G¶ddard¤mmerung: Skeptical Science debunks climate cherry picking on sea level rise

As the widely discredited WattsUpWithThat has relied more on outside writers who can’t even meet his minimum standards for anti-science disinformation, his Wikio ranking have collapsed. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Certainly WattsUpWithThat is exemplary anti-scientific blogging (see for instance, Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts). Bizarrely, Watts continued to allow Steve Goddard to post even after he set the record for the fastest disinformer retraction: Watts says Goddard’s “Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year” post is “an example of what not to do when graphing trends.”

Physicist John Cook of the always insightful website, Skeptical Science, shows how a recent by post Goddard on his own website is the very definition of cherry picking:

In an earlier post, Cook notes that the full observational record makes clear that sea level rise is accelerating:

To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in a 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006) which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe. An updated version of the sea level plot is displayed in [this figure]:

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has a good website on global climate change indicators, including sea level rise, with this useful figure showing that seas are now rising nearly double the rate of the past century:

Now let’s do a little trend analysis of our own.

As recently as July, Watts was bragging that his website was ranked top blog in the Sciences category by Wikio.

Here are the new rankings:

1Wired Science — Wired Blog2Pharyngula3Climate Progress4Watts Up With That?5Bad Astronomy6Not Exactly Rocket Science7Why Evolution Is True8RealClimate9Respectful Insolence10Dispatches from the Culture WarsRanking made by Wikio

Note that “The position of a blog in the Wikio ranking depends on the number and weight of the incoming links from other blogs.”


Does this collapse in rankings have anything to do with with the large fraction of postings from people who can’t even meet Watts’ minimum standards for anti-science disinformation, notably Steve Goddard and now Tom Fuller? Probably. The best evidence is G¶ddard¤mmerung (twilight of the Goddards?) — Watts seems to have given Goddard the boot from his website. What’s up with that?

Related Posts: