Open thread – what could we do better?

open_threadIntrospection is always a good thing, and with that in mind, the suggested topic today – what could we do better at WUWT? Some background first.

I get lots of requests to change things, do things differently, or if you listen to some people, just shut down altogether; because they simply can’t tolerate an opinion contrary to their own views that gets as much attention as WUWT does.

One of the great things (or not so great depending on your viewpoint) about running a successful enterprise like this is that it now has other blogs dedicated solely to taunting that success, much like Obama has invoked taunting more than half of the citizens of the United States who have a different view from him on climate change. I see such blog spawn ( I need to update that page as there are more now) as a measure of success; flak, target, and all that.

A few caveats about things I can’t change right now that I often get asked about:

1. I can’t offer comment editing post facto, to do that I either need to spend $500/month to use the WordPress Enterprise feature (which I tried on invitation and decided it was not worth the price tag) or run on a self-hosted server. Since I don’t have time to chase down script kiddies and bot attacks like Lucia does, staying on WordPress.com is the only real option.

2. I can’t do research for people. Every day I get emails asking me to do research for questions, or go to some blog/newspaper/magazine and offer commentary to counter somebody in comments. I simply don’t have the time, I’m sorry.

3. I can’t change what ads popup on WUWT. They are entirely controlled by wordpress.com. That said, they are also contextually based on your browsing behavior. If you are getting ads that you think you should not be, chances are you’ve been pigeonholed for some reason. Clearing your browser cache/cookies always helps. That said, there was a rogue advertiser this past week that attempted to do re-directs. Alert readers alerted me, and I alerted the wordpress management who booted the advertiser.

4. Climategate 3 file dump: lots of people have looked at it, searched it, and scoured the output – there was nothing new there of any value.

Now that I’m asking you to air your opinions and ideas about what we could do better at WUWT, I’m going to air mine about those of you who comment here.

What I’d like to see different about readers and commenters on WUWT:

1. Saying “off topic” and then posting an off topic comment doesn’t actually make it OK. We have Tips and Notes (see menu below the header) for that.

2. I’d like to see less cryptic comments (like from Mosher) and more in-depth comments.

3. I’d like less name calling. The temptation is great, and I myself sometimes fall victim to that temptation. I’ll do better to lead by example in any comments I make.

4. I’d like to see less trolling and more constructive commentary. One way to acheive that is to pay attention

5. I’d like to see more click-throughs on science articles. I note that articles that discuss papers sometimes don’t get as many click-throughs as articles that discuss the latest climate inanity. While such things can be entertaining, bear in mind it is important to keep up with the science too.

So, tell me, what could we do better, do different, add, or remove from WUWT?

Please be thoughtful and respectful in such comments.

Thanks for your consideration – Anthony

 

About these ads

262 thoughts on “Open thread – what could we do better?

  1. I’d like to say a word in praise of Mosher’s cryptic, drive-by, snarky, annoying comments. They do generate a lot of blog comments. Poking the hive gets the bees buzzing even if it does no real good.

  2. Got only a second now, but the very first thing that comes into mind: don’t allow fallacies. Don’t go down to the level of the opposition. Keep on the high grounds.

  3. I have two things, one very minor and one not so minor to me.

    1) First the very minor issue. Please, someone, figure out why I can not make a comment with my wordpress account like I have done for at least two years. Now I have to use my Twitter account. (I have never tried anything else but the buttons at the bottom)

    2) My more important change would be for there to be less censoring and name-calling of those who just don’t buy the present “greenhouse” theory at all. I have not bought the CO2 warms us since the 80s and don’t see any reasonable reason to accept it other than to make arguments more acceptable to the majority. —- But the majority is wrong. See the predictions of those who think the sun is not the main driver of climate on the earth.

    Mainly, I think the site needs no real change. Hell, look at how popular it is now. Look at the Bloggies it has won.

  4. In your articles, don’t trash talk anyone. Ever. Don’t just be professional. Set the standard for professionalism. Just present what the other side said and then present the facts. e.g. ‘He/they said…’ then, ‘Here are the facts & here are the references and resources.’

    Offer opinion pieces separately and identified as such.

  5. Regarding “can’t change No. 3″, advertisments, since I cleared my cookies and browser and started using DuckDuckGo, instead of Yahoo, via Firefox, I haven’t had any ads following my browsing behaviour. I seem to be getting ones from Sky for some reason, though, and I have no contact with them of any kind. Strange.

    Otherwise, just keep up the good work.
    Thank you.

  6. It’s hard to find things here. I hope you can activate the Relevanssi plugin.

    There is a lot of old unorganized information, but I don’t know of a way in WordPress to weave it together other than by creating pages which summarize and link to stuff.

    [wordpress.com does not allow third-party plugins. if they did we'd have a comment editor. the wuwt toolbar (see download link on the right sidebar) has a better search engine - mod]

  7. Would it be possible to construct a textbook “Guide to What We Know of Earth Climate Systems,” with subsections discussing things like CO2 forcing, solar forcing, anthropogenic forcing, historic climate records, evidence from geologic investigations and ice cores and tree rings, and so on? If such a textbook book already exists, would somebody point me in the right direction?

  8. Does not offering post facto editing without a pro account include not being able to preview comments before the “Post Comment” button is pushed? I jump back and forth between many different blogs and forget which ones require greather than/less than to bracket HTML, and which one requre braces to bracket HTML, so a simple preview would at least let me see the folly of my ways.

    As far as format, content, and presentation, don’t change a thing. Your last tweak to leave more headlines on the home page was good, but since I use an RSS reader to see new posts it never affected me one way or the other.

  9. What could you do better? I’m gonna bang on about a bete-noir I have when viewing the blog on a tablet (I have a Nexus 7 as well as a laptop).
    When the comment string is 100s of comments long, on my laptop I merely press the ‘end’ key to get to the bottom and continue reading (up) or leave a comment; but on my Nexus I have to finger scroll (for evah!) to get to the end.

    So, why can’t WordPress come up with a screen that allows the user to navigate to the top/bottom of l-o-n-g comment thread? As I have said before, I know I can use ‘find in page’ but I’d need a unique ‘find word’ to use to get me to bottom or top. It might help, as a work around, if such a word(s) would be identified at the top of the blog so that users can do a ‘find in page’ with confidence.

  10. I second Mark Stoval’s comment #2. I don’t buy the CO2 greenhouse gas theory – at all. I have a science and engineering background.

    I would like see a constant effort to encourage exploration and proof, or disproof (is that a word?) of this theory. At inspection, in pure geometry terms, it doesn’t pass muster.

  11. Two simple changes…

    1) Change the site’s theme to a Magazine style theme.
    2) remove every advertisement. Pure annoyance.

  12. Harry Passfield:

    re your request at June 15, 2014 at 8:56 am.

    I suggest you use the Ctrl-f function to find specific words or phrases.

    The top of a thread can be found by going to Responses to
    and
    the bottom of a thread can be found by going to Leave a Reply

    I hope that helps.

    Richard

  13. Is it possible on WordPress to offer ‘emoticons’ for inclusion in posts? It may not add much intellectual value, but it would be more entertaining and people could use a /sarc emoticon or others to clearly identify their intent.

    I often find myself quoting Lt Savek from one of the Star Trek movies, “Ah, humor, it is a difficult concept.”

  14. It works. So dont change it.

    If you want to improve comment quality, best way would be stricter moderation of off-topic, cryptic or namecalling comments.

  15. I’d like to be able to reply directly to a comment and/or read a thread of replies. I think it would focus discussion.

  16. 1-Stick to science more so than personality or politics. The science speaks for itself.
    2-Encourage more scientists to participate in article discussions.
    Dr. Leif Svalgaard does that and most of us learn more from his comments than from the article they were made about.
    3-Encourage climate scientists to author their own posts explaining their research and results.

  17. WUWT is, in itself, a topic of discussion among the Crusaders of Climate Doom. When a WUWT article is criticised somewhere notable, it should be rebutted, imho. I’m not saying such rebuttals never happened, but the Crusaders should feel that they’re on notice just as much as the idiotic mass media who parrot alarmist pseudo-news, which are made fun of regularly here. There could even be a ‘WUWT on the web’ section in the WUWT site. I’d expect this strategy to limit the sheer amount of comments after WUWT articles.

  18. To tell you the truth, I like it just the way it is. Yes, the ill-supported references to things like, “It’s all the fault of public education…”, riles me endlessly. But even that is part of the beauty of this blog. We get to see the badly written comment as well as the thoughtful one, regardless of who’s team you are on. The range of well-supported and not-so-well supported comments is as useful as the post they arrive from to cleanse the real issues. They are the mixed bag of real and fake that, when burned by the fire of so many eyes and ears, destroys the fake from the real and now hardened metal thus solidifying a more defensible and lasting conclusion.

  19. It works 100% but I advise not to make comments about other skeptical sites which may seem to be a bit extreme especially on other skeptical/lukewarmer sites. There is one site in particular which has minions to record the fraudalent activities of NOAA, BOM ect with 90% accuracy using graphs ect and 100% accuracy with old articles of what was said and done (ie “there will be no more ice” quotes just as an example etc. Its easy to get excited especially after a few drinks.I number 1 guilty. Mistakes can be made occasionally with data but they should be seen against the invaluable services provided by such sites (ie SG) LOL

  20. I’d like to thank Dennis Wingo for his excellent article in WUWT a few weeks ago, describing his plan to re-activate the International Sun-Earth Explorer Satellite as part of a joint project with fellow NASA employees. As I understood it, the ultimate goal included using the experience as part of an educational exercise for young STEM students.

    Dennis’ project was recognized on the front page of the NY Times this morning.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/science/space/calling-back-a-zombie-ship-from-the-graveyard-of-space.html?_r=0

    As host for such articles and such people, WUWT can’t do much better than that.

  21. I thought wordpress DOT com allowed disqus/livefrye code/plugins as it pushed site loads away from their servers and onto the disqus/livefrye servers.

  22. I would like a resource that I could share with folks who fully believe in CAGW, but really no nothing about it. Just the basics. Most of the folks I talk to think Co2 makes up some large % of the atmosphere and it’s increase alone is what is warming the planet. Also they fully believe the whole extreme weather thing. It would have to be easy to understand and accurate without question. One of your guest writers might volunteer to start the page and readers could fine tune it in the comments section. Here’s an example, I told a friend who thinks he knows a bit about global warming that no scientist on either side thinks that CO2 increase by itself can create enough warming to warrant any fear, that the little bit of warming it can generate has to leverage water vapor through positive feed-backs to create the kind of warming to be fearful of. He refused to believe this. So basic, but so important when you talk about models.

  23. Forgive those who off topic. Often those posts are timely and tips and notes takes a long time to load with our small town Internet provider.

  24. I like it just the way it is, too. I come here often to read what you have to say about the latest climate nonsense in the news. WUWT is a go-to place for that, and so much more (sea ice, CET, ice core dating, etc.). And the comments stream is funny, informative and restores my faith in humanity almost every time. My son has used the website in 8th grade to test what he’s being taught in science class, and making his teacher a little upset in the process. You people are the best!

  25. Hi Richard Courtney! Thank you for your input. As much as I value your comments on WUWT I don’t think I am in need of an egg-sucking tutorial: I like to think that my 30-odd years with them makes me a computer literate. ;-)

    CTL/F does not apply to a tablet (unless you can show me otherwise). I have already sussed that doing a ‘find in page’ (on a tablet) for “Leave a reply” covers my needs to get to the bottom of a long thread but it is a) reliant on personal knowledge; b) long-winded; and c) not a very good systems design solution (something I spent too many years doing).

