Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Names Gavin Schmidt Director of the Goddard Institute For Space Studies

Posted by samzenpus on from the new-boss dept.

First time accepted submitter Graculus (3653645) writes "NASA has named Gavin A. Schmidt to head the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, a leading Earth climate research laboratory. Currently deputy director of the institute, Schmidt steps into the position left vacant after the retirement of long-time director James E. Hansen and becomes only the third person to hold the post."

41 comments

  1. space is for losers who can't get a date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Hint: sexy Trills aren't really out there.

  2. Commence global warming alarm propaganda! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I'm quite certain that's what his primary responsibility will be...

  3. National Atmospheric Science Administration by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    Climate modelers belong in NOAA.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:National Atmospheric Science Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before even debating which agency should be involved, why is the "Goddard Institute for Space Studies" a climate research facility? With a name like that, shouldn't it be studying, well, space?

      Or is space a solved issue and since we've mastered everything else in the universe, space studies facilities are being repurposed to figure out how to model clouds?

    2. Re:National Atmospheric Science Administration by starless · · Score: 2

      Before even debating which agency should be involved, why is the "Goddard Institute for Space Studies" a climate research facility? With a name like that, shouldn't it be studying, well, space?

      It's "space studies" because the studies are done (in many cases) from space.

      We don't study "space" at NASA - we study stars, planets, galaxies, the universe as a whole, the Sun, and, yes, the Earth - all from space.

      That's why the Hubble Space Telescope is a "space" telescope. Not because it looks at "space" but because the telescope itself is in space.

  4. Why are taxpayers funding this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If it's part of NASA, then it is paid through money extorted from the population. There's no reason for this. If climate science is really worthwhile, then the private sector can fund it.

    Of course, on a statist-dominated forum like Slashdot, we'll probably have people cheering this on, unaware they are sacrificing their own liberty.

    1. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If climate science is really worthwhile

      You mean our atmosphere, the thing that keeps us alive and will hopefully continue to do so in the future as long as we don't fuck it up? That thing? Yeah, totally not worth the sliver of NASA's small budget.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If climate science is really worthwhile, then the private sector can fund it.

      Right. Because the public sector has such a great track record of fixing the shit they've caused.

      The public sector excels at one thing -- maximizing shareholder value at the expense of everybody else.

      The private sector is incapable of addressing problems like this.

      You're an idiot, and your use of the word 'statist' confirms is.

      Go feed your baby melamine laced formula from China, and tell us how well "the market" is capable of solving such problems.

      The fact is, it is incapable of solving such problems.

      Fucking drooling Americans.

    3. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg :)

    4. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      You mean our atmosphere, the thing that keeps us alive and will hopefully continue to do so in the future as long as we don't fuck it up? That thing? Yeah, totally not worth the sliver of NASA's small budget.

      I, for one, celebrate Hansen's stepping down. Maybe for a change we will get responsible science as opposed to Hansen's zealotry.

    5. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      Good luck, Gavin Schmidt is one of the primary architects of the GISS Model-E, one of the preeminent climate models in the world.

    6. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      In what sense is "one of the primary architects of GISS Model E" not doing "responsible science"?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because it's a fucking model, and NONE model the planet correctly at all.

      They are way off

    8. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fuckface,
      What is the proper ppm of CO2 we should "design"?
      What is the proper "global temperature"?
      How the fuck will we know we are making a difference?
      How much is that difference worth, 50% of YOUR FUCKING INCOME?
      The entire "green" market is shit, and the private sector identified that long ago.
      What the private market does is strip away the bullshit, and guys like you that think they have the answer on how to spend my money.

    9. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      Ah, so we're not to use models any more.

      That'll make getting into an airplane more exciting in the future.

      As for being "correct", Schmidt himself said: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    10. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Layzej · · Score: 1

      In what way was his predecessor not? Only in the minds of the paranoid conspiracy nut. His predecessor was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."

    11. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I certainly didn't mean to imply that Schimdt is not doing responsible science, just that JQP's hope is a pipe dream. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Schmidt. He gave a TED talk recently on The emergent patters of climate change that covers the study of climate from the smallest scale up to the big picture.

      You can't understand climate change in pieces, says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. It's the whole, or it's nothing. In this illuminating talk, he explains how he studies the big picture of climate change with mesmerizing models that illustrate the endlessly complex interactions of small-scale environmental events.

    12. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I know who Schmidt is, and his personal charisma does not responsible science make. TED is an idea workshop, not a science forum. While it is interesting and even sometimes educational (in the sense that new ideas are often presented), nothing that happens at TED can be accepted as authoritative.

