SkepticalScience vs WUWT

[IanC]

everybody likes to read about subjects that interest them, and even moreso if the opinions of the articles are in line with the reader's opinions.

I personally have been called a cult member because I read WUWT to find out about the latest news about the climate wars and related developments. I have seen similar comments directed towards people who talk about articles in SkepticalScience.

I read SkS less and less now because they are usually late to talk about topical news, and I hate their heavyhanded approach of lecturing people on what they should think rather than supplying the information and expecting people to reach their own conclusions.

what do you guys think?

who has better.......

coverage of topical news

range of opinion

comment sections that allow all sides to state their case

quick reference guides to access information




what site has the better blog owner? is it Watts or Cook? which one is more qualified? who is more honourable?


any interesting stories of being pleasantly surprised by reading something at the 'wrong' site? or is it always being pissed off at the blatant partisanship of 'the other guys'?

 

[SSDD]

WUWT is the far superior site although I don't read it so much any more either. I stop in every 4th or 5th day and peruse what has been posted since I was last there. Their knee jerk reaction to Goddard's statement that a large part of the temperature record being fabricated is why I don't visit as much as I used to. His blinders allow a much wider field of view than those of places like SS but hey is wearing blinders none the less. And yes, he is far more honorable than the owner of SS...but then ethics has never been the "thing" of liberals. They have a long history of believing that the ends justify the means.

 

[IanC]

WUWT is the far superior site although I don't read it so much any more either. I stop in every 4th or 5th day and peruse what has been posted since I was last there. Their knee jerk reaction to Goddard's statement that a large part of the temperature record being fabricated is why I don't visit as much as I used to. His blinders allow a much wider field of view than those of places like SS but hey is wearing blinders none the less. And yes, he is far more honorable than the owner of SS...but then ethics has never been the "thing" of liberals. They have a long history of believing that the ends justify the means.

yes, Watts' apology to Goddard for making assumptions wasnt exactly sincere, was it? however he did make one, which is more than the SkS gang does when they are found to be wrong.

 

[mamooth]

who has better.......

coverage of topical news

That's what WUWT excels at, politics and rumors. WUWT is more a gossip blog, while SkS is a science reference site.

range of opinion

WUWT. And that's a bad thing, being it's a range of really crazy opinions, mostly about the vast socialist conspiracy. SkS is a science reference site, so it does that boring data stuff instead of opinions.

comment sections that allow all sides to state their case

Neither one does that. Watts because actual science offends him, and SkS because they don't like denier spam that's been debunked a thousand times before drowning out intelligent discussion. Intelligent criticism is quite welcomd at SkS.

quick reference guides to access information

SkS, as it's designed as a reference site.

what site has the better blog owner? is it Watts or Cook? which one is more qualified

Cook, obviously. His science is solid, as is agreed by everyone not in the denier cult.

Watts is just bad at science, which is why he mostly just solicits random awful science from other authors. Or he'll reprint mainstream science articles preceded by the phrase "Claimed:", which is his signal to the flying monkeys that they're supposed to pile on with some crazy in the comments.

who is more honourable?

Cook has a sterling rep, while Watts immediately dives down to personal insults any time his wisdom is challenged.

any interesting stories of being pleasantly surprised by reading something at the 'wrong' site? or is it always being pissed off at the blatant partisanship of 'the other guys'?

I'm pleasantly surprised Watts hasn't banned Nick Stokes/Moyhu. He appears to have been grandfathered in, as no new WUWT commenter could talk actual science and not get banned. Watts does, of course, still freely fling the insults at him.

 

[jc456]

who has better.......

coverage of topical news

That's what WUWT excels at, politics and rumors. WUWT is more a gossip blog, while SkS is a science reference site.

range of opinion

WUWT. And that's a bad thing, being it's a range of really crazy opinions, mostly about the vast socialist conspiracy. SkS is a science reference site, so it does that boring data stuff instead of opinions.



Neither one does that. Watts because actual science offends him, and SkS because they don't like denier spam that's been debunked a thousand times before drowning out intelligent discussion. Intelligent criticism is quite welcomd at SkS.



SkS, as it's designed as a reference site.



Cook, obviously. His science is solid, as is agreed by everyone not in the denier cult.

Watts is just bad at science, which is why he mostly just solicits random awful science from other authors. Or he'll reprint mainstream science articles preceded by the phrase "Claimed:", which is his signal to the flying monkeys that they're supposed to pile on with some crazy in the comments.

who is more honourable?

Cook has a sterling rep, while Watts immediately dives down to personal insults any time his wisdom is challenged.

any interesting stories of being pleasantly surprised by reading something at the 'wrong' site? or is it always being pissed off at the blatant partisanship of 'the other guys'?

I'm pleasantly surprised Watts hasn't banned Nick Stokes/Moyhu. He appears to have been grandfathered in, as no new WUWT commenter could talk actual science and not get banned. Watts does, of course, still freely fling the insults at him.

It figures you'd side with the cartoonist!!!

 

[Kosh]

The house of a skeptic:

The car of skeptic:

The house of a AGW believer:

So who would you believe when it comes to science?

 

[mamooth]

By the way, can I get any denier here to criticize the data thefts from SKS or CRU, or are you all united in the stalwart defense your "The ends always justify the means for my side, so theft is good!" lifestyles?

 

[westwall]

everybody likes to read about subjects that interest them, and even moreso if the opinions of the articles are in line with the reader's opinions.

I personally have been called a cult member because I read WUWT to find out about the latest news about the climate wars and related developments. I have seen similar comments directed towards people who talk about articles in SkepticalScience.

I read SkS less and less now because they are usually late to talk about topical news, and I hate their heavyhanded approach of lecturing people on what they should think rather than supplying the information and expecting people to reach their own conclusions.

what do you guys think?

who has better.......

coverage of topical news

range of opinion

comment sections that allow all sides to state their case

quick reference guides to access information




what site has the better blog owner? is it Watts or Cook? which one is more qualified? who is more honourable?


any interesting stories of being pleasantly surprised by reading something at the 'wrong' site? or is it always being pissed off at the blatant partisanship of 'the other guys'?

Cook is a comic book editor. He is also a clown.

 

[flacaltenn]

I just go to shiftyscience to check on the AtomBomb counters and to chuckle at the cartoons that they present as data graphs.. ALMOST NEVER have found an ACTUAL plot or graph on that site that came from real traceable data without some rooky cartoonist taking liberties with it..

I'm old enough to know what it was like to rely on librarians for help on research.. They are EXCELLENT at listing possible sources. But I would never ask one for an opinion on my topic or to RANK the sources. Same with blogs. They are the Librarians of folks doing research today and many of them are far superior to the guidance you get just searching yourself..

I've even PAID for lit searches in the far past. That was a hoot..

 

[IanC]

By the way, can I get any denier here to criticize the data thefts from SKS or CRU, or are you all united in the stalwart defense your "The ends always justify the means for my side, so theft is good!" lifestyles?

no one was ever identified in the release of the climategate emails. high profile skeptics such as Watts or McIntyre did not disclose any of the emails until they were freely available at many other sources. there is a distinct possibility that it was a whistleblower who was uncomfortable with the flaunting of the FOI rules. the majority of the emails were (edit- capable of being) subject to FOI requests.

the SkS information was left lying around on the website, not even password protected. the second tranche that included info on the Cook and Lewandowsky papers was also left lying around, probably in non compliance of the terms of funding by the University. after they had already been embarrassed by their incompetence!!

compare that to Gleick who fraudulently misidentified himself to get Heartland donor lists. because that wasnt harmful enough he forged (or used someone else's forgery that was eerily similar to Gleick's writing style) a bogus memo that he attributed to Heartland.


you want me to be broken up over an unknown email leaker that released publicly funded emails? no way. I am actually very amused that the SkS boys left their Nazi SS garbed selfies out to be laughed at by the world. I didnt catch the ending of the Cook and Lew information fiasco. was it ever actually released to the public?

on the other hand Gleick admitted to illegally acquiring Heartland property, even if he didnt admit to the greater crime of forging documents. what was his punishment? basically nothing. he had to resign from being the head of the AGU's Ethics Committee. ethics indeed!