  26. For all: Please be clear when talking about temperature or labeling a temperature graph to say if you are talking about actual temperature, about temperature trend, or about temperature anomaly. For example, when discussing the pause: Are you talking about a no change in actual recorded temperature (Max/Mean/Min), no change in the rate of change, or a movement away from a reference value.

  27. Could it be possible to number the comments? When I leave the site and come back a couple of hours later I find it difficult to return to where I left off. Numbering would help alleviate this problem.

    Otherwise WUWT is terrific as it allows alternative opinions.

  28. Please don’t imbed replies to individual comments. I am a linear thinker and would not be able to think in such a nested compartmental way. I also think imbedded responses would increase the tendency for comments to get off the issue at hand.

  29. tteclod says: “Would it be possible to construct a textbook “Guide to What We Know of Earth Climate Systems,” with subsections discussing things like CO2 forcing, solar forcing, anthropogenic forcing, historic climate records, evidence from geologic investigations and ice cores and tree rings, and so on?”

    I’m writing an in-depth book as we speak. But I am not going to bother with paleoclimatological data. I do not find it credible.

    I had hoped to complete it by September, but that may slip since I’m writing and preparing illustrations in my spare time.

    Cheers.

  30. 5. I’d like to see more click-throughs on science articles. I note that articles that discuss papers sometimes don’t get as many click-throughs as articles that discuss the latest climate inanity. While such things can be entertaining, bear in mind it is important to keep up with the science too.

    It would be interesting, entertaining and informative to know how you know this.

    REPLY: My wordpress stats page shows me stats on each article. – Anthony

  31. Harry Passfield:

    re your post at June 15, 2014 at 9:43 am.

    I see no reason for your snark. You asked a question that others may also want answered so I took the trouble to provide an answer. If that answer is not appropriate for your specific equipment then it is possible to doubt your choice of equipment.

    Richard

  32. Encourage more alarmists to contribute empirical evidence of CAGW. Let’s stop belittling them, and spur them to share the evidence that they have, beyond models, that we are causing the world to warm, or change, or disrupt, or whatever the claim is. Woops, there I go belittling them again.

  33. I have two things that “weigh on my mind” all the time, every time I come to Wattsupwiththat(TM).

    Number 1. Is the seeming “dis-interest” in the concept that one really does not understand the heat balance of the Earth, unless one starts calculating the “heat content” of the Atmopshere, and..of course the oceans. (As a side bar, the FLAT heat content of the oceans, particularly the first 1000′, via the Argo bouys is very telling, that indeed there is NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING of either the Oceans or the atmosphere, WARMING MEANING AN UPWARD SHIFT OF THE HEAT CONTENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE, in absolute terms.) If this were tackled more directly, which of course…leads to the concept that watching shifts in the tropospheric “temperatures”, is very meaningless as a metric for the “heat balance” of the atmopshere, we’d be doing real “science” (and engineering) rather than allowing the “herd” to dictate reality for us.

    Number 2. A vigorous pursuit of the actual “lines of code” for the atomspheric modeling programs.
    There are plenty of us who have PROGRAMMED (I dislike the modern term, “coding”, it obscures things…but I do know Fortran, Cobol, C++, Java, Perl, Cold Fusion, even “machine language”)…enough to start looking at the wonderous (in their own minds) atmospheric codes.
    I rather suspect, one of the reasons a lot of these places are keeping these things covert, has nothing to do with ownership, rights, obligations to financing agencies, etc. But rather, if they are open and above board with them….it will become transparent to the world how full of bugs, assumptions, and outright “stupid” errors they are and expose them to be fundementally useless exercises in futility. (But gosh, great things to keep your “grant funded, graduate slaves” working on, while you the “Perfesser”, live in luxury. (Note: Not a personal attack, but a more generic attack on the “academic clique” involved in the “climate change” money laundry scam…)

    Clarity on both of these matters would vindicate WUWT for eternity, as far as I’m concerned.

    Max

  34. Pamela Gray says:
    June 15, 2014 at 9:18 am
    To tell you the truth, I like it just the way it is.

    I’m with Pamela on this one. The rough & tumble debate we have is very valuable “peer review” of news of the day, scientific claims etc. And, the mods do an excellent job of filtering out the off-topic stuff, trolls etc.

    We posters are equal participants, so I believe we all have a constructive role to play in WUWT. Be sure to hew close to the scientific topics, avoid name-calling (for the most part, sometimes it is fun to wallow in the mud!), ensure that our posts are not duplicates elsewhere in the site, and always strive to educate everyone. This is a widely read resource, we all play a role in its excellence. Thanks for your hard work, Anthony, Mods, and contributors.
    Best, Charles The DrPH
    p.s. RIP REP!

  35. Well it’s an excellent site, but since you ask I’d say the number one thing is that WUWT does have a fairly high barrier to entry to casual and new followers (am I supposed to know who Lucia is?) A lot of cryptic abbreviations, a lot of inside-baseball references to various climate figures by one name with no identifier. For the cognoscenti, it’s fine to speak of Judith’s paper on TSI. But I assume you don’t want this site to only ever be of use to several thousand hard-core readers who have followed every post for years. There are any number of people I’d like to refer to various posts here, but so often the posts and their references are just too abstruse for the uninitiated. I don’t mean the science, and you can’t and shouldn’t dumb down the physics. But the presentation.

    Related to the above is something that also touches on what Warren Bonesteel pleaded for: professionalism. It sounds insulting to imply that there’s anything amateurish about the site, but of course there is at times. Specifically the frequent cartoons which combine several flaws: the above-alluded-to tendency toward cryptic references to warmist and other figures that are now household names, the somewhat primitive humor that is employed, and the general air the cartoons gives the site of not being 100% serious.

  36. Please remember that you have a wide international following, some posts fit seamlessly to non American audiences but some are so irritatingly Americano centric, sorry you did ask.

  37. There are so many things I love about WUWT, and so very little that needs changing. The only thing that annoys me and feel harms the quality of WUWT is the high number of comments on some articles that are not productive to the conversation. I’m talking about those comments where the poster feels they are being cute with some spiffy, clever one-liner that pokes fun at an Alarmist and/or idea. On some articles, over half the responses seem to be of this variety, and it detracts from the scientific nature of the site and the reading enjoyment of others.

  38. Concur strongly with the recommendation above to add a linear number to each reply after the “says” phrase.

    This will allow the advantages of a chronological order, yet permit a much simpler logical focu to the previous conversations.

    Most advanced application of this method is within http://www.freerepublic.com

    Below each comment is an automatically numbered sequence number within that thread.
    Below each new reply to a comment is an automatic link to jump back up to the full comment.
    A reader can “Reply to” the particular comment, but can also add other readers who may be interested in that reply.
    Each reader is identified by login_id, but – when a person logs in, there is a separate page available that identities every new “Reply to” that user.

    Thus, below Pamela’s suggestion above, there is a comment number “37” which is a link to that specific reply.
    I can “Reply to” 37, Request a Moderator’s attention to 37, reply to ALL (who have commented in this thread), or GoTo 37 (just to read it or copy a phrase or paragraph, or GoTo Article.

    Upon logging in, Pamela can go to the normal WUWT screen, but has an alert “New Replies”. When she hits that alert, there is a list of people who have “Replied to” her comments, one of which of course, is my reply to her Number 37 here. If she hits that link, then my asnwer to her Number 37 is displayed in this thread.

    Willis, for example, might only get 3 links to his comments displayed. 8<)
    DBStealey may be 68 and Leif 124. Pamela may found 548 reply links. Each user will get different amounts, but each user will be able to immediately return to every one of their answers and conversations.

  39. Pamela Gray says:
    June 15, 2014 at 9:18 am

    On/topic: I agree with your first sentence :”I like it just the way it is.”

    Off/topic: You are a teacher, but do not have children in school yourself. I can tell you that taking my children out of public school ( where there were 30-35 kids per teacher ) and moving them to a private school has transformed them into completely different children (now confident A students). Ill-supported, my ass.

    In public school the motivation to label (especially boys) ADHD is funding driven, coupled with an overburdened teacher who could not possibly cope with 30-35 elementary school age children on his/her own. There is a systemic problem in the school system that you can ignore at North America’s peril. We are producing a generation of scientifically illiterate children.

    In conclusion, there are many holes in the science of climate and weather and I am glad that Anthony allows all sorts of assertions to be presented, but you better bring your A-game. Post with certainty about ENSO, AMO, TSI, etc., where in reality we have no idea what truly drives these, and their global implications and resultant effects ( i.e.not enough data ).
    It is clearly not Co2, but the suns effects have not yet been ruled out, despite what Pamela (Leif) tells you, because all the blanks have not been filled in.

  40. 1) DIRECT REPLY – At first I didn’t like that you could not direct reply to comments but after considering I think it discourages flame/troll wars. Keep it as is pls.

    2) TRASH TALK/NAME-CALLING – agree with whomever said above the less the better. Leave that stuff for the people who have nothing else to offer.

    3) ADVERTISING – Have never once found the ads here intrusive. Please keep as is (and to anyone who says get rid of them, learn how the internets work).

    4) MOST OF ALL – I really like that (most of) your posts are strict science but that they are written to be as easily understood as possible by college-science-educated but non-scientists such as myself. This site is one of my favorites, please keep up the great work!

  41. You don’t need to change a thing. You need to solicit support for a movement that the informed public can contribute to to advance the truth on climate topics, This needs to be done with the same or greater fervor that those in opposition to that message enjoy. If this doesn’t happen, the logic of your position will continued to be steamrollered. Many news reporter are quick to link every event to global warming. How do you stop this? By a counter comment every time it happens.

  42. Try to separate science and politics. It really is possible to support Obama’s health care reform efforts and loathe his scientific ignorance. There people on the fence with regard to CAGW who would benefit from this site, but they do not trust a source which reads like a tea part manifesto.

  43. WUWT is many things all at once, and I think, with the resources at hand, especially the hands of people, it does the best job that can be done. I’ve often said that I believe the time is right for WUWT to create a collateral, online, peer-reviewed (eek!) scientific blog-enterprise to publish new, or re-evaluated research on climate, and allow the peer review to occur withinthe published blog-journal in real-time (after initial review for basic soundness). Many times real science is expressed and theorized) in the comments and is often equally obscured by the colloquial and anecdotal commentary (for which I am no less guilty). There is a true and valid place for both, but it is the very devil to sort out for those of us who are technically trained but not presently topically engaged.

    As others have said, it is frustrating to not have the time or opportunity to consolidate the collective wisdom that flows from a introduced topic. Other than a 36 hour day and infinite income, I don’t have an answer for this last point, other than to find a way to meaningfully segregate some of the science out of the discourse, as I previously suggsted.

    To an extent, the parallelism already exists between WUWT and Climate Audit. I think the two of you (Anthony and Steve) together, along with the legions of allies out there, could create a new, third alternative that might form the foundation of a brand new means to communicate real science, out of reach of the agenda-prop.

  44. You and the mods and the contributors are doing a mighty good job here, the ads are a necessary presence, easy to tolerate, maybe tighten down on comments a bit but the site has a good reputation for being tolerant of dissent, as (real) science should be. I am happy to have found WUWT!

  45. Hi Richard Courtney!
    I noted that someone on this thread had suggested that WordPress should allow emoticons. Perhaps I should second that as, if I’d had the use of them you would maybe have noticed I meant no ‘snark’. However, I did think that you had not understood the nature of the problem. When I was designing (user) systems I always had it in mind that one should ask, from the user’s POV: ‘What’s in it for me?’ and that means, not expecting the user to ‘know’ how to use extraneous features to achieve an end result. Like: ‘How do I get to the bottom of this huge list of comments?’

