Who Is Steven Goddard?

My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.

I live in Columbia, Maryland – an amazing city where I can ride my bicycle everywhere through the forest, and never need to get in a car.

I am a lifelong environmentalist. I testified at my first Congressional subcommittee hearing at age 15 in Kanab, Utah, in support of  a wilderness area – very close to the one which President Obama recently set aside. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed. I worked as a volunteer wilderness ranger for two summers in the Cibola and Santa Fe National Forests in New Mexico. I worked on the Safety Analysis Report for DOE’s nuclear waste disposal site in New Mexico. I probably have the smallest electricity bill in Columbia, Maryland because I am very careful not to waste. I have never turned on my heat or air conditioning.

I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.

I do not receive any funding other than small donations on my blog, which have worked out well below minimum wage. I have tried to obtain funding, but skeptics with money are terrified of political attacks directed by the White House and/or being targeted by the IRS. They openly state this to me.

My position on global warming:

The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie. Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.

The radiative transfer models used by government climate scientists show that going up to 550 PPM or even 1000 PPM CO2 will make minimal difference to the radiative balance of the atmosphere. The knee of the CO2 curve is at about 30 PPM, and additional CO2 has little first order effect. This is because almost all radiation in the CO2 absorption spectra is already being absorbed by H2O or CO2 molecules. Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed. (This is a bit of an oversimplification because of second order effects, but those are also small.) There is no indication from the radiative transfer models used by government scientists that additional CO2 will cause large amounts of heating.

The temperature record of both the US and the world has been massively altered since older versions, almost invariably to create the appearance of more warming, and in some cases to create warming where there is none.

Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, and is now 400 feet higher than it was when the first humans walked to North America from Asia across the Bering Strait. Most of the apparent sea level rise on the US East Coast is due to the land sinking, not sea level rising. There has been little or no sea level rise on the West Coast.

The weather is not getting more severe. Since President Obama took office, there have been three US hurricane strikes – the fewest of any presidency. While Grover Cleveland was president in the 1880’s, the US was hit by twenty-six hurricanes. The US is currently experiencing its longest period since the 1860’s without a major (category 3-5) hurricane strike. The last one was Wilma in 2005.

Florida is currently experiencing the longest period on record without a hurricane strike. The US tornado count over the past two years has been the lowest in the modern record.

America’s worst forest fires occurred in 1871, when thousands of people burned to death in horrific firestorms around the Great Lakes – on the same day that Chicago burned to the ground.

Is climate change real?

Climate is cyclical and is always changing. People always imagine that they live in the worst of times, as this 1871 article from the Brisbane Courier states.

BkV2czHCQAEkDE0 (1)

10 Jan 1871 – IMAGINARY CHANGES OF CLIMATE. (Pall Mall Gazette.)

If you want to learn more about climate history, I have assembled a large collection of old newspaper articles about the weather below 350 PPM CO2. If you read through this, you will understand that lowering CO2 will not make the weather any better, or worse.

I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge, including the President of The United States. Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.

155 Responses to Who Is Steven Goddard?

  1. fritz chess says:

    I asked this question last week and never got an answer, how do you knuckleheads explain all the melting glaciers around the world? I’ve watched them melting down with my own eyes.

      • Glaciers have been melting since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Visitors to the Canadian Rockies in the 1920s remarked on how much glacier recession had occurred since photos of the glaciers were first taken about two decades earlier. This, of course, was well before the massive increase in carbon output that has taken place since the mid-20th century and continuing today. In fact, glacier recession in the Canadian Rockies has not accelerated over the past century, despite massive increase in carbon output.

    • jpattitude says:

      Some glaciers are melting, some are growing. Stop watching the ones that are melting and maybe you will feel reassured.

  2. Russ says:

    How do you explain that Ice Ages (and glaciers) have come and gone, many times before, many thousands of years ago ?

  3. Edmonton Al says:

    Sorry ………….Tony my apologies.

