If Climate Science Peer Review Wasn’t A Complete Joke, I Wouldn’t Have To Write This Blog

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to If Climate Science Peer Review Wasn’t A Complete Joke, I Wouldn’t Have To Write This Blog

  1. joe from Australia says:

    :)

  2. gator69 says:

    The problem is that it is peer review. The peers of scumbags, are scumbags.

    What we need is scientific review.

  3. physicist says:

    Oh, sure, I get it, the sun orbits the earth, which is flat, and only 8000 years old, and on which humans have cohabited with dinosaurs, and evolution doesn’t exist, and where human females don’t get pregnant when they are ‘legitimately’ raped, and all the (scientific) polls predicting the Obama landslide in the last election were wrong (just because the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the results), and during which election there were no attempts at voter suppression (despite 8 hours lines), and where the election actually was stolen by ACORN which has only been out of business since 2010, and where repuglicans aren’t racist/homophobic/islamophobic/xenophobic, and where trickle down (tax cuts for the rich) economics supposedly works despite empirical evidence to the contrary,

    The Real Joke is this blog. Have to stop by here periodically for a little comic relief, where cherry-picking data, copying old newspaper articles, making ad hominem attacks on scientists, and black helicopter conspiracy theories, supposedly constitute ‘real’ science. Just like Dickus Cheney did not understand the difference between raw and processed intel data, and got us into a costly war in lives and dollars, you don’t understand the difference between raw and processed scientific experimental data. Ever done any science, ever taken your own data on anything, ever analyzed your own data, ever written it up, ever had a paper published in a peer reviewed journal?

  4. RobertvdL says:

    The Other Joke is the ‘Free’ Press.

    The world’s poorest countries, inundated by rising seas and worsening disasters, made a last ditch plea for financial help as negotiators at United Nations climate talks struggled to reach an ambitions deal to combat global warming.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10852771

    • RobertvdL says:

      The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.

      http://rt.com/news/climate-change-summit-failure-518/

      One man against humanity, the crime of the century,In the history books his name will be next to Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc.

      • miked1947 says:

        TOOOOO FUNNNY!
        He told the truth so he had to be escorted from the hall!

      • Billy Liar says:

        The Doha talks are all about process, not about what is actually happening to the climate. They’re not interested in anything about the climate except the fact that it maintains and heavily funds their bureaucracy. It keeps them all in fat salaries, first-class flying, first-class expenses and parties galore all over the world. What’s not like?

  5. Unless these clowns have factual statements that we can debunk, they are only talking to themselves and converting fence sitters over to the skeptical side, by virtue of the fact that their conceit works against them.

    • physicist says:

      What’s stopping you? Quit your yapping, and get to work. There’s a 180+ years of hard science out there to debunk, paper by paper. You can start with Fourier’s 1828 paper and move forward in time. See you in a couple hundred years when you are done.

      Of course that assumes you know enough science to get past the abstract of any of them.

    • physicist says:

      Let’s see if I have this straight. You want some ‘factual’ statements to debunk. ‘Factual’ statements are true statements. So if you debunk a ‘factual’ statement, then your ‘debunk’ statement is then an ‘untrue’ or ‘non-facutal’ statement. Which is pretty consistent for this blog – a lot of untrue or non-factual statements.

      • miked1947 says:

        There are no,Let me repeat “NO”, factual statements about CAGW, as those would require experiments that can be independently replicated. CAGW is not even a theory but a Wild Ass Guess that has been put forward to explain things wanna be scientists can not explain any other way.
        he opinions of one “Climatologist” falsifies the opinion of other “Climatologists”.
        There may be 18 years of Pathological Science to shine the light of truth on but there are no “Factual Statements” to Debunk.
        Fantasies and Fairy Tales are all you have to offer. You should sue the school that gave you the degree you claim to hold. They did not teach you how to think, or even be a real scientist.
        Pathetic actually!

      • It’s cute when True Believers try to pretend to be sceptical.

  6. You would still have a blog, it would be about medical instead…

  7. Lou says:

    Evolution is still a theory with holes.
    ;-)

  8. Andy DC says:

    First they exclude “deniers” from the process, then they have the utter nerve to call cross pollination among like minded alarmists “peer review”.

  9. Michael says:

    Steven, we appreciate what you do here. Exposing liars in the face of attacks like the one above is a courageous activity. Like you said, physicist (sic) doesn’t have any facts to counter the truth set out here, so he attacks the person instead. If there is a non-adjusted data set out there that is published by a reliable source without a vested interest in the outcome of their research that contradicts what is published here and on numerous other sceptical blogs, please point me to it. All I see in the alarmist world is reference to “models” of future events which prove to be wrong in the face of data which is then explained away with counter intuitive arguments or manipulated by fraudulent and undisclosed adjustments to fit the model.

    The sea isn’t rising, it isn’t becoming acidic, temperatures on earth are not outside of what would reasonably be expected even if there were no humans on earth, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that CO2 is a magical gas that can overcome the sun and/or the H2O in the atmosphere and the oceans to produce any measurable warming even if the atmospheric concentration doubles from its current concentration whether from human or other influences, storms and droughts are not more frequent or intense than they were in recorded past, the ice caps are not melting or freezing beyond recorded minimums or maximums, snow cover and glaciers are within recorded ranges, … etc.