  46. Anthony, you know a significant story / breakthrough event when you see it. I would like to suggest a chronological timeline reference point of *truly significant* stories in one place.

    eg the latest ‘lousy data’ story, where they’ve admitted their models are rubbish. That is dynamite.
    Arctic ice rebound
    Antarctic ice extent at record satellite extent.
    CO2 sensitivity dropping like a rock.
    IPCC model failures – 111 of 114 running too hot.
    18 years, 9 months of NO warming, and so on.

    There has been so many that collectively they drive a coach and horses through AGW theory, but at present they’re scattered all over the place under different headings, making finding some of the really significant articles a bit of a time-consuming exercise. Run it chronologically, allowing the latest items to be viewed first at the top of the page. Then add the biggest, most influential or significant events as they occur, to create a must-see reference resource.

  47. A few thoughts for you.

    Perhaps when a guest post is provided, we could have an attended conversation by the author in comments or alternate media if applicable. There have been some instances of such, but they are random and not scheduled. For instance, if you post an article, perhaps there could be a set time that the author would be on board to reply to comments and questions on the article.

    Piggybacking on the above, it would be pretty cool to use some of the assets available like Google Hangout (like NASA did with respect to solar flares last month,,,, available on Youtube if interested in seeing what I am talking about. Search> NASA hangout: All Eyes on the Sun) and have a panel of folks discussing a given topic with an interactive audience.

    I for one would love to have a verticle scroll bar in my mobile browser. ASUS had one in their OEM browser with the Transformer tablet, but I have not been successful in finding another compatible with my note pro. They probably have a patent on it. I sometimes feel like I am on a treadmill scrolling to the bottom of comments on my phone or tablet.

    Lastly, that 15 minute weekly interview thing we discussed would be pretty cool too :-)

    Thanks for what you do Anthony and Mods. It is appreciated.

    Happy Fathers Day to all also!

  48. I would like to see more emphasis on the political solutions and less science. It is not and has never been about the science. The science is solidly on the skeptic’s side and nobody can change that. What is needed is a much more vocal and organized political response and which is not populated with lightning rods such as Senator Inhofe. There needs to be a reasoned political response by credible authors to this kind of story: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/15/climate-change-skeptics-don-deserve-veto/NsUEz1Epj9SjQchg2GIqoN/story.html

  49. Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
    June 15, 2014 at 8:48 am

    Mark, your comment about CO2 greenhouse theory. Don’t be blind to the likelyhood that its effect is counteracted by natural negative feedbacks. In admittedly simple terms, it gets hotter, more evaporation and convection to high altitudes occurs where it is emitted to space, plus the increased albedo of clouds. A pot of water on the stove with a lid on it boils faster. If you take the lid off, it takes longer to boil because of heat loss due to evap and convecting of the hot steam away. It isn’t scientific in viewing a complex system to say an effect isn’t real because it may not show up (strongly) in the real world. We often criticize CAGW proponents for linear thinking. Let’s not be guilty of the same thing.

  50. Anthony,
    This is an excellent forum and any changes need to be evaluated carefully, which I know you will do.
    Some thoughts for consideration:
    If possible, cut off the side discussions that hijack the thread such as the recent arguments about the value of Common Core. It virtually killed a topic that I was interested in following.

    Possibly add a section where one can ask a “technical” question and have answers provided by some of the experts on your site. Often such questions get lost in a thread. Questions like where can I find data, etc. might be helpful for the more novice amongst us (like me on some topics).

    Finally on a more complicated subject/thread where many conflicting opinions/data are presented, it would be helpful if the author provided a summary of the discussion at some point. I realize this might be difficult.

    Keep up the great effort, It is greatly appreciated. I often reference your information on other professional venues and I know for a fact that your effort has had a significant impact on clarifying and providing facts on a number of important weather and climate issues.
    Thanks so much.
    Don

  51. Re: “5. I’d like to see more click-throughs on science articles.”
    Although I can probably understand the abstract of a paper, I’m probably going to get lost in the details, because I’m not a scientist, don’t play on t.v., and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night. But I do have plenty of opportunities to contest assertions made in pro-AGW articles. I don’t contest them for the sake of the author of the article — nothing is going to change their mind — but for the sake of other readers/posters. I’ve been able to do this because of what I have learned here from you, Bob Tisdale, and Joe Bastardi. So, thank you. I found a meteorology tutorial at the University of Illinois website that is basic but incomplete simply because it was built in 1999 and never updated. Anything I can get my hands on to help me understand more of what is in those papers is helpful.
    As for “3. I’d like less name calling,” some of it is actually quite good, for example of Obama, “He is a pyromaniac in a field of straw men,” is funny and dead-on accurate. His speech at the commencement ceremony for UC Riverside June 15, 2014 at Angel’s Stadium was the Burning Man of rhetorical pretentiousness. So the shoe fits.
    By the way, I composed this post in Word, which enabled me to check my spelling, grammar, and even run a couple of words through the thesaurus. I even compose my tweets in Word. I’ve saved myself some embarrassment that way.

  52. Sometimes a commenter will spout the standard CAGW diatribe and is rapidly eviscerated in comments.
    There’s always one or two commenters who adopt a kinder tone and attempt to educate and plant a seed of scepticism in this, probably young, “useful idiot”.(Jimbo and Pamela come to mind)
    He is a victim to be assisted by WUWT, commenters shouldn’t infuriate him in a dogma war that will never sway him to scepticism because he’s angry.
    I have been one of the eviscerators, but not anymore.
    WUWT community should welcome some “trolls” and bring them to the flock.
    Seeking to learn the facts is why I first came here.

    Mr Watts, you don’t need to change a thing. Thanks for WUWT

  53. When the ‘blog spawn’ like Hot Whopper make valid objections to WUWT, either engage them in debate, or admit they make some valid points. They are not always the enemy. Similarly with the CAGW advocates like Skeptical Science – don’t make fun of them, engage them in debate. Both sides (or both ends of the spectrum) can learn from each other, if they stop seeing each other as the enemy.

    [Reply: Problem is, they will not debate in a fair, moderated forum. ~mod.]

  54. You can’t beat the present system the way it is….leave it alone

    …it’s fun, entertaining, and educational

    People have personalities…let them play

  55. I find comments are not conducive to back and forth debate. There is no option to reply to an existing comment and so no ‘thread’ facility showing point-counterpoint argument structure.

    It would be really nice if comments could have more features:
    – Ability to ‘reply’ with visual cues to indicated post/response/response.
    – Ability to vote on comments and to have low ranked comments to collapsed to remove the noise.

    The simplest way to do this would be to switch to Disqus comments which have many additional features as well. There may be other WordPress plugins that do the job to, but I think it would be hard to do better than Disqus.

  56. My only gripe is aimed at wordpress rather than wuwt specifically. I don’t know if it was linked to possible problems on my computer, but every now and then wordpress would have a hissy fit and keep telling me that I was commenting too quickly.

  57. if other commenting systems not allowed can the bbcode visuals be added to the comment box?
    some of us know how to manually type

    blockquote inside the tags

    but others don’t.

  58. Harry Passfield says:
    June 15, 2014 at 9:43 am

    Hi Richard Courtney! Thank you for your input. As much as I value your comments on WUWT I don’t think I am in need of an egg-sucking tutorial: I like to think that my 30-odd years with them makes me a computer literate. ;-)

    ============================================================
    “Everybody is ignorant…only on different subjects.” – Will Rogers
    Holding down the CTRL key then hitting the “F” key brings up a search window good for any page you’re looking at. I learned about that here on WUWT. (And I also have been working with and around computers for comparable period of time.) If what he offered as a helpful suggestion was something you already knew, so what? Do you fault his intent to help? Don’t you think it might have been helpful to someone else?

  59. Some of greatest advocates for climate realism will be converted former advocates for climate alarmism. To that end, I wouldn’t mind seeing an occasional post summarizing why we believe what we do, and what discussion points are effective.

  60. 1. When the site is first opened or refreshed the number of comments shows up at the bottom of each post. If possible it would be nice if it also showed the date and time of the last comment.

    2. Again, if possible, it would be nice to be able search for a screen name across post.

    Otherwise, you already have a winner whether you can do those or not.

  61. Gunga Din: Thanks for your comment. But I think you miss my point (do you use a tablet or a PC?).
    I like to think I probably know more about keyboard short-cuts (on PCs) than I should – but I bet there are still tons I still do not know: I’m happy to know my limitations. But the thing is, a tablet is not a keyboard-oriented device. It is designed for screen-tapping/gestures. As such, blogs designed for keyboard-driven machines are not well-suited to tablet devices. And that is where I am trying to find info and experience form other users. If you know of a way of easily driving the blog comments without a keyboard I’d be happy to hear of it.
    Cheers.

  62. Might want to keep in mind, that first time visitors could be overwhelmed by the amount, and depth of the information being presented.

  63. Gunga Din: We cross-posted. After I posted I saw your second comment about numbering comments. And thereby hangs a possible solution for my Tablet problem: if WordPress ‘knows’ the number of comments in a post then a ‘button’ at the top of the post would be able to contain the command to let the user ‘touch’ it and go to the bottom of the stack. And similar, though inverse, for going back to the top. Any good, you think?

  64. Overall, WUWT does a fine job. Some thoughts in the spirit of the day …

    1. Professional: Stay professional, minimize (eliminate if possible) the petty comments and personal putdowns directed at the CAGW group. All that does is make them look more professional, odd as that may seem.

    2. Science: Emphasize the scientific developments … maximize their transparency and understandability for those who do not live their lives in climate’s technical jargon.

    3. Truth vs. Bullyism: The CAGW crowds’ Achilles Heel is their inability to rely upon the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, combined with their well-demonstrated reliance upon bully tactics to shut up those they don’t want heard. When presenting science based arguments, use their weaknesses against them. Be fully and factually transparent, point out bully tactics, and never depart from the truth, even when it may seem to hurt.

    4. Language: The CAGW crowd has done an effective job of manipulating the media and public via emotional terminology. Perhaps assistance from highly skilled communicators sympathetic to the truth might improve WUWT’s ability to effectively present its case while neutralizing the manipulative language we’re otherwise exposed to virtually every day.

    And remember, WUWT is performing a very important public service. It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize and take steps to counter what’s been going on in the so-called CAGW “science community” and its faithful in the media, neither of whom is serving the public well. Thus, let’s not be cheap; contribute to WUWT. Having more money to work with certainly will help.

    Pedro

  65. Steve O says:
    June 15, 2014 at 11:05 am

    Some of greatest advocates for climate realism …
    ——-

    Steve O’s term “climate realism” has a nice ring to it. Perhaps WUWT can embrace and support it. It’s not an extreme sounding term, communicates effectively what WUWT is all about, and projects a professional image.

  66. 1. You’re doing a fantastic job.

    2. I agree with Paul Matthews not to change, except perhaps to moderate more strongly.

    3. I don’t think you should move to nested comments, because that would change the character of WUWT. (Worth noting I also advocated for Judith Curry to keep her levels of nesting as they were. She reduced to one, ignoring me (it happens!), and has since come back to two levels, nearer to where she started. Nesting changes the character of a blog. I like the variety across climate blogs because over time it becomes an experiment, if the host doesn’t chop and change.)

