Le site stevengoddard.wordpress.com est-il sûr ?

Presenting data and arguments skeptical of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change that requires drastic action to avoid catastrophic results. Whether you agree with him or not, the site is a standard Wordpress site and completely safe, unless you are unable to form your own opinions and weigh the evidence for yourself. The tags for Spam, Malware/Viruses, Scam, and Privacy Risk appear to be added by ideologues on the other side of the debate.

This StevenGoddard site and its successor ***** are actually the work of the hyperactive climate gadfly Tony Heller. As noted in other reviews, TH (AKA SG) has strong political vi ews, but I find most of his publications on climate and weather useful and reliable. I gather that he has published a few claims that have not held up, and one reviewer claims that he is reluctant to admit that he has done so. I am currently dredging through a bunch of online criticisms of him and his work, and there is much more vitriolic language and ad hominem attacks than legitimate critiques of his accuracy, AFAICT so far. I think giving his site a low WOT rating is misusing an important tool designed to save us from malware, to protect climate "alarmists" who would rather encourage censorship than face intelligent criticism. If indeed "His only interest is in finding any fact that he can show twist or even lie about in order to undermine ACC. He is well informed and intelligent, but also extremely arrogant and, at least as far as I have seen, unable to admit any substantive mistake." is the worst that a 1-star-rater critic can say about this site, then it should not be the subject of WOT's attention.

I see nothing unsafe about this site, whether or not one agrees with the views expressed. Indeed, the marking of it as unsafe is patently malicious only serves to support the notion that so called climate "science" consists of propaganda and the suppression of data and opposing opinion.

The question of the role of CO2 in forcing the earth's climate to warm out of control has been sullied by fact that those who believe man-made CO2 will cause dangerous global warming have largely pushed the debate out of the realm of science and into the realm of politics. If the question could be settled purely with science Goddard would have to find something else to do with his time. As it is, the alarmist side has decided to do it all with hyperbole. In fact, desperation seems to be setting in on their side. I like this web site because Steve provides a valuable resource for me when he finds and publishes newspaper articles that prove that so-called unprecedented extreme weather events are bogus. The Colorado floods are not unprecedented. Actually they are not particularly extreme compared to events that occurred before man-made CO2 came on the scene. The same goes for hurricanes, tornadoes, and other floods. Well-documented tree ring data show that the current drought in California is, so far, a mild and short-lived event, compared to what that part of the US suffered before man-made CO2 increased. I learned these important facts from Steve's web site. Also, he continues to drive home the fact that critical data used by those who believe CO2 is causing global warming has been modified to ignore two very well-known historical events: the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. These two events have been studied and verified in uncountable research papers, 99.99% of which were produced before climate change became a huge political football. The newspaper articles were also pre-CO2. Goddard is also able to do useful analysis of the data that he finds out on the web. The things that his analysis reveals may or may not be accurate. I am not in a position to judge this. But if his analysis is correct, it puts the lie to a lot of what the global warming proponents are claiming. Personally, I think Goddard's name-calling and anti-Obama rhetoric is sophomoric and counter-productive. I am certainly no fan of the current President, but it would be nice to have a web site that just addresses the factual garbage that the alarmists are putting out, and leaves the political side to a different web site. I have some friends who believe the alarmist hype but they are still not all in. I would like to find a web site that provides that factual side and leaves out the counter-productive stuff. I guess I am looking for sober analysis. On the issue of suitability for children, there is some name-calling, and maybe a little language (not Steve's) from time to time, but mostly it is not suitable for children because it would put them to sleep.

Goddard is an extreme ideologue. His only interest is in finding any fact that he can show twist or even lie about in order to undermine ACC. He is well informed and intelligent, but also extremely arrogant and, at least as far as I have seen, unable to admit any substantive mistake. When shown clear proof that he had been mistaken about a "prediction" by Hansen that came from an incorrect attribution he refused to acknowledge the mistake, and in fact continued to mock Hansen for it long after other right wing sites had acknowledged the truth and dropped the issue. He is rudely dismissive of any correction and engages in ad hominem and as a result seems to encourage the same in his followers. One of the most extreme pseudo science sites relating to climate change. He has banned me repeatedly for doggedly pointing out his irrational points, most recently when I had been challenging him for months about his totally ridiculous posts about the arctic last year. After the third there was no pint in returning as I could not be sure that he would allow me to post a comment that would point out his distortions.

"crumbinator is abusing the WOT service. WOT is not the place to take scientific debate " Says the person who joined WOT to make at least 2 political posts and only 2 ratings to a WOT silver level member with votes on a broad range of sites. That's rich, Goddard. Your hypocrisy is only too transparent here. Disgusting.

While I feel that the debate between Steve and whoever is devolving into playschool recess territory, it's clear that Crum's rating was a matter of personal opinion, not fact or trustworthiness. I find Steve's site fresh and interesting and his opinion on matters of climate well researched and argued. While I may not agree with Steve's opinion, I am certainly free to express my doubt and have an open debate about it. I like this site and read it at least daily.