Goddard Math: Eyeballing Pretty Graphics Gives Better Mean Calculations Than Real Data

I'm beginning to think Steven Goddard drinks before blogging. His posts are now so bizarre, incoherent, and devoid of any clearly stated point or purpose, you are left to guess at whatever it is he's getting at.

Today, in this post, he has somehow come to the conclusion that climate experts have to work hard to achieve their levels of fundamental stupidity.

Let's see if we can follow his "reasoning," shall we?

"According to the experts at the University of Colorado, everyone agrees that sea level is rising 3.2 mm/year"

That's how he begins the post, and then he shows a screen capture of these sea level rise (SLR) estimate links from a University of Colorado site (they're in the left-hand margin)...

GMSL Rates
CU: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.3 ± 0.6 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NASA GSFC: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)

He then follows that link list image with this petty, dimwitted swipe at educational standards and climate science...

"They are using that new kind climate math (Common Core inspired) where almost all locations are below the mean."

And shows these two graphics from NOAA's SLR trend site...





After engaging in all that rigorous research, he somehow magically imagines that he has done enough hard work to declare the following...

"Like I always say, you simply can’t make up fundamentally stupid like climate experts. They have to work hard at it."

That's it. That is the post.

What.

The.

Hell?!

If you're stumped, you're not alone. I honestly can't claim to know for certain what this demented and confused troll is trying to say here, but I'll take a stab at it, anyway. I think his "point" is that he sees a lot of diamonds and arrows in those two graphics which have colors indicating they are below the ~3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr global mean SLR that CU, AVISO, CSIRO, NASA, and NOAA all estimate, so therefore the calculations they used to derive those means are wrong. To calculate global mean SLR more accurately, Goddard doesn't need to crunch the real data like those various agencies have. Nope, he can just eyeball the pretty, colorful shapes which indicate 0-3 mm/yr SLR or less, miraculously intuit what the actual number within that range is for each location, and know just by gazing at the pictures that their populations are too high for the stated global means to be right. To further illustrate Goddard's Bizarro World superpower here, if I posted the following graph...



...told you that green lines represent a number from 0-4, yellow 4-10, and red 10-20, and then told you that the mean of my data set is 4, our strange little denier blogger would claim to know whether or not that number is accurate.

I welcome any corrections if I'm wrong about his intended point, because, again, I admit to being thoroughly bewildered. You can't make up fundamental inanity like Goddard posts. He works hard at it.