Watts Up With That, aka, LOLWUWT and WTFUWT

[abu afak]

""Watts Up with That​

Last updated on February 6th, 2022 at 07:20 am

​

​

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE ​

​

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

• Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report​

Bias Rating: CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History​

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006? The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that oppose the scientific consensus on climate change. According to their about page, “WattsUpWithThat.com is the world’s most viewed website on climate.” Anthony Watts states he was a “television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership​

The blog is owned by Anthony Watts and is funded through advertising and donations. The website does not disclose donors.

Analysis / Bias​

In review, the sole purpose of the website is to debunk human-influenced climate change. Climatologist Michael E. Mann has called WUWT the leading climate change denial blog. There are numerous articles about WUWT and many failed fact checks that can be seen here through a factual search.

Failed Fact Checks​

• “there has not been a long-term distinctive change in sea level rise rates in the last 120 years” – Inaccurate
• “The amount of coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at record high levels”; those claiming the reef is threatened by climate change are alarmists – Inaccurate
• “Great Barrier Reef Sea Surface Temperature: No Change In 150 Years” – Inaccurate
• More Embarrassment: COP26 Luxury EVs to be Recharged Using Diesel Generators – Mostly False
• “Facebook is spamming all climate articles by misleading readers about” the accuracy of climate models.” – False

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong Pseudoscience and Conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several Failed fact checks. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 02/06/2022)

Watts Up with That - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hourly tolling of ALL my/other 'lib' threads is a much bigger issue.
*** You dumb cvmstain
we need some rules here that apply to Both sides, not let RWers/Skookeasbil sabotage threads.

.

Meanwhile the Article remains UNCHALLENGED

 

[abu afak]

Let's see if any of these warmist/alarmists can counter the CONTENT of this WUWT article which I posted before only to see ZERO comments about the CONTENT of the post itself just a lot of screaming attacks against the blog without evidence screams at the author without evidence and even when repeatedly asked to address something in the article they run away.

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?​

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Excerpt:

Despite my asking over and over in a host of forums, including in my previous post, to date, nobody has been able to tell me just what this supposed “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!” actually is and where I might find evidence that it exists. Here are some facts for the folks that think that the climate is a real danger to humanity.

Let me begin with the fact that the IPCC itself doesn’t think that there is a “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency”. In the IPCC AR6 WG1, the single mention of a “climate emergency” is a far-too-gentle chiding of the media for using the term, viz:


And it’s no surprise that the IPCC doesn’t think there’s an emergency. To start with, deaths from climate-related phenomena are at an all-time low. If you think deaths from climate-related catastrophes are an emergency, please point in the graph below to the start of the “emergency”.

LINK

=====

I am sure they will once again run away from the article itself and just scream against it because they no arguments to offer against it.

Don't you really mean 'can I Contradict Your Copy and Paste with mine' of course?
Respond in kind right?
Mine a better source.
You can't debate me you Idiot.
Don't you realize how Easy it is?
Indeed, how many MORE I could put up than you can because my view has Science on its side?

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So​

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed
Mark Fischetti on April 12, 2021
Scientific American

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity.... Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

Journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here. The statement we have issued was coordinated by Covering Climate Now, a global journalism initiative with more than 400 media partners. Here it is:

​

April 12, 2021​

From Covering Climate Now, Scientific American, Columbia Journalism Review, the Nation, the Guardian, Noticias Telemundo, Al Jazeera, Asahi Shimbun and La Repubblica:​

​

The planet is heating up way too fast. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here.​

This is a statement of science, not politics. Thousands of scientists—including James Hansen, the NASA scientist who put the problem on the public agenda in 1988, and David King and Hans Schellnhuber, former science advisers to the British and German governments, respectively—have said humanity faces a “climate emergency.”​

​

Why “emergency”? Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires and ice melt of 2020 routine and could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable,” warned the January Scientific American article. ​

​

The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model. Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).​

.......​

​

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

​

​

`​

 

[Sunsettommy]

Don't you really mean 'can I Contradict Your Copy and Paste with mine' of course?
Respond in kind right?
Mine a better source.
You can't debate me you Idiot.
Don't you realize how Easy it is?
Indeed, how many MORE I could put up than you can because my view has Science on its side?

