Watts Up With That, aka, LOLWUWT and WTFUWT

[jc456]

You deflected which means....,

Meanwhile the Article remains UNCHALLENGED

Exactly. There was fking absolutely nothing in that entire post. holy shit I'm laughing my ass off.

 

[jc456]

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

but accurate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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]......

`

Wow!

CO2 is scary!

 

[BackAgain]

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.
`

If you request sober coherent discussion, it’s kind of incumbent on you to provide it yourself. You’re apparently not offended by the throngs of left wing trolls? Selective outrage?

By the way, your response to folks who merely disagree with you is not even remotely akin to a coherent discussion.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow!

CO2 is scary!

I wonder if “the science” will soon discover a new CO2 variant? The even more dangerous self-replicating climate warmering variant?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder if “the science” will soon discover a new CO2 variant? The even more dangerous self-replicating climate warmering variant?

Delta Variant! It causes Floods, fires, droughts and earthquakes

 

[BackAgain]

Delta Variant! It causes Floods, fires, droughts and earthquakes

Why hasn’t Brandon ordered a ramped-up vaccine program?

Global climate warmering-cooler-changering isn’t going to inoculate itself.

 

[abu afak]

Meanwhile this thread is just a barrage of personal attacks because he and many warmist/alarmists can't address the CONTENT of...,.... 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.

It's an attack on a Website and it's proprietor/his Position/qualifications and Paid financial interest.

"Attacks" on public figures like ie, Joe Biden or Breitbart are perfectly valid.
If I say Pete Buttigieg is not qualified to be President as mere mayor of South Bend, that is perfectly valid.
Or that Trump is the biggest liar of all time in public life...
perfectly valid.
Not to mention all 4 of mine are Fact-Filled and LINKED
One from the American Geophysical Union blog.


And It's about time you DISCLOSED You are a Moderator at WUWT.
I assume that means just bashing people who acknowledge REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE. Yes?
Real mods would know "attacks" on Public figures/websites are perfectly valid, unlike attacks on members.

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.
...

322,211 views / 6,028 comments​

Feb, Sat 19 — Feb, Fri 25​

Alex Jones and Infowars were 100x more popular.
Talk about argumentum ad populum extraordinaire!

What's the "most Popular" 9/11 Troofer site?

`

 

[abu afak]

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!

View attachment 613957

That site has done as [NOT] well as your 2013//8.5 year old "Skeptics are winning" thread.

We then had the 8 Hottest Years on Record after it.

all the while you mindlessly embarrassing yourself with snow on your lawn thinking it was working.

Anyone with a conscience/brain would have let it die.

And Alex Jones did just as well/MUCH Better with similar grade material.
`
'

 

[ding]

We then had the 8 Hottest Years on Record after it.

Perfectly normal for an interglacial cycle. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends. And none were cause by orbital or CO2 forcing. Solar output and albedo.

 

[abu afak]

First few posts and more.
(SunsetTommy has told us he is a moderator on that Climate denial Blog.)

"Watts Up With That"...

Now THAT is a scholarly link........

`

 

[abu afak]

Exactly. There was fking absolutely nothing in that entire post. holy shit I'm laughing my ass off.

The post was FactFUL.
`

 

[jc456]

The post was FactFUL.
`

Factful shit

 

[abu afak]

A joke of a website posted here INCESSANTLY.

Anthony Watts - RationalWiki
Willard Anthony Watts is a former Radio and TV Weatherman and notable global warming Denier...He is the proprietor of the Jerry Seinfeldian Watts Up With That (geddit?) blog, usually shortened to WUWT or, as it is sometimes affectionately nicknamed, LOLWUWT or WTFUWT. [.........]. Mostly he just Repeats the same Tired old denier talking points, or pulls out some random data and says, "Look, it's Cold somewhere!"

As is typical of media Weathercasters, Watts (a college dropout) has No academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines. Unencumbered by scientific expertise he works by intuition...
[......]
The Surface Stations Project:: Ironically, Watts has done more to strengthen the scientific evidence for AGW than refute it.[.....]the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres did analyze the data, and found that the stations Watts flagged as unreliable were indeed unreliable. They had actually Underestimated the maximum temperatures.[5] Good catch, Anthony!
BESTed::: Watts appeared to stake his entire stance on the reliability of surface temperature data on a single study: the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST)..... However, when BEST's results confirmed the Reliability of preexisting surface temperature records, Watts Backpedaled.[7] [.....] Lately Watts has Degenerated into Boringness, Repeating the Same tired arguments and making Al Gore jokes on LOLWUWT.
[.....]