    You only have to go back 1,000 years to prove that the past 30 are not unique in any way. If you go back 10,000 it is obvious that human influence is not a cause of climate change with the only exception being localized influences through urban heat island effects within high density populated areas which actually diffuse rapidly outside the directly affected municipality.

    So “physicist” prove me/us wrong with some unadjusted data from the real world. I have an open mind and am ready to change my views if there is some basis on which to believe that human induced carbon dioxide emissions can influence the earth’s climate in any measurable way.

    But if you want a solid, well referenced, logical study that refutes that belief, start with the NIPCC report. If you read it and continue to believe in human induced climate change you are the only person in denial on this blog.

    http://heartland.org/press-releases/2011/08/29/new-report-global-warming-contradicts-uns-ipcc

    Oh, and no crap about who sponsored the study. Heartland isn’t funded by the Koch brothers. David Suzuki is funded by radical environmentalists and the political left, but you believe his crap. Read the study, read all the references. It’s all there for someone with an open mind.

  10. slimething says:

    Is this the same “Physicist” at WUWT?

    • miked1947 says:

      Possibly among many other names over the years!

      • physicist says:

        Look out, duck, take cover, the black helicopters are after you. You worth the price of admission – nothing.

      • You are projecting your insanity on to others.

      • physicist says:

        At this site it takes absolutely no projection whatsoever, the insanity, lunatic ranting is right out there for everyone to see. Go reread miked1947 @ 12:13 pm. Absolutely lunatic, nonsensical, insane ranting. Then we have “climate science peer review is a complete joke”. More lunatic, nonsensical, insane ranting.

      • gator69 says:

        Are you ashamed of your dissertation?

      • You are getting very tiring. I present massive amounts of data which you never attempt to refute. All you know is bigotry, prejudice and hatred against others who don’t agree with your superstitions.

      • Andy DC says:

        physicist,

        You have every right to your opinion and even present your opinion in your usual snide, condescending manner. What you don’t have a right to do is personally attack people who disagree with you. I don’t run this site, but I would strongly suggest that the person who does should banish you for any such further outbursts.

        • miked1947 says:

          AndyDC:
          Physicist is a very good example of all the members of the Chicken Little Brigade. I think him and David do us a great service by commenting here. We do not have to copy and paste their drivel to allow others to see their value in the “Debate”! ;)

      • Buffons such as ‘physicist’ act as the useful idiots of the sceptics.

      • physicist says:

        @ AndyD and @ Mikey

        So, you are having a debate? Really? Who is debating whom? Are either of you in the debate? Is it about climate science? Have either of you made a substantive scientific comment anywhere?

        Since Andy says I “personally attack people who disagree with you”, what is your position in the debate about calling climate scientists ‘morons’ or ‘liars’ or ‘cheats’?

        Now, since I know that you want to have a Real Debate, how many of you went to the AGU annual meeting last week? Did you prepare a paper to present, or prepare questions to ask Real Climate Scientists? Maybe you could even called a Real Climate Scientist a ‘moron’ face to face. How satisfying would that be. But that would take a little guts.

        Better yet, and a little easier. You can find ‘moron’ Jim Hansen’s e-mail address on line at: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/. Just click on his name at the bottom of the page. Only took me a few seconds to find it.

        Then the proprietor of this site could send him all these marvelous analyses, tell him face-to-face he’s a moron and cheating and fudging the data, well maybe it would only be e-mail-to-e-mail. Since it’s his data, who better to defend it in a Real Debate.

        Now that would be a Real Debate and worth the price of admission.

        But I suspect you guys are just like the hooligans and thugs at soccer games, sitting on the side lines, hurling insults at the Real Players on the field.

        Hey Will, making any progress debunking 180 years of climate science, gotten through Fourier’s paper yet? Actually there’s a book called something like “The Warming Papers”. That’ll save you some searching the journals, you know those peer reviewed ones, that are all just a 180 years running hoax. Keep us posted on your progress.

      • A physicist who can’t be troubled by data. What a waste of space.

      • physicist says:

        you are absolutely correct that i am concerned about data, calibration of the data, accuracy of data, systematic errors in the data, etc., and the misuse of data.

        this data you are fucking around with is not my data. if it were my data you were fucking with I’d be reaming you a new asshole.

        this is someone else’s data you are fucking with. it is their job, not my job, to ream your ass.

        but you are a big chicken shit, if you had any balls here is what you would do. I’ve told you how to find Hansen’s e-mail, so here is the e-mail, if you had the guts:
        ——
        Dear Jim,

        I have just conducted an independent analysis of your data. i think your results are fucked up (see attached) big time, FUBAR, lies, deceit and distortions In fact, I think it is so fucked up, that you must be a liar, cheat, thief, and moron.

        I look forward to seeing your assessment of my results.

        Hope you and yours have a good holiday season,

        Respectively yours,

        Steven
        ——-

        If you had the guts, but we know you are just a soccer hooligan, hanging on the chain link fence, spitting invectives at climate scientists.

      • Me says:

        pHyescyst, your a sucker for punishment here aren’t ya. Yeah that data thinggy that isn’t yours but your going batshit crazy over it aren’t ya? Pa tit ic…

      • Steve presents the data that anyone can check for themselves. ‘Physicist’ swears at everyone because nobody believes his bizarre little ramblings.

  11. gator69 says:

    So you are ashamed of your dissertation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s