Steven Goddard Fails at Geography and History

A joint NOAA/PMEL/JISAO mission to study Arctic Ocean heat flux will be based out of Fairbanks, Alaska, so Steven Goddard decided it made sense to mock the study with one chilly forecast he found for a Canadian town 1,500 miles away.



Also, he has no idea the Industrial Revolution began back in the mid 1700's, so he doesn't understand that weather and climate events during the late 1800's and mid 1900's may very well have contained an anthropogenic component. And exactly what pillar of climate science comes crashing down when a drought is not worse than all those that preceded it?

"The nation’s top scientists are apparently a bunch of real geniuses."

Taking the sarcasm out of it, a "real genius" is something, I assure you, Steven, you need never worry about being mistaken for as long as you keep posting ridiculous crap on your worthless blog.

Funny Thing about Steven Goddard's Conspiracy Paranoia...

Steven Goddard is the author of a blog called Real Science, and a conspiracy theorist nutcase. He believes that, because the GISS surface temp records for the US have been updated since 1999 (something that's done quite often and openly with good reason and clear public disclosure), the Obama administration is sending in the Matrix agents to make it happen. From his batshit insane blog post:

"These alterations are being made by government employees with a strong vested interest in global warming, who should recuse themselves because of their overt conflict of interest. Their boss, the President of the United States, has made it clear that he will not accept any data which does not promote global warming theory. That is pretty strong motivation to generate warming data."

Yup, you read that right, folks. NASA-GISS is generating false warming data because Obama likes that. I guess Bush liked false surface temps, too, hence the 2001 updates included in his animated gif image above.

Once again here at whac-a-troll, you probably find yourself, like me, regretting having only one face to palm.



And the evidence Goddard offers to prove that this conspiracy exists...?



When Goddard says a conspiracy exists, PRESTO!, it exists. Nice superpower, if you can develop it. Musta been bitten by a radioactive ufologist, or something.

Weird thing about this conspiracy-declaring superpower of his is that NASA corrects its data all the time in other areas of research, and, in these instances, Goddard never reaches for his cape to swoop in, rescue everyone from the evil presidential mind control and puppet-mastery at work behind them, and save the paranoid day.



Why, the diabolical research agency once had the temerity to attempt updating precipitation data too!

The GPM mission will provide unprecedented data on rain and snowfall. The science instruments on the GPM Core Observatory will provide data that will yield the greatest clarity on rain and snow yet gathered from orbiting spacecraft.

And the supervillains at NASA also threatened the safety of the world by drastically altering X-ray astronomy data!

The Legion of Aeronautics and Space Doom once even dared to embark upon improving data and understanding of space weather!

SDO is the most advanced spacecraft ever designed to study the sun and its dynamic behavior. It will provide better quality, more comprehensive science data faster than any NASA spacecraft currently studying the sun and its processes.

My goodness, the shockingly dishonest and deceptive manipulation of data at NASA never ends! And, gosh, I wonder why these other examples of data correction bother Goddard not at all. Hmmmm, I'm oh so terribly stumped about that.

On a less sarcastic note, Texas state climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon provides a rather plain and obvious explanation which requires no conspiracy theory at all.

“It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves. If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process.”

But, don't worry, I imagine Goddard explains away all of the experts who disagree with him by saying they are just unwitting (and sometimes witting) agents of the vast climate change conspiracy. Obama's little foot soldiers. Gee, where have we heard such circular argumentation before?

This data-cooking delusion really is Goddard's personal Roswell or Area 51.



There are strange craft flying around out there, so...so aliens! The US surface temperature numbers have changed, so...so evil government forces! In both cases, the logical, pedestrian explanation is discarded, because it doesn't fit the cockamamie conspiracy narrative.

But Why Is There so Much Science Denial?

Climate change denial, though extremely dangerous, is but a symptom of a greater sickness that has long afflicted human civilization and still persists today. Our progress as a society is challenged every day by climate denialists and their close cousins...antivaxxers, creationists, homeopaths, tobacco risk deniers, ufologists, HIV/AIDS deniers, and on and on and on.

These people believe they have been granted the authority to question and defame experts who employ the best method we humans have developed for understanding the world around us (i.e.: science), because they have indeed succeeded in plying their despicable wares. Unfortunately, the sad fact of the matter is our own human failings have enabled this bravado. Unlike their snake oil remedies, scientific truths necessitate our patience because they come to us slowly, over decades or centuries, through a dogged, deliberate process of repeated verification. Individual instances of peer-reviewed research can be a long, difficult path, and scientific consensus, such as that behind climate change, can take even longer to establish. Anti-science, on the other hand, is the quick and easy path leading ultimately to failure and darkness. And people are often so desperate for answers they will risk this darkness, or so deluded they can't see the inevitability of their choice, or even go so far as to deny the outcome. It's really that simple. Science denial is nothing more than a dead-end shortcut offered by the devious that can and will fool people, because who wants to hear, "Well, the solutions are complicated, time-intensive, and laborious," rather than, "Sure, I got exactly what you need right here, so step right up?"

This is the deceitful bait anti-science screwballs set on their hooks to snag people with very little self-control, attention span, and education. They encourage and capitalize on ignorance. They promise immediate, unfailing results for dispelling the "frightening" unknown, whereas scientists, if they are honest, must give long, nuanced explanations, and complicated probabilities, and ask for more research dollars and time to solve the difficult problems we face.

This is the constant vigil those who seek provable, testable results must maintain on a daily basis, and throughout their careers; the constant temptation with which they are ever at odds. The fictional circumstances in the Garden of Eden pale in comparison. Science denial is the real fall from grace.

But is there more to it? Do denialists thrive and achieve influence simply because we are too impatient to wait for published agreement and well-researched answers? Because we are too lazy/busy to read, and too scientifically-illiterate to understand the journal findings on our own? There has to be more to it. Even when the plain, inarguable facts are delivered on a gleaming, silver platter, as with climate science, they are received with suspicion and distrust, and all too often the snake oil is preferred. Where does this lack of trust come from? Why do entire segments of society as well as, at times, all of human civilization backslide into such counterproductive behavior when it is so clearly wrong and self-destructive? It all boils down to the success of one historical example. One bit of persistent science denial (and it's a doozy, folks) has repeatedly proven since antiquity that it is a reliable means of seizing societal control. It is a potent tool that can be wielded by a determined, rapacious few to gain power over many. Unlike the hard slog of science, against which it is often pitted, it is the easy way out, and therefore incredibly seductive and menacing to our prosperity. But let's allow a much more gifted cultural expositor to explain the elephant in the room here...



Religion is the Godfather, if you will, of all pseudoscience. Long before we had logic, reason, and peer review to show us the way, religion attempted to answer the great questions. Who are we? How did we get here? What made all the animals, plants, terrain, and oceans we see? What made the stars? What are the stars? What exists above the clouds besides the Sun, Moon, and stars? And so on. In a way, religion can be forgiven for these early transgressions and displays of arrogance. After all, we had nothing else to guide us. But when philosophy and reason crept into our consciousness, thought processes, and public discourse, it should have bowed out. It did not. Instead, it raged. And it won. And these successes, these grand victories of the ultimate pseudoscience, which were meaningfully curtailed only during and after the Enlightenments, are what inform the charlatans we still deal with to this day. The modern-day diálymancers.

If you are looking for a reason why we have to deal with ignorant climate change deniers, you need search no further than religion. It is still everywhere. It is still influential to a troubling degree. And its sensational, historical triumphs still instruct the mentally and morally bankrupt.

Ridiculously Good

An excellent and informative series of videos from the NRC and the NAS.



And I just love, love, love that they disabled comments, so deniers can't pollute the videos with their idiocy. See, the NRC and the NAS are nice, polite people, so they don't wanna bother addressing and correcting your unscientific stupidity, deniers. They do you the favor right from the start of not giving you a chance to humiliate yourself. I, on the other hand, am not so nice. I welcome the opportunity to hang you from my castle walls as a lesson to other numbskulls. So g'head. Spew your toothless bromides below in my comment section, so I can turn you inside out. Thanks in advance, you idiots.

Shut up and Watch It

Have you seen any Origins Project videos? No?! What the hell have you been watching instead? Dancing with the Stars? The Voice? Fox News?!

Jaezuz Cheeeeeeeeroist, people, shut off the idiot box for a while, and start filling your head with something other than vapid trash. You pay for your Internet connection, so get something worthwhile out of it. YouTube is loaded with interesting, mind-expanding stuff. Far more interesting than what J Lo, or Gwen Stefani, or whoever, has to say about dancing or singing or whatever frivolous nonsense that should entertain you not completely consume your every waking moment, conversation, and last drop of mental energy. You can go back to flatlining in front of reality TV and after you've eaten your intellectual peas.

Really, you should watch all the Origins Project videos on YouTube. They're great, and Krauss is a science-promoting champ. If you haven't seen any yet, you might as well start with one that pertains to the greatest known threat we face as a species.

Part 1: Part 2:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent on Google Earth

Similar things have been done before, certainly, but I added some trend data/graphs at the end of the video for perspective. Oh, and Meniscus for ear candy. :)

Notes from Underground

My anonymous sources at the Dept. of Interior have leaked some critical mining industry intelligence. :)

You can often catch the PowerPoint presentation creator contributing over at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog under the user name tokodave. He's a lifelong outdoorsman, backcountry skier and mountaineer, and one of many who try to stem the inexorable tide of ignorant climate denial in the comment section (NOT in Phil's articles), while the powers that be at Slate remain asleep at the switch, letting deniers infest the site and pollute the conversation for whatever silly reason.

Gazing into the Past

Yup, there is over a century of science behind today's consensus among researchers that our emissions have warmed and will continue to warm the Earth to a level that threatens our civilization.

Listening to deniers moan and groan and carry on, you'd think it was a conspiracy the IPCC presto'd into existence a few decades ago.

As proof of the age of the knowledge that our fossil fuel habit endangers us, I present for your consideration Svante Arrhenius.

Now, if you're as strange as my high school chemistry teacher was, your response will be, "Svante Arrhenius? Gesundheit."

Arrhenius was, in arguably equal measure, both a physicist and a chemist, so it should come as no surprise that he was one of the founders of physical chemistry. It can also be argued that he was a mathematician, a geologist, an astronomer, an astrophysicist, a cosmologist, and a genuine ole jack-of-all-scientific-trades. Among his many notable qualifications and achievements, he became the first Swede to receive the Nobel Prize in chemistry, a vocal defender and legitimizer of the theory of panspermia, a likely atheist (a quality near and dear to my heart), and, most importantly (as far as this blog is concerned, anyway), a developer of a theory to explain ice ages, which ultimately led him to be the first scientist to conclude that the burning of fossil fuels and industrial production of CO2 were enough to cause the entire planet to warm. Arrhenius made his CO2/global surface temperature calculations way back in 1896.

It is essential to distinguish Arrhenius' work from the discovery of the greenhouse effect itself, which predated him by many years. It is also worth noting what he got right (water vapor feedbacks, and latitudinal effects), as well as what he got wrong (omission of cloud cover, rate of atmospheric build-up, overstating the beneficial effects, etc.).

Of course deniers, if they even know about Arrhenius and his scientific contributions, will desperately cling to that last part about the benefits, but the most critical takeaway message of his climate change research is that the temperature-increasing effects of pumping CO2 into the air have been known for far longer than the anti-science wingnuts would have you believe.