Irony Alert

Over at Climate Skeptic, I take a quick look at the most recent Gavin Schmidt PR piece in the Washington Post, claiming that 2007 was, you know, really hot.

But I wanted to share two funny bits with you.  First, from the climate crowd who claims to have their science so buttoned down that we skeptics should not even be allowed to talk about it any more, comes this:

Taking into account the new data, they said, seven of the eight
warmest years on record have occurred since 2001

What new data?  That another YEAR had been discovered?  Because when
I count on my own fingers, I only can come up with 6 years since 2001.

Second, comes this bit of irony:  There are many reasons why satellites gives us a potentially better measure for world temperatures than surface temperature instruments.  They give us full global coverage (except the poles) and are free of urban and other biases.  So I have always wondered if the only reason that climate scientists defend the surface temperature record over satellites is merely because they don't like the answer satellites are giving (they show less warming than do surface temperature records).

But here is the irony:  The person who is arguably the strongest defender of land-based measurement over satellites, and who maintains what neutral observers feel is the most upwardly-biased surface temperature record, is Gavin Schmidt, who is ... wait for it ... head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA.


  1. Scott Wiggins:

    I would have to say that if NASA has funding enough to concern themselves with surface temperature systems then they are overdue for a budget review. Unfortunately, this once fine organization is overreaching its charter. It is afterall the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Scientist with political agendas and Astronaut love triangles are also indication of a leadership void...

  2. Larry Sheldon:

    I think Scott Wiggins Misspelled "leadership rot" but the effect is the same. (The difference is important to me because a long time ago NASA and its predecessor NACA did in fact have leadership.

  3. Bob Smith:

    On what scientific basis does he justify preferring land-based over satellite measurements?

  4. Scott:

    What new data? That another YEAR had been discovered? Because when I count on my own fingers, I only can come up with 6 years since 2001.

    Then you're still more advanced than Time magazine, which can't do better than quote a two-year high for unemployment.,8599,1703148,00.html

  5. Al Fin:

    Scott W.: When Al Gore was Vice President of the US he took a very, very personal interest in the running of NASA. He ruined the ISS, ruined the next gen. shuttle program, and expanded NASA's climate programs at the expense of space. Quite a lot of f**k*ng up for 8 years, eh? Surprised NASA has been able to run any space missions at all after that.