Who Is Steven Goddard?

It seems fitting that I should have at least one post looking at the Man who’s pseudo-science blog this one parodies.

So what are his qualifications to post on climate issues? Who has/does he work for? How credible should he be taken?

According to a question asked in one of his own postings Mr Goddard says;
“I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering”
So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis’s climate change. Also from various comments and posts it seems that he likes soccer and follows the English Premiership and enjoys cycling.

If you do a search for "Steven Goddard" on Google, it doesn't really show up much and this man seems very elusive, almost invisible. There are no photographs and no biography to the point that ‘Steven Goddard’ may even be a pseudonym. The cynic in me might suggest the name picked as a method of generating search hits on “Goddard” + “climate”.

He has had some articles published in The Register a British technology news and opinion website. Searching his name at The Reg gives links to just 5 opinion pieces all from about four years ago.
One of his pieces posted on Friday 15th August 2008 called ‘ “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered: There’s something rotten north of Denmark” he attacked the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

But after being contacted by Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC he was forced to issue a retraction;

Steven Goddard writes: “Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.”

Unfortunately, this original error raced around the world on the the blogosphere and in many cases remains uncorrected. More information on this retraction can be found here.

Mr Goddard has previously popped up with numerous and inventive “sea ice updates” at Anthony Watts’ WTFUWT blog. This should be a clear warning to any WATTS followers as to the awful standard permissible for posting there, and some embarrassing back tracking has also happened as this post shows; “Arctic Ice Graphing LessonIncreasing Bt 50,000 km2 per year”.

Goddard’s ignorance on sea ice has also made him a topic at Skeptical Science.

Mr Goddard has also contributed to  to the Science and Public Policy Institute‘s never-ending stream of climate denier propaganda joining the ranks of the truly potty with Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley now as a peer. A good over view of his standard of scientific rigour at SPPI can be found at sciblogs;

If anyone else has any relevant information, or even if Mr Goddard himself care to get in touch, to fill in the blanks with some biography or a picture, feel welcome.

UPDATE: I don't know how I missed it but it looks recent - Mr Goddard has an 'About Me' on his site confirming his engineering qualifications, that his name is in deed a nom de plume and claims to be an environmentalist.


  1. Lazarus: The idea that one needs credentials to tell the truth or understand what's going on is just silly. The presumption is that climatologists all agree and cannot be wrong because they are, climatologists. This is what politicians do when they cannot convince people to see their way. They attempt to disqualify. I am not a climatologist, but I can tell you with near certainty that the sun will show itself tomorrow, maybe behind some clouds, maybe not. Are you telling me that I am not qualified to have this knowledge?

    1. Straw man argument. No one has said you need credentials to understand what's going on. But if what you claim is going on isn't what most people with credentials are saying then in all likelihood you have no idea what is going on.

    2. Ever heard of Climategate? Did/does Al Gore have credentials? He only made a "C" grade in science in high school and not much better in college - yet he has become the icon and guru of global warming, since changed to the term "climate change" by progressives and junk scientists [grouped as the same] who have inserted their new world order mentality and ideas of making money over people's fears about something that no one could do anything about if all they claim were true. BTW: It was after Climategate that the progressives changed their crusade's term to "climate change", as if that would change the lameness of their "scientific" tom foolery. None of them has looked at the recent violent activities of our star we call the Sun in response to periodic violent climate/weather anomalies. They would rather join Green Peace and others in being hypocrites and puppets of the various foundations and front organizations of George Soros, notorious globalist. The plot thickens and you mention "straw man" when the people you support are puppeteered by people of that description. "Deniers" are made to look ridiculous, yet 3,000 scientists world wide have signed statements against the jihad global warming mentality.
      Goddard is a crusader, and being human he makes mistakes; but unlike the global warmist fear mongers - he retracts anything that is a mistake.

    3. What a Gish Gallop of misinformation.

      None of the numerous independent enquires in to the illegally stolen emails you refer to as 'Climate Gate' found any issue with the published science.

      Al Gore is a politician, and has never published any climate related research, I don't listen to him, why are you? If he talks about what the science says check it for yourself, I did.

      The term 'Climate Change' has long been used but was promoted by Frank Luntz a Republican Party strategist because it sounded less scary than Global Warming during the Bush Administration.