      The fact that a purported scientist is resorting to TED to make his point is a tribute to "climate change" propaganda.

    13. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Check out this website. The author has made it a duty of his to record the ASTOUNDINGLY MANY injuries to responsible data that have been perpetrated by GISS.

      He uses their own data to show how they manipulate the truth. At his own personal cost, on his own time.

      In particular, the "adjustments" GISS makes to temperature data is under very serious question.

    14. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      As for being "correct", Schmidt himself said: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."

      And this is EXACTLY why the models are bullshit. Because they have not been JUST consistently wrong, but consistently HUGELY wrong.

      I actually DO give credit to the models as being "guesses". But if we are to accept them as science, they are terrible guesses. If you have ever read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, and actually looked at how weel the models have reflected reality (or, more properly, failed to do so), you could only conclude that we are going back to the Stone Age in our understanding of what is correct.

      Wrong may be relative, but when it's that wrong, it's just wrong. Period.

    15. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Oh lord. I guess every other group studying global temperatures is part of the conspiracy? They all seem to find similar warming, We're supposed to trust some pseudonymous blogger rather than peer reviewed science?

    16. Re:Why are taxpayers funding this? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      That's one way to look at it. You could also say the TED talk is outreach, bringing science to the public.

  5. GODDAMN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    space.

  6. He has the experience for the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gavin was captain of The Love Boat.

  7. Di[3k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    prospects -are very overly morbid and BSD sux0rs. What The next round of outstrips perform keeping track of where resound as fitting

  8. funding shortages by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: -1, Troll

    time to defund GISS. We don't need another CAGW religionista wasting money and air.

    1. Re:funding shortages by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

      Yes, how dare they report facts that you don't like.

    2. Re:funding shortages by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      They distort long known facts as soon as any discrepancy with their CAGW religion surfaces. Whither 1934 being the highest temp temporarily until the fickle fudge factor fingers were placed on the scale, and the Medieval Warming Period. Zealots and frauds.

  9. Muslim outreach by argStyopa · · Score: 0

    Has he been properly briefed, that the main mission of NASA is muslim outreach?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    That's a direct quote, by the way:
    "..."When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ..."

    --
    -Styopa
  10. Will he finally admit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that NASA was created and is still ran by Nazi's?

    1. Re:Will he finally admit by ezzthetic · · Score: 1

      Hope they weren't grammer Nazis.

      --
      You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
    2. Re:Will he finally admit by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Or spelling Nazis (grammar).

  11. Here is his TED talk by Layzej · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the man himself giving a TED talk on the limitations and capabilities of climate models: http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin...

    1. Re:Here is his TED talk by Layzej · · Score: 2

      Best line: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."

    2. Re:Here is his TED talk by Layzej · · Score: 2

      Or perhaps "If we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time."

    3. Re:Here is his TED talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's an idiot, all a wrong model tells you is how that wrong model behaves, not how the real atmosphere works.

    4. Re:Here is his TED talk by Layzej · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point. All models are wrong, but we use them very successfully for a wide array of tasks. We used models to discover Neptune for instance. The models that we used were wrong (as are ALL models), but they successfully predicted the location of Neptune based on the orbit of Uranus.

  12. Bravo Gavin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very special day Gavin.

    As a Non-Citizen of the USA you have achieved a monumental penuchle within NASA as GISS Director and not even a citizen of the USA.

    Ha ha. What a Day in the USA !

    Such a Brit Lackey as you with the killing power of ... 1000 ... above the "Restaurant" ... beloved of Seinfeld TV shows.

    May the scrumptious smells of the "Soup Nazi" fill your ever wakeful hour and even enter your dreams when asleep. I.e. no shelter old boy.

    Ha ha

    1. Re:Bravo Gavin by Layzej · · Score: 1

      +1 creepy?

  13. Back to the ivory tower with you poindexter! by Layzej · · Score: 1

    Down with scientific outreach!

  14. What the science shows by Layzej · · Score: 1

    Well, could trust a blog, or check the peer reviewed science?

    What are the predictions of climate models, should we believe them, and are they falsifiable? Probably the most iconic and influential result arising from climate models is the prediction that, dependent on the rate of increase of CO2 emissions, global and annual mean temperature will rise by around 2–4C over the 21st century. We argue that this result is indeed credible, as are the supplementary predictions that the land will on average warm by around 50% more than the oceans, high latitudes more than the tropics, and that the hydrological cycle will generally intensify. Beyond these and similar broad statements, however, we presently find little evidence of trustworthy predictions at fine spatial scale and annual to decadal timescale from climate models. -- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...