Accusing Scientists of Fraud While Committing Fraud

Steven Goddard is a blight on the skeptic community. Any skeptic who wants to be taken seriously should avoid him like the plague so as not to be tarnished with his infantile behavior and idiotic posts. Unfortunately, that's not what happens. If you want to see what Goddard is like, feel free to visit his blog. Or if you'd rather not subject yourself to that, you can read the first post I wrote about him last year where I pointed out he accused dozens of scientists of committing fraud by adjusting ocean temperature data while pointing to results which didn't even use ocean temperature data.

Yeah, he's that incompetent. That's not what today's post is about though. I've normally tried to ignore Goddard as there's no point repeating myself over and over. What he says is stupid and disgusting. Accusing everyone you disagree with of having committed fraud based upon basically nothing is pathetic. What's even more pathetic, however, is the fact Goddard is incredibly dishonest himself.

That's what today's post is going to be about. Goddard, who constantly accuses every scientist he can find of having committed fraud, secretly edits his posts and deletes people's comments to cover up his mistakes. In layman's terms, secretly replacing product so as to cover up deficiencies might be considered fraud.

To understand what I'm talking about, look at this screenshot I took with my phone:


That's from the comments thread of this post, titled "UK Met Office Raises The Bar On Climate Fraud." If you go to that post, however, you won't find that comment. You also won't find any mention anywhere of 0.702 degrees. The comment was deleted. The portion of the blog post it referred to was removed. None of this was disclosed. It's only by chance I happened to still have the page open on my phone and thus was able to save a copy of that comment.

Here is a copy of the original post. If you compare it to the current version (which I've archived here), you'll see it's been signifcantly altered. The first paragraph, table and graphic shown in this picture were all removed:


Why? Because the user Barry Woods commented to point out Goddard had misunderstood what he was looking at. Rather than admit his mistake and thank Woods for catching it, Goddard deleted the errant text, deleted Woods's comment and added a whole bunch of new stuff. The replacement began with:


And continues with this addition:


And finally this:


You can see the text at the bottom of that image matches the text at the bottom of the original post's screenshot. That shows you the extent of the alterations.

Steven Goddard made a huge blunder. He accused people of lying because the amount of warming they said they found from a baseline taken in the 1900s was smaller than the amount of warming they found if they took their baseline as being before the 1900s. It was a boneheaded mistake. He could have corrected it. He could have admitted his mistake, apologized for making it and thanked Barry Woods for pointing it out. Instead, he deleted Woods's comment and secretly edited his post so nobody could see that he had made a mistake.

If Goddard is going to behave like that, it's incredible he has the audacity to accuse other people of being dishonest and committing fraud. Even more incredible is the fact anyone takes him seriously. It's a crazy world when a person can lie to people's faces then get them to applaud when he accuses other people of being liars.

7:35 AM Update: It's been brought to my attention I was wrong to say Steven Goddard deleted Barry Woods's comment. Apparently, Goddard runs two different websites where he posts the same posts, but the comment streams are different. The result is a comment posted on one site won't be visible on another. I find that baffling, but it means you can find Woods's comment here. The comment, of course, would make no sense to a reader seeing it given the secret changes Goddard made to the post.


  1. Steven Goddard, I don't know why you think correcting your post quickly after your mistake was pointed out to you somehow justifies hiding the alterations. Taking a longer time to make secret changes wouldn't be any worse than taking a short time.

  2. One might also dispute Goddard's claim that "They [UK Met Office] also showed more than 1C warming in 2012", illustrated by a HadCRUT4 graph on which Goddard superposed a line around 0.5 K above the 1961-90 average, and which indicates multiple excursions above that level. The Met Office post clearly states that they take 1850-1900 as a reference period to represent pre-industrial conditions. From the current HadCRUT4 data, the mean over that interval is -0.313 K relative to the 1961-90 average; hence the correct threshold would be +0.687 K above 1961-90. One may argue about the most suitable choice of reference period, but that's not the same as mis-using the UKMO's criterion.

  3. HaroldW, I do like how Steven Goddard drew the bottom line for that figure to intersect with the temperature record at 1910, when talking about the temperature rise since preindustrial times. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to paint 1910 as preindustrial.