  4. Thom says:

    Steve/Tony, I appreciate the “debate” here. Here and similar places including some sharp folks up in Canada are about the only place where you can see both sides of the issues. Even critics add value now and then by being proven wrong. It has always been my understanding that a real scientist has to be a skeptic if he is to do honor to the scientific method. I see little of that on the religious cult side of AGW. While egos, invested interests, careers, reputations are not unique to what passes for the scientific community today it does seem to be the main driver of Global Warming/Climate Change energy today. The science, not so much.

    I was introduced in my profession long ago to the phrase, “if you can’t baffle them with BS, Dazzle them with Brilliance” followed later in life by a shorten version of the same thing, “complexity worship”. I’ve noted all too often that when the AGW crowd are confronted with the obvious failures of their theory to hold “heat” literally they resort to some rendition of “weight of paper” chest beating or a version of above to avoid stating the obvious which as I understand it the Founder of the Global Warming Theory admitted before he died that if observed results don’t match the theory than the theory is wrong. The more complexity worship cranked into the debate the more difficult it is for those who don’t swim in this day and night to make informed decisions and ultimately that is where the debate must be won.

    Thanks again for all that you have contributed to both sides of the debate.

  5. istasz says:

    “I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.”

    Not one word of this convinces me that you have any particular insight into climate science. A publication or two in the field would. However, climate deniers seem also seem to be in denial that the universal currency for credibility in any scientific field is just that – a peer reviewed publication. Barrring that, any scientific statement you make is pure conjecture, and likely motivated by one or another deep-rooted psychological factors (did you get turned down to grad school).

    That “Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming” is a brutal testimony to their collective conservatism and ignorance. No respected climatologist would give a rat’s as* about the unlearned opinion of a meteorlogist. They mainly read the NOAO feeds, which most anyone can do, even this nuclear physicist. Note that my training does not give me the hubris to disqualify the coherent, conclusive findings of 1000’s of PhD climatologists, but it does at least make me qualified to comment on those, like you, who are unqualified to earn any other title other than “climate denier”.

    How unoriginal. Too bad you can’t redirect your energy into solving problems, rather than creating or obfuscating them.

  6. istasz says:

    I can’t fix the fact that you can’t get your rants into a respectable publication. Not clever enough – afraid you would be ridiculed by folks who really understand science? Not charlatans, mind you.

  7. istasz says:

    But you haven’t written anything original, just debunked others. It’s actually impossible for me to discover anything new or original in the semi-rants that litter this blog. Time to step up and hit with the big boys. Why don’t you write up your “findings” in a format that is coherent and logical, as if you were going to submit it to a journal, and then share it with your audience.

    How bout this? Pick any one of your pet topics, e.g., use the scientific method (see Bacon) to undercut the flawed methodology used by the authors, counter it with some original research of your own (the hard part), back it up with a dozen or so published references (not blog entries) and post it to this site (unless you feel inspired to reach higher). As they teach them in elementary school nowadays, take care to build a logical argument, buttress it with facts, make it well researched and break new ground.

    Then I will criticize it.

    • spren says:

      What a sanctimonious twit you are. Why do you progs always sound exactly alike. So convinced of your moral and intellectual superiority without any evidence, just like your so-called science. Do you even know what peer review is in this field called climate science? You do know they are little more than literature reviews that the TEAM decides is plausible enough to be published in a journal. They are not attempts to either replicate or validate what has been written. Why should the author of this blog have to earn your right to criticize him? Why don’t you start your own blog and see how many people find it useful enough to visit? All you offered were personal attacks and grade-school level haughtiness.

      • istasz says:

        That’s the problem with reactionaries – they simply hate (don’t understand) the scientific process and so mistake it as haughtiness.

        • Bunk X says:

          I understand snide condescension.