    4. See 1.

  67. I love that you allow those humorous one liners, two liners, sarcasm and the cartoons by Josh. Sometimes you just need that to get through a tough day. They make this a truly human site

  68. I 2nd Harry Passfield’s June 15, 2014 at 8:56 am request for …. a screen “tab/button” that allows the user to “1 click” navigate to the bottom of a comment thread.

    And ps to ….richardscourtney, …. I see no “tabs/buttons” for going to Responses to ………or at the bottom of the article for “jumping” to Leave a Reply.

    And right you are, Harry, when you said this in your above post …..

    and that means, not expecting the user to ‘know’ how to use extraneous features to achieve an end result”.

    Those who ASSUME their design is “user friendly” makes a really serious mistake.

  69. Bob Tisdale says: June 15, 2014 at 9:50 am
    …………….
    Hi Mr. Tisdale
    note: I commented on the tallbloke’s blog referring to your posts here.

  70. Anthony, you have a great blog and I appreciate the hard work.

    I have a request for assistance, for anyone who might know the answers.

    I am looking at the issue of fossil fuel usage worldwide during the great depression (1929 – 1933), and comparing it to the time series of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    I am trying to find the best sources for CO2 concentration for the time period. From what I can tell, the warmists are using the ice core measurements from Etheridge et al (1996) that are available here on NASA’s GISS website:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

    There is also this site:

    http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/data.htm

    I downloaded their spreadsheet, but it only gives a a few data points for the period I am interested in, and they come from several different sources.

    Are there any other sources? Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, the warmists are only using the Etheridge data?

  71. Samuel C Cogar:

    In your post at June 15, 2014 at 11:35 am you write

    And ps to ….richardscourtney, …. I see no “tabs/buttons” for going to Responses to ………or at the bottom of the article for “jumping” to Leave a Reply.

    I did not say there is.

    I refer you to the post by Gunga Din at June 15, 2014 at 11:00 am which is here.

    Richard

  72. Bob Tisdale says:
    June 15, 2014 at 9:50 am

    “I’m writing an in-depth book as we speak. But I am not going to bother with paleoclimatological data. I do not find it credible.”

    Bob, a lot of what has been done to paleo in the name of climate science in recent decades may not be credible, but there is much that was known from more than a century ago that is pretty solid. Louis Agassiz’s discovery that there WERE ice ages is pretty important, I’m sure you would agree. It wasn’t a given.

    “Agassiz’s theory of mass extinction was based on his “discovery” of the “Great Ice Age” which he had vigorously defended toward doubting colleagues, ever since 1837 when he had first presented his ideas to the Swiss Society of Natural Sciences in Neuchâtel. The theory of a past ice age, which initially had been rejected by many leading geologists, was not new to many Alpine naturalists. But it was slow in gaining general acceptance by the profession, especially against the ingrained concept of the �Great Flood,� which could explain so many of the features Agassiz ascribed to ice action. Eventually, he won enough colleagues over by showing them the evidence in the field, especially the scratched surfaces of bedrock where rocks in the moving ice had gouged out deep marks before dumping them in a moraine.”

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/02_1.shtml

    If you don’t at least include a brief description of this, the most extreme of climate changes, as a backdrop, your book will be wanting. The message of the backdrop should be that the earth has oscillated in temperature a matter of only ~+/- 3 to 4 C over a couple of billion years -a remarkable stability that (with the unbroken chain of life) proves, unequivocally that there is no precedence for runaway temperatures in this long haul.

    It likely was a fair amount warmer in early Precambrian (Archean- 3.8 billion to 2.5 billion years ago) when there were massive outpourings around the world of a very hot type of lava not found today called ‘komatiites’. These would seem to be part of the planetary development, although there is evidence of Archean ice ages…

    A simple mention of ice core’s and what the graphs purport to show, even if you want to say the subject appears to be in no way conclusive of much. Surely, at least, it is a climate event worthy of mention that mere snowfalls alone can build up 4-5km of ice – this must have taken a long time.

    Also, Google the Little Ice Age to show what a bit of cooling can do ( freeze NY harbor so that people could walk to Staten Island! Bosphorus froze over! 1/3 of Finns died! etc.).

    Such an introductory chapter to history of climate change could be done in 20 pages, would impress your reader and give context to your more detailed stuff.

  73. Harry Passfield says:
    June 15, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Gunga Din: We cross-posted. After I posted I saw your second comment about numbering comments. And thereby hangs a possible solution for my Tablet problem: if WordPress ‘knows’ the number of comments in a post then a ‘button’ at the top of the post would be able to contain the command to let the user ‘touch’ it and go to the bottom of the stack. And similar, though inverse, for going back to the top. Any good, you think?

    =================================================================
    Sorry for missing your intent at first.
    My only connection to the internet is via PC. I don’t have a tablet or even a cell phone so I can’t add to any suggestions on what would make the site easier/better for those who use them, but, sure if WordPress allows it.

  74. ” tteclod says:
    June 15, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Here’s another one: thread the comments. Even my site manages that trick.”

    Threaded comments, aka comment nesting, was tried here once. It was an decided nightmare. Multiple conversations ensued with no chance of cohesion to the main topic. A single thread forces (ok, “encourages”) commenters to attempt continuity on the thread topic, albeit ocasionally unsuccessful. This site collects far too many comments to make threading useful. It is possible to create a parallel blog to which topics with more than the usual dialogue could be carried over to and allowed to run their course. Call it WUWT Redux or some such thing. Be willing to step up as a moderator… :)

  75. Mike Mangan says:
    June 15, 2014 at 9:51 am

    More boobies! Works for the Daily Caller, eh?

    Here’s proof boobies do come here. ;-)

  76. Many use terms to define others in this discussion. But, no one knows what these terms actually mean. What is a denier? What is a warmist? By using these terms people in the discussion use these as convenient labels to dismiss anyone who does not agree 100% with their position. I think it would be useful to come up with a list of say 5-6 categories that people could use to better define their position, say Level 1 to Level 6.

    Level 1: Warming occurring, man over 80% responsible due to CO2, results will be dire

    Level 2: Warming occurring, man over 50% responsible, results will be harmful

    Level 3: Warming occurring, man contributing, results unsure but we should take steps just to be careful.

    Level 4: Warming has been occurring, man may/may not be contributing, no big deal

    Level 5: Warming/cooling all part of a natural cycle, why it changes we just don’t know, not much we can do.

    Level 6: We have no idea what the temperature has been doing because our data is so poor

  77. Warren Bonesteel says:
    June 15, 2014 at 8:50 am
    In your articles, don’t trash talk anyone. Ever. Don’t just be professional. Set the standard for professionalism.
    ====================================================================
    Anth@ny’s summary provides everything I want to see. Although after clearing my computer, and all the cached web pages, I still got that silly gamer web site taking over Safari and I have never played an on site game – and my computer is password protected so I know it wasn’t my kids.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. I would like to be able to search commenter’s names. Some folks make great comments and leave fantastic references. Sometimes I find them hard to find again. However, I now copy them and put them in a searchable file.

    2. I like the site as it is and I am constantly amazed at the number of articles and speed at which people like Willis, Bob Tisdale RGB, Jimbo and others provide articles and defences that would take me days to find or even write a short note on. I have many years of math, physics, chemistry, geology, hydrology, meteorology(some), microbiology, …. that I have long forgotten about. Sometimes I go back to a page several time to get through the information as I am getting on and I don’t read/absorb things as quickly as I used to. I think I have hundreds of bookmarked pages and something like 800 short articles I have written based on WUWT that I have prepared and left on my computer for my grandchildren to read when I die.

    3. I like the fact that many different views are presented here about climate and weather – and other sciences. I would would welcome warmist views, if only readers here could avoid acting like trolls. Even in what we might consider “wrong” headed thinking, there can be good commentary. The excellent presentation by Dr. Lindzen showed that the IPCC has many take aways. I didn’t read AR5 but I did read AR3 and 4 cover to cover and noticed the disharmony between the actual science and the Summary for Policy Makers. The people here who point out these things are doing a service to the world. I am happy to read Mosher’s reasonable posts, but it is easy to ignore the “drive bys” he posts. Lots of smart people here with odd senses of humour, even me, so tolerance is the word and move on to the next post.

    4. Per Warren (June 15, 2014 at 8:50 am) and many others (and I may have been guilty) – no need to be snarky with anyone. It actually takes something away from the commenter and probably achieves the objective of the person being snarked.

    5. Don’t feed the trolls. You can’t argue with people who quote DeSmog, you are wasting your breath and diverting your valuable time you could apply to more positive things like reading someone’s hard work that you may not agree with (Lief, Vuc, etc)

    6. Accept that the world warms and cools and prepare to adapt, no need to fight or argue about 10th’s, or 100th’s of a degree or direction. ( Where I live the annual variation is 70 – 80 degrees C)

    7. Accept that the whole Climate Change thing has been politicized and corporatized – politicians and corporations will try to use it for profit. Be a watch dog, but don’t get angry. When you get angry, they win. Write letters. Provide references you found here and other places. At some point, they will get it.

    8. Never forget that we might be wrong. I have looked at/plotted lots of temperature and precipitation (rain and snow) information for areas in Canada and the NW States that I am interested in. Sometimes they show warming, sometimes cooling, sometimes nothing, sometimes more precip, sometimes less. There is a signal there that looks an awful lot like ENSO but it probably isn’t that important. Look at the graph Dr Lindzen did for Boston. Not exactly scary no matter which way the trend is.

    9. Look at the policy of your professional organizations and express your opinion. I am in the process of letting my membership in The Association of Professional Engineers and Geophysicists of British Columbia lapse due to their Position Paper on Climate Change that REQUIRES that we consider the impact of INCREASING temperatures, rain, drought AND CARBON TAXES in our designs. It used to be BEST PRACTICES but apparently the legal beagles in BC decided that it MUST be addressed. They may be right, but after looking at up to 100 years of data for a number of locations, I would not use CLIMATE MODEL they propose we use. The real data actually gives more extremes than the models from what I have seen so far. It would be interesting to see how many people are affected by the policies of the organizations they belong to. Being retired, I can say things I could not say when I was active, so I understand why people post anonymously, but still I think it would be telling to have some articles on organizational policies.

    Thank you to everyone who posts, trolls and all, as there are take aways from everything.

    Apologies for the rambling post and thanks for the education.

  78. Samuel C Cogar: Thanks for your support for a much needed function.To be fair to Richard Courtney, he didn’t say there was already a ‘tab/button’ for this: he merely expected users to be able to use CTL/F etc – which is fine if on a PC – and you know the keyboard short-cuts, but a tablet is an animal of a different stripe even if it is “…possible to doubt [my] choice of equipment..” (I bet you’re an Apple user, Richard) [grin].[no snark].

  79. I enjoy this site as it provides me with information that isn’t available in the echo chamber sites.

    Thanks for all your hard work. You make a difference.

    Suggestions for improvement:
    1. Maybe see if you can get scienceofdoom to pop in once every couple of weeks or so to do some Climate Science Basics 101 series of articles on the science. His site has a great deal of excellent content and I think we all could learn a lot. Maybe Nic Lewis can co-write? I find both of these individuals articles very readable.
    2. Resist the urge to write articles taunting Dr. Mann. Stick to the science as much as possible.
    3. Avoid voice-of-Gavin style inline comments. It’s very off-putting and the reason I completely avoid RealClimate these days. I know Nick Stokes can push your buttons sometimes, but Lucia seems to handle it a lot better on the Blackboard.

    I’d really like to see 1) if you could get scienceofdoom to agree to it. I think fostering a learning environment would really help to get rid of a lot of the misunderstandings.