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So​

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed
Mark Fischetti on April 12, 2021
Scientific American

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity.... Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

Journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here. The statement we have issued was coordinated by Covering Climate Now, a global journalism initiative with more than 400 media partners. Here it is:

​

April 12, 2021​

From Covering Climate Now, Scientific American, Columbia Journalism Review, the Nation, the Guardian, Noticias Telemundo, Al Jazeera, Asahi Shimbun and La Repubblica:​

​

The planet is heating up way too fast. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here.​

This is a statement of science, not politics. Thousands of scientists—including James Hansen, the NASA scientist who put the problem on the public agenda in 1988, and David King and Hans Schellnhuber, former science advisers to the British and German governments, respectively—have said humanity faces a “climate emergency.”​

​

Why “emergency”? Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires and ice melt of 2020 routine and could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable,” warned the January Scientific American article. ​

​

The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model. Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).​

.......​

​

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

​

​

`​

You deflected which means....,

Meanwhile the Article remains UNCHALLENGED

 

[abu afak]

You deflected which means....,

Meanwhile the Article remains UNCHALLENGED

"Deflected" is YOUR empty claim.

So you're now Reduced to that and an emoticon you Pathetic little WUWT Monkey.
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Deflected" is YOUR empty claim.

So you're now Reduced to that and an emoticon you Pathetic little WTFUWT Monkey.
`

If it is as bad as YOU claim, then it should be easy for YOU to counter the claims of the article you haven't read which means you actually have to post about them but will not happen because you KNOW you can't address any of it.

Meanwhile the Article remains UNCHALLENGED

 

[abu afak]

If it is as bad as YOU claim, then it should be easy for YOU to counter the claims of the article you haven't read which means you actually have to post about them but will not happen because you KNOW you can't address any of it.

Meanwhile the Article remains UNCHALLENGED

The article remains REFUTED unless you can contradict my rebuttal article citing a much larger base of scientists.

And taking a quick Big Fallacy I see in your WUWT Link is the 'death rate from natural disaster graph' over 100 years.
Of course, we have Weather satellites now, hurricane and earthquake building codes, earthquake detection, Tsunami buoys, etc, etc, etc, which all took large Human Intervention/invention to dramatically lower that rate.
As will Global Warming's Wider weather/climate problems of more extreme events and rising sea level.

Amazing what a trolling CHILD you turned out to be when one of your BOGUS (and reiterated no less) WUWT 'studies'/graphs got busted.
Two embarrassing SunsetSkooker one-line/emoticon posts!

EDIT to below (as I will not indulge the 100% trolling following)
Make that THREE embarrassing Sunset Skooker-like one-line/emoticon posts
Turns out when you answer/refute Tommy's WUWTs he falls apart.
And so Badly was Tommy GUTTED his buddy Wetwall just tried to compensate by giving me 10 'dislikes.'
Then two More team players piling on with one-line Trolls also KNOWING SSTommy got Hurt bad.
Troll on.
I will Not indulge any of the non-Topical content below.

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

The article remains REFUTED unless you can contradict my rebuttal article citing a much larger base of scientists.

Taking a quick fallacy I see in it is the Big death rate from natural disaster graph over 100 years.
Of course, we have Weather satellites now, hurricane and earthquake building codes, etc, etc, etc which all took large human intervention to lower that rate.
As will Global warming's wider weather problems of more extreme events and rising seal level.

Amazing what a trolling CHILD you turned out to be stripped of your BOGUS WUWT 'studies' and graphs.
You're Just another USMB TROLL without them.
Two embarrassing SunsetSkooker one-line/emoticon posts!

`

The Article remains UNCHALLENGED since it was never addressed.

Your lazy stupidity is making me laugh and stay awake.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

Hilarious!

 

[Muhammed]

As usual you fail to understand Sarcasm that means your struggle is expected.

Meanwhile this thread is just a barrage of personal attacks because he and many warmist/alarmists can't address the CONTENT of the articles many rational people have posted here now that it is world's LARGEST science blog it will always be a target for childish attacks and a thorn in their dirty underpants.

As a Moderator there I see a lot of people with real science degrees and other technical degrees comment there and they generally make a lot of good points on the articles.

Currently at this moment there are 3,326,714 comments approved.

322,211 views / 6,028 comments​

Feb, Sat 19 — Feb, Fri 25​

Wikipedia is for wikidiots, dumbass

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wikipedia is for wikidiots, dumbass

Huh?

