Climate Attribution Achieved

Until now, it has been impossible to link specific junk science papers to excessive amounts of climate research funding.

However, we do know that the availability of billions of dollars to fund climate science, loads the dice for academics to generate worthless, dishonest and misleading papers.

For the first time, we can specifically tie peer-reviewed junkย science papersย to the availability of junk-science money.


About stevengoddard

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

56 Responses to Climate Attribution Achieved

  1. GeologyJim says:

    Eisenhower had it right – – – “We must guard against the technological elite supported by government funding” [paraphrase]

    The amazing and disappointing thing about all this is how thoroughly the teat-suckers have been willing to prostitute themselves and scientific principles to protect the sow

    • physicist says:

      Eisenhower specifically said military-industrial complex. The military sucks up $1Trillion per year. So speaking of teats and sow, there they are.

      the rest of your stuff is pure bull shit with nothing to back it up

      • How is your Farsi, Russian and German, dumbass?

      • Bob Koss says:

        Eisenhower also specifically warned about the scientific-technological elite. So it seems you are the one spouting pure BS.

        Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

        The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
        and is gravely to be regarded.

        Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

      • savebyj says:

        physicist you were just owned! Those damn pesky facts just keep getting in the way eh?

  2. Junk science: Identify a modelling paper that predicts catastrophic consequences 100-500 years into the future, detached from an empirical basis.

    These are largely exercises in mental masturbation. The claims made cannot be proven or disproved. The reason why climate science is in part a junk science field, is that such papers get published in journals. They are of little use to anyone who reads them, and it is impossible to replicate any claims made.

    • physicist says:

      Well, loud mouth here’s your chance to put up or shut the fuck up.

      The American Physical Society now has a “Focus Session” on “The Physics of Climate” at its General Meeting in Baltimore, March 18-22, 2013.

      Topics include, but are not limited to:

      1) Climate as a complex dynamical system;

      2) Mechanisms, magnitudes, and timescales of processes that affect climate, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar variability, feedbacks involving clouds, water vapor, sea ice, hydrological and carbon cycles, and ocean-atmosphere interactions;

      3) Physics of proxies used to infer past climate forcings and properties for which instrumental records are unavailable;

      4) Computational and statistical analyses of climate models and measurement systems.

      So let’s see some papers submitted by the bull shit slingers around here. If you have the guts to stand up in public and speak about your ‘research’ and ‘findings.’

      I’ll bet all these newspaper articles will make for a good paper. Or maybe a good laugh.

      And if you need any help getting papers submitted, let me know. I’m a member of APS and might be able to help you get the opportunity to step all over your dicks.

      • Those pesky newspapers. They claim that the 1930s was hot, and that there really was a Holocaust.

      • Already covered. The week after that, I’ll be annoying the American Psychoanalytic Association by pointing out that all their goofy ideas has been ignored by mainstream science for the last 80 years. Following on from that, I’ll be attending a special meeting of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, to explain to them that 10,000,000,000 – 5 does not add up to -5. Sadly though, there are far more goof ball but authoritatively sounding groups out there, that I can bring down. But I’ll keep fighting the good fight! ๐Ÿ™‚

      • physicist says:

        just a bunch of chicken shits. no guts to say things directly, face to face, to the scientists you slur. about what i expected. your supposed ‘science’ would not stand up to scrutiny, and you know it. just a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists.

      • physicist says:

        there’s a cottage industry out there debunking all your bull shit, and heartland, and on….

        you are a gutless wonder, go present your bull shit to real climate scientists and see how quickly you get your ass wiped all over the floor.

      • physicist says:

        ooohhhhh, there were some hot days in the 1930s, AGW disproved. QED. what bullshit.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        you are a gutless wonder, go present your bull shit to real climate scientists and see how quickly you get your ass wiped all over the floor.

        Sign your authentic name to what you write and show us you’re not a fucking gutless wonder

      • Me says:

        pHyescyst you haven’t put up yet so take your own advice! ๐Ÿ˜†

      • Me says:

        What a douchebag you are pHyescyst, errr is it pHdouche err Coolwhip Cowboy? ๐Ÿ˜†

      • Me says:

        I think I just heard that Batshite crazy pH’s head wistle from blowing it’s top! ๐Ÿ˜†

      • It’s the standard alarmist flip-out they do when they find out that their ideas are dog shit stupid (except when discussed inside their very very tight little bubble). Seen it a thousand times before, will see it a thousand times again…

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Maybe you should stick to drinking. You are a real ahole when you aren’t drinking.

      • physicist says:

        @ me,

        If I were saying that 180 years of scientific research was fucked-up, if I were saying the the overall conclusions of hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers over that time was fucked up, if I were saying that the textbooks on planetary climate science were fucked-up, and if I thought I had the data and analysis to show that all that was indeed fucked-up, then I would think that there was probably a Nobel Prize in there to go to a public science meeting show that all that science was fucked-up.

        but clearly all the nitwits here just like to crow that everything is fucked-up, but don’t have the cajones to go out and try and prove it to the community. no guts, no glory.

        but they can’t show that it is fucked-up, except to the nitwit commenters here, so they know they’d make fools of themselves. and they see no need to do that. much easier to just have fun here.

      • Throw in a few citations to James Hansen and DeSmogBlog so as to make your goofy ideas sound… hmmm… even more goofy?

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        A drunk I saw two nights ago outside the metro station yelling at nothing in particular sounded just exactly like you do.

        What an uncanny coincidence!

      • Me says:

        They don’t have to be drinking to be assholes, they don’t have to do anything but whine! ๐Ÿ˜†

        They all sound like this right now…..

      • Eric Barnes says:

        @Me : I’m not sure physicist is that composed.

      • Me says:

        Well I’m some happy the pHysecyst was talking to himself by his comment to himself!

      • Me says:

        Your just that fucked yuuup pHyescyst, along with the rest of yer kind! ๐Ÿ˜†

      • This thread is pretty funny. Cracking up over here. Thanks guys.

      • Me says:

        pHyescyst, Yer not that Batshite guy are ya? ๐Ÿ˜†

      • Me says:

        Hey Will, Now you know! ๐Ÿ˜†

      • Me says:

        Where did ya go pHyescyst? Come out and play! ๐Ÿ˜†

      • savebyj says:

        It would be nice if all those wonderful Scientists could use all of that data, knowledge and physics to ACTUALLY PREDICT THE FREAKING WEATHER! Considering that with all those brains in the room they can’t come up with a computer model that accurately predicts the weather beyond me standing outside and telling them what it actually is I don’t think I’m going to hold my breath on this Global Warming crap.

        This has never been about the weather. This has been about a group of people who think they are smarter than everyone else so therefore should have the power to tell everyone else how to live their lives. You want to be our Gods.

        My response to that is the same one that Davy Crockett gave:

        “You may go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.”

        Oh wait, I am already in Texas. So you just may go to Hell.

      • tckev says:

        Sounds a lot like mental massage for the hard of thinking.
        Easy question where’s the proof for CO2 forcing?

  3. Andy DC says:

    A funny comeback to their own “loads the dice” expression about extreme weather events. Lately seems like the number of junk alarmist papers far exceeds that of extreme weather events.

  4. GeologyJim says:

    Jeez, I think “physicist” needs a time-out or some relaxing meds

    Here’s a question for anyone:
    Ice core records clearly show 4 ice ages in the last 500K years. Every Ice Age cooling event began when the existing temperatures and CO2 levels were at contemporary high levels.

    So, if CO2 is so all-fired important in controlling temperatures, how is it that the climate COOLED repeatedly to another Ice Age? and another Ice Age? etc.

    No other bullsh*t. Just answer the question.

    We’re all waiting ……..waiting waiting

    • Climate scientists would say that other factors were more important back then, such as the planet’s orbit, the location of the continents, solar activity perhaps, and so on.

    • physicist says:

      Try reading, reading, reading.

      It’s always a good idea to start with a text book.

      See pages 89-94 from “Global Warming:Understanding the Forecast” by David Archer from the U. of Chicago.

