Icons Of The Gravy Train

All of these agencies gets gobs of confiscated taxpayer money to study promote global warming.

But at least it isn’t big oil money.

About stevengoddard

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

74 Responses to Icons Of The Gravy Train

  1. Mike Davis says:

    No one said they are smart! To advertise the duplication and wasted money by having that many agencies doing the same thing. At a time of budget concerns they are providing a list of agencies that can stand to lose a great deal of funding!
    This is only a tip of the iceberg of wasted funds for Climate research!

  2. Baa Humbug says:

    What does fund a mental mean?

    • Mike Davis says:

      It used to be called Insane but being PC it is now called mentally challenged and requires lots of funding. It is an American Idiom!

  3. bjedwards says:

    Feeling guilty, Goddard?

    Your climate change denial movement is on it’s last legs, going the route of every denialist movement in history.

    • Latitude says:

      The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by the makers of……………………..


    • suyts says:

      @ bedwetter…….. lol….. almost, except backwards. The alarmism is done. Only ideologues cling to the debunked notion of climatic catastrophe from the act of breathing. While, I’ve no doubt you’ll dismiss my comments, try reading some science………



    • What does bj stand for?

    • Mike Bromley says:

      BJ: It’s noticible in your prose that you didn’t learn the rule about, “its”, the possessive, and “it’s” the positive assertion. You’re rather busy with the Ad Hominem, though, so I guess you can be excused. And on the subject of positive assertions, It’s too bad that all this climate science can’t get beyound the perhapses and could bes and suggests-thats in its headlong campaign to ‘prove’ the impossible.

      • bjedwards says:

        Don’t be upset, Bromley. I’ve never known denialists who didn’t deserve the derision they asked for.

        When do we get to hear how your “massive conspiracy” of thousands of climate scientists pulled off your “hoax” over the last three decades? Cat got your tongue.

        Steve Goddard certainly can’t make it work – how about you other denial kiddies?

      • suyts says:

        lmao….. thousands? You better check your numbers again sis, last I checked, it was about 75, but it has probably lowered since that poll.

        I’m still waiting for your scientific response to the peer-reviewed study of the sea-level rate. Cat got your tongue? Oh, wait, lemme guess, you’re not here to talk about anything, you jut wanna do a drive-by, well, by all means, display to the world the alarmists ability in discourse and reason.

    • Old Goat says:

      Budgie, what are you doing here, you stupid parrot? Go back to Delingpole’s blog, where you get the regular kicking you deserve.

  4. Etaoin Shrdlu says:

    How about a more legible page that clearly shows or lists the names of th ese agencies. Makes it easier to use as the 2×4 needed to get “our” elected representatives attention.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Click on the copy to get a better resolution. It is the same suspects just using their graphical representation!

  5. Andy Weiss says:

    In this case, the True Believers are the ones in denial, as they refuse to acknowledge that their forecasts have not verified and that many of their projected trends are not headed in their direction.

  6. bjedwards says:

    It’s not surprising that a bevy of gullible climate change deniers would show up to make fools of themselves.

    You poor denial kiddies have a big problem. None of you have been able to refute the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real, not even after repeatedly asking you to for years.


    And none of you poor kids can get up the courage to explain how your massive conspiracy theory of many thousands of disconnected scientists throughout the world managed to conduct science for three decades that was a “deliberate hoax”, all without other scientists ever catching on.

    You climate change denial kiddies have a conspiracy theory that is as irrational, as impossible, and as stupid as those of 9/11 “Truthers”. Yet you kneel in religious fervor before those who know how gullible you really are.

    Science and nature ignore your puerile politics and conspiracy theories. Your climate change denial movement is headed for the trash bin of history, a sinking ship to which you cling in the arrogance of your ignorance.

    Don’t complain that it wasn’t your choice, kiddies.

    • Dave N says:

      You have too much irony in your diet

    • CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That proves that we are doomed.

    • suyts says:

      Hey sis, if you’d bothered to read the study I just gave you, then you’d see direct refutation to one of the base tenets of the warming fantasy.