  80. RE; Emoticons – Emoticons seem to work on WUWT. I use Free EMOJI Light and I believe they show up – I have checked from other computers, but maybe I have Emoticons on them, Off to load this on another computer without emoticons to see. 😊

  81. His speech at the commencement ceremony for UC Riverside June 15, 2014 at Angel’s Stadium was the Burning Man of rhetorical pretentiousness. Actually, that was USI. I was stuck in traffic with people trying to get to UCR, so I had UCR on the brain. See, even with Word I can screw up. ; )

  82. It would be nice to have a list of frequent guest article authors and links to each of their posted articles (perhaps with a title or subject area listed with each). There are many times when I want to go back to one of Willis’ older posts, and have to spend some time digging it out.

  83. Hey, I love the blog, it has great resources and has started doing its’ own science – which is where it will really come into its own. A few suggestions…
    1. As noted above, the alphabet soup is really intimidating for a newbie. My first 6 months were spent with an open wiki page beside the blog page… I am of the determined sort, I have a degree in chemistry and physics so I got throught it. The 90% would not.
    2. Why not have a feature where you host and post science? Some fearless few have tried in the past to get constructive feedback on papers in process and they took a lot of abuse for it. Those types of papers and input need more encouragement. You have a host of retired experts who could provide sage advice without the abuse. Either team them up in the background or have more agressive control of the comments allowed for those types of papers/features.
    3. My strongest suggestion is some kind of positive feature – where increasing warming has been good for bio-diversity, good for crop growth, good for greening the sahara, good for whale food supply in the arctic, good for human health, etc. You will not get a flood of comments, but the readers will take and use that info more readily and more widely than any or all of the deconstructive arguments.

  84. I have just come from a NASA website where they have a pivoting circle of illumination and a celestial sphere description of the reason for the seasons –

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=52248

    “On March 20 and September 20, the terminator is a straight north-south line, and the Sun is said to sit directly above the equator. On December 21, the Sun resides directly over the Tropic of Capricorn when viewed from the ground, and sunlight spreads over more of the Southern Hemisphere. ” NASA

    This generation,including contributors here, are completely at sea when it comes to basic facts including why the temperatures rise and fall across latitudes are the Earth travels around the Sun. Quite amazing actually that nobody is astonished with the NASA explanation and the manipulation of images of the Earth from space to force through a conclusion but then again both sides in this ‘climate change’ fuss are different sides of the same speculative coin.

  85. I’m a lawyer and graduate engineer who has been following your site for fifteen years, stayed pretty much in the background. My career for thirty five years is in persuading one side to accept my viewpoint, and attacking the logic of the other, and I have cross examined many experts in that time whose ‘expert’ opinion sounded logical, but didn’t hold up.

    Thanks in part to your website, I have yet to lose a debate when the issue was whether its a fact that: Global warming materially exists, and man materially causes it through carbon emissions, and man can stop it. Once I prove its not a fact at all, then I ask why it isn’t reasonable for any critical thinker to question it….why do you ridicule critical thinkers when it turns out you were just proven wrong…..and that’s where the real issue seems to surface for most of the AGW crowd…”well it doesn’t hurt to get off fossil fuels”, or some version of the Precautionary Principle….first, they don’t realize they just lost the ‘debate’ on the ‘consensus’ not being a fact, but second, the real tipping point for most alarmists is that it should be obvious that its worth the risk to try and do whatever we can to get off fossil fuels (they usually are anti fossil fuel crowd from the beginning, as either dirty or a finite resource). This is their comfort fallback for their view.

    So, in my view, the precautionary principle is why my AGW friends can’t get out of their rigid absolutist nearly preconceived views….and there needs to be as much a debate attacking the Precautionary Principle. (I have lost some debates over the years where I was arguing an issue the judge wasn’t really interested in).

    I’m suggesting a topic at the top of your page dedicated to contributions to a debate on the Precautionary Principle. I explain to many that ‘burning our food supply’ (corn into ethanol) caused the very hunger and riots in certain part of the world around 2005 when corn and grain prices shot up as surplus corn and grain was used up when the EU mandated ethanol….and later backed off….the very starvation and riots that the global warmists predicted would occur years from now if we didn’t do something was being caused.

    Either way, from my debates, its clear others are in denial about the science, and that often is evidence there is something deeper driving them, no matter how much logic is out there against the certainty of their position….and I think it is not only their predisposition to dislike fossil fuels, capitalism, or want worldwide wealth redistribution…..its also what they always fall back on to make them feel comfortable…the Precautionary Principle.

    When climategate hit, anyone who was fearfull before that the science showed the world might come to an end due to global warming….should have been somewhat relieved that maybe the world wasn’t going to boil after all. But the response was the opposite, they wanted the earth to be at risk, were defending the indefensible, and weren’t pleased at all that maybe the ‘asteroid would pass us by’ so to speak. They doubled down, they needed the earth to be at risk. While that shows to me an agenda, they still use the Precautionary Principle as the last logical basis for extreme action.

    While I doubt they would follow too much logic there either if they have an agenda (after all, if you dislike fossil fuels, you will love AGW and you need the earth to be at risk), my point is that the Precautionary Principle is the real issue that justifies their view, and its an issue that doesn’t get the attention it needs….in my view.

    Short of that, the only thing we can hope for is worldwide temperatures dropping over time. Too many scientists, etc., are invested in their viewpoint to admit they might be wrong before that happens.

    Would like to see you add this topic to your homepage with more visibility and input.

    Thanks, your site does a great service to all.

  86. Latitude:

    Richard, I don’t read comments on Judith’s blog….because of the nesting

    Because, presumably, you find the noise-to-signal ratio too high to make the effort worthwhile, a fact you put down to the nesting. (You’re not alone. I think S McIntyre feels similarly.)

    I’m also sympathetic. I often find the comments on CE very hard to read. But I also do quite often on WUWT. This is at least in part a function of both blogs’ success. My earlier point was that it’s helpful for the future to have both nested and un-nested blogs with high-volume, to see how each turn out and, hopefully, learn. All the best with your own travels!

  87. bruce:

    I’m a lawyer and graduate engineer who has been following your site for fifteen years

    And time-traveler? WUWT began on 17th November 2006, exactly three years before Climategate broke. This means I share a birthday with both. But following the site for fifteen years goes beyond the call of duty, even for a lawyer.

  88. The site is not readily accesible to people who want a quick and especially an easy intro into the sceptics case. Such an intro should have things that address the rubbish that most people parrot from the MSM, such as quickly exposing the “most scientists say…”, the sea is rising, the world is getting hotter, corals, etc, and then go on to give additional stuff such as the hot spot that isn’t, moisture levels declining, Antarctic ice, global ice, etc.

    Each point would need to be brief with a link to further more detailed information on each subject. The whole thing should not be more than two screens.

    If it isn’t short and brief and simple then most people will stop reading after just 10 seconds, just like CVs (resume ? in the US ?).

  89. As others, if you can “number” each comment, I can pick up where I left off soooo much easier.

    Otherwise, Thanks !

  90. J Martin says:
    June 15, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    The site is not readily accesible to people who want a quick and especially an easy intro into the sceptics case.

    =====================================================================
    Perhaps what you’re asking for is already here under “Reference Pages”?

  91. Have a full RSS feed available. Or at least do something better than the first N words. I also usually use a tablet, and it is a pain to have to switch, especially when the intro is something like “I was reading this interesting article on another website and thought I would share it here. I personally know the author, and I think he does a fine job of demonstrating …”.

    I asked earlier and was told that having things like greek letters or something else crashed other feed readers, so to insure the small number won’t crash only the first few sentences are included. And I assume whatever they are reading on might be fixed or there would be alternative feed readers (feedly and feedspot don’t seem to crash).

    Although I use a tablet, I usually have it set to the desktop site, so I have to load all the links, ads, sidebars, comments, pictures, and that can be slow. Sometimes the article doesn’t prove to be as interesting, and I could have seen that from a little more context. I’m probably missing some good stuff that I just don’t want to wait for the extra page-load time to find out.

    If it is a matter of price, maybe kickstarter or indegogo or something similar would show if people would contribute for improvements.

    But please consider a full article RSS feed.

  92. J Martin:

    In the light of events earlier in this thread I am a bit fearful of trying to help in response to a request, but at June 15, 2014 at 12:59 pm you ask for

    a quick and especially an easy intro into the sceptics case.

    Although they do not exactly meet your specification, I commend you look at the ‘Skeptics Handbooks’ by Jo Nova. They can be downloaded from here.

    I hope this helps.

    Richard

  93. Could you invite experts to provide explanatory articles as a separate section?
    I am sure readers can think of many topics where authoritative explanations would help inform arguments but, as an example to start with, could someone provide a rigorous explanation of the effect of increased CO2 on temperatures of the troposphere and the surface of the earth. I have read the IPPC reports, I have read many climate physics text books, I have read various posts on WUWT, but still can’t say what is supposed to be happening. [I would prefer not to be fobbed off with MODTRAN, as I don't know how this program works and handles energy transfer, relaxation, re-radiation, and effects of convection.] In particular how much of the effect of CO2 increase causes warming of the atmosphere (through relaxation of vibrational and rotational energy excitations to molecular kinetic energy) and how much warming of the surface (through re-radiation)? How much does convection contribute? The oft-quoted Kiehl and Trenberth paper (Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. , 78, 197-208) lacks any semblence of rigour and could be read as saying “we don’t understand the energy balance”, which is rather odd given how often it is quoted. Isn’t warming due to increase in CO2 the basis of the “anthropogenic global warming” proposition? If so, perhaps you could invite academics who believe this to give their explanations? Michael Mann, for example, as he seems to be a supporter of your site.
    My academic background is post-graduate quantum physics so I am looking for a rigorous explanation, though I would welcome layman explanations (e.g. is the atmosphere akin to layers of half-silvered mirrors reflecting energy back to the surface or is it like a blanket that soaks up the infra-red emitted by the surface and warms the troposphere). One lay view, though, that could be readily disposed of is that the atmosphere with CO2 isn’t like a greenhouse.

  94. First of all, my first thought was “don’t change a thing” but…

    I note that a lot of the CAGW posters refer to SKS as a reference and a few of my friends with PhD’s in Physics, Computer Science, and Mathematics who I personally have a debate with, often quote or link to info on Skeptical Science.

    Here’s what WUWT has to say about SKS:
    …………………………………………………
    “Unreliable*
    • Skeptical Science – John Cook
    * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”

    ………………………………………………..

    It might be useful to have a quick reference as to why the SKS articles are unreliable with some examples. I can never seem to find the right graph or article to counter an argument. Are there examples of #(1) and (2)?

    It might be useful to link to a page that expands (Or explains from a skeptical view) these SKS “Most Used Climate Myths”:

    Climate’s changed before
    It’s the sun
    It’s not bad
    There is no consensus
    It’s cooling
    Models are unreliable
    Temp record is unreliable
    Animals and plants can adapt
    It hasn’t warmed since 1998
    Antarctica is gaining ice
    View All Arguments…

    And some of the other unreliable claims

    And of course the “escalator continued warming thing” explained or refuted in simple terms.

    The only other thing I have a problem with (as a lay person) is the acronyms and abbreviations in many of the technical articles. A lot are not in the WUWT Glossary.
    Possibly spelling out the acronyms at the end of each technical article would help, and it wouldn’t take up much space.

    Other than that, I wouldn’t change a thing…

  95. Pretty new to all of this, but I now track several different climate sites. To me, WUWT is clearly the best of them due to the sheer number of quality posts and comments, and ease of use. No need to change anything. As for the threaded, nested or numbered commenting feature, I am not in favor of that going more than one deep. It would appear in some instances those comments disintegrate into a school yard shouting contest over a misconstrued joke or nuance, or a miniscule technical point. After XX.1.3, I am usually not reading.

