{"id":402080,"date":"2025-09-14T18:43:33","date_gmt":"2025-09-14T16:43:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402080"},"modified":"2025-09-14T18:43:35","modified_gmt":"2025-09-14T16:43:35","slug":"attribution-and-misattribution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402080","title":{"rendered":"Attribution and Misattribution"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest Post by\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Willis Eschenbach<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Well, my previous post with this title got lost in the process of the WattsUpWithThat design update. And sadly, I didn\u2019t have a copy of it. So, this is a recreation.

I saw that CNN had an article with the scare headline \u201cScientists trace heat waves back to individual fossil fuel companies, with potentially sweeping courtroom implications<\/a>\u201c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right, sez I. So I went to look at the \u201cscientific study\u201d. It\u2019s called \u201cSystematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors<\/a>\u201c. (\u201ccarbon majors\u201d are by and large the major oil companies.) It claims that the big oil and gas companies are responsible for the heatwaves and should be penalized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Riiight, sez I \u2026 let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that the oil companies only emit a tiny fraction of the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions<\/strong>. Where do the fossil fuel emissions come from?

You and me.

I\u2019m the guy firing up my gas stove to cook dinner, not Shell Oil. It\u2019s me starting my pickup truck to go to town, not ExxonMobil.

Blaming the oil companies for CO2 emissions from humans burning fossil fuels is as stupid as blaming the forest for CO2 emissions from humans burning firewood.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, cold causes nine times the death that heat causes, so the gradual recent warming is saving lives, not costing lives \u2026 but I digress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyhow, I took a look at it and just shook my head. This is not only junk science. It\u2019s nasty insidious junk science that the authors say is specifically designed to provide \u201cscientific\u201d backing for attempts to get money from the carbon majors for \u201cheat wave damages\u201d and the like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They explicitly say they\u2019ve done the research so that people can sue the \u201ccarbon majors\u201d for big money. Using the mantle of \u201cscience\u201d to try to extort money from the \u201ccarbon majors\u201d is just inhumane. That can only INCREASE FUEL PRICES, which hurts the poor more than anyone. It\u2019s the cruelest tax of all<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, headshakes are not peer-reviewed evidence. So, how to best fight this dangerous misinformation? I turned the job over to my graduate assistant, the world\u2019s dumbest genius librarian, perplexity.ai<\/a>. Here was my request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Provide a detailed, well-cited critical assessment of the following \u201cscientific\u201d study. Investigate all assumptions and methods.
https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41586-025-09450-9<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Of course, before hitting \u201cEnter\u201d, just below my question I pasted in my usual prompt to keep the AI between the ditches, viz:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

INSTRUCTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wikipedia Usage:<\/strong>
You may investigate the sources listed by Wikipedia, but do not use, quote, or cite Wikipedia itself under any circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Factual and Objective Language:<\/strong>
Provide only plain, unvarnished facts in strictly objective, biological, and legal terms. Avoid political correctness, euphemisms, and identity language. Prioritize factual accuracy over sensitivity. Use biologically correct pronouns based on birth sex, not \u201cpreferred\u201d pronouns. Do not use bold text in your answers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific Claims:<\/strong>
When discussing scientific topics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n