 

[SSDD]

By the way, can I get any denier here to criticize the data thefts from SKS or CRU, or are you all united in the stalwart defense your "The ends always justify the means for my side, so theft is good!" lifestyles?

no one was ever identified in the release of the climategate emails. high profile skeptics such as Watts or McIntyre did not disclose any of the emails until they were freely available at many other sources. there is a distinct possibility that it was a whistleblower who was uncomfortable with the flaunting of the FOI rules. the majority of the emails were (edit- capable of being) subject to FOI requests.

the SkS information was left lying around on the website, not even password protected. the second tranche that included info on the Cook and Lewandowsky papers was also left lying around, probably in non compliance of the terms of funding by the University. after they had already been embarrassed by their incompetence!!

compare that to Gleick who fraudulently misidentified himself to get Heartland donor lists. because that wasnt harmful enough he forged (or used someone else's forgery that was eerily similar to Gleick's writing style) a bogus memo that he attributed to Heartland.


you want me to be broken up over an unknown email leaker that released publicly funded emails? no way. I am actually very amused that the SkS boys left their Nazi SS garbed selfies out to be laughed at by the world. I didnt catch the ending of the Cook and Lew information fiasco. was it ever actually released to the public?

on the other hand Gleick admitted to illegally acquiring Heartland property, even if he didnt admit to the greater crime of forging documents. what was his punishment? basically nothing. he had to resign from being the head of the AGU's Ethics Committee. ethics indeed!

And another one shows a complete lack of ethics in an attempt to defend the indefensible. What sort of people raise children to be such corrupt and unprincipled adults. If admiral hairball actually was in the military, she/he is a discredit to the service.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey SSDD.......take a gander on the face page of this forum!!! The SKEPTICS WINNING thread is rocketing towards 100,000 views!! Too......its the one thread that is perpetually at the top of the forum face page. In fact.......when you do a BING search, its the #1 link!!! The Domination Matrix = internet famous!!!. The AGW contingent in here.......not so much!!


Who knew???!!!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

It is amazing how much racket a small minority of warmer wackaloons can make in order to keep a page going like that for so long.

 

[IanC]

who has better.......

coverage of topical news

That's what WUWT excels at, politics and rumors. WUWT is more a gossip blog, while SkS is a science reference site.

range of opinion

WUWT. And that's a bad thing, being it's a range of really crazy opinions, mostly about the vast socialist conspiracy. SkS is a science reference site, so it does that boring data stuff instead of opinions.



Neither one does that. Watts because actual science offends him, and SkS because they don't like denier spam that's been debunked a thousand times before drowning out intelligent discussion. Intelligent criticism is quite welcomd at SkS.



SkS, as it's designed as a reference site.



Cook, obviously. His science is solid, as is agreed by everyone not in the denier cult.

Watts is just bad at science, which is why he mostly just solicits random awful science from other authors. Or he'll reprint mainstream science articles preceded by the phrase "Claimed:", which is his signal to the flying monkeys that they're supposed to pile on with some crazy in the comments.

who is more honourable?

Cook has a sterling rep, while Watts immediately dives down to personal insults any time his wisdom is challenged.

any interesting stories of being pleasantly surprised by reading something at the 'wrong' site? or is it always being pissed off at the blatant partisanship of 'the other guys'?

I'm pleasantly surprised Watts hasn't banned Nick Stokes/Moyhu. He appears to have been grandfathered in, as no new WUWT commenter could talk actual science and not get banned. Watts does, of course, still freely fling the insults at him.

who, exactly is banned? the only ones I know of are slayers, and that is because of continued intrangitence.


you keep saying SkS is a reference site but the toolbars tell a different story. WUWT has links to just about every site affiliated with climate science where as SkS has a resource page that seems to only link to articles on 'how to talk to deniers'.

Guide to Skepticism

Climate Graphics

Climate History

Climate Glossary

Climate Misinformers

Latest Climate Links

Guide to Skeptics Handbook

Links by argument

Trend Calculator

Politician Climate Myths

could you give me a few examples of the 'mostly about vast socialist conspiracies'? I cant seem to find them. does 'mostly about' mean the same thing as 97%?

 

[Crick]

Why WUWT well and truly sucks:

Anthony Watts
Roger Pielke Jr
Anthony Watts
Roy Spencer
Anthony Watts
Bob Tisdale
Anthony Watts
Tim Ball
Anthony Watts
William Happer
Anthony Watts
Willis Eschenbach
Anthony Watts
Christopher Monckton
Anthony Watts
Willie Soon
Anthony Watts
Sallie Bailunas
Anthony Watts
Don Easterbrook
Anthony Watts
Mark Steyn
Anthony Watts
James Taylor
Anthony Watts
Surveys by Rasmussen
and Anthony Watts

Questions?

 

[mamooth]

who, exactly is banned? the only ones I know of are slayers, and that is because of continued intrangitence.

Of course you don't know of the banned people, because they were banned so quickly. It's a running joke on AGW sites, as to who can get banned the fastest at WUWT for talking about science.

you keep saying SkS is a reference site but the toolbars tell a different story.

The WUWT toolbar is an Alexa Toolbar variant, defined as spyware by many anti-adware programs. I'll pass.

WUWT has links to just about every site affiliated with climate science where as SkS has a resource page that seems to only link to articles on 'how to talk to deniers'.

I consider reference material to be reference, not links to blogs.

By the way, it's funny how the anti-Cook hysteria at WUWT even extends to the SKS link.

could you give me a few examples of the 'mostly about vast socialist conspiracies'? I cant seem to find them. does 'mostly about' mean the same thing as 97%?

I'll go down the first 12 entries on the front page now, and see which articles invoke the conspiracy in some form. I counted 6, so 50%. If you count the comments, it's always 100%.

North Carolina Outlaws Alarmist Planning Advice -Restricts SLR planning input to maximum timeframe of 30 years | Watts Up With That?
---
North Carolina Outlaws Alarmist Planning Advice
---

NYT: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters | Watts Up With That?
---
Unfortunately the few climate alarmists that constitute the “consensus” have circled the wagons to protect obviously flawed publications as documented in How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half-Truths
---

The climate consensus is not 97% ? it?s 100% | Watts Up With That?
---
One of the many fundamental dishonesties in the climate debate is the false impression created by the Thermageddonites and their hosts of allies in the Main Stream Media
---

The PNAS ?old boys? club?: NAS members can ?choose who will review their paper? | Watts Up With That?
---
This unusual process allows authors to choose who will review their paper and how to respond to those reviewers’ comments.
---

Claim: Climate change may bring more kidney stones ? but the Tasian et al. paper lacks proper controls | Watts Up With That?
---
the Tasian et al. paper is nothing but junk science designed to produce a result
---

Climate Change Hysteria and the Madness of Crowds | Watts Up With That?
---
Sustainability, population control, and redistributive-based social justice were offered as moral justifications for the one-world governance needed to solve one-world problems
---

 

[mamooth]

And another one shows a complete lack of ethics in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Indeed. Not a single denier will condemn the data thefts from SKS and CRU, or their fudging escapades that followed. I don't need to comment further. Deniers really do think the ends always justify the means for their cult. If theft and dishonesty help their cult, then they support it.

SSDD, why do you think you can act in such an immoral manner without any repercussions? You have to know we're going to keep pointing out your hypocrisy and all-around bad behavior here. It's difficult to get people to have a lower opinion of deniers, but you might just manage to make it happen.

Anyways, proceed with some more fine Cook Derangement Syndrome. Just another example the character assassination that forms the heart of denier "science". If you can't talk about issues, attacking people is one of the few options you have.

 

[westwall]

Why WUWT well and truly sucks:

Anthony Watts
Roger Pielke Jr
Anthony Watts
Roy Spencer
Anthony Watts
Bob Tisdale
Anthony Watts
Tim Ball
Anthony Watts
William Happer
Anthony Watts
Willis Eschenbach
Anthony Watts
Christopher Monckton
Anthony Watts
Willie Soon
Anthony Watts
Sallie Bailunas
Anthony Watts
Don Easterbrook
Anthony Watts
Mark Steyn
Anthony Watts
James Taylor
Anthony Watts
Surveys by Rasmussen
and Anthony Watts

Questions?

Yes, we get it. No blasphemy against the Scriptures is allowed!

 

[westwall]

who, exactly is banned? the only ones I know of are slayers, and that is because of continued intrangitence.

Of course you don't know of the banned people, because they were banned so quickly. It's a running joke on AGW sites, as to who can get banned the fastest at WUWT for talking about science.

you keep saying SkS is a reference site but the toolbars tell a different story.

The WUWT toolbar is an Alexa Toolbar variant, defined as spyware by many anti-adware programs. I'll pass.

WUWT has links to just about every site affiliated with climate science where as SkS has a resource page that seems to only link to articles on 'how to talk to deniers'.

I consider reference material to be reference, not links to blogs.

By the way, it's funny how the anti-Cook hysteria at WUWT even extends to the SKS link.

could you give me a few examples of the 'mostly about vast socialist conspiracies'? I cant seem to find them. does 'mostly about' mean the same thing as 97%?

I'll go down the first 12 entries on the front page now, and see which articles invoke the conspiracy in some form. I counted 6, so 50%. If you count the comments, it's always 100%.

North Carolina Outlaws Alarmist Planning Advice -Restricts SLR planning input to maximum timeframe of 30 years | Watts Up With That?
---
North Carolina Outlaws Alarmist Planning Advice
---

NYT: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters | Watts Up With That?
---
Unfortunately the few climate alarmists that constitute the “consensus” have circled the wagons to protect obviously flawed publications as documented in How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half-Truths
---

The climate consensus is not 97% ? it?s 100% | Watts Up With That?
---
One of the many fundamental dishonesties in the climate debate is the false impression created by the Thermageddonites and their hosts of allies in the Main Stream Media
---

The PNAS ?old boys? club?: NAS members can ?choose who will review their paper? | Watts Up With That?
---
This unusual process allows authors to choose who will review their paper and how to respond to those reviewers’ comments.
---

Claim: Climate change may bring more kidney stones ? but the Tasian et al. paper lacks proper controls | Watts Up With That?
---
the Tasian et al. paper is nothing but junk science designed to produce a result
---

Climate Change Hysteria and the Madness of Crowds | Watts Up With That?
---
Sustainability, population control, and redistributive-based social justice were offered as moral justifications for the one-world governance needed to solve one-world problems
---

"Of course you don't know of the banned people, because they were banned so quickly. It's a running joke on AGW sites, as to who can get banned the fastest at WUWT for talking about science."

Please post a few links so we can see what you're talking about.

 

[westwall]

And another one shows a complete lack of ethics in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Indeed. Not a single denier will condemn the data thefts from SKS and CRU, or their fudging escapades that followed. I don't need to comment further. Deniers really do think the ends always justify the means for their cult. If theft and dishonesty help their cult, then they support it.

SSDD, why do you think you can act in such an immoral manner without any repercussions? You have to know we're going to keep pointing out your hypocrisy and all-around bad behavior here. It's difficult to get people to have a lower opinion of deniers, but you might just manage to make it happen.

Anyways, proceed with some more fine Cook Derangement Syndrome. Just another example the character assassination that forms the heart of denier "science". If you can't talk about issues, attacking people is one of the few options you have.

Why should we? The evidence strongly says that it was an INSIDER who released the emails. That means it was one of YOU who did it. As far as immorality, that is the purview of you guys. From Gleicks fabrication of papers, to his felonious theft of Heartland information, to the corruption of the peer review process, the attacks on scientists who don't follow the lead of the climate mafiosa.....no.

When it comes to unethical and criminal behavior you guys are the leaders in that field hands down.