    Lastly, a request for researchers, politicians, authors and commenters writing for WUWT. (Seth Borenstein probably won’t read this.) It is common for those on the CAGW side of the debate to use the term “carbon” (like in soot) as shorthand for “carbon dioxide” (plant food) and combine it with “pollution.” Voila, they have confused/conflated the language and throw in references to asthma just to be sure. It is my belief 95% of the U.S. population could not even correctly explain the term “carbon pollution” as meant by our current EPA chief. Soot, from Asian power plants, cooking fires or Siberian forest fires, is a serious concern in the NH. But, that is not what the EPA is talking about. If possible, please use the full name (carbon dioxide) in any writing or discussion of that subject. Thank you.

  96. Richard Drake says:
    June 15, 2014 at 12:39 pm
    ======
    Latitude:

    Richard, I don’t read comments on Judith’s blog….because of the nesting
    ===========
    Because, presumably, you find the noise-to-signal ratio too high to make the effort worthwhile, a fact you put down to the nesting. (You’re not alone. I think S McIntyre feels similarly.)
    =======
    =========

    Exactly, all it takes is one David Appell to post first to a thread….and for the next 30 minutes you’re scrolling down looking for something worthwhile

  97. (Sorry for the annoying CAPS – haven’t taken the time to see how wuwt does html/italics.)

    Instead of CHANGING wuwt, how about giving us MORE OF IT?

    I think it’s a wasted opportunity that wuwt does not make a concerted effort to offer one or more separate sections of the site dedicated to organizing and leveraging the vast collective knowledge of the wuwt community. There is SO MUCH MORE that the myriad of truly knowledgeable, and often ridiculuously intelligent (or even people like me!), members of the community could add to the climate science debate body of knowledge. Instead, they’re limited to making comments that inevitably disappear soon enough into the fog of history. That’s not an insult – the site is WONDERFUL as it is; so wonderful, in fact, that there simply should BE MORE OF IT. Let’s organize much more of the vast pools of knowledge coarsing through this site and produce with it useful works of science and commentary – organized papers for the wuwt community’s own personal use, in addition to the daily comment threads.

    I’ll check back later and if anyone seems interested (Ha! – probably even if they don’t ;^> ), I’ll take the time to outline a little of what I have in mind (no doubt others will have their own thoughts – at least I hope so). For now, however, I’ll just restate my basic point, which is that the collective knowledge, energies and cognitive firepower of the wuwt community could very easily be allowed to cooperate and create in very positive and productive ways (on a completely different part of the site), especially in ways that allow them to ORGANIZE the most important pieces of information that work their way daily through the site and its comments, so as not to have to continually reinvent the wheel rehashing the same basic issues day after day. That they do not have this outlet for their talents and energy is an own-goal on the part of the wuwt mission (IMH-and respectful-O), one whose end result, while completely unintended, amounts essentially to a division and conquest of a really mind-boggling amount of collective potential.

    So humbly opineth one among thousands… (And thanks, Anthony, for the opportunity to so opine.)

    PS: Apologies if it turns out to be that everything I’ve just said has already been brought up and shot down some time before. It’s new to me, so I throw it out there…

  98. Two suggestions: Better marketing of the site and a more structured approach to SEO (Search Engine Optimization for those who struggle with TLA’s )
    I discovered years ago that this was going to be my primary source of climate information for all the reasons stated by previous commentators and by the quality of most of your posts. But my discovery of your site was more of an accident of search engine logic than by design. You posted an article regarding how far down in the list WUWT is on a Google search illustrated this fact some time ago. A coherent approach to SEO would go a long ways toward that improving your placement.
    Related to that is your method of titling pages. Others have commented on this but I will have a go at it as well. You titles all seem to be written by technicians, for technicians. Wordy, rambling and descriptive all apply to most f them. Any newspaper editor can tell you that a good title will determine if your article is being read or used to wrap fish. I am assuming that you want to increase your numbers of new readers and I think you should consider the visual impact of the page titles more than you currently do.

    I and I suspect most of the people who have commented on this post, will always read the articles, irregardless of the title as we are dedicated followers based on years of really good articles. It’s the new-to-your-site prospective readers who would be better served by the change.

    Oh, and numbered, threaded comments would assist me. I sometimes wonder if I learn more from the post or the comments. But, there are some individuals (you know who you are) that spend more time dropping troll bait than adding to the discussion. Would be nice to be able to collapse and hide these self-absorbed little micro-dramas while I search for the pearls and nuggets of knowledge and good-hearted humor the comments so often contain.

    Thanks for asking for the input and keep up the good work.

    Brian

  99. I have multiple WordPress blogs and can’t comment here unless I sign out here, go to every blog and sign out there, then sign into my jorge blog. Then I come back here and refresh the screen before trying to comment. That USUALLY works, but not always.

    Users should note that WordPress tracks your accounts by eddress, not by user name. I’ve learned the hard way that you should have a different eddress and user name for each WordPress blog you operate. Don’t stay signed in to a blog once you’re done.

    And above all, No bebo y blog!

  100. ” coalsoffire says: June 15, 2014 at 8:33 am

    Poking the hive gets the bees buzzing even if it does no real good.”

    And wastes everybody’s time. I just ignore any post by Mosher now, have done for ages.

  101. Crowd source “Education Files” that address the major points of CAGW debate and create a WUWT RePublic Library here for them.
    The idea is to create an easily accessible resource pool of Power Point based presentation files for AGW education purposes.
    1. These should be Power Point presentations from contributors here, that may provide high level overviews of the AGW topic and/or separate PP pitches on major points, details, and related topics.
    2. They can be summaries of articles presented at WUWT, but condensed and formatted in Power Point for easy access and use by any WUWT participant for class room or civic organization education purposes.
    3. They should be understandable by a high school senior level of comprehension, with references appended for related discussion articles here on WUWT and/or publish research papers.
    4. Access inside the library would be ‘read/copy’, but not ‘write’. Files would be open for modifications when copied to personal computers.
    5. If a common template and/or guidelines for the presentations is desirable, it should be available for download from the library.

    I know there are quite a few readers/participants here that have their own ‘Education Files’ already!
    If we can get them in a condensed version, common presentation format, organized, and located in a ‘WUWT RePublic Library’, it can be a very powerful resource for educating friends, family, and civic groups we all work with. The common resource files means we would all have access to good presentations that could be shared directly with a civic group or easily tailored to address a more narrow topic that is in vogue at any given time.

    Thanks for ‘asking’…. and keep on doing what you do sooooo well, A!
    Best regards,
    Mac

  102. One more thought:
    Ask all contributors to spell out a phrase first, before using an acronym in a submitted article.
    Ex: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

    This will ease the ‘alphabet soup’ learning curve for new readers and old dogs alike.
    Mac

  103. I think it’s counterproductive to call someone an anonymous coward without requiring real names (not that you could even enforce it). If one person is an anonymous coward because they disagree with you and don’t use their real name, then everyone who doesn’t use their real name, agreeable or not, are also anonymous cowards.

    As with the funding argument, either their statement has merit on its own, or it doesn’t. Whether or not they use their real name is irrelevant.

  104. Please don’t allow comments to comments. I have often commented to comments and do so by copy and pasting – it doesn’t have to be under the comment itself. If comments are inside other comments, in order to see them, we’d all have to go over the entire thread again and again in painstaking detail. I’d have to do that a dozen times a day – and I won’t, which means I and many others would miss out on those comments completely along with all their follow-ups.

    Also, please do not chop out the political stuff. Science is great, but for me, it’s vital to watch the collapse of the climate house of cards the world over. We’re NOT getting this info in the news. I want to watch every step of it happen – that’s why I’m glued to your pages every day. You are my major source of information.

    I love how the site is. I can’t see how you can do any more or make it any better. It’s clear by your stats that you have a winning combination.

  105. Thanks again for the great job that you are doing in the face of official ignorance and dishonesty. I think the important thing is to maintain a standard of polite debate and avoid Trash Talk and Name Calling. Even when faced with the inanities of a Steven Mosher, just keep on the even course. Leave that abusive stuff to the Inferior Sites.

  106. A. I confess to being addicted to the site for a daily fix. Keep it up.
    B. Per Warren Bonesteel, Elevate the posts wherever possible. Trash the ideas, assumptions and methodology; not the person.Celebrate the ideas, assumptions and methodology; not the person.
    C. Per B, lose the phrasing ‘alarmist’, ‘warmist’. CAGW works for me. Need a more positive phrasing than ‘climate change skeptic’ and certainly than ‘climate change denier’. Climate ‘observer’?
    D. Treasure replicability (if that is a word). This is still infant science. We need to build it brick by brick.
    E. Summary of Key Climate Change Concepts or ‘Anthony’s Current Climate Observations’, updated annually, accessible to average reader of The Economist, as a ‘Top Post’ sticky. A dozen 8-second sound bites. E.g. In June 2014, there is more ice area at the two poles than there has been on average for the last 30 years.E.g. 2. No global warming on average for over 17 years, despite xx% increase in global CO2 levels. E.g. 3 Best estimate of sea level rise to 2100 is 0.xx m (with link to details).

    Keep up the terrific service.

  107. Jeff Alberts:

    Your post at June 15, 2014 at 3:44 pm says

    I think it’s counterproductive to call someone an anonymous coward without requiring real names (not that you could even enforce it). If one person is an anonymous coward because they disagree with you and don’t use their real name, then everyone who doesn’t use their real name, agreeable or not, are also anonymous cowards.

    As with the funding argument, either their statement has merit on its own, or it doesn’t. Whether or not they use their real name is irrelevant.

    This is a statement of your opinion and it is as valid as all other opinions.

    However, its merit depends on context. If an anonymous person makes a derogatory personal remark from behind the shield of anonymity then he/she/they/it is an anonymous coward unless they demonstrate their willingness to come out from behind the shield. Such personal remarks by such anonymous cowards are commonly made against Lord Monckton; e.g. untrue claims that he is not a real Lord. And the fact that the provider of the personal remark is an anonymous coward is pertinent to consideration of all comments by the coward.

    Richard

  108. I am SO thankful for WUWT Anthony. I can’t think of anything that you may change to make it better. The sheer volume of information I get from this site is worth several university degree’s. I like the humor, satire, vibrant discourse and science found here. Some threads made laugh till I had tears rolling. I have only scratched the surface of the information in this site. When I comment in other blogs or articles, when I reference WUWT or Climate Audit or any number of highly qualified presenters encounter here the hail of verbal lead directed at me is telling. It is telling me that WUWT has / is – dealt/ dealing very effective blows to the CAGW narrative. Having been scolded here myself from time to time by other commenters, I have learned from them. The very large international audience is proof positive that you have done right. The whole of humanity may in the future owe WUWT a debt of gratitude.
    George E. Conant

  109. Posts on WUWT are mostly excellent, not much change needed there. What is really really needed is a reference summary of climate science, its strengths, weaknesses, etc. Ditto for climate computer modelling. ie, the “Sceptic case”.

    Essential to retain the even-handed approach, and to encourage commenters to avoid snark (quality is already way above most blogs, but better is still possible).

    Invite prominent AGWers to post.

    WUWT’s main problem IMHO is the high number of comments (the only? downside of its popularity). RACookPE1978 recommends comment numbering plus navigation facilities. Very good idea. I suggest also –
    – Toggle option for comment compression (number, name, date-time, first line), so the comments can be scanned quickly for interesting ones. Toggle at single comment level and all comments level.
    – More search options and ways of organising one’s reading of comments (comments by same commenter on this/other posts; comments referencing this comment [can be done with comment numbering]; latest first; etc).