      It isn’t science you’re embracing, it is ideology. Nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn’t confuse the two. Nor should you confuse science with science-fiction.

    • Baa Humbug says:

      the two keywords in your drivvel BJ are Thirty Years.

      After 30 years of Catastrophic Global Warming all thats happened is that my eyebrows have singed off….or is that old age.

    • Latitude says:

      either BJ got “it’s” right this time…
      ….or spell check got lucky

      There’s a lot of hate on the left………

      If irritable climate syndrome is a real threat….
      …a none hater would be looking for everything that says it’s not going to happen

  7. Andy Weiss says:

    It would not appear that the True Believer side is winning with either ideas or political action. Is the “hockey stick” happening? Are sea levels rising appreciably? Is Arctic/Antarctic ice rapidly melting? Are the ski resorts sufering per lack of snow? Are hurricanes worse? Are tornadoes more deadly? Are polar bears dying off?

    Unforntunately for them, the alarmists now have a 20+ year track record of actual forecasts, which has been abysmal.

    • suyts says:

      I think that about covers it. After 30 years, I think we can all state, that none of that stuff has happened, ergo, CO2 isn’t running nor ruining our climate.

    • bjedwards says:

      Poor Andy,

      We have a body of science overwhelmingly demonstrating AGW is real. And you still can’t refute that fact.


      All you got is a fantasy conspiracy theory you can’t make work and lots of money behind it to keep you ignorant and gullible. Such is the nature of the political war against science.

      It must be nice to live a life unburdened by reality.

      • suyts says:

        lol, So your body of science refutes reality? What part of what Andy stated do you disagree with?

        Please, you’ve got some science to back that up? Any of it? Or is that you’re just a small little keyboard commando full of bloviating bluster?

      • More CO2 == certain doom

      • suyts says:

        Steve, can I take this moment to complain about the quality of the warmista comments? Obviously, the guest comments of the warmistas a far inferior to the comments of our regular warmistas. Is there some kinda warmista union we can lodge a complaint against such practices? These guys reflect so poorly on the warmistas, that our own warmistas suffer horribly from this. It gives the impression that all warmistas are mindless trolls that know absolutely nothing, when, in fact, we know that some warmistas aren’t mindless trolls, but simply misguided.

      • Anything is possible says:

        Suyts, I think we should try and view bjedward’s comments in a positive light :

        The warmistas are not going to be able to let go of their cherished beliefs without going through the grieving process, butat least bjedwards is showing signs of progressing from “Denial” to “Anger”.

        “Bargaining” and “Depression” promise to be a hoot. (:-

      • suyts says:

        That’s the funny part. I think they’ve painted themselves into such a corner, that the only bargaining that will go on is the “plea” variety for their prophets of doom.

  8. Alan Simpson says:

    BJ is regular troll on Delingpole’s blog, where it regularly takes a beating. Possibly just turned up here with the cut and paste Ad Homs expecting an easier ride.

    • bjedwards says:

      You missed that we turned Delingpole’s comment section into a morass of pathetic Tea Party whiners merrily hopping to oblivion, while Delingpole digs his hole deeper.

      Even now, Delingpole is trying to join his McCarthyite buddies heading to Wisconsin to join the Inquisition they love so much.

      • suyts says:

        In other words, you failed so miserably in convincing anyone that everyone that bothered to read the comment section saw the lack of rational thought expressed by alarmists.

  9. Latitude says:

    and they think they are winning some argument by showing the world what they really are………..

    For the most part, these are people that believe in Darwin and evolution…

    …yet they believe in creationist science

  10. Mike Davis says:

    It is more like they believe in real theories like the Frog Prince who was enchanted, Easter Bunny, Rudolph. What is absolutely obvious is they do not believe in real science but Science Fantasy!
    Phrenology had better scientific research supporting it than Climatology! It is also an older scientific theory by more than one hundred years!

  11. Old Goat says:

    I didn’t see the BBC logo amongst the others, after all, bias is in their genes…

    • suyts says:

      lol, no, these are U.S. federal agencies only. I’m sure Britain has a similar amount of agencies at the trough, though.