      You would also benefit from reading the whole book. It’s only 183 pages. It’s written as an introductory undergraduate text.

      If you want something more high powered (advanced undergraduate or graduate level) try “Principles of Planetary Climate”

  5. gator69 says:

    “In the period preceding the December 17, 1903 Wright brothers’ triumph at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the U.S. government spent $70,000 on a grant to Dr. Samuel Langley to develop a heavier-than-air flying machine. The award of this grant followed standard bureaucratic procedures. Dr. Langley, director of the Smithsonian Institution, was one of the most renowned scientists of the time. When Dr. Langley became interested in investigating flight he was able to marshal tremendous technical and financial resources.

    The selection of Langley as the recipient of government funding was technically unassailable. It was the type of decision that a well motivated government bureaucracy would make time and again. The credentials were impressive. The funding was more than adequate. Yet, despite the head start and more lavish budget enjoyed by Dr. Langley, it was the Wrights who succeeded.

    On October 7, 1903, the aircraft developed by Dr. Langley’s team was deemed ready for a test flight. The aircraft was to be launched [p. 309] from a catapult on a houseboat in the Potomac River, with Charles Manly serving as pilot. Excitement filled the air as the houseboat reached the launch site. A large crowd gathered, fireworks were set off, and newspapermen jockeyed for position in the hope of witnessing the momentous occasion of man’s first flight.

    Hopes were raised and hearts quickened as the aircraft’s engine roared to life. At full throttle the craft was released from restraint and lunged along the catapult track toward launch. A few seconds of glorious acceleration were followed by an unceremonious plunge into the Potomac by the would-be airplane.

    The pilot and aircraft were salvaged and preparations were made for another flight. On December 8, 1903, with diminished fanfare, another test flight was attempted. Unfortunately the aircraft became entangled in the launching mechanism, was severely damaged, and toppled into the river.

    Little more than a week later the Wright brothers successfully flew a heavier-than-air machine. Disappointed at being bested in the effort to develop an airplane, Dr. Langley, in a fashion that has come to characterize the persistent failure of government undertakings, laid much of the blame on “inadequate” Federal funding.”

    Two bicycle mechanics were able to pull off what the world’s greatest scientist could not, even with a houseboat full of money from Uncle Sam.

    This is why credentials mean nothing when we are exploring new territory, and AR4 admits to a “low to very low understanding” of 80% of climate forcings.

    Yep, Sam was a physicist too! ๐Ÿ˜†

    • physicist says:

      Right, and it was a couple of bicycle repair persons who got us to the moon, without any government funding.

      • gator69 says:

        Actually, if you knew anything at all, you would know that rocket technology was off and running 20 years before we decided to use one to visit your home.

        Powered flight was unheard of in 1902.

        Look! Two failed physicists on this page alone! ๐Ÿ˜†

  6. Michael says:

    C’mon, guys, “physicist” is obviously in the “anger” stage of mourning. Help him through the process. Like all CAGW followers, his entire belief system was centred around avoiding beef so that there would be fewer car farts, and blaming rich people driving SUV’s for ruining his non-existent offspring’s future.

    Finally, Pope Gore was discredited in a court of law in the UK, with his video being exposed as outright fraud. Then, Bishop Mann’s data cherry-picking and invalid statistical methods were equally exposed, with his “hockey stick” being shown to be an outlier in the vast array of peer reviewed studies showing temperature variability over the past 1,000, 2,000 and 10,000 years of earth’s history. Climategate showed that his entire “scientific” community don’t even believe their own studies, but need to “hide the decline” to continue sitting at the trough of publicly funded “science”. The 400 parts per million (the occupants of the press box at today’s college football game) of CO2 stopped working its magic and the climate monitoring gods had to admit that the earth had, indeed, stopped warming in the late 20th century even with CO2 levels continuing to escalate. Others tried to discredit the ideologically uncleansed through forging documents and developing “studies” to show that non-believers are conspiracy theorists or other sorts of basic nut jobs, but they got caught in their duplicity. Then, and this is the kicker, the record ice melt, which was finally proof that the canary died at 390ppm, re-froze in record time.

    Give Physicist time, if he has a brain, he’ll get through the mourning process and admit he was wrong. If he doesn’t, feel free to laugh at his expletive filled drivel.

  7. frankpwhite says:

    A lot of abusive ad hominem stuff here that does not help anybody but the abusers get off.

    I remember when the geophysicists were saying that continents don’t move except up and down. A German scientist called Wegener [son-in-law of Kรถppen] claimed that continents wander from place to place as well as bob up and down. But the geophysicists succeeded in banning discussion of the empirical evidence because THEY had not found a mechanism.

    Some background stuff here:

    Around 1958, a professor warned us that we had to avoid talking about continental drift if we wanted to teach at a university anywhere in North America. J.S. Gould said that the PhD candidates at Harvard had to meet on the back stairs to discuss continental drift.

    So, if we say to the physicists, you are not there yet. The models have to have speculative positive feedbacks to make them fit the observations.

    And we are not confident about the way in which time-series are analyzed. Statistical analysis based on cointegration would alleviate some of these concern about spurious regressions in time series.

    I have more physics and maths than most of the professors I had as a graduate student and had far more difficulty with the heuristics they used than they did, because so many of the models don’t make sense. Missing variables, autocorrelation, mis-specification of the variables, etc.

    I am a climate skepticist because I have seen too many blunders, too much over-confidence, and too much bureaucracy in managing publicly-financed projects.

    Maybe the alarmists are right, but I do not believe the sky is falling. There are low-hanging clouds, but right now we cannot put it all together. Maybe another 20 years from now we will know.

    • LLAP says:

      Well said!

    • physicist says:

      Let’s suppose you are right, and that we really are not quite sure, but that in 20 years we do know for sure that human generated CO2 is indeed a cause of increased temps, and that the consequences of increased temps turn out to be not too great for a lot of people?

      what would you propose to do then, other than just say tough luck, got to live (or die) with it? how would you propose to get the CO2 out of atmosphere?

      I do know that the probability of my house burning down is quite low, but I do not use that as an excuse to not buy home owner’s insurance.

      • gator69 says:

        Let’s suppose the Christians are right. Why risk eternal damnation? We should have the UN legislate a one world church, intolerant of heretics, heresy punishable by law. Think of the billions of souls saved for all eternity. At that cost how could you possibly say no?

      • Eric Barnes says:

        So you are a neurotic as well as a moron?

      • rw says:

        I’d say that Hansen et al are quite sure – that’s why they are so unashamedly manipulating the temperature record. (Behavior tells all.)

        Incidentally, if you were really a scientist, you would be very uneasy about founding an enormous intellectual edifice upon temperature station averages (note that I don’t say “average global temperatures”).

      • LLAP says:

        @Physicist: Let’s suppose that in 20 years, we do know for sure that human generated CO2 does indeed have little to no effect on climate (or that it is actually beneficial for plant life and agriculture). How do we get back the (by then) trillions of dollars wasted studying and trying to fight an imaginary problem? Do we just say “tough luck” to the taxpayers who got hosed and simply move on?

      • The field is so uncertain that 0.5-2C of warming is likely a net benefit. Economists (such as Richard Tol) factor in benefits before considering costs, and these costs usually kick in around 2C and above. Since 2C of warming or higher is starting to look like a vanishingly small possibility, activists are attempting to waste trillions of dollars in lost economic benefits for what ultimately may turn out to be a net benefit to society. Let’s not even get into the argument that mitigation is vastly cheaper in the long run than attempting to shut down CO2 output.

    • Eric Barnes says:

      If all that you get from the catastrophic AGW campaign is that a small group of scientists are overconfident in models, you are missing the boat.
      The case for certain dangerous climate change is scientific fraud, and anyone passingly familiar with the data should know it.
      The pretext of dangerous climate change is being used as a power grab by agencies in our federal government and it’s at the expense of the the standard of living of everyone not on the receiving end of this fraud.
      You may understand the science, but your point of view lacks depth. This isn’t an argument in a gentleman’s social club. IMO, many on the other side know this is a fraud and are evil.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s