  4. Calling 1910 preindustrial is stretching the point somewhat, but it would be accurate to describe pre 1910 as having the same static Co2 levels as during the pre industrial times. In other words we had still raised levels so little by 1910 that the concentration could not possibly impact on climate.

    Here are the historic levels of co2 that I graphed against CET several years ago


  5. Whatever the CO2 levels may have been in 1910, the discussion was about the rise in temperature since preindustrial times. The graph clearly shows 1910 was significantly colder than any earlier portion of the record, meaning Steven Goddard chose to use the coldest part of the graph despite the fact it wasn't part of preindustrial times.

    Naturally, he did this while claiming they had previously shown more than 1 degree of warming, a claim he could only make by doing that.

  6. #1 Brandon, mate I would have put your correction note at the top of the page...and apologised to SG for that error. *
    Jeez my heads spinning at all this.
    But that's good, cos this shows how complex the real world is.

    - SG cheated a bit, he quickly corrected one error, added one more, but failed to add a correction note.
    - Brandon noticed it, made some reasonable assumptions and called out SG in an aggressive blog post
    - One of Brandon's 2 main claims turns out to be wrong and he added a correction note.
    - But true SG had rewritten the second section ..without an update note
    - SG had replaced the 2nd section with 2a,2b,2c,2d (ie 4 new sections)
    in 2b he twisted info, the fact that 1910 temps were unusally low so say 'anyway the temp had already risen by 1C in 2012'
    - Brandon's accusation of dishonesty is in the plural, but he only quotes this one example.

    People often think that Americans lack humility **
    and in both your blogs I see a lot of dramaqueening ...FFS don't throw the word 'fraud' around like that.

    ** Have you not noticed that people use your aggressive speech style as an excuse to dismiss you ?
    There is perhaps a reason why British older people don't dramaqueen..and that is perhaps cos you end up getting caught out.

    Brandon made an understandable error
    - It is a bit weird that Steven Goddard keeps 2 blogs with the same content, but different comments.
    So I can understand Brandon concluded Barry's comment had been deleted.
    (By coincidence I had seen this post with Barry's comment on and concluded 'ah SG must have already corrected this post')
    BWTF it was an extraordinary claim so why didn't you just simply ask SG ? (rhetorical Q) he responds easily.
    * I would have actually shown a hatchet job post to the accused before I post it to give him right of reply.
    I just tell people generally to avoid getting carried away by hyperbole on any one website, and that they'd save a lot of time by not bothering to read SG's blog.

  7. StewGreen, I can't see apologizing for failing to accurately describe the nuances of a person's dishonesty in a way which doesn't change the underlying issues any.

    As for "dramaqueening," you are welcome to to believe that is what I do, but the truth is my so-called aggressive style is nothing more than me stating the teuth as I see it. People may use that to dismiss me, but if they agreed with what I said, they would most likely embrace it as people generally state they like a matter of fact approach to discussions.

    The truth is people will always be able to find excuses to dismiss people if they really want to. If the best excuse with me is that I am blunt, I'd say that's a good thing.

  8. #1 Brandon S posts about Steve Goddard being too gung ho and throwing accusations around, unfortunately he HALF screws it up by being too gung ho himself.
    #2 Nov 7th I had a discussion with Paul Homewood about ANOTHER set of posts where Goddard is being gung ho about NOAA 'removing' a page containing the phrase “given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year” right after doing a press release saying it's 3mm/year.
    In a later post I point out that the NOAA page that coincidentally disappeared has now re-appeared (still up) only for another to go missing It sill is

  9. Given - inter alia - your tirade against Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession" - which you clearly didn't bother to read - I don't think you're in any position to insult anyone - especially Steve Goddard, Schollenberger.

    As for "the truth is my so-called aggressive style is nothing more than me stating the teuth as I see it", I suspect you wouldn't recognise the "teuth" if it ran under your bridge and bit you on the snout.

    You are just another Internet wannabe hard man who can dish it out but can't take it.

  10. David Walker, you are free to believe whatever you want about me, but I sincerely doubt you will convince many, if any, people I have not read Mark Steyn's book given my extensive commentary on it. I don't think many will believe I could have written all that when I "clearly didn't bother to read" the book.

    But you are free to believe what you wish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *