FIND THE ANSWERS

Is Steven Goddard a reliable source of information on climate science?

Answer this question

  • Is Steven Goddard a reliable source of information on climate science?


Answers

Answer #1 | 13/06 2016 07:10
no
Answer #2 | 13/06 2016 13:57
Do you mean is he more reliable than the scientists who post here? The real question is: Does it matter? If you happen to come across any "fact" on the Internet you need to check it against sources you do trust.
Answer #3 | 13/06 2016 08:56
Is a blogger, who does not have any credibility in the scientific community, a reliable source on anything science related when it consists of conpiracies, threats, intimidation, and so on?
Answer #4 | 14/06 2016 10:57
no
Answer #5 | 13/06 2016 15:02
You mean as opposed to proven liars? - probably
Answer #6 | 13/06 2016 18:08
I had the same take as Raisin. I tend to not "believe" anyone. I will listen to what they say and if I can independently verify it, I would tend to think they have some reliability but you have to keep verifying.
Answer #7 | 13/06 2016 17:07
No, he's not even a reliable source of information on his name, which is fake. Every time anyone in here links to him, close examination reveals that he is trying to mislead people. It's clear that some people in here are easily fooled, though. Look at what Kano says "I haven't found any fault with his science yet." No Kano, and neither do you find fault with every other crackpot theory you link to. The only fault you find is with actual science.
Answer #8 | 13/06 2016 15:09
About as reliable as any of the warmer sites, like the one Dana frequently posts lies on. I agree with Graphicc, though. I have been told that I am not a trusting type. Not true. I trust, but I verify.
Answer #9 | 14/06 2016 20:56
yes
Answer #10 | 13/06 2016 20:28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard "Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to promulgate his assertions that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are unfounded. Before establishing his own blog, Goddard built his reputation as a challenger to anthropogenic climate change theories through frequent postings on the Watts Up with That? blog. Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog." No. Any time someone says they are "real", you know they are not. Ed: One does wonder, why the thumbs down? Don't like wikipedia? Don't like Goddard exposed? Don't want anyone to know what a fake he is? Think that "REAL" anything really is real?
Answer #11 | 13/06 2016 09:10
He is a bit eccentric, but I haven't found any fault with his science yet.
Answer #12 | 13/06 2016 10:07
No, he's not even a reliable source of information on his name, which is fake. Every time anyone in here links to him, close examination reveals that he is trying to mislead people. It's clear that some people in here are easily fooled, though. Look at what Kano says "I haven't found any fault with his science yet." No Kano, and neither do you find fault with every other crackpot theory you link to. The only fault you find is with actual science.
Answer #13 | 13/06 2016 01:56
Is a blogger, who does not have any credibility in the scientific community, a reliable source on anything science related when it consists of conpiracies, threats, intimidation, and so on?
Answer #14 | 13/06 2016 00:10
no
Answer #15 | 14/06 2016 03:57
no
Answer #16 | 13/06 2016 02:10
He is a bit eccentric, but I haven't found any fault with his science yet.
Answer #17 | 13/06 2016 06:57
Do you mean is he more reliable than the scientists who post here? The real question is: Does it matter? If you happen to come across any "fact" on the Internet you need to check it against sources you do trust.
Answer #18 | 13/06 2016 08:02
You mean as opposed to proven liars? - probably
Answer #19 | 13/06 2016 08:09
About as reliable as any of the warmer sites, like the one Dana frequently posts lies on. I agree with Graphicc, though. I have been told that I am not a trusting type. Not true. I trust, but I verify.
Answer #20 | 14/06 2016 13:56
yes
Answer #21 | 13/06 2016 13:28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard "Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to promulgate his assertions that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are unfounded. Before establishing his own blog, Goddard built his reputation as a challenger to anthropogenic climate change theories through frequent postings on the Watts Up with That? blog. Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog." No. Any time someone says they are "real", you know they are not. Ed: One does wonder, why the thumbs down? Don't like wikipedia? Don't like Goddard exposed? Don't want anyone to know what a fake he is? Think that "REAL" anything really is real?
Answer #22 | 13/06 2016 11:08
I had the same take as Raisin. I tend to not "believe" anyone. I will listen to what they say and if I can independently verify it, I would tend to think they have some reliability but you have to keep verifying.

Possible answer