Is Climate Change A Superstition, Scam, Or A Hoax???

[Valley Oak]

Many Americans believe that Climate Change is a falsehood perpetrated by liberals and Democrats and that these people are simply using scare tactics in order to push through a liberal agenda with the real hope of raising taxes, increasing the size of government, making more regulations, less individual freedoms, etc.

What do you think?

I personally think that Climate Change is real and that we need to respond to this problem.

Thank you.

[podfish]

Many Americans believe that Climate Change is a falsehood perpetrated by liberals and Democrats and that these people are simply using scare tactics in order to push through a liberal agenda with the real hope of raising taxes, increasing the size of government, making more regulations, less individual freedoms, etc.

What do you think?.

yeah, I find it a really depressing subject. Everything I know about humans makes me think we're screwed on this one - but we've also survived some amazing disasters and challenges (well, 'we' in only the most limited sense) and by many measures the world now is better than it's ever been. Not saying much for the past, I guess...
I know a lot of people who are AGW skeptics, and a lot of them are well educated and very scientifically literate. I understand their arguments, too. I just think they're wrong. I'm somewhat educated and scientifically literate myself, and I think I'm right. I also think that an independent audit would pick my point of view over theirs, and I don't really understand why in this topic they're so resistant to accepting what seems to be a well established majority view. Of course there are widely-held beliefs that turn out to be wrong. And implausible things take a while to take hold; it's only very recently that plate tectonics was accepted as 'fact'. Einstein's views also weren't accepted for years. I get that. But usually what happens, is that the majority view is used as the basis for policy while evidence that challenges it gets tested and reinforced until it's convincing. Here it's the reverse - the majority view isn't considered acceptable for use in defining policy as long as weak and well-challenged alternative explanations can be proposed. I can only believe it's because of a combination of self-interest, resistance to change, and the tendency to believe that uncomfortable facts aren't likely to be true. Human nature at its finest.

[phredo]

Like Noam Chomsky, I believe that climate change and nuclear war are the two most serious threats to our world. But I'd like to add that I wish we believers in climate change could figure out some way to discuss or debate it with the people who say they don't believe in it that would be inclusive and unbiased (that's not the right word but I can't think of a better one right now) enough to force them to join in discussion or lose credibility. It's very frustrating, but I don't think just making fun of them, etc., is the way to go. And it's so important, I believe, that we get consensus on it, not just among the people with a scientific bent, but at least among most of the people who vote.

I guess there's still a part of me, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that thinks, "If we could just have some good conversations about ...., we could get it all cleared up."

Many Americans believe that Climate Change is a falsehood perpetrated by liberals and Democrats...

[arthunter]

This is a topic where we actually have facts and figures to look at ... I believe that one should research both sides of the discussion before coming to conclusions ... "9,000 PhDs and 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax"

Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...obamacare-lie/

https://americanprosperity.com/weath...-warming-hoax/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

[phredo]

Again, I wish the knowledgeable people on each side could have some public discussions. I'll try to watch the films, but even then I know I wouldn't be completely convinced, because it's hard to sift through all the facts and know which citations to trust. And if it's hard for someone like me to do, I know it's even harder for a great many other people, especially people who don't even care about it. So it needs public discussion with both sides being honored to the extent that logic rather than innuendo and accusation predominates. And I think it should be the prime responsibility of the people on the side that supports the proposition that humans are causing catastrophic climate change to take the steps to bring that about.

Two reasons why we (the people who agree that humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change) should offer the olive branch of public rational discussion. First, we are in a sort of majority in media and politics, despite Fox News and the completely ineffectual efforts of the politicians who pay lip service to climate change. We are also the ones who denigrate the other side the most, in my opinion, and refuse to acknowledge any rationality to their "side", even allowing for their "liberal plot" talk. So we need to take the step. Secondly, and more importantly, if nothing happens, "they" "win", because their side represents the status quo. So they have no practical reason to promote true discussion.

There is, of course, the argument that there are not really two sides, just one side that represents science with a so-called "side" of paid-off hacks, sponsored by the Koch brothers, and a handful of deluded followers, magnified by Fox News. But even if that were true, I don't think we're going to prevail just by asserting our correctness from our moral and scientific high ground. We need to let them in highly public forum put out their best arguments and discuss them rationally, with lots of time for counter arguments and counter-counter arguments. That's the only way I see that progress will occur, with one side changing it's position or irrationally keeping it but with the wider public seeing the truth.

This is a topic where we actually have facts and figures to look at ...

[arthunter]

I couldn't agree more with this idea, Phredo ... we really do need a public discussion where facts could be presented on both sides of the issue ...

Again, I wish the knowledgeable people on each side could have some public discussions...

[podfish]

Again, I wish the knowledgeable people on each side could have some public discussions....

you mean face-to-face? there's plenty of 'discussion' if you mean making a case of your own, plus refuting those who disagree. But if you think that a public forum where opposing experts discuss evidence and resolve differences will come to a consensus, I think you're not paying attention to the arguments that are already being made.

...we (the people who agree that humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change) should offer the olive branch of public rational discussion.

I'll agree with you on that, but I don't think it'll get the results you hope. Still, it would be nicer than so much of the "Jane, you ignorant slut" discourse.


For example, if you try to follow up on the details of the OISM report, you'll find examples of what I mentioned in my response to Edward's post.
A debunking of it (that's not going to convince those who are AGW skeptics, is here. But most AGW skeptics (see, I'm being nice - not calling them deniers) don't find sites like skepticalscience.com reliable. But they're perfectly happy with sites I find far less credible. For those who don't particularly care to follow links I'll summarize: the article points out that the number of people who signed the petition may sound big, but when considered in context of how big their peer group is, it's actually quite small. And that there's no evidence that the signers have any expertise in the field, and in fact that there's no way to verify the validity of the signatures. Still, I'll take it at face value - as I mentioned in my earlier post, I know there are many intelligent people who, to my mind anyway, are overvaluing weak evidence and resisting an undebatable consensus of scientists who actually are in the field.
I've yet to find a group of experts who contest the likelihood that AGW is a problem. They're usually someone like this guy. He sounds qualified to have an opinion, but he's not a "scientist", he's a broadcast meteorologist.

Coleman says in the video there are 9,000 PhDs and 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax. These climate change “non-believers” aren’t heard by most Americans because they don’t receive government funding. And they aren’t covered by the mainstream media because it almost always promotes the climate change theory.
This damning indictment by an experienced and well-respected meteorologist proves that the “climate change” movement is primarily (if not all) politically based..

uh, not, his indictment proves nothing of the sort. He's imposing his own view of their motivations.
In a real, hard science like physics, people with outlier opinions are given a chance to have their ideas heard. String theorists in physics get a hearing; some physicists get interested and join in the effort to prove it, but it's an outlying theory! Those working on it are the first to acknowledge that they need more proof, because they respect the consensus of their peers. AGW opponents, especially those who are deniers, do not. They often cite some imaginary financial conspiracy that the AGW supporters are involved with. I would be extremely interested in finding out that a group of those actually researching climate and weather are challenging the reality of AGW at all.

[arthunter]

As I said earlier in this thread, this is a subject where facts are available and important ... this article is full of them ...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/copenh...e-change/16467

[Pierre]

I have just read the Forbes article. I really see no reason to include a discussion about Obamacare in the same article that is supposed to be about global warming. Close to half of this article is complaining about Obamacare. Why would any writer try to combine these two topics unless they were trying to obfuscate the truth? Why would any scientist try to draw a conclusion about global warming based on observations about Obamacare? It is just a silly tactic used to draw out peoples' emotions. The article also states that Antarctica is increasing it's ice cap but ignores the dramatic decrease of the Arctic ice cap by more than 5%. It also ignores the dramatic melting of the ice cover in Greenland and that a majority of the worlds glaciers are receding. Please give me an analysis of global warming that really includes the whole world.