      It matters not how many politically motivated and largely climate unqualified scientists sign petitions - science isn't done by petition.

      So it seems you have been wilfully duped into believing conspiracy theory nonsense like your hero, the scientifically unqualified Birther who goes by fake name of Steven Goddard. I recommend you check your facts and educate yourself about the real situation rather than believing what you want to be true.

    4. I'm not disagreeing or jumping into an unwanted argument. I just wanted to make sure it's known that you said, "It matters not how many politically motivated and largely climate unqualified scientists sign petitions - science isn't done by petition."

      Science isn't done by consensus, either. I don't care if 97% scientists agree. Over 99% of the world believed the earth was flat. Look how that turned out for them.

    5. Keith said:

      "...something that no one could do anything about if all they claim were true."

      Lazurus, perhaps you are right about Keith's post overall, but that is one point you did not respond to. What, even if mankind is causing global warming can be done about it... and most importantly, at what cost?

      Let's get that nasty little detail quantified. Because, you see Lazurus, only at that point will we be able to truly assess this notion of global warming and determine where it sits relative to other worldwide priorities like Malaria, intransigent poverty, hunger, child mortality, etc.

      Hmmm, the world warming 1/3 of a degree in 10 years seems rather silly in comparison. Don't you think?

    6. 1/3 of a degree in ten years is a straw man. If temps were going to flatten out due to a known negative feedback and after that it didn't matter how much CO2 we emitted (that would be one cool, well calibrated feedback) we could all just happily focus on just those problems you mention. Of course there isn't much chance that's going to happen is there. we would certainly be taking the sit and hope approach. I don't think that's a good business model.

      What can be done about it? That part is pretty basic. It's our CO2 causing the warming so we stop emitting the CO2. Of course since we're going to get more warming from the CO2 already in the atmosphere and we won't be stopping overnight we have to hope we haven't crossed a threshold that will lead to dangerous warming due to feedbacks. Either way there will be mitigation costs. The more the CO2 the higher those costs and the changes we see will hit the most vulnerable the hardest. However I still think the less we emit the more likely we can get through it without massive disruption.
      In the end if we don't stop the best information says it will be somewhere between bad and catastrophic. Unchecked CO2 emissions mean global warming will cause massive economic disruptions and difficulties within the next century. There is no long term point working on your list of issues if we don't stop the thing that will make our work moot.
      But the other question is why do you think it has to be AGW or those other things. I could just as easily say we shouldn't work on poverty because that would detract from our ability to fight child mortality. However, since we're doing a fairly poor job on them now maybe a big global effort to fight a common problem will spur on efforts to fix more or even all.

    7. Hi Shaun Leistikow,

      Firstly I don't know if' 99% of the world believed the earth was flat' or not but I'm fairly sure that 99% of what passed for scientists in those times didn't.

      But you are correct, science isn't done by consensus. That is why when you see petitions claiming X number of scientists don't believe in something, like this for example,
      it should be dismissed as a stunt.

      But true expert consensus is important in all walks of life for people to judge likely hood on subjects they are not experts on. So when 97% of scientists who are researching and publishing in a particular field, and all the worlds scientific academies and institutes are in agreement, you would need a very strong argument and irrefutable evidence to the contrary before it would be rational to disagree. Would you not say so?

      You may find this an interesting read if your are truly unsure about what a scientific consensus is;

    8. The 97% is a 'scientific consensus'. Denial Industry shills either deliberately miss that point or are ignorant of it. A scientific consensus is a consensus of the EVIDENCE - it's got nothing to do with opinions or votes or even 'agreement' between scientists.
      A scientific consensus emerges when all of the EVIDENCE from all of the research from all of the researchers and scientists over all of the decades eventualy shows the same thing.
      There is then nothing left to argue about. This is the state of play with the basics of climate change - that heat-trapping gases released by human activiites are trapping heat and that is causing the Earth to warm.
      That's not anyone's 'opinion' - that is what is known (in laymans terms) as a scientific fact.

      By the way - we have know that the Earth was spherical for 2,300 years. Lord knows where the myth originated that we once though it was flat but it's nonsense.

    9. Thanks Leslie for and explanation of why scientific or expert consensus is valid. Better and more concise than my own.

    10. How anyone can have such great faith in climate models that are failing as we type is beyond me. Here's a consensus of evidence: The warming is not occurring as forecast and the researchers can only grasp at straws to come up with a reason why. The ice was supposed to be gone from the Arctic last summer, yet it actually increased instead of disappeared. Snowstorms were supposed to be a thing of the past, yet this is one of the snowiest (and coldest) winters in the last 100 years in sections of the central U.S., etc. etc. The warming catastrophe scenarios will look as foolish 40 years from now as those of the NASA and Columbia University scientist who predicted future climate catastrophe from cooling 40 years ago. In short, all of the specific climate predictions made at time scales we can verify have failed. Yet we are warned of doom on the horizon and anyone who has the bad manners to point out that the emperor climate models are unclothed is pompously dismissed as a loon or simpleton. Yes, by all means give us a lecture on scientific consensus but please don't parrot shoddy research to blame the "polar vortex" on arctic warming. If you were anything like a scientist you would be skeptical of the doom and gloom, too.

    11. A little more knowledge would help improve your position, Silvio. In fact 2013 saw abundant, anomalous warming in the central and western Pacific. That heat not only devastated the Philippines in the most energetic typhoon on record, it sent a mass of warmed air across the Gulf of Alaska into the Arctic with such energy that it dislodged the jet stream from its usual path. Normally circumpolar arctic air was deflected down into the eastern United States. So extreme warming did indeed occur.

      Then you say "Snowstorms were supposed to be a thing of the past"... yet no competent climate scientist would ever have made such a statement. You'd be interested to find that warm air actually holds more moisture than does cold air-- so in the higher latitudes it will actually snow more during a warmer winter than it will in a cold one.

      The more you learn about the actual science, the more your opinion will carry weight.

    12. Well yea, if you are discussing mathematical models for climatology then yes, you have to have those credentials. Otherwise you are no more engaged than the little kids running through the sprinkler in the back yard. This is rocket science.

    13. Not just those who model climate. AGW and climate change is being researched by many different and diverse scientific disciplines, and many of these neither require or need such models.

    14. The claim that "climate models are failing" is just another lie.

    15. Can anyone explain this?
      "Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

      It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."


      Also, I saw a graph that showed the ice core temps of Greenland have been steadily declining. I,m conused. Are these lies?

  2. Possibly so, and don't take me for a denier/skeptic, etc. In general I acknowledge the likelihood that those who've devoted their careers to the study of climate are likely correct. My own blog so indicates. And it's certainly the case that Goddard (or whatever his name is) has had to retract some statements he's made at WUWT, etc. But he's quite a machine at gathering statistics that make statements by some in the climate science community look foolish, that is, unless he's literally falsified the data he presents. And since it comes from publicly available sources, I doubt that he has done that.

    His current favorite topics are the statements about the "record high temperature records" claims that I've seen, as well as the record high vs. record low ratio and the alteration of historical temperature data.

    Next, calling Mario's comment a straw man argument may be technically accurate but it's quite disingenuous. You do not specifically state but clearly imply that his academic credentials make him unqualified to opine on climate. This is quite clear when you say "So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis’s climate change."

    1. Delving further into your blog, perhaps there's significant evidence that Goddard does, in fact, literally falsify the data he presents. However, I'm going to, based on his reaction to your calling him out on his map, assume that the numbers he culls are factually accurate until shown otherwise.

      Ps: Yes, I know that one shouldn't reply to oneself. But I can't edit my comment (using proper blog etiquette to show the update and the original, of course) so this is the best I can do.

    2. Don't worry about replying to yourself - i do it, usually to correct stupid mistakes.

      Goddard's data sets are correct- no doubt. I have spent time reconstructing some of his own graphs as I did here;

      But his analysis are almost always flawed. He is often very selective in what he uses, using the data most biased to support his belief, or alters it to get the result he wants, often by coloring. He also has the habit of adding 'trend lines' drawn on rather than actually calculated.

      I would be interested, since you seem genuine, in any Goddard post where you think he has made the 'climate science community look foolish' in a credible way.

    3. ".... He is often very selective in what he uses, using the data most biased to support his belief, or alters it to get the result he wants, often by coloring."
      Sort of like college debate 101 not to mention that of scientists in search of grant money.

  3. As a biomedical scientist who believes in accurate and truthful scientific reporting, I thank you for what you do!
    Because of the demands of my own job and the fact that I'm not in the field of climate science I don't have the time to track down these denialists and expose their lies and deceits, but i'm eternally grateful that some people out there do!

    Keep fighting the good fight!

  4. Goddard is maximally dishonest in the way he handles comments on his blog. I have, on multiple occasions, nailed him good, with supporting links that he couldn't refute. I did it again just lately.

    His response is to leave up my initial comments and his snide, dismissive, dishonest responses, but to block or delete my refutations and block me from ever posting again.

    Then he and his minions make great sport for days or weeks of ridiculing my epic "failure".

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. I have also posted on his site, and been ridiculed by him and his followers. My post was about the continuing trend of above average global temperatures and how long an above average trend is likely, all things being equal.

  5. I know the drill believe me. I too have found my self banned from replying. It's easier for him to do that when things get uncomfortable and he starts to look like an idiot in front of his cronies.

  6. Oh my god! He retracted a blog post when it was pointed out to him that his data was incorrect! He's clearly not qualified to comment on the climate!

    Of course, using that same standard, Phil Jones is not qualified, either.

    Oh, wait... Phil Jones actually FAKED his data,and then refused to correct his "mistake". I guess it's OK to be wrong as long as you're intentionally wrong and then stubbornly refuse to admit it.

    But rather than squabble and point fingers, let's look at what Mr. Goddard was claiming in that post which this blogger is criticizing. Perhaps Mr. Goddard was wrong on August 15th 2008, but what's been happening since then? Has the Arctic sea ice disappeared, as the illustrious Dr. David Barber from the University of Manitoba predicted would happen as early as 2008? Ummm... NO! The sea ice has been growing! Did Dr. Barber print a retraction? That's not a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know. But I'll just go ahead and lump him in with Phil Jones and other climate charlatans who can't seem to admit when they are wrong. I bet he's making other ridiculous predictions right now. How else would he keep that research grant money flowing?

  7. Hi Martin and thanks for you comment but it is very uniformed from start to finish. When it comes to Goddard retracting a post I think you may be referring to the issue I blogged about here;


    But this is a fairly isolated incident as other errors that Goddard has been made aware of remain uncorrected. In the case above he did not make the correction because I pointed out the error. When I did he actually called me 'scum' a 'liar', 'idiot' and 'hysterical and completely FOS', (full of shit). Some of these insults occurred more than once in the comments that followed and these were joined by some of his readers calling me a 'dimwit' etc.

    The correction only followed when one of his readers agreed with my analysis. Goddard has never apologised for the name calling nor thanked me or this other reader for finding an error in his 'science' blog.

    Perhaps you think this is an acceptable way for Goddard to behave?

    As for your other points; Prof. Jones did not fake data and Dr Barber did not predict all Arctic sea ice would have disappeared by 2008.

    I reckon that leaves you with three possible ways to respond to my reply. Firstly you could not respond at all and disappear back into the internet suitably chaste. Secondly you could reply with some actual evidence in an attempt to prove your somewhat libellous claims or thirdly you could realise and admit you have been misled and misinformed.

    I wonder which it will be.

    1. Ah, I see what you did there - you asked for evidence. That's not how comment sections are supposed to work. They should be full of unsupported opinions and lots of abuse.

    2. Yep, the abuse thing is rather wearing. I even decided to remove a comment from this tread because I considered it not only abusive but potentially racist. Other than spam it is the only time I have removed a comment. I would have let it go if it was directed at me, but cant allow it as it was aimed at someone else.

  8. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/ - Goddard claims to have found the "motherload" of info showing how the NOAA is incorrect about GW.

    I have even less ability to analyse this than he has evidenced in your analysis - so I have to ask others - is he right?

    1. Ah, Thank you for addressing this! My curiosity about Goddard's most recent claim is exactly what led me to this blog. I'm in the same boat as you, Mike, would like to see what others have to say about it... Regards,

    2. It will probably come as no surprise given the inactivity of this blog that I missed this post from Steve Goddard. I now feel it is mostly a waste of my time contradicting such obvious pseudo-scientific conspiracy nonsense. Few with a genuine interest in real science would be taken in by it and his regular readers are unlikely to look at anything with real critical thinking.

