2010-10-05 15:15:42I get the feeling Steve Goddard is trying to get our attention
John Cook


Latest from Steve Goddard:


There are some people who are so wrong so often, I assume everything that comes out of their mouth is incorrect. Steve Goddard is one of those people. I think Steve has had more than his 15 minutes worth of fame, I don't plan to give him too much attention (maybe even giving him that bit of attention over the cherry picking sea level rise was ill advised but I couldn't resist).

2010-10-05 15:41:23


My opinion of Goddard took a steep and permanent decline to the bottom of the Y axis when I ran across his slimy, winking, insinuation likening teachers to pedophiles (paedophiles for some of us). 

He's disgusting, ought to be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.


2010-10-05 15:43:30Like the Japanese did the USA at Pearl Harbor
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Can he be really that lazy to not even check that Alan was the guest author of that post?

I intimate lazy, because it's evident from oh-so-many instances that he is clueless.

That was a world of hurt just reading the first 21 comments.

The Yooper

2010-10-05 15:58:41comment
Robert Way

John I agree,

He had his chance at the big show over at WUWT and failed miserably. Lets keep from giving him any extra traffic unless he really oversteps.
2010-10-05 16:48:22oh, goddard
Dana Nuccitelli

"There are some people who are so wrong so often, I assume everything that comes out of their mouth is incorrect. Steve Goddard is one of those people."

No question about it.  I just love how he plots atmospheric CO2 with the y-axis from 0 to 300 ppm in order to argue "Atmospheric CO2 was nearly dead flat."  It was pretty flat, but geez, would it kill you to use a reasonable range on the y-axis so we can actually see that?  Not to mention that he criticizes JC even though the first words in the article are "Guest post by Alan Marshall".  In bold text no less!

And of course the content of Goddard's article is utterly stupid.  Precisely what we've come to expect from a guy who wasn't even good enough for WUWT.  No doubt he's just desperate for attention now that he's off on his own.

2010-10-05 22:57:07


Goddard is engaging in the time-honored blog practice of "attacking upward" in an attempt to boost his own stats (note that he's posted gloating comments about how rapidly his page views have risen). 

Ignoring him is probably a good policy.  Alternatively, one could ignore him 90% of the time and just pick out the occasional howler and subject it to a thorough debunking. 

The one thing to avoid is getting into an escalating cycle of back-and-forth between SkS and his site.  That's exactly what he wants, and exactly what we shouldn't give him.

2010-10-05 23:08:44

Goddard's a narcissist. Let him stew in front of his mirror, alone and unremarked. 
2010-10-05 23:10:04Exchange at Goddard's
Robert Way


Gneiss says:

October 3, 2010 at 9:13 pm

stevengoddard writes,

“Huh? The CO2 graph in the article is the “industry” standard Law Dome data. What

is it you think I am hiding?”

You know very well what he means. But your readers are not sharp enough to see it?


stevengoddard says:

October 3, 2010 at 9:15 pm
I’m sorry, they never taught me the secret code.

robert says:

October 5, 2010 at 5:10 am

They never taught you the secret code Goddard? Really? When was the last time that CO2 was 0 in the atmosphere? Lets hear it bud? Show the graph with the appropriate scaling first of all. Secondly if you even read much over at SKS you would know that SKS does not claim that early 20th century warming was primarily forced by CO2. In fact SKS suggests otherwise. Thirdly, if you deny that the thermal inertia of the oceans doesn’t result in a significant lag time between cause and effect then you really need to consult the literature. Finally Goddard, I noticed that you have tried to “address” quite a few of the AGW claims out there. Why not “address” papers such as Harries et al (2001) or Wang and Liang (2009). The first paper shows that less LW radiation is escaping from the atmosphere at CO2 bands than measured during the 1970s. The second shows that we have increasing downward LW radiation since the 1950s… You know what causes those two processes? An increasing Greenhouse Effect. Also you can address Evans (2006) while you’re at it. http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

stevengoddard says:

October 5, 2010 at 5:14 am

Is there some reason why you don’t want to discuss the topic of this article?

I guess I shouldn't have even bothered but I must say it is quite funny he ignored EVERYTHING i said...

2010-10-05 23:22:18



As a matter of tactics: It's better to focus on ONE point at a time (in one response). Otherwise, as you have just seen, he can wiggle out of dealing with any of them.

2010-10-05 23:41:52


For example, sometimes on a website, a skeptic refers to a paper and says, "Here's a devastating critique of AGW theory by Pf. X. He proves it's illogical, and demonstrates 4 wrong conclusions! How do you like them apples?"

To which my response is, "I'm not going to debate against a paper. If there's any specific points that you would like me to address, pick JUST ONE of them, and we'll discuss it. After that's done, you can pick another point, and we'll discuss that. Start anytime, I've got all day."

Most of the time, they never come back. If they do want to play, I demolish the paper (and more important, the position of the skeptic), one point at a time. 

Either way, it's very plain that they've lost.

2010-10-06 02:53:54


Goddard? Who's Goddard. I only know Robert H. Goddard.

Seriously, responding directly to him means give him a value. Let the skeptics come with his claim and we'll destroy them here.