So tempted to do a "Climate Cherry Pickers" blog post about this latest effort from Goddard:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/hottest-year-ever-coolest-temperatures-in-the-last-six-years/

Someone hold me back before I give into temptation... otherwise the terrorists win!

What the hell data is Goddard even plotting there?  He claims it's UAH, but it's not UAH near surface temps, which remain high.

Ironically after attacking John for not specifying that he was plotting-land only data, Goddard is completely obtuse about exactly what data he uses here.  Plus the fact that he's cherrypicking October temps over the past 6 years, for only UAH data and only some unknown layer.

Once again, too dumb to even warrant a response.

It's great therapy, being able to vent on the forum without giving any traffic to Goddard.

Although I just realised, if he looks at his traffic stats, he'll see all these visitors coming from a Skeptical Science forum that he can't view. That would be frustrating :-)

Goddard Debunked haha... List and show every time he was debunked and how.

Ouch!. That would be a full time occupation. I thought the same thing about BP, RVSP etc, tracking all their contradictory arguments and linking to them each time they posted a comment which contradicted an earlier one. No thanks. That too would be a full time job.

Oh well,  there has been a huge increase in global warming on 10/9 from 2008 to 2010, the highest on (6 years) record (in that date). Anthony Watt did the same thing last year with arctic ice, one day below the last few years and a blog post.

They're carefull to craft the sentence in a such way that you can't say it's wrong, on this date temperature is the lowest on (few years) record. The relevance is nihil, but they don't tell you. This is why I think they're not dumb, they're dishonest.

Don't waste your time, John, pursuing these floods on nonsense, you and SkepticalScience have a good reputation :)

I have to admit, I can't resist him.  I've been posting there for a couple of days and I'm just astounded at how inane his arguments are.

Then each time I kind of get him cornered he says I'm wasting his time.

It turns into a bit of an addiction. I really have to stop. 

 I like Robert's idea of a Goddard Debunking area.  It would be kind of like a side show comic relief section. 

It is fun commenting on skeptic sites. In the early days, I used that as training - commenting on skeptic blogs. I liken it to the movie Batman Begins where Bruce Wayne getting himself arrested and into fights in prisons (him saying "you're practice" to a prisoner). It's also a good opportunity to listen - understand the thinking and values of skeptics.

I eventually gave it up (for the most part) merely because I figured it was a more efficient use of time to create content on SkS that others could use as a resource rather than writing content for a handful of unconvertable skeptics.

So maybe Goddard is the crumb of sand in the oyster...

It might be worthwhile to drop by once in a while to make sure other people notice and get irritated as well.

To take this slightly off-post

I can't ignore the analogy/reference to Ren & Stimpy. I don't know if that was your intent John, but linking the classic R&S scene 'Must Save The Brain' to Goddard is precious.

G

I have a coffee cup in the shape of ren's head which freaks my 11 year old daughter out - she doesn't know who R&S are. Definitely a spongebob generation, that one.