This is a topic where we actually have facts and figures to look at ...

Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...obamacare-lie/
...

[arthunter]

Pierre,

I find it interesting that you would complain about the mention of Obamacare in this article when there is a clear parallel drawn ... that is, the government take over of resources based on possibly fraudulent information ... and then you further ignore all of the inconsistencies brought out in the article about climate warming data ...

I suggest that everyone do their own research about this subject ... there are plenty of facts and figures on the internet about climate change including figures which clearly show that our global temperatures are barely changing ... here are a few more links ...

This article discusses the financial aspects of the fight for climate control ...

https://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/glob.../17/id/601458/

Here is is Wall Street Journal article debunking the fact that most scientists agree with the global warming conclusions ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...78462813553136

and here is a Telegraph article which discusses the fiddling of temperature data ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...ndal-ever.html

With this kind of BS being reported we really need to take a careful look at this subject ....

I have just read the Forbes article. I really see no reason to include a discussion about Obamacare....

[Valley Oak]

Rosanne,
I did not know that you are against Obamacare! Since when has this been the case? Since the inception of the Affordable Care Act?
Please elaborate.
Thank you,
Edward

Pierre,

I find it interesting that you would complain about the mention of Obamacare in this article when there is a clear parallel drawn ... that is, the government take over of resources based on possibly fraudulent information ... and then you further ignore all of the inconsistencies brought out in the article about climate warming data....

[arthunter]

Edward, I have not stated my opinion about Obamacare and I do not wish to discuss this in a climate change thread.

Rosanne, I did not know that you are against Obamacare!...

[Valley Oak]

Climate Change denialists are also the same people who deny world overpopulation problems. (Again, there is no consensus on what number constitutes overpopulation with the range being 4 billion to 16 billion.)

But the arguments, motivations, and intentions against the scientific truth of manmade Climate Change are essentially the same as the arguments against the equally real threats of overpopulation, its unsustainability, and environmental impact.

[BobHeisler]

The bottom line is "Who's paying those scientists to deny that climate change is caused by human activity? The Koch brothers? Exxon/Mobil? BP? The fracking industry?


BP has been running TV ads lately, patting themselves on the back for how much effort they've put into restoring the environment and the lifestyles of the people in the Gulf of Mexico and doing it faster than was originally anticipated. What bullshit!!! Watch HBO's episode of "Vice" during which they graphically show how many of the workers who attempted to clean up the gulf mess as well as the members of their families are suffering from respiratory problems, severe skin rashes and irritations and immune diseases. Can you believe that BP forbid the workers from wearing protective gear during the clean-up effort so as not to portray exposure to the oil and other chemicals as causing adverse health effects?


What's more, because BP never really cleaned up after the mess and just buried the crap using Corexit, oil continues to work its way onto the beaches and marshes of the Gulf of Mexico. While fisherman continue to fish the area, they're finding that half of the shrimp they catch have deformities, cancer, etc. The mixture of oil and Corexit is accelerating the absorption of these chemicals into people's skin and evaporating into the atmosphere to cause toxic rainfall in the gulf region. It makes me wonder how much THAT will create man-made climate change.

[handy]

Is Climate Change A Superstition, Scam, Or A Hoax???
Yes

Failed Earth Day Predictions

This product failed too.

Via iHateTheMedia, here are a few of the predictions made on the first Earth Day. Don’t these sound like the predictions today that fail, like the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 followed by the moving of the goalposts to 2020?
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” -- Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” --George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”--Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”--Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” --Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”-- Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” --Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” --Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”-- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”--Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”--Sen. Gaylord Nelson


and this classic:
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”--Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

[arthunter]

more of the same ...

