeptics Wrong or Expose Climate Sophists as Alarmist Frauds – CO2 is Life

    […] BTW, honest men don’t fear oversight Click Here. […]

  5. Bitter&twisted

    Why is anyone surprised that climate “scientists”, like Rahmstorf and Schmidt, are anything other than arrogant, power-mad, holier than thou, to$$ers?

  6. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    What’s REALLY “tiresome” and “silly” is having these arrogant activists masquerading as scientists to push their b.s., and ignorant politicians insisting I have to pay for it.

    Well, obviously Katherine Hayhoe wouldn’t want oversight of her, uh, “work.”

    More on her from Paul Homewood.

    Tony Heller has written a lot about what Hayhoe gets wrong. Here’s just one sample.

    And some from him on Schmidt that explain Schmidt’s aversion to scrutiny.

    Can’t say I blame them for not wanting to have to prove they know what they are doing when they obviously don’t.

  7. CO2isLife

    Climate Sophistry clearly needs policing. If they want science by authority, we need someone watching the authority.

    The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming…Rules Out CO2 as the Cause

    1. tom0mason

      @CO2isLife 4. June 2018 at 3:44 AM

      What a cracking piece, well said.
      IMO this site and your site should be more widely read.

  8. wert

    Rahmstorf was uncollegial. A serious breach of ethics code meaning he should be sacked! Hello JCU, could you provide some help to the HR department?/sarc

    Well, I guess Rahmstorf is not fearing he could be sacked for scientific malpractice.

  9. SebastianH

    Look at what happens in nobody replies to your (the usual disinformer crowd) trollish comments. Zero discussion, only shoulder tapping 😉

    1. AndyG55

      More mindless petulant puerile attention seeking from seb.

      1. Josh

        What else can one expect from Supertroll Seb? I must give him a little credit, however, as he is good at projecting his own faults onto others.

    2. AndyG55

      It is interesting that not even you can defend the arrogance and ignorance of these two propaganda monkeys.

      Potsdam is one of the places at the very bottom of the sewer that is the AGW cult/agenda.

    3. Doug

      SebastianH –

      Would you please link to the most accurate climate model to date for predicting future temperature due to CO2?

  10. tom0mason

    Any policing may necessarily cause a diminution in the perception of the much proclaimed catastrophe, as the facts show, see the leaked emails for evidence.


    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]

    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

    The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

    I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about “Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

    In my [IPCC-TAR] review […] I crit[i]cized […] the Mann hockey[s]tick […]
    My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

    Hence the AR4 Section dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2 for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.


    I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

    I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

    […] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. […] I am leaning toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a Japanese.

    The whole UN-IPCC show relies on the transmitting perception of coming doom. If they are neutralize from propagandizing that message, and stick to just the verified facts then their horror show bites the dust, also many so called ‘scientific’ papers will have to be reassessed if not rewritten or retracted.

  11. AndyG55

    OT, but according to DMI ice volume data, 2018 is having a VERY slow melt.

    Calculating the “decrease from maximum” for this day of the year, only 2004 is slower

    2018 is second slowest, then a big gap. (values in km³)

    2004: 1.35
    2018: 1.52
    2007: 2.11
    2009: 2.30
    2015: 2.41

    up to a loss from maximum of 3.26km³ in 2006

    2018 volume is now in 6th place since 2003, above every year since and including 2008, and should climb above 2006 and 2006 in the next few days.

    1. AndyG55

      typo correction

      should be “climb above 2006 and 2007 in the next few days”

    2. AndyG55

      Another interesting graph from DMI Arctic sea ice volume data

      The melt from maximum to minimum is graphed, vertical axis is in Mkm³

      and the “melt from maximum” for the June 3rd

      This year’s melt is VERY slow. !!

  12. Arktis: Meereis-Masse wächst um 2,5 Billionen Kubikmeter gegenüber dem Vorjahr! Grönlandeis weiter auf Wachstumskurs! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt […]

  13. The People Eisenhower Warned You About

    […] Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt […]

  14. Yonason

    Re – “The People Eisenhower Warned You About”

    As originally seen on Tony Heller’s blog, as indicated on the referencing blog.

  15. GLOBAL WARMING THEORY CHECK : Global Temps Continue Century-Record Plunge, Despite Record And Rising Emissions! – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt […]

  16. Jacob Frank

    I’ll say one thing about Maurice Strong, he said on record his agenda and made a very huge machine that had almost no destiny but failure. Maybe he was trolling the greens all along, just saying

  17. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #318 | Watts Up With That?
  18. Global Temps Continue Century-Record Plunge, Despite Rising Emissions! | Principia Scientific International

    […] Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt […]

  19. Global Temps Continue Century-Record Plunge, Despite Rising Emissions! – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy