Open For Debate

Many people have challenged my findings. If you are confident that I am wrong, I am more than happy to debate you.

I will be at ICCC in Las Vegas next month. Let me know. That would be a great location to air out your concerns about my work.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Open For Debate

  1. Truthseeker says:

    How about inviting Ann Coulter to a debate about soccer being un-American?

  2. The Griss says:

    Doubt you will have many takers.

    They don’t “do” debates 🙂

  3. James Anderson says:

    Liars don’t debate but attack personally.

  4. Cheshirered says:

    $1 says not a single online challenger shows up in person.

  5. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Tony!

    So far, the only arguments I have seen against you are of this type: “Goddard’s math is faulty. He claims that the temperature readings have been altered by “x” degrees. However, we can clearly prove that justifiable changes equal to 8% of x have been documented in the literature, therefore Goddard is wrong — and not just wrong, but he smells bad too!” You have said very openly that what you are doing is a basic sanity test and that the numbers do not pass the test. I agree strongly. Your critics are arguing that the gross changes you point out should actually be slightly different if they include a bunch of minor factors — which may even be true, but still misses the gigantic elephant in the room. This is like you are pointing out that someone is completely bankrupt, only to have them disagree by responding that “No! You are wrong! You show me spending an extra $4 dollars on socks!”

    If someone does, in fact, show up to debate you, I predict that their argument will be of the same type.

  6. squid2112 says:

    I won’t hold my breath. Anyone that looks at what you have done (for years) knows that you are correct. You would slaughter them in a debate.

  7. ralphcramdo says:

    Tony, you might want to pick up some spare change. Problem is Keating can’t prove it does exist.

    Want to Disprove Man-Made Climate Change? A Scientist Will Give You $10,000 if You Can

    A physics professor is so fed up with the claims made by “climate change deniers” that he has launched a “$10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge.”

    The challenge issued by Dr. Christopher Keating, a professor who previously taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, according to a news release, will award prize money to anyone who uses the scientific method to prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change.

    Keating, who published the e-book “Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming,” wrote on his blog that he would be the final judge of any entries and would provide his comments “on why any entry fails to prove the point.”

    “I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn’t you like to have a spare $10,000? After all, the skeptics all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn’t even have to be original,” Keating wrote. “If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $10,000 is yours!

    “This is no joke. If someone can provide a proof that I can’t refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check.”

    • Jason Calley says:

      How about this bet?

      Let’s flip a fair coin; you bet $1,000 it will come up heads, and I will bet $10,000 it will come up tails! Oh, one small detail — I will be the absolute and final judge of which side is showing.

      How can you lose?!


    • Chip Bennett says:

      The “challenge” is disingenuous. I don’t think that anyone believes that humans do not impact climate change.

      The salient questions are:

      1) Is climate changing outside of its normal variability?
      2) Is that change catastrophic?
      3) Do humans contribute significantly to climate change outside of its normal variability?

      • No, the salient question is, are we talking about local climate change or global climate change? The answer to the latter is no, humans are NOT changing the global mean surface temperature, alias the “global climate”.

      • Gail Combs says:

        According to the Ruddiman Hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003.] mankind has been influencing the climate for thousands of years and has kept the earth out of glaciation. If you look at the Holocene vs the last four interglacials, the Holocene has been quite the stable little interglacial – all because of the benevolent influence of Mankind!


    • B says:

      I’ve wandered over to that prof’s blog. The challenge is BS. He responds to the challenges by citing authority, be it a warmist or a newspaper. There’s no way to prove authority isn’t correct if authority is considered to be correct by default.

  8. Andy DC says:

    They are only willing to say that they are morally and intellectually superior and that they will not condescend to debate “flat earthers”. Then they proceed to lie thru their teeth and make a mockery of anything resemblng the scientific method.

  9. RobJ says:

    If anyone is stupid enough to challenge your findings in a debate please post a video. I love to see alarmists embarrassed in public!

  10. omanuel says:

    Be careful, Tony aka Steven. You may have now joined the ranks of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Official propaganda artists are not skilled in the physical sciences, but they are highly paid professional experts in manipulation of public opinion.

  11. darrylb says:

    If I was in the area I would stop in to say hello.- not to debate, but perhaps to plan.
    The majority of US citizens doubt AGW but are really do not get very excited at all about what is happening because it is not effected them. Alarmists on the other hand can be quite active.
    The latest EPA rulings may have some effect here in the land of 10,000 lakes (actually about 15,000) plus a whole mess of marshes. I might be able to get people a little upset when they learn of what could happen to them.
    The 30 to 40% CO2 reduction in the burning of coal is a symbolic joke. It can’t happen. One could no more remove a non-polar, non liquifying molecule from exhaust of burning then we could from our every breath. There is no means of doing it. And the amount removed would be so small compared to the increase in China that it would be like putting a glass of cold water in a hot bath. Some has been sequestered in pipes in Louisiana, but that is generally impractical.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The 30 to 40% CO2 reduction = A 30 to 40% reduction in living standard. It means the electricity is shutdown for x hours a day. It means no vacations, no outing that involve the family car, it means gas and diesel rationed.

      The actual goal is to reduce CO2 by 83%. I outline what that actually means HERE. I do not think anyone else has bothered to “run the numbers”

      Short and sweet? it reduces Americans to living like Africans in mud huts without their survival skills.

  12. darrylb says:

    Gail– thanks for you info (again)
    When there is a conference like the one in L.V. again, perhaps some of us who blog here could get together.
    It may be that we could stimulate a greater and larger happening. A MAJOR goal is to sometime, somehow, get in with the MSM and generate some other thinking.
    We perhaps need to get across dire warnings of what the CAGW, as Gail has written above, will do.

  13. solvingtornadoes says:

    I too am open to debate in regard to my claims of Meteorology’s half-baked theoretical thinking in regard to storm theory and tornadogenesis:
    Before there was Global Warming there was Meteorology.

  14. Lou says:

    The EPA is raising the radiation threat level by a factor of 350. That may sound unbelievable but it is assuredly a good thing: The previous limits were far lower than science justified and caused hundreds of billions of dollars of economic loss to America and the world.



    • Chip Bennett says:

      It’s been a while since I’ve read BEIR, but I seem to recall that stochastic effects were indiscernible below even 20 REM – though maybe that was specifically for cancer.

      In any case: nice to see EPA catching up with reality, for once.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s