  12. bjedwards says:

    It’s fun dropping in a nest of deniers. I’m sure Steve “AGW IS A HOAX” Goddard loves having you flock of gullible dodos around to make my case for me.

    • suyts says:

      Its fun for us, too! There can be no better example of a typical warmista than what you’ve provided so far. You got to a conclusion about that sea-level paper yet?

      • bjedwards says:

        When do you get to the part on showing us why you are so arrogantly against the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real, bubba?

        How many more years are we going to have to wait before you summon up the courage to answer such a straightforward question? Goddard’s chickened out too now.


      • suyts says:

        Sis, I already shown you just one example. You asked, I showed, and you continued to blather on as if nothing was ever said. I’ll show you again,


        It turns out, your “overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real”, isn’t all that overwhelming, nor is it all that real. Tell me again? How are the polar bears doing? Or, as another post here states, show me how the warming is accelerating? And, just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the warming = more snow or warming = less snow? Because, in that particular case, I’m underwhelmed by the logic. Perhaps you can illuminate this one?

        I guess this begs the question, which particular parts of the “overwhelming” body of “science” are you referring to?

        I’m breathlessly anticipating your response. I’ll be back in a few. I’m off to test some theories about the trigonometry of spheres on a plane.

    • More CO2 means we are all doomed. After all CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Your logic is impeccable.

  13. Latitude says:

    now that’s odd….

    People that question the science…

    …are the gullible ones

    People that believe in warmcold, wetdry, droughtflood, snowrain…..

    ..are the enlightened ones

    • suyts says:

      It’s a strange world, isn’t it? But bj doesn’t want to talk of such things. She(or he) wants to ramble on about conspiracy theories. He thinks that all conservatives are in on it.

      • Latitude says:

        well, we are, aren’t we…………..

      • bjedwards says:

        You’re really desperate, bunky. You Bubbas are the only ones needing conspiracy theories to push your “AGW is a hoax” myth. You’re more pathetic than 9/11 “Truthers” and Creationists. You can’t refute the science and you cheer Goddard on every time he so easily gets debunked.

        And the arrogance of your ignorance is on display for all to see.

        Yes, you are bassackwards.

      • suyts says:

        lol…..@ bedweddards

        Sis, first, you must realize, when you’re addressing me specifically, bubba isn’t an insult.

        Secondly, unlike many here, I am a creationist and make no apologies for it. I operate under the tradition of Newton. As did and do many great scientists of today and yesterday. I’m not a great scientist, but operating in such a tradition certainly doesn’t hinder scientific discovery.

        Thirdly, I’ve given you a link to a study that directly refutes the alarmist claim to increase in the sea-rise rate. So, yes, I can refute the psuedo-science. I’ve more, but you have yet to respond to the link I provided.

        Fourthly, I don’t recall anything posted on this site being debunked. Can you provide proof or a reference? Citation? That’s typical when discussing science, but you seem unfamiliar with the norm…….strange.

        Lastly, ignorance occurs from the refusal to see other points of view and expanding one’s perspective. You are the only one here displaying such a mannerism.

        bj, you should stick around, you may learn something. Something about your fellow man, and something about climate along the way.

    • bjedwards says:

      The old “just asking questions” canard, eh, latitude?

      That didn’t get 9/11 “Truthers” any further than it’s getting you. Your “questions” get repeatedly addressed but when you don’t like the answer, you repeat the question ad infinitum. It’s standard denialist methodology for which you are called on the carpet.

      Is it any wonder how completely you’ve been debunked for years? The science is passing you by while you sit hopelessly in a intellectual vacuum whining.

      • Latitude says:

        feel the love…..

        If I ever get the urge the whine…
        ..mind if I quote you

        Do you really believe that anyone can get a temperature reconstruction from trees and ice?
        That’s more on less the whole thing right there.

  14. gofer says:

    BJ is a bot, programmed to spew ad homs. Very entertaining.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, he is. 🙂

    • Latitude says:

      Notice that they are not programmed to quote any of the “science”…..

      knowing it’s too easy to dispute that

      • bjedwards says:

        Why are you denialists having such a hard time refuting the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real, then?

        Gosh, you could be science heroes having overturned a massive solid body of science.

        But no, you sit and whine endlessly, pathetic kids in a sandbox with nothing to show.

  15. Steve Koch says:

    13 agencies doing the same thing! Sounds like a whole bunch of redundancy that can be eliminated to save money.

    • Mike Davis says:

      That is only what is obvious. I recall dealing with Architect students with a grant to receive their degree based on studying the effects of warming on roadway landscaping.

  16. bjedwards says:


    You have the worst reading comprehension problem of the bunch. You know full well that the overwhelming science demonstrates AGW is real. Repeat to yourself until you understand the issue.

    Got it? THAT is the fact YOU have to deal with. If you can refute it, by all means do so. The burden of proof remains on YOUR shoulders to refute that fact. Just as it is on your shoulders as a Creationist to refute evolution.

    This isn’t rocket science. That burden of proof shifted to your shoulders about a decade ago. No amount of your whining will change that; only science will, if warranted it.

    So don’t be a silly denialist and try to shift the burden of proof. Refute the science or finally explain why you are against it.

    Objective reality exists. Get a grip.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Objective reality is not obvious in your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and no real world prof has yet been provided for the claim that Human released CO2 has any measurable effect on long term weather patterns.
      The burden of proof remains on the IPCC and its fan club! Flat Earth and Geocenterism were not conspiracies.

    • suyts says:

      lol, And you still haven’t responded to the study I showed you. Was it too complicated for you to understand?

      I gave you a paper that directly refutes the alarmism of rate of sea-level rise. In other words, reality says it isn’t happening. I’m dealing with it quite well. Thanks. You, OTOH, seem to be thrown into fits of delirium. And, no, the burden of proof hasn’t shifted. For that to happen, alarmists would have to been shown correct on at least one of their prognostications. They haven’t. We’ve refuted the sea level rise. Steve has beat Hansen in the ground with temp sensitivity to GHG, see here for the latest, https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/hansen-it-is-your-eyes-that-are-lying-not-me/

      Polar ice caps haven’t cause run-away global warming. Obviously, the experts’ presumptions regarding albedo were entirely incorrect. The polar bears are thriving quite well. What’s left that causes your great fear of a molecule?

      BTW, evolution and creationism isn’t necessarily exclusive thoughts, but it isn’t pertinent to the discussion of CAGW.

  17. bjedwards says:


    Feel free to refute the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real. I can wait but science and nature aren’t.

    • Mike Davis says:

      There is no real science that demonstrates AGW so there is nothing to refute. I see long term regional weather patterns continuing as they have throughout history and no unique signature to indicate AGW even exists.
      Are you going to be the first to provide that unique signature!

    • suyts says:

      bedweddars, earlier on in the conversation, you implied there were others of the same mind-set regarding CAGW that frequented Delingpole’s blog. Could you be a good lad and run and go get one of them? Someone with a bit more cerebral capacity? While I appreciate you being an example of the typical warmista, trying to engage in a scientific discussion with you is proving to be difficult. You seem to have a difficulty akin to “tourettes” combined with a diminished synapse rate.

      I’ll try one more time. “The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100….”

      If this is too complicated for you then it would be fruitless to engage in conversations about McShane & Wyner, O’Donnall2010, McIntrye, …… or any thing beyond wondering how warming caused all of the cold this winter.

  18. Paul H says:

    I see BJ still has not given us any scientific proof of CAGW and just keeps going on about “overwhelming science”.

    Perhaps he would like to review the 1100 scientists who disagree and then convince himself as to just how overwhelming it is.


    • The proof is trivial. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if we increase the amount of CO2 – everything is going to die a horrible death. Isn’t it obvious?

    • bjedwards says:

      You missed the part where the vast majority of scientists agree AGW is real leaving your 1,100 as a fraction of a percent. Now you know full well that the burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. Sorry, but that is the reality.

      So, demonstrate how and why AGW is not real and why you all believe “AGW is a hoax”. Goddard is evading answering entirely.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s