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...ver-expands-50

and this interesting reality ... I had a scientist tell me recently that C02 was actually good for the planet ... I didn't believe him ....well, it seems that he might be right ...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...greening-globe

and this ...

https://www.co2isgreen.org/

[Valley Oak]

Are Rosanne ("arthunter") and Bruce ("handy") the only Climate Change denialists on Wacco? I thought there were a few more. Why aren't they rearing their anti-science heads now? Anymore "Libertarians" out there care to add to the misinformation?

Come one, come all!

more of the same ...

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%...

[podfish]

more of the same ...

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17207-al-gore-forecasted-ice-free-arctic-by-2013-ice-cover-expands-50

and this interesting reality ... I had a scientist tell me recently that C02 was actually good for the planet ... I didn't believe him ....well, it seems that he might be right ...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...greening-globe

and this ...

https://www.co2isgreen.org/

ok, since Edward started it, I'll respond too. In the spirit of not joining a link-war, I'll just comment. The first article does claim the ice is growing rapidly; that can't be answered without adding links that refute it, so I won't bother. But the claim about "good C02" is easier to discuss. And the link takes you to an article with actual quotes from scientists and verifiable numeric claims (unlike the first article, which spendss a lot of time ripping Al Gore). First off, it's a complete misrepresentation of the claims about C02 harming the ecosystem to simplify it like this. Duh, C02 helps plants grow. I've yet to see anyone claim otherwise. So if you like Jurassic conditions, game on! The quotes included in the article are specific to the issue of crop growth, and there's even a very brief acknowledgement at the end that other factors might be important regarding C02 in the atmosphere.
A booming banana crop in Edmonton won't be a sign of global health, at least as measured by people. What it will be is a sign that, after another many millions of years, we'll have re-established a healthy petrochemical industry for whatever creature rules the earth then. The coal beds and petroleum deposits that the dinosaurs so graciously provided may be gone, but we're gonna make new ones!

[arthunter]

Podfish,

I certainly do want to see a change to clean energy such as solar and wind because the oil companies are destroying the world in a lot of ways ... coal and nuclear are also a big risk ... but I present the facts that I do because of legislation ( based on climate change hysteria ) which is threatening "we the people" ... i.e. Agenda 21, which has now been banned in 9 states because of property right concerns ... there's even a debate going on about who exactly controls our National Parks since the United Nations is now involved ... basically, Americans are getting concerned about maintaining control of their own land, and this all connects to the sustainability issue ...

I also do not want to get into a link war but there are many links which support the fact that the arctic ice mass is growing at the moment, not shrinking .... and you certainly can't argue with Handy's post in which all of these drastic predictions simply didn't materialize ...

I'd be interested in info about the dangers of CO2 because there are certainly benefits if you are discussing the sustainability of the planet, including feeding our population ...

ok, since Edward started it, I'll respond too. In the spirit of not joining a link-war, I'll just comment. ...

[podfish]

.... and you certainly can't argue with Handy's post in which all of these drastic predictions simply didn't materialize ...

oh sure I could. "All these" are the ones he chose. That doesn't mean there aren't more measured and qualified risk assessments. Climate change isn't unique in that. There are also plenty of other end-of-the-world predictions that don't materialize. The rapture hasn't happened yet either, but does that mean there's no heaven? And just because the jackbooted thugs haven't yet taken our guns, like was predicted when Obama was elected, doesn't mean it won't happen when Hillary takes over.

Note that bad predictions come from all ideological directions - the real question is whether all the supporting evidence for a position is subject to the same failings or not.

[handy]

Are Rosanne ("arthunter") and Bruce ("handy") the only Climate Change denialists on Wacco?

I've seen no one deny the fact that climate changes. The argument is with those who believe it is human caused, and are so arrogant as to believe they know how to "fix" it, and are willing to use the force of the State to coerce others. Please stop with the accusatory lies and name calling.

I thought there were a few more.

I'm sure there are more people who disagree with you, but I'm willing to bet that they've become so tired of your passive aggressive name calling in lieu of friendly discussion, that they're unwilling to bother responding to you.

Why aren't they rearing their anti-science heads now?

Another of your LIES. No one here is anti-science. I aced Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and loved all of it.

Anymore "Libertarians" out there care to add to the misinformation?

Come one, come all!

My sense of libertarianism is doing my best to live by the Non Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule.
This is a lifelong personal discipline, not a political stance. I'm sure you'll waste no time finding fault with it.

How is the list of actual quotes misinformation?

Your conditioned statist alarmism is understandable. It's your utter fundamentalist certainty I find disturbing.

[handy]

oh sure I could. "All these" are the ones he chose.

Do you read?!
I merely pointed to a widely publicized list. I didn't choose or edit it in any way, which would be blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention.

[podfish]

Do you read?!
I merely pointed to a widely publicized list. I didn't choose or edit it in any way, which would be blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention.

I read gud enuf. Do you? It's not 'blatently obvious' to me that you didn't choose the items in your list, though. How else would they have gotten there? (and yes, I know you have a link to the site they were culled from..) Actually, I do believe if you actually read my post the last few sentences make it abundantly clear that I find failed predictions as largely irrelevant when judging the validity of claims of all sorts.

I merely pointed out that your post isn't inarguable, that the existence of failed predictions isn't definitive.
I'm not actually disputing (or accepting, for that matter) your premise; I'm challenging arthunter's apparent belief that these quotes do much to prove anything regarding climate change as superstition, scam or hoax. I don't always read posts clearly before I respond to them either, but this time the irony's on you...

[geomancer]

There are links that show the Arctic sea ice mass as growing, but they are complete and utter bullshit. The satellite evidence of sea ice loss since the 1970s is incontrovertible. Google it and avoid such crap as the Daily Caller. NOAA, NASA and the USGS have accurate information.

Antarctic sea ice is growing, but this is due to special circumstances there. The West Antarctic ice sheet is rapidly loosing ice mass due to sea water invasion beneath the ice streams that drain the sheet, which are now disgorging huge masses of ice. The loss of ice from the land will raise sea level.

Floating ice sheets are very reflective and have a strong effect on albedo, but change in aerial extent has no effect on sea level one way or the other.

Richard

Podfish, I also do not want to get into a link war but there are many links which support the fact that the arctic ice mass is growing at the moment, not shrinking ....

[arthunter]

Thanks for the debate folks ... all very interesting ...

I'm interested in knowing the truth so I've done more research ... here's a page of statistics for those of you who are really into this and have the time to delve deeper ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/referenc.../sea-ice-page/

Here's a good article about the debate that we're having ... it seems that this debate is widespread ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/...lobal-warming/

and here's an article from the Guardian which I find shocking ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ate-scientists

[podfish]

....

and here's an article from the Guardian which I find shocking ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ate-scientists

I may be misreading either the British humour or what you think this implies, but it seems to me he's channeling the New Yorker's Andy Borowitz with this article.

this dates back to 2009 and IIRC there was a kerfluffle over a bunch of leaked emails from some scientists in the 'global warming industry' that many thought suggested they'd been cooking data. That's pretty much fizzled away by now - old news to the 'skeptics' and happily forgotten by the AGW enthusiasts.

[Valley Oak]

Once again, Rosanne, the website you cited, "whats up with that?," is yet another bogus website. It is NOT a science website. It is a commentary and blog site that DENIES or is skeptical of manmade Climate Change, depending on which quack is posting his or her blog:

"Watts Up With That? (WUWT for short) is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by California meteorologist Anthony Watts and known for its criticism of global warming science.[1]

In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy. Because of its high traffic numbers, the blog played a key role in the resulting controversy; the resulting investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.[3]

Observers and critics have noted the blog's influence and role in the debate over global warming science on the Internet."