        • Menicholas says:

          I understand the scientific method.
          Find one definition of the scientific method, or “process” as you call it, that mentions pal review.
          Or even publishing. Publishing is an academic goal, not a scientific one.
          Anything that is not falsifiable is not scientific.
          BTW, “Thousands of PhD’s in climatology?”
          I doubt you can find half of one thousand with a PhD in climatology.
          Until recently, it was not even a natural science degree, it was a social science, Humanities department, Liberal Arts degree.
          And the general distribution requirements reflected that.
          There are people working in the climate establishment who have PhD’s after their name, but their field of study was something unrelated to climate of even science. And yet they are called climatologist. (Gavin Schmidt comes to mind.)
          How does that work?
          Since when is creating a computer model counted as real research?
          Since when is an hypothesis which has failed to make an accurate prediction for going on at least twenty years not discarded, but instead said to be settled?

      • bongstar420 says:

        We don’t..some of us are more qualified as geniuses than others.

  8. Gustav says:

    You might be interested in the chart at the link below. It is a comparison of two snapshots of the GISS GLB.Ts file, one from January 26, 2001 (red) and the other from February 9, 2015 (green). The two lines represent the annual temperature anomaly (January-December) from 1880 to 2000. In both cases these are the results that GISS announces to the world after adjusting the raw data. Given that the raw data has not changed and presumably the adjustment algorithms have not changed, it is interesting that over 14 years the “final” published GISS results have changed.

  9. Hi Tony. Love your work. I’ve been looking into the actual mechanisms of global cooling. Re-radiation is obviously not a significant contributor, so the atmospheric gas mix is irrelevant, as you’ve sensibly concluded. Can I send you a copy of my book, “The Art of Science”? (I was going to call it Real Science but hey…) More good stuff in there for your blog and lots of other examples of bad science that “everybody knows”. Email me if you’re interested.
    Peace.
    Gareth

  10. Jerry says:

    You say above that, “Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed.” You are making the same mistake that the earliest investigators made – men like John Tyndall in 1859. You can’t evaluate the effect of CO2 concentration by just measuring or calculating the amount of radiation absorbed in a column of the atmosphere. Heating at each level of elevation affects the temperature of the air below. I recommend that you read the discussion of CO2 absorption at the American Institute of Physics website at:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0146

    • bongstar420 says:

      Is there an experiment which shows CO2 thermal qualities in volumes on the order of cubic miles with boiling rock below and frozen vacuum above?

  11. Jerry says:

    You say above that, “Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed.” You are making the same mistake that the earliest investigators made – men like John Tyndall in 1859. You can’t evaluate the effect of CO2 concentration by just measuring or calculating the amount of radiation absorbed in a column of the atmosphere.
    I suggest that you read the discussion of CO2 absorption at the American Institute of Physics website where they explain that:
    “The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth’s surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily. Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down.”
    You can find this at: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0146

  12. D R Lunsford says:

    You are not a meteorologist, yet you feel free to speak for them. That is just amazing. Everyone’s an expert. (PS, my background is also in science, and there isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind that man-made warming is real. It’s literally impossible for it not to be real.)

    -drl

    • ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • jpattitude says:

      Not just impossible but “literally” impossible? Well, now, that’s different. I must reconsider my position. I take back all the bad stuff I’ve said about Global Warmists over the years. Nobody with your level of solid credentials (“background” in science — whoa) ever told me it was “literally impossible for it not to be real.” I surrender.

    • bongstar420 says:

      You disqualify your own opinion

  13. P Geyer says:

    Interesting article on an eleven year scientific study of the effect of the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

      • bongstar420 says:

        What time scale is climate defined at?

        …and how long could we call our “measurements” “accurate?”

    • I am new here and am yet to be certain whether Mr Goddard is the dog or the girl in the top collage. I suspect our Provider could indeed be a he and his name could be Tony, although I have been incorrect on gender before today. P.G., you raise a point which Mr Goddard summarily dismisses. His reasons presumably are published elsewhere. If I might insert a note re. SCIENCEDAILY. This publication attempts to report on what a cross section of scientists are doing. The reports tend to be accurate but the source material often has to be corrected and in rare instances is so erroneous and even anti-humanity, it gets corrected or removed.