      However since some comments on my own blog have asked about it here I thought it only polite to post a reply.

      I am no expert on temperature sets but I suspect the data Goddard uses are correct but the chances of his finding the 'Motherlode', a term that looks like he wants to be seen as a legend in his own lunch time, is extremely unlikely. While it is possible that he has actually found an error in the data, I base my confidence on this matter on several things;

      The data has been a round for a long time, with policy for it's quality control well documented,

      Is it really possible this 'Motherlode' in the data went unnoticed by so many organisations and researchers that have used it?

      His post is now almost a month old and other than being repeated on the usual right wing blogs and conspiracy sites it doesn't seem to have been picked up by any credible news organisation. A 'Climategate' it isn't.

      Even Roy Spencer, a sceptic scientist who you would expect supportive of such revelations, mentions it and seems unimpressed, saying he noticed this back in 2012. Hardly a 'Motherlode'.

      So all I think is happening here is that Steve Goddard shows that there is a temperature difference between two versions of the USHCN data set which covers only the United States. He highlights data changes in his usual conspiracy theory way. This highlights his ignorance of the scientific method – differences are expected, that's why they are different versions! Adjustments to data will be made as study and research reduce uncertainty and more information becomes available – that is how science works.

      As both use USHCN versions essentially use the same raw data set, it follows that the difference is due to changes in adjustments - these are documented. Steve Goddard then asserts an explanation for the change in adjustments, ie, fraud. He did not survey the literature on the subject. He did not itemise the differences in adjustments between the two. He did not examine the difference between raw and adjusted records at sample sites to identify the reason for the difference. In fact, he presented no evidence whatsoever in support of his hypothesis beyond the original data and his conspiracy to explain it.

  9. It seems to me that the tendency of these climate related discussions is that they ultimately wind up delving into minutia. That is a place where no real answers can be found because climate is such a complex and dynamic occurrence. For climate, the devil is truly in the details.

    That's why I try to avoid falling into that trap. I rather favor the unlikelihood that a world wide discussion could occur at a higher level. The higher level questions I have, and have thus far been unable to find answers for are:

    1) Is global warming occurring?
    2) If it is, does human activity cause or contribute to global warming?
    3) If #1 & #2 are verifiable, what difference does it make anyway?

    The problem I see with the orthodox, is that they jump down to #3 and insist on all measure of costly and destructive regulation before they've gone #1 or #2. Seems like a position that's based more on emotion, passion, faith... rather than upon cold calculated reason. I would like them, in order to prove their credentials, to "put their money" (instead of their foot) where there mouth is. Let's have some predictions! Not some some silly prediction about what the climate will be like in 2035, no let's have them use their divining rods to tell us what it will be like next month. They are the media-ordained experts, after all... right??

    Okay, so maybe a month is too short a period of time for one them to gather together a prediction with enough ghusto. Then what's a minimum period of time they can do it in? I want a reasonable minimum that allows me to ascertain whether or not they understand the climate better than I do. So far, all the king's orthodox and all the king's experts have been unable to do that. For this reason, I consider the study of climate to be more similar to theology rather than science. Perfect scenario for those who wish to pawn it off on the world as science in order to push a political agenda.

    And finally, let's remember that Galileo was a denier, and the orthodoxical believers put him under house arrest for it. But look on the bright side, for the believers did eventually apologize about that one. Problem is that it only took 366 years for ol' Galileo to get his apology! Thanks,

    1. Jimmy S, answers to your questions 1, 2, and 3 are easily found at Skeptical Science.com. On the home page there, click the big graphic button for The Big Picture. After you read that, enter into the site's Search field (top left of every page) to find the post The New Abridged Skeptical Science Reference Guide.

    2. Are the margins of error included in the findings?

    3. Thanks, Tom, for pointing me towards that page. The problem, though, is that what's explained there is not science. It's just more of the same evangelical nonsense. If that stuff over there were science, there would be data regarding experiments verified, and repeated through nonrelated peer review. There would be margins of error footnotes. There would be links to raw data. There would be documented predictions that are shown to have been borne out.