I didn't use Wikipedia it was from the Moderator area of WUWT where the numbers came from.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hourly tolling of ALL my/other 'lib' threads is a much bigger issue.
*** You dumb cvmstain
we need some rules here that apply to Both sides, not let RWers/Skookeasbil sabotage threads.

.

Also how about no old rocks socks?

 

[ding]

we need some rules here that apply to Both sides, not let RWers/Skookeasbil sabotage threads.

 

[daveman]

Nothing petulant about asking for sober coherent discussion.
One that avoids the hundreds/thousands of RW Trolls who never go past one or two sentences and Never post any topical Content.
`

You don't want coherent discussion. You want instant, unthinking agreement and endorsement. Because you're whiny as hell that people are allowed to disagree with you.

 

[daveman]

""Watts Up with That​

Last updated on February 6th, 2022 at 07:20 am

​

​

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE ​

​

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

• Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report​

Bias Rating: CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History​

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006? The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that oppose the scientific consensus on climate change. According to their about page, “WattsUpWithThat.com is the world’s most viewed website on climate.” Anthony Watts states he was a “television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership​

The blog is owned by Anthony Watts and is funded through advertising and donations. The website does not disclose donors.

Analysis / Bias​

In review, the sole purpose of the website is to debunk human-influenced climate change. Climatologist Michael E. Mann has called WUWT the leading climate change denial blog. There are numerous articles about WUWT and many failed fact checks that can be seen here through a factual search.

Failed Fact Checks​

• “there has not been a long-term distinctive change in sea level rise rates in the last 120 years” – Inaccurate
• “The amount of coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at record high levels”; those claiming the reef is threatened by climate change are alarmists – Inaccurate
• “Great Barrier Reef Sea Surface Temperature: No Change In 150 Years” – Inaccurate
• More Embarrassment: COP26 Luxury EVs to be Recharged Using Diesel Generators – Mostly False
• “Facebook is spamming all climate articles by misleading readers about” the accuracy of climate models.” – False

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong Pseudoscience and Conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several Failed fact checks. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 02/06/2022)

Watts Up with That - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

`

Wow, your source really doesn't like heresy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wow, your source really doesn't like heresy.

He can't admit that the article is too hard for him to address which is why he dances all around it with deflections and fallacies.

It has been 9 months now and ZERO counterpoints to the Content of the article it is clearly above their ability to handle it.

It is now my favorite fly paper article since they react to it like devils react to holy water.

 

[Crick]

CO2 most powerful molecule in the Universe! Floods, fires, droughts, Cat 6 hurricanes, heats the deep oceans, melts the polar ice caps in record time, and has never been found in a single laboratory experiment!

Never found in a laboratory experiment? WtF are you babbling about now Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Never found in a laboratory experiment? WtF are you babbling about now Frank?

Show us the temperature increase controlling for increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 pan

Possible Crick answers:

1. Denier! We have consensus!
2. I posted a chart showing CO2 is a GHG!
3. Denier!

This is tiresome

 

[abu afak]

Wiik GHG

A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.[1]
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3).

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5] The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases.

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6]

The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago.[7] This increase has occurred despite the absorption of more than half of the emissions by various natural carbon sinks in the carbon cycle.[8][9]......

`

 

[skookerasbil]

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Willard Anthony Watts is a blogger, weathercaster and Non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does Not have a university qualification and has No climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website Wott's Up With That? | A response to Climate Change disinformation at wattsupwiththat.com - - - Watts is on the Payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by Polluting industries.[1]

Watts attended Purdue University from 1975 to 1982 but left without graduating.[2] A number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed, but a direct query to Purdue revealed that he did Not obtain a degree from the university.
[......]
"Leipzig Declaration" signatory:: The signers of the Declaration are described as "climate scientists", although they include 25 weather presenters.[30] An attempt to contact the declaration's 33 European signers found that 4 of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal and the govt of Kuwait.
[......]

But wait...all that site has done is win for the last 15 years. Lopsided winning btw.

The public has obviously embraced Watts reporting. How do we know?

We know because climate alarmists have done zero to move the voters to ANY action on energy policy!

So this thread is like spiking the football because you got a date with the fattest, ugliest girl in town!! Impressive!