      Here is a direct extract from the report to which you link: “The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity.”

      Think about that. Firstly, why do they insert these words : “….the greenhouse effect due to human activity”? If a volcano or a comet or a herd of extinct dinosaurs inserted the greenhouse gas, the effect of the gas would be exactly the same as if a motor car inserted it? True? How could the effect of the gas be any different, if the gas is exactly of the same composition regardless of origin? So here we encounter a default in logic. Assume I breed horses. Horses emit a surprisingly large quantity of methane. Because I breed horses and ride horses to work, am I therefore an enemy of the planet? Who is to blame, here? Myself, the horses, my employer who requires I travel to work?

      Let me point out the obvious. If the Creator allowed a situation such as this to develop — environmentally criminal horses, environmentally destructive humans, suffocation, broiling, drowning and ruin the result of bad creative planning — the Creator is at fault. If however the Creator states or implies in writing and via logic that we need not be distressed — he has it in hand and always has had it in hand — then the fault lies …..?
      The fault lies with who? The fault lies with nervous nellies, playing into the hands of vexatious taxation, totalitarianism and knee-jerk absurdity.

      And the SCIENCEDAILY report, when examined, contains zero useful science information. The old 19th Century black body heat transfer/retention methods are assumed to be in force and, lo and behold, when you get a ‘test tube’ and do the measurements, the black body heat transfer/retention with the greenhouse effect, works!

      Do they expect a cheer? The centuries old methods are like attempting the northwest passage in a row boat. Outdated, inadequate. Not one of those ‘test tube’ predictions can be shown to be reliable in terms of the big picture — the planet. The reasons for the inadequacy are obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of — guess what? Climate physics on the planetary scale, and the history of the planet itself — geology.

  14. Jerry says:

    I don’t think you can brush these measurements off as utter nonsense. They wouldn’t have been affected by things such as La Nina and El Nino. As the article says,

    “These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
    Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.”

    • El Nino warms the troposphere, so more LW is emitted. The increase in CO2 wavelengths is due to the fact that there are more emitters as CO2 concentration increases.

      • Jerry says:

        I don’t think you understand. El Nino. El Nino and La Nina have nothing to do with it. They compared the radiation in the CO2 absorption bands to other wavelengths so they could eliminate effects of things like that.

        • Neptune says:

          Jerry, you missed the point. The more CO2 the more CO2-emitted radiation you will see – even if it’s cooling! It only proves that there is more CO2. The fact that you would reach other conclusions tells us that you do not have a scientific mind.

          By the way, the atmosphere is a three phase system. The climate fraudsters haven’t even begun to wrap their minds around the physics at work here. I’m sure you don’t even know what I’m talking about so stop flapping your cheeks about “science.” The science hasn’t even begun.

        • Jerry says:

          To Neptune: Read the articles below. If you can understand them and are capable of discussing them intelligently, get back to me.
          https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

  15. Hey Tony,

    I don’t know how to contact you so I am asking my question here, hope you get it.

    Have you ever wrote a book? Do you plan on writing a book? With all of the research you have done over the years, I think you have the material for an informative story. You could include all of the past “climate scares”, disasters of the past, politics behind Mann-made climate change, etc…. I am not a publisher, just a meteorologist who thinks you could write a book with a lot of good information.

    Take care,

    Brad Anderson
    brad.anderson@1011now.com

  16. Ron Clutz says:

    Help. I am stuck in moderation.

