“Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.
At least Chris Monckton has a medical condition that explains his break with reality. As for this “Goddard” character, well, I have to let you see this headline to believe it.
Which he chose to illustrate with the graph below –
What’s really refreshing and amusing is how “Goddard” was immediately taken to task by none other than Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center researcher whose iconic graph of accelerated sea ice loss I recently featured in a post. See here:
“Steve chose a graph that shows what he wants to portray while ignoring all the other institutions that show either a record low for 2011 or a “tie” with 2007. University of Bremen already announced it is a new record low. In my opinion, given the error margin of the measurement and algorithms, 2007 and 2011 basically tied in their extent this year. NSIDC will likely show 2011 as the second lowest, but again it’s within the error margin (which is about 50,000 sq-km).”
The arm waving we’ll be seeing this year, if NSIDC does not declare a new record, and U. Bremen does, will all be over a distinction without a difference, which is further evidence for my theory that climate denial is a form of autism -deliberately losing itself in a maze of details and completely unable to grasp a gestalt.
Stroeve tagged an addendum to her post, with an assessment of current ice conditions (as of Sept 12)
Remember last September though it looked like the minimum had been reached and then it went down further again. So best to be patient a few more days…
For now, a look at one of the most telling of ice graphs, the ice volume picture from the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington.
I’ll be featuring more examples of off-the-reality-rails rants from climate deniers in my sea ice update, which I’ll post as soon after the minimum as I can crank it out.
For more from Stroeve, see the video here:
Ahahaha…somebody signing mrsircharles complains about Steven Goddard not using his “real name”. Unbeatable.
Peter and otter17 : are you going to alert tamino and Deep Climate about the ongoing discussion about their “integrity”?
At least I’m not running a website called “Real Science”. BTW, who are you, omnologos?
Uh, I don’t care about whether people use real names or not.
I do care when they’re claiming to deliver “real science”.
I was replying to omno with that remark above about not caring about names.
My name is two clicks away and plastered all over the net, including on Twitter with plenty of photographs too (alas, none of them next to any famous actress)
-Maurizio Morabito
Fair enough, Maurizio. I’m Charlie Williams. I’m not on Twitter and not on Facebook.
Who is “Steven Goddard” then?
I do not know who Steven Goddard “is”, apart from “the author of the Real Climate blog”. I seldom try to ascertain non-immediately-relevant details about internet acquaintances. For all I know, Peter Sinclair is called Steven Goddard, and Steven Goddard Peter Sinclair in the “real world”. And who knows about Peter Goddard…
Steven Goddard IIRC was invited to Portugal or wherever that famous meeting was, so I would exclude him being a non-person 😎
Didn’t know you’re also a troll.
For all we know, Steven Goddard may be a cyborg from the future. Who cares?
The point is that he seems to think that the Arctic ice is recovering in the near term, which isn’t supported by any scientific projection. Thus, it reduces the credibility of his climate change reporting another notch.
The point is that this guy is running a website called “Real Science” pretending to be scientific, pretending to be “Steven Goddard”, misleading people for years. I’d call that just FRAUD.
Over and out.
=> Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
Ugh, all this crazy WordPress commenting, I didn’t even notice the Green Girl Minute video.
Mrsircharles – it only works IF you see it. And then even the Titanic would’ve been better off going straight against the iceberg. This just to say a sudden push on the brakes isn’t necessarily the best course of action.
Yeah. What you can’t see (yourself, because it is already very visible) isn’t there… Volitional blindness… Therefore accelerate… Hurrah…
:rolleyes:
=> http://www.gis.uni-greifswald.de/agnw/shared-data/Files/Publications/Stoll-ORiordan-JaegerGEC.pdf
Benvenuti ai lettori dell’Oca. Un giorno di questi ne azzeccherà una anche lei, come il proverbiale rotto orologio a lancette.
‘Goddard’ and his ‘ilk’ will deny till there is no ice in the arctic in later summer- probably in 10 years. This is pathetic. But believe it or not- their will be still plenty of people who will believe his fraudulent claims.
There will be members of the US Congress & Senate (mostly republicans, sprinkled with a few equally brainless Democrats) who will still deny- no arctic ice in September by 2020 with an increasingly violent and unstable climate.
Hopefully not. We cannot predict a change in human hearts/minds.
Hopefully they are partners by that point.
Peter & Otter, do you seriously believe that there will come a late summer in 10 years in which there’s “no ice in the arctic?”
Would you like to put some money on that?
Hey, how about a bet that the sea ice extent will stay the same or grow larger within 5 years? The sea ice was supposed to start recovering soon, right? I mean, this whole downward trend business is just a fluke.
All kidding aside, I don’t take bets that are 10 years long with strangers.
Anyway, the real issue is that you are taking a quite opinionated stance on just about any evidence that suggests global warming. Do you not trust scientists or well-respected bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)? The NAS states very clearly that the best peer-reviewed evidence shows that human emissions are very likely the primary driver of climate change, with prompt action recommended.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Are the solutions presented to mitigate climate change in conflict with your political views or what you feel is best for the world?
=> The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures (2001)
otter17 – I guess the main difference is that you want to see something done for mitigation, I want to see something positively effective. Grand gestures have been done with no positive results, their time has passed.
So far, because short term profits have still overwhelmed ratio => profit for a few. Tell me more…
It seems there are two ends to the spectrum, with only adaptation on one end and only mitigation on the other. It seems likely that the world will follow a path that lies somewhere in between.
Either way, we will see which path the world’s people will take and the ramifications of that path. Tell you what; we can talk again in 2040 to see which path would have been better to take.
Inbetween we’re forgetting peak hydrocarbons (oil)…
Welcome to the new world.
Long live the renewables!