      Consequently, I didn't see the part about why it matters, scientifically, that the globe has supposedly warmed about 2/3 of a degree. And, by the way, no science has ever demonstrated that warming is occurring.

    4. "no science has ever demonstrated that warming is occurring."

      You are wrong but you don't need science, a look at any global temperature for the last 100 years or more shows that warming is occurring. A child can see that.

  10. It seems that this "ridiculously resilient ridge" over socal has defied the orthodox theologically oriented quasi-scientific believers predictions, pontifications and predilections about it's longevity. This thing was supposed to disallow precipitation from falling upon us undeserving fools for at least another month and a half. All, of course, due to human-caused global warming was going to be the preachers' crescendo.

    Low and behold, their climate god works in mysterious ways... apparently. Hallellulah! I guess they're glad to've been so bloody wrong about this one! But that just leads back to the larger question at hand:

    Will they ever be right? Oh, and predicting that they're larger beliefs are actually wrong in sort of a counter intuitive "bait and switch" doesn't count. Nice try, though...

    1. I'm sure it made sense to him.

      I find it interesting how those who are must likely to hold theological beliefs (deniers) are always those obsessed with labeling others (climate realists; 'believers' in evolution/the scientific method) as having 'faith' or being 'theological' in their motivations or methods.

      It's an attempt at false equivocation, which is the modern Conservative movement's calling card. Thankfully, they're only making each other feel warm & fuzzy, and their nonsensical barbs aren't winning them any additional converts.

    2. Well... converts that they aren't currently home-schooling, anyways.

    3. I could not agree more. To my knowledge there are not too many theological beliefs published in the gold standard scientific journals like Nature, Journal of Climate, Science etc.

  11. http://climateconference.heartland.org/speakers/

  12. CO2 was at depletion levels until Man started liberating CO2 buried during the Carboniferous. Crop yields are up 3x since 1960 and the deserts are greening. 400ppm is still too low. 1,500 would be a more normal level and is what greenhouses use. No sign of unusual warming yet, alas. We are still in an ice age and the ice sheets are due back. No worries about oxygen depletion, either. O2 is 21% of the atmosphere and we can barely put a dent in it (CO2 is 1/25th of 1%). It's all good, so burn baby burn. This chart says it all: http://pubsecrets.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/co2-over-geologic-time.png

    1. Some extreme picking of cherries there. Have you any idea how much ocean acidification would occur with the amount of atmospheric co2 you are suggesting and how little is required to seriously damage the food web?

  13. And yet he's still more qualified than Al Gore to speak on the subject.

  14. Not sure he is. Neither has a publishing record in climatology. Is Goddard 'm or qualified than the hundreds of as scientists contributing to the research that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change?

  15. Bill Nye will straighten out those deniers because he's a scientist! And I trust him. He wears a bow tie.

    On the other hand, when it's the UN , Liberals, and the established media pushing something really hard like this global warming or cooling or changing, I'm terrifically skeptical. Usually means, somebody needs to be taxed and gutted!

    1. So much wrong in so few words.

      Bill Nye isn't a scientist, he is a media presenter. If you are getting your information from tv debates it isn't much wonder how ignorant you are. Or is it you like to use unqualified people like Nye, Gore etc as strawmen to allow you to support your own ideology while ignoring the published research?

      If you seriously think there needs to be a global conspiracy involving world governments, international scientists and international institutes and academies to justify taxation you you are clueless about how the world works.

    2. Wow! Your 2nd paragraph is hilarious. Lol! There is no point in continuing this conversation seeing how utterly clueless you are. Cheers!

  16. Maybe this is old news, but his real name is Tony Heller, and he lives in a suburb of Baltimore, MD. As you point out, he claims to be an environmentalist and an electrical engineer, as well as a software developer.

    What he neglects to mention while describing himself is that he is a conspiracy theorist nutcase. His latest fantasy is that NASA and NOAA are cooking the US temp books. Scientific data never get updated in an honest manner with clear public announcements about what's going on and why (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/), according to Heller-Goddard. Nope, it's all willful deception to push the Obama/UN agenda, or whatever.

    Did I mention he's a nutcase?

    1. Ad hominem attacks and discrediting of character ("nutcase", "not qualified", "not a self-defined expert", "not a member of the scientific cartel", "not government-sponsored", "conspiracy theorist", etc) are strong in the climate change alarmist mentality.

      I for one would like to see a comprehensive, detailed, scientific assessment of AGW. One free of personal attacks, logical fallacies, emotional/moral biases or interpretations, sensationalized graphs, cherry-picked data, calls to action, nebulous threats about the end of the world, comparisons with Hitler or Nuclear disasters, and so on. Just the facts in an unbiased presentation meant to inform rather than to promote any particular interpretation. That's how "science" should be served.

      I'm surprised that more scientists aren't ashamed of the way science is bastardized in the media and popular opinion (arguments to authority, popularity, cherry-picking of data, deceptive headlines, utterly false statements, and on and on). This in itself raises a red flag to me (and I suspect to many other skeptics). It makes me wonder if they care more about the politics than about the data or why else they'd be complicit. In our highly political world, could "science" have been corrupted?

      Skeptics are not evil boogie-men (at least not all of us). Many of us are rational, intelligent, and well-educated. Where we seem to butt heads with the "alarmists" is that we aren't satisfied with the fallacies, emotional pleas, and obvious deception surrounding AGW in the media and popular presentations. We only allow ourselves to be convinced by scientific evidence, not by political mind games. We come around asking for the evidence, and we haven't been satisfied with it so far.

      From our perspective, many alarmists seem to have a pre-determined moral/environmental/political agenda that biases them towards eagerly accepting AGW. I'm certainly not suggesting this applies to all alarmists, but I've seen many laypersons admit it. From our perspective, scientists, politicians, and other alarmists can often be seen as preying on this vulnerability in laypersons rather than trying to engage and behave in a serious scientific manner.

      All of the mechanisms that AGW describes need to be proved and quantified before they're worth considering or acting upon. Anecdotal evidence of climate change or correlation with CO2 is not valid evidence for AGW. It needs to be established that it's the best "how" and "why" explanation for the phenomenon. All premature forming of opinions, calls to action, and so on are foolish. Until we understand the causes and mechanisms of climate change to a high degree of accuracy, we'd only be operating in the dark and on a whim.

      AGW skeptics are advocates of truth, skepticism, and evidence in a world that scarcely seems to care about those things anymore. It's irrelevant what kind of degree Steven Goddard has -- the government or universities do not have a monopoly on science, truth, or intelligence. Shame on the author of this blog for piling yet another personal attack on someone who is already under heavy attack simply for daring to speak out against popular opinion, whether he's right or wrong.

    2. Well such a long comment deserves response. I understand your indignant about Ad hominem , it is perfectly justifiable. I just wonder are you as concerned about it when it is used to imply those who accept the science of climate change are terrorists and mass murderers?


      Or compare scientists to child molesters?


      Have you ever commented criticising these examples of Ad hominem? If not would you now? I think you will find it very difficult to find such awful examples of it against those who do not fully accept AGW, but perhaps you can?

      But they say two wrong do not make a right and just because those who accept climate change have been so awfully attacked by some who don’t doesn’t really make it right retaliate even if it is more mildly. So lets have a look at some of the Ad hominem you mention against 'Steve Goddard' AKA Tony Heller.

      First his qualifications, expertise and scientific standing, well when it comes to climate change and the environment that his blog is almost entirely devoted too, he doesn't have any. It cant be Ad hominen to question someone’s fitness to espouse on a matter especially when it is entirely justified. Just as a side point, he does compare climate activists to terrorist, ,nice guy;


      What about conspiracy theorist and nutcase? Well it might not be very politically correct but many would say that a conspiracy theorist, especially when that theory is downright nutty, is a nutcase. One of the definitions on Dictionary.com for 'nutcase' is simply “very foolish person”. Is 'Steve Goddard' AKA Tony Heller a conspiracy theorist with some foolish or nutty theories? Well he is a 'Birther' believing Obama is illegally the president because he wasn't born an Americian. He has made quite a few posts on this matter;


      Perhaps you believe this 'Birther' stuff? Or think it is pretty foolish / nutty? And given that many of his posts, highlighted on this blog and others, suggest some sort of global conspiracy by scientists and governments to hide, manipulate, or spin climate data to show a narrative that he claims doesn't exist, isn't he a 'conspiracy theorist'?

      Well that addresses just your first paragraph! If given the evidence presented here you now accept that Ad Hominem works both ways, but in this case Ad hominen could only apply in the mildest sense, if at all, then I could more onto your later points?

  17. You can read more about me here, Tony Heller, Exposed: http://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com

  18. Thank you Lazarus, your commentary on this subject has been extremely informative. We need more people like you to expose the inaccuracies of those who would deny that global climate change is real. Keep up the good fight.

  19. A degree in geology, like I have, means that Goddard knows that climate has changed naturally for millions of years, and that the recent warming cycle is not unprecedented as the AGW " quasi-scientists claim. My degree also includes physics and chemistry, which enabled me to realize when climatologists claims are contrary to scientific laws. An engineering degree probably also includes those subjects. Therefore your point about Goddard's qualifications is invalid.

  20. Geologists study rocks. Rocks can show Climate Change, so perhaps Goddard is more qualified than you or your cat.

  21. Nope, the car wins hands down. 🙀

  22. Ha-ha hilarious, all of it. Don't know where you get the patience Lazarus.

    Things deniers love to speak about but know nothing of:
    Global cooling: media articles in Newsweek don't count as science. Science discussed particulate loading of the atmosphere and how that could cause cooling as has been seen when there are large volcanic eruptions or more recently in China because of coal fired power plants. Chinese population also has high incidence of respiratory issues. There was also discussion of whether CO2 effects would out perform particulate effects. Clean air acts and the like in most developed nations at the time reduced those particulate emissions of most importance were sulphur compounds which were causing acid rain. At the time, deniers said it would cause economic disaster but if course it was the opposite as industry made billions in patents and filter technology.

    Next, climate change: is a term for changing climate. Global warming is a changing of climate and thus, global warming is a function of climate change.

    The satellite data is perfect and the models wrong: Not so. Satellites don't measure temperature, they measure volts. A computational model is used to determine microwave emissions from oxygen atoms and additional models used to calculate temperature. Those propping up this one data set from RSS have now released 4 versions and each time reveals a stronger warming trend. Why so many iterations? Well, confusing the diurnal cycles of the planet (their input to the model indicated it was warmest at night and coldest during the day) which if this was the other way around the denier community would have had a hissy fit, had difficulty combining multiple satellites data, had trouble accounting for satellite altitude loss. Did I mention that every other dataset, satellite, land, balloon, ocean, ice both land and sea, all indicate a warming trend.

    Politicians: None of them, on either side of this purely political debate, are scientists. I don't care what AL Gore, Ted Cruz or any others have to say. If the person does no research, publishes no research in scientific journals and their work is never cited (citing shows the high confidence in the work) then they are not a scientist.

    Education: a biologist would be no more an expert on atmospheric science than the cat of Lazarus. Same goes for a geologist. See section regarding politicians.

    A ploy for money: Yes, people have jobs they want to get paid for. The Koch brothers earn money from oil and they aren't criticized for trying to earn more money through misinformation (heartland institute, someone in a comment put a link to that trash). Sure, research costs money, are we supposed to stop doing research, return to the dark ages? Next time you have a fever we can slice you open and bleed you, get the devil out.

    When will you, the small minority of the American public going to pull your heads out of the sand? There is no conspiracy, no one is out to get you, no one is trying to take your guns away although maybe they should cause y'all just be killing each other, unfortunately the manufacturing industry is dead due to technology and globalization and no politician can change that, opinion blogs are not reputable science, humans have been to the moon, autism is not caused by vaccines, your government did not plan the attack in New York and the list goes on. You look foolish to the rest of the world.

  23. Probable address:
    Anthony Heller
    Apt. 102
    6509 Quiet Hours
    Columbia, MD 21045
    Tel. (970) 460-6147
    Email: tonyheller@gmail.com

  24. Addendum to the above:
    (This appears to be an 814 sq. ft., “Bedford” unit in the HUD subsidized (low income) “Chimneys of Cradlerock” complex.
    For more information please see:
    (Near the bottom of the page)