  17. Lee says:

    I am loving your site. Thank you so much for sharing your thinking, research and expertise – it all makes a lot of sense to me. I am curious about your take on the current drought in California? As a Californian, it is of particular interest (and at times worry) to me. Thanks, Lee

  18. “My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.” End quote from the head piece.

    a). I would be in your debt if you would fill out a little on the thoughts raised by the heading extract. Don’t ignore ‘both sides’ as one of the sources of query to the casual passerby. (I must confess to being less than a full-on student of climate blogs. Don’t consult them much — for the obvious reason that there is no such thing as climate science — unless you are either God, or actually seriously understand quantum physics plus the physics of turbulent flow plus all aspects of heat transfer by all natural methods plus stellar nuclear fusion their interactions and effects upon each other etc. etc. blah blah — which makes you God anyway — which is precisely what dictators on a self-created divine mission are always playing at. Climate science the divine right of drips on a rainy day.)

    b). I would also be in your debt, should you, or anyone else, care to do an evaluation of my climate moderation paper, readily found (at least, it was readily found a month ago when I looked, under “Climate Moderation Magnetic Interaction Sun – Earth”, on GOOGLE, etc. Climate/weather is way beyond human technology but the geologic record is testimony to a thermostat built into the system. The mechanism of the thermostat is coming into distant focus? Ta. If it’s any consolation, I have been banned and barred regularly in various places.

  19. Dave B says:

    Hi Steve,
    I have had this itch for almost 20 years.

    8/22/81 Hansen study NYT Saturday 5am Brooklyn, NY
    6am Saturday morning: A collage student working night shift over the summer. I get home and relax, sipping a beer on the stoop of a Brooklyn brown stone, reading the Saturday NYT Science Section. I thought; “AGW, this seems plausible, based on first principles and better than the alternative of an ice age..”

    1997 Al Gore “debate is over”;
    I got the itch, nothing is this simple.

    2006 Al Gore “inconvenient Truth”;
    I got angry at the naivety, the lack of prospective and
    the ignorance of how really complicated the world is.

    2007 “the science is settled”
    I realized this isn’t science, it is about righteousness and political power.

    After 30 year working scientific research and engineering, one thing I have learned, is that the world is much more complicated than it first appears in a first principle.

    2011 Get the pop corn out!
    Every night I watch the clams spinning out into the absurd.
    The liberal politicians spin their “science religion” based on shaky data and models. (Like these folks have ever tried to model anything).

    2014 I found your website.
    I’m done with being polite and reasoned (starting out AGW conversations w/ acknowledging some evidence of warm and taking things in context). That is why I appreciate your in their face approach.
    You are breath of fresh air to me.

    Thank you
    I’m happy to contribute to your hard work, keep it up!
    Dave B

  20. I am still waiting for you to approve my comments on this website?

  21. Eddie George says:

    Tony,

    I am curious about the usage of glacial ice core sample data and its application to this study. I am seeing the samples being used to show that “recent trends are unprecedented” over thousands of years. I am looking to understand more than refute.

    Thank you

  22. Daniel Sanchez says:

    I find this web site very interesting. I also like how several people on this web site believe only individuals with degrees are capable of intelligent, coherent thought. I also enjoy their arguments that science is based on the opinions of others. Since when was fact based on how many agreed on it being fact?

    With that off my chest, I would like to point out a very simple matter that would help clear up a lot of confusion. The world does not have a global temperature. The world is not a person whom you can stick a thermometer into its mouth and get a temperature. We have devices throughout the world that take various temperatures and then average them. We have already started with the false premise that a global temperature exists. It is an average of all temperatures. I could easily manipulate the data by averaging in more of the hotter temperatures than the cooler temperatures, or vice versa.

    Second, have we even been measuring the data long enough to establish if this is a pattern or a deviation from the pattern? Why do we continually bring everything down to the human lifespan level? Patterns could take 100s or 1,000s of years to show but we just assume it has to be shorter.

    Thirdly, people are dishonest. I don’t doubt the machines and equipment for the most part, but does anyone believe that someone who has dedicated their life to something would willingly come out and say I was wrong, I lied and I will return all the awards and money I received for my work? Very few people will tell on themselves. Instead, to avoid embarrassment and punishment, they will lie their faces off.

    D.Sanchez

  23. mike hamblett says:

    Are we responding here to Stephen Goddard or Tony Heller, and are either of you any saner than Anthony Watts?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s