Why do Wattsupwiththat and that other blogger website (I forget the name) account for like 99% of all media that contradicts what scientists are telling us about the climate? Does that not seem strange to anybody else?

Are all of the scientists and scientific institutions all over the world corrupt and lying to us, or is it more likely that the bullshitters are the couple of blog websites with spotty at best credibility that pump this shit out?

You people are desperate and blind if that doesn't raise red flags for you.

 

[abu afak]

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.
[......]

You'll have to pitch your panic to someone else, I ain't buyin'.

We have now entered the 4th decade of measuring sea level rise using the quartet of satellites Topex and Jason 1, 2 and 3. The first 3 decades were reported in the trio of papers (Ref 1), (Ref 2) and (Ref 3). These concluded that.

1. The perceived “accelerations” are mathematical accelerations occurring due to the methods of calculation, i.e. quadratic curve fitting, as used by Nerem et al [.pdf] (Ref 4) in their 2018 paper. Also, the start date of Jan 1993 also plays a major role in how the “accelerations” pan out.

2. The “accelerations” are now generally reducing year on year and are predicted to reach levels compatible with the long term (over 100 years) Tidal Gauge values during the next decade or two before stabilising over the next few decades.

3. A time span of 30 years is much too short a period to calculate actual accelerations with 3 or more times this period being needed.

Measuring and Analysing Sea Levels using Satellites during 2023

One conclusion is that the “accelerations” as calculated are not the harbingers of Doom and Gloom that many Climate Scientists, the BBC and the Guardian Paper portray. These “accelerations” may ju…

wattsupwiththat.com

Measuring and Analysing Sea Levels using Satellites during 2023 – Part 2

This essaay “investigates whether this variation is caused because the satellites orbit at 66 degrees inclination and a decadal oscillation in the seas spanning this latitude creates a lack o…

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[jc456]

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.
[......]

So, I will ask you to name anyone who isn't paid to back your claim. Got anyone?

 

[jc456]

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.
`

so when will you provide such? Can you name any actual climate scientist who isn't paid for climate research? Let's start there.

 

[abu afak]

What’s Funny About That? Quite a Bit Actually!
AGU Blog - Dan Satterfield
27 July 2015

What happens when you write a blog that is so full of Misinformation, and Incorrect assumptions, that someone starts a separate a blog to correct the mistakes? Well, for one thing you get some good laughs, and at times a real feeling of Schadenfreude! - I’m talking about the blog What’s up With That (WUWT) and HotWhopper which corrects the Bad science posted there on a daily basis.
If you don’t have Sou’s Hot Whopper in your reader, you really should.
Now, I rarely say much about WUWT, because it’s mainly an echo chamber for the conspiracy minded to agree with each other, without someone pointing out bothersome things like facts. Actually, the last time I mentioned it was by accident when I wrote If The Scientific Truth Is Inconvenient,Publish your Own Truth! about the “Open Atmospheric Society“. It turns out that it’s connected to WUWT (I suspected so) and it’s blog master Anthony Watts. Apparently he is starting his own journal to publish the truth that all the world’s scientists are all keeping hidden.
[.....]
The silliness at WUWT has been going on for a while now.....
We are definitely living in the age of the Conspiracy Theory..Sometimes it just takes a while.
In the meantime, sit back sheeple, put on the tinfoil hat, and grab the popcorn!
[......]
`

Alarmists just want MONEY!!!

Forbes’ False Alarm: NASA Claims on Worsening Weather Debunked by Data

All in all, the Forbes piece is pretty vague and innocuous outside of the false confidence projected of increasing severe weather based on some claims made by NASA that the author cites as authorit…

wattsupwiththat.com

You posted a WUWT article from an Oil-Funded Heartland Institute writer that's Fallacious.
She posts odd stats (days over 95) and another, but NOT Average temp!
We are talking about Increasing temp.
Conservative Forbes had it right.
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You posted a WUWT article from an Oil-Funded Heartland Institute writer that's Fallacious.
She posts odd stats (days over 95) and another, but NOT Average temp!
We are talking about Increasing temp.
Conservative Forbes had it right.
`

Conservative Forbes had it right.

The author from Harvard had it wrong.

The amount of CO2 has increased by about 50%, from about 285 ppm
to about 425 ppm.

Not by 150%.

DURR

Poor abu, even worse at math than the typical leftist moron.

 

[ding]

Conservative Forbes had it right.

View attachment 1117807

The author from Harvard had it wrong.

The amount of CO2 has increased by about 50%, from about 285 ppm
to about 425 ppm.

Not by 150%.

DURR

Poor abu, even worse at math than the typical leftist moron.

Those morons can't even do simple math. Sad.