Monckton, a skeptic towards the theory of anthropogenic global warming, also published a detailed rebuttal on WUWT in response to criticism directed at him by John Abraham, associate professor of mechanical engineering at University of St. Thomas.[22]

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy:

• The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[18]
  
• Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[19]
  
• "There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts", wrote David Suzuki.[20]
  
• The Bloggies founder acknowledged in 2013 that climate skeptic bloggers had influenced voting and made it difficult for legitimate science blogs to compete,[29]

Thanks for the debate folks ... all very interesting ... I'm interested in knowing the truth so I've done more research ...

[Scott McKeown]

This discussion deserves a new Waccobb term:

Linkreactive (noun)

A reaction commonly found among proponents of an outrageous and unsubstantiated public claim made on Waccobb through a posted website link when there is a lack of facts to support the website's claims, which causes the proponents to dismiss subsequent posted links to websites with overwhelming opposing evidence as merely a "link war". Such dismissal, in their minds, supposedly neutralizes any and all sources of facts countering the claim, no matter how substantial they may be.

People suffering from linkreactivity have often initially posted links to websites created by amateur advocates with no experience or expertise whatsoever in the field they are addressing and that offer either no factual data to support their outlandish claims or spread outright misinformation. Nevertheless, when confronted with links to websites that contain substantive, countering factual data, all websites are then suddenly deemed equal to all others, no matter the difference of authoritativeness or how evidence-based. As in, "Someone posted a link on Wacco to some bogus website that claimed Arctic sea ice has been growing, not shrinking, so I posted a link to a website sponsored by NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proving the exact opposite, when all of a sudden everything went all linkreactive and it was all poo-pooed as just a link war"

Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record

[arthunter]

There seems to be a tendency to discredit anyone expressing an alternative point of view ... let's look at a more balanced description of this "bogus" website ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

According to journalist Christopher Booker, in 2007 WUWT readers, along with Stephen McIntyre, found that selected temperature records published by theGoddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) based on data from United States Historical Climate Network were in error, causing GISS to mistakenly label 1998 as the hottest year on record for the United States.^[6] In August 2007, McIntyre alerted GISS to the problematic numbers, which GISS acknowledged and corrected.

According to Alexa internet statistical analysis, What's Up With That? is ranked No. 9,282 in the U.S. and No. 24,144 world-wide.^[13] WUWT receives more than two million visits per month.^[14] Fred Pearce, environmental writer and author, described WUWT as the "world's most viewed climate website" in his 2010 publication of The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming.^[15] Matt Ridley of The Spectator described WUWT as having "metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians".^[16]

Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist and contributor to the IPCC First Assessment Report, described WUWT as part of a new "parallel universe" of emerging online publications, manned by serious scientists critical of world governments approach to climate change: "A parallel universe is assembling itself parallel to the IPCC. This universe has become very technical – very proficient at taking apart the U.N.'s findings."^[17]

In February 2010, climatologist Judith Curry, as a guest contributor, published an open letter on WUWT and other climate-related blogs, "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust," in which Curry commented on the benefits of blog-led debate and called for greater transparency in scientists' work.^[14] Also in 2010, Christopher Monckton published on WUWT his account of his "influence on Lady Thatcher's views about climate change during the 1980s".^[21] Monckton, a skeptic towards the theory of anthropogenic global warming, also published a detailed rebuttal on WUWT in response to criticism directed at him by John Abraham, associate professor of mechanical engineering at University of St. Thomas.^[22]

Fox News has attributed to WUWT exclusive photographs used in FoxNews's coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster.^[23]


Sorry, Edward, but this doesn't really seem bogus to me ...

Once again, Rosanne, the website you cited, "whats up with that?," is yet another bogus website. It is NOT a science website. It is a commentary and blog site that DENIES or is skeptical of manmade Climate Change, depending on which quack is posting his or her blog:...

[Hotspring 44]

Just for those who want a more 'scientific' perspective from a link where at least there is for the most part within it a science based (as far as I can tell anyway) opinion behind the author's belief that CO2 has little to do with the current global warming event.

I have neither the math knowledge nor the time right now to digest and interpret it but I think it is at least worth a look at.
https://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html