    One technicality : I am pretty sure that some guest posts are missed out of the archives.


    Mark Stoval re 1) Don’t know if this is your problem, but: WordPress account doesn’t work first time on my iPad, though it used to. Now I save my comment, sign on, refresh, find thread place again, post comment. A pain, but it works. Anything rather than use Twitter!

  110. Perhaps an audit of the Blog roll once or twice a year? Some of the Skeptical Views blogs are dormant, some appear to be abandoned.

    Ken

  111. richardscourtney says:
    June 15, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    This is a statement of your opinion and it is as valid as all other opinions.

    Ditto

    However, its merit depends on context. If an anonymous person makes a derogatory personal remark from behind the shield of anonymity then he/she/they/it is an anonymous coward unless they demonstrate their willingness to come out from behind the shield. Such personal remarks by such anonymous cowards are commonly made against Lord Monckton; e.g. untrue claims that he is not a real Lord. And the fact that the provider of the personal remark is an anonymous coward is pertinent to consideration of all comments by the coward.

    Then perhaps that comment shouldn’t be allowed, since it would be off topic (unless the topic is about the derogatory remark).

    But, plenty of people in here in support of WUWT often call others names or make derogatory remarks, under the cowl of anonymity. If it doesn’t go both ways then it’s just a stick to beat those with whom you do not agree.

  112. You have a very successful website. I say keep doing what you are doing. The more taunts you get the better, because that indicates you are effective and making a difference. This is a very serious battle, don’t give up.

  113. I’m in favor of a membership based skeptical organization arising from the wuwt community and others of like mindedness and led by expert climate skeptics. It would be wonderful to have a goto expert skeptical organization for professional PR and refutation of the constant stream of alarmist propaganda masquerading as science.

  114. Hi Anthony,
    Most of the minor points that I might have suggested are covered better above. Not feeding the trolls or hopelessly confused is a good idea as is maintaining a degree of professionalism in spite of provocation.

    I do find comments often difficult to follow both here and at Climate Etc. for reasons that have been discussed above. Is it possible to have the best of both worlds, i.e. nested replies to comments that remain collapsed threads unless opened by a reader (e.g. See Replies button)? This would allow people to carry-on a derivative conversation (or flame war) without interrupting the general flow of comments, but allow the option of closely associating replies with comments.

    In general, errors or confusions in postings seem to be quickly pounced on by knowledgeable commentators, but I don’t think this is true of much of the ecological/biological silliness that you bring to our attention. Often these postings get some essential aspect wrong and the comments tend towards ridicule as opposed to addressing the scientific flaws. It is true that many of these are so bad that they deserve the ridicule; but still, it would be better if they were presented with the scientific flaws exposed to comment, not the superficial aspects. I think you could use the help of a biological reviewer to run these by first – Jim Steele seems excellent.

  115. I have a suggestion for those bothered by ads (or even by the site loading too slowly). Install Mozilla Firefox and its add-ons “NoScript” and “RequestPolicy”. These let you selectively filter out each of the “junk” links which WP and many similar blog-engines insert into posts, so you control what you see on any web page. This is how the web should be used.

  116. My first suggestion is to create a page called “THE BASICS” as a drop-down menu. Under this would be:

    • WHAT WE KNOW
    This page states the basics about the climate that sceptics and warmists agree on (no dragon slayers – they are like walking through honey).

    • WHAT WAS PROJECTED / WHAT IS OBSERVED?
    Give the IPCC temperature projections at each report and compare to observations. Also sea level rise, Antarctica sea ice extent, thermal expansion, water vapour etc. Followed by a short explanation of the scientific method for the layman.

    This should turn any rational Warmist who does not have a hidden agenda.

  117. bruce says:
    June 15, 2014 at 12:36 pm (re Precautionary Principle -PP)

    Enjoyed your post.
    When this has come up either in conversation or court matters I always argue that PP is based on possibility rather than probability and therefore is not a scientific principle.

  118. “3. I’d like less name calling. The temptation is great, and I myself sometimes fall victim to that temptation. I’ll do better to lead by example in any comments I make.” A. Watts

    Is this the same; “anybody that does not believe in the “greenhouse effect” is the “real denier”” Anthony Watts ?

    I’ve been called a denier (by the host), a lunatic, and caricatured with long pointy teeth and knobs on my head at this blog (nice artwork Josh, but you captured my “bad” side). All for just presenting an alternative hypothesis about the “GHE”. Said “GHE” is STILL just a hypothesis, nothing more. A computer model that mimics a hypothesized effect IS NOT PROOF. And my “understanding” of radiative physics has been dismissed by the host; “they don’t understand radiative physics”, yet my customers pay “big bucks” for my understanding of radiative physics.

    Anthony has a fine blog, but it might just be enhanced even further if it allowed for the possibility that the “experts” and the “textbooks” might just be wrong WRT the “GHE”. It has happened before, i.e. ulcers, lobotomies, plate tectonics, etc. etc.

    If folks want to believe that a MINUSCULE amount of gases in the atmosphere are driving/controlling/forcing the temperature of the MASSIVE oceans into compliance, so be it. But the results are in, almost two decades with no warming while “GHG’s” are steadily increasing. What’s that I smell, seems like coffee……

    Cheers, Kevin

  119. coalsoffire says:
    June 15, 2014 at 8:33 am

    I’d like to say a word in praise of Mosher’s cryptic, drive-by, snarky, annoying comments. They do generate a lot of blog comments. Poking the hive gets the bees buzzing even if it does no real good.

    What Mosher should realise is this: what if we ALL made cryptic comments? What if every single comment was cryptic? WUWT would have disappeared before it reached its first 100 visitors.

  120. I’ve been most impressed by the timeliness and comprehensiveness of the blog’s news items.
    Often I’ll get an email directing me to a media article about global warming and will already be
    aware of same via WUWT, which allows me (usually) to refute the nonsense at once.

  121. u could avoid failed gambles on the rigged international currency markets!

    16 June: Yahoo: AFP: Greenpeace worker loses 3.8 mn euros in bad currency bet
    A Greenpeace employee has been fired after losing the environmental charity 3.8 million euros ($5.15 million) in a failed gamble on international currency markets, the group said on Sunday.
    “Nothing suggests at this point that he acted for personal gain, it seems to be a terrible miscalculation,” Greenpeace communications director Mike Townsley told AFP…
    Netherlands-based Greenpeace, like many big charities, agrees fixed-rate foreign exchange deals with third-party brokers to try to protect themselves from world currency fluctuations.
    “It is common practice for organisations like ours, with a worldwide presence,” Townsley said.
    “We would be too exposed to currency fluctuations and risk to lose a lot of money.”
    Greenpeace, known for its militant anti-drilling campaigns at oil rigs in the Arctic, has a total annual budget of around 300 million euros.
    No Greenpeace campaign will suffer as a result of the loss, which will be absorbed by reducing expenses such as infrastructure over the next two to three years…

    https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/greenpeace-worker-loses-3-8-184808946.html

  122. Oldseadog says:
    June 15, 2014 at 8:52 am
    Regarding “can’t change No. 3″, advertisements, since I cleared my cookies and browser and started using DuckDuckGo, instead of Yahoo, via Firefox, I haven’t had any ads following my browsing behaviour.

    I don’t understand advertisers. Just how many times are you going to buy the same kettle in one year? They seem to be obsessed with adverts based on past behaviour. Think about this for one second. You browse the web and see a nice smartphone. You buy the phone. You then look for chicken seasoning, and you keep getting ads for smartphones. Ads for chicken seasoning would perhaps do better. Yet this is what the Google guys are pushing.

  123. Lord Beaverbrook says:
    June 15, 2014 at 10:05 am
    Please remember that you have a wide international following, some posts fit seamlessly to non American audiences but some are so irritatingly Americano centric, sorry you did ask.

    Even I agree with that. Er… what’s that again? For my own part, sorry… been experiencing an odd sort of dissociative malaise the last six years.

  124. Thanks so much to everyone here who make this, by far, the most informative site on what’s going on in the crazy world of Climate Science.
    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Eamon.

  125. 15 June: Bhaskar India: Ashish Pandey: Centre serves notice to Greenpeace; NGO responds to ‘leaked’ IB report
    Greenpeace responds to various accusations and the ‘leaked’ IB Report that alleges it and other NGOs in the country for receiving foreign donations to hamper India’s economic growth…

    http://daily.bhaskar.com/article-ht/NAT-TOP-ngos-come-under-scanner-centre-serves-notice-greenpeace-responds-to-leaked-ib-re-4647901-PHO.html

    4 pages: .pdf: Greeenpeace: Response to leaked IB Report
    6.Why is Greenpeace anti–‐coal when India has no choice but to burn coal for electricity, power shortages,
    RE (renewables) is too expensive etc.
    GREENPEACE: Climate change is the biggest threat mankind has ever faced, and the science of climate change is clear…

    http://www.greenpeace.org/india/Global/india/greenpeace_response_to_leaked_ib_report.pdf

  126. Dozens of really excellent comments here. For the record, I do not like nested comments. But numbered comments would be fine.

    Scott Basinger says:

    3. Avoid voice-of-Gavin style inline comments. It’s very off-putting and the reason I completely avoid RealClimate these days.

    Agree. Inline comments by moderators other than Anthony are inappropriate. There is a different dynamic in play when a mod makes a comment, and it is often unpleasant for the person being replied to within their own comment. They take it as a reprimand. Moderators should make comments using their regular screen names, not inline comments as a moderator. Other than Anthony, there is no need for mods to do more than keep the site running properly. For the most part, they do a very good job.

  127. This was a very genuine post of the sort that warmunists would never do. Valuable in and of itself. As you pointed out, flak on target means bombing raids are hurting.

    I decided to wait a day to see what others would say, since their opinions count. Judith Curry recently asked the same thing for CE. Boy, complex to answer. But, Same answer. You address slightly different audiences, obviously successfully. So, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Now, as Microsoft is learning to its great regret, that leads to the frog in a pot problem.

    So, rather than provide answers, let me provide questions. Is this blog a frog in the climate pot? What is changing that you are ignoring? IMO, maybe the fact that the climate meme has become almost totally political. Science has gotten left in the dust, along with the station siting project and any other objective inputs. But do you want to go that political, or just feed blogs (Steyn, Dellingpole, …) that already are. The choices are yours. But Thanks for asking.

  128. NAME-CALLING is essential to the discussion. It triggers their mistakes (Peter Glieck). This is a WAR and not friendly chatter. If you don’t understand this then we have lost already.

    It is NOT only about the science. It NEVER has been only about the science. See Warmists’ agendas on your energy bills and infrastructure.

    What it’s about is Warmists setting up co2 regulations, markets, making money, getting awards as quickly as possible before it turns cold. That’s it.

  129. Get rid of that annoying “Enter your comment here” message that appears on top of my writing and covers it up so I can’t see what I am doing.

  130. Late to this party, but I have a suggestion that might interest a lot of readers:

    How about a periodic, say weekly, debate, on important climatology controversies, or any other interesting science question?

    You would pick a topic (say, “Is there any actual empirical evidence for anthropogenic global warming?” or [thinking of an article in the Atlantic that I posted in Tips & Notes] “Is the Himalayan region really suffering from ‘global warming’, leading to glacier melt and instability?”), then invite an expert from each side to present his case (with links and references), followed up by two or three rebuttals each; then open the thread up to reader comments.

    It is often said here that CAGW proponents “Will not debate.” Well, let’s give them the opportunity!

    Obviously it take more work, which is the last thing you need, but perhaps it could be delegated.

    Oh, and I’d like to see more posts on other science topics, besides climatology.

    Otherwise, WUWT is my favorite blog; my only problem is finding the time to keep up with the flow of new posts (threatening to become a torrent!) and the often fascinating Comment threads. I think numbering the comments would help finding one’s place when returning, and I would love to see a Format box for Comments, but I understand the free WordPress doesn’t offer the latter—and the former, too?

    /Mr Lynn

  131. Sticks and stones may [break] my bones but names will never hurt me. Don’t ever let people take emotional control over you by name calling. Remember life is like a mirror, you’ll always get back what you put out. You don’t show respect then don’t ever expect to be respected.

  132. Arno Arrak says:
    June 15, 2014 at 6:34 pm
    Get rid of that annoying “Enter your comment here” message that appears on top of my writing and covers it up so I can’t see what I am doing.

    As soon as I type one letter, the message disappears. I’m using Safari; maybe it’s different with other browsers.

    /Mr Lynn

  133. “coalsoffire says:
    June 15, 2014 at 8:33 am
    I’d like to say a word in praise of Mosher’s cryptic, drive-by, snarky, annoying comments. They do generate a lot of blog comments. Poking the hive gets the bees buzzing even if it does no real good”

    ###################

    another person who gets it.

    frankly I dont see how willis or Leif put up with the comments they get. generally speaking if one wants to have an in depth science discussion there are only two places that dont tolerate crap from commenters and stay on point:
    lucia and CA. every other place is not conducive to discussion. Look at the lengths willis has to go to to keep people on topic. Look at the way one of the worlds top solar scientists is treated here.

    Perhaps one thing to do is to read the typical post and then predict what you will see in the commments.
    9 times out of 10 the comments fall into the same canned responses. Nobody is thinking they are just reacting.

    one way to get people thinking again is to present them with a mystery. Curious folks will try to figure it out
    lazy folks want it all laid out so they can make their canned response.

    I will add this. I did nit expect the comment i commented on.

    now for a cryptic comment. shannon entropy.

  134. “Mainly, I think the site needs no real change. Hell, look at how popular it is now. Look at the Bloggies it has won.”

    every year we used to meet and anthony would ask us what he could do to improve the blog

    every year there were two groups.

    1. Make these changes 1-100
    2. Change nothing

    Anthony thankfully has never listened to group 2, and has always picked the best suggestions from the long lists of things, so I’d say make your suggestions. His judgement on how to improve things has been pretty damn good. So speak up.

    Just sayin.

  135. Jimbo says:

    June 15, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    “NAME-CALLING is essential to the discussion. It triggers their mistakes (Peter Glieck).”
    ===========
    Not in a well trained force, it don’t.
    It just turns off the fence-sitters, imho.

  136. “What Mosher should realise is this: what if we ALL made cryptic comments? ”

    1. most of you can’t
    2. Kant was wrong.

  137. WUWT continues to be very good.
    I would be very pleased to see more attention paid to the methods and instruments of mensuration; from pH meters to microwave sensors and how inferences are drawn from those measurements. There’s a lot of wrangling over statistical manipulation but less about the credibility of some dude called Jason, who can split an arrow at a million and a half paces.

  138. In the ‘Leave a Reply’ section, add a mechanism to select formatting options such as

    , , etc.
    It’s a pain to offer a quote in a reply only to find one has mis-typed a \ for a / or other minor error which destroys the formatting.
    IIRC, this was available once for a short time but was then removed.
    Otherwise, great site and my first read of the day for rebuttals to pro-AGW mania.

  139. It is the gift of the talented and genius to always desire improvements to the things they build.

    Yes, fame can be fleeting; so improvements can often delay the inevitable. Better that fame fleets by than advancing calcification causes distance or condescension.

    As blogs, WUWT Climate Audit and Bishop Hill follow very similar paths.
    These blogs demand and enforce respect first and always.

    Respect encompasses many aspects especially where civil discourse and science is discussed. This respect is what makes WUWT such a success and continues to make it a success.

    When the common ground so many of us seek finally recovers proper science treatment, that is the time to worry about losing us as visitors.

    Frankly, I’d much rather chase knowledge and discussion about orchards, mineralogy, orchids, fishing, hunting, shooting, optics, astronomy and many more areas of my personal interest.

    The trouble is almost every site that I know of relating to those areas has one or more of several issues.
    A lack thereof:
    a) frequent knowledgeable visits and comments.
    b) solid adherence to science. Few things are more irritating to have a flock of dimwits drop in chattering about their covens, healings, magic, alignments and whatnot.
    c) civil discourse delivered with respect and often admiration. Flame wars, insults, belittling, condescension and similar lack of good manners is indicative of, well, catastrophist climate types; and we’ve witnessed plenty of evidence regarding their ideas for science discussion and derision.

    Far too much:
    a) pontificating
    b) self opinion and opinion of self
    c) obtuse, neutron star brain density or similar affliction
    d) old guard members taunting, dismissing or belittling newer folks
    e) belief without rationale, acceptance without critical review

    Not that my opinion matters in these things, but I greatly appreciate the skill and devotion you administer to this site Anthony. That is why I spend more time here at your site than all of the other sites I visit, combined.
    Your science level is high. Your sense of proportion is excellent. Your view of justice matches mine and our views.

    Make changes as you see the need. You do have our trust.

  140. for anything related to the most ambitious fraud every perpetrated on humanity in history, evar- this is the place for early warning notice of troop movements.
    i’m ready to credit mr watts and wuwt with being the single biggest reason we aren’t yet being taxed for breathing.
    what else i like?
    i’ll read anything written by messrs steele, ball, brown, willis, moncton – they are also attractions.
    i very much respect and appreciate the tone of the place- and thanks to the moderators who keep things going smoothly with clarity of purpose.
    so i have no changes to suggest, but please, sir- can i have some more?

  141. Nesting – for the love of g_d, NO!

    Blog Spawn – I didn’t realize how much of this was going on until I inadvertently googled my own name and found a rebuttal to an article I’d published on WUWT. It was months later, so replying at that point was pointless. Had I known at the time though, I would have absolutely engaged. But I would have done so by shredding their claims in another article on WUWT. I don’t know which ones are the top ones, but if I did, I’d certainly monitor them when I write an article and then hit them back hard, not on their forum, but on this one.

    People asking for help – perhaps a special thread for that just like tips and notes. Those interested could monitor it and jump in if they think they can help on other forums. I don’t see it getting much traction as there are few forums where help is required that allow informed debate, but it might get traction here or there where it does some good, particularly if it is just someone asking a question that is easily answered but no appropriate for any of the current threads. If nothing else it may expose discussions going on elsewhere that become fodder for a thread on WUWT.

  142. I appreciate the positive tone of the blog entries and the blog comments. There are few hard edge comments. I think that is due in a large part to the example set by Anthony Watts and the Blog commentaries to always attempt to be gentlemanly in the old use of the word which must be difficult at times.

    I find there is a good effort to balance political related issues, scientific, and the occasional insert of humor to make points and stimulate discussion (Monckton of Brenchley blog’s entries are a good example where points are made mixing wit and science.)

    I appreciate the moderators’ efforts to keep the conversions civil.

    I do not find the occasional off topic comment to be a distraction, if the comment in question is interesting and has a link to material for support as opposed to a rant or a deliberate attempt to disrupt the discussions.

    I appreciate comments that include links to science papers or if appropriate to links to other technical discussions of the same or related subjects.

  143. Steven Mosher says (June 15, 2014 at 6:48 pm)
    “[..] it does no real good”
    ###################
    another person who gets it.
    “.

    Got it.

  144. provoter says:
    June 15, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    (Sorry for the annoying CAPS – haven’t taken the time to see how wuwt does html/italics.)

    ========================================================
    Check out http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html on the sidebar.
    It’s also a good way see if additional comments have been made to an older post you are interested in.
    (PS A big “Thank you” to Ric Werme.)

  145. As someone who (in their daily business) tries to measure temperatures, humidity, pressures etc using calibrated professional instruments, I am often amazed, amused and even delighted by the nature of some of the ‘scientific’ discussions that take place here.
    It’s not uncommon to find fifty people arguing about a graph which purports to show that the “north Atlantic”!!!! has warmed or cooled by….oh let’s say 0.3C over….15 years.
    Or that the Global temperature in 1870 was – 0.2 cooler than in 1890.
    Where do they get these figures from…? Why, tree rings, isotopes or micro fossils or whatever
    Well as they say…pull the other one!
    Thankfully we now have satellite data from multiple and reputable sources, and we skeptics are watching the expansion of data collection on sea-level, sea ice, land ice, infra-red etc etc.
    As time progresses there will be less and less opportunity for Warmists to create their ‘hockey sticks’…but in the meantime, how about a comprehensive account of what’s being measured by who, and to what degree of accuracy?

  146. Richard Drake,

    You are correct, and I knew just after I hit the post button that I had erred in combining this with a previous site. I followed this subject closely for fifteen years…. but the first few were clearly with another site similar to this, and this one has had my attention so long I did do a little time traveling. Thanks.

    Bruce

  147. Lordy! With all these people sayin the international community is reading this blog I better come across in my comments a bit more lady like!

  148. 1. Numbered comments would be helpful.
    2. The climate blogosphere is chaotic, a virtual Wild West frontier territory. Watts Up With That (WUWT), along with Climate Audit (CA), do the best job possible of managing to stay sane, reasonable and friendly in such stormy circumstances. Steady as she goes.

  149. “Pamela Gray says: June 15, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Lordy! With all these people sayin the international community is reading this blog I better come across in my comments a bit more lady like!”

    I don’t know about that Pamela; you sound Lady like to me. Then again, maybe that just represents the Ladies I get to hear.

    Keep talking any way you like.

  150. Change little, the essence of this site is the ethics and personal decency that Anthony Watts and the moderators live by.
    Numbered comments might help follow some cross commenting on high traffic comments.
    But the way you conduct yourselves here, has earned my repeat and seems to resonate with most visitors.
    As noted above, we could do our bit, by donating a little more frequently.
    Which I will sign off to do.

  151. Steven Mosher says:
    June 15, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    “What Mosher should realise is this: what if we ALL made cryptic comments? ”

    1. most of you can’t
    2. Kant was wrong.

    =========================================================
    Does that mean I Kant?

  152. What I’d like to see different about readers and commenters on WUWT:

    1. Saying “off topic” and then posting an off topic comment doesn’t actually make it OK. We have Tips and Notes (see menu below the header) for that.

    That sounds good in theory, but I’d miss Pat’s daily OT posts–and so would most WUWTers, I suspect.

  153. Ant#ony,
    Love the site.

    Harry Passfield,
    Don’t be a jerk. you can use Richards idea by using the hard menu button and selecting the menu item “find on page”. that is what I do on tablets and phones. If you can’t find the menu button its usually bottom left on all android devices. If you don’t have the menu item “find on page” then get a better browser like internet explorer. Just tryin to be helpful.
    v/r,
    David Riser

  154. Steven Mosher says;

    Perhaps one thing to do is to read the typical post and then predict what you will see in the commments.
    9 times out of 10 the comments fall into the same canned responses. Nobody is thinking they are just reacting.

    one way to get people thinking again is to present them with a mystery. Curious folks will try to figure it out
    lazy folks want it all laid out so they can make their canned response.
    ————————————————————————————–
    So, in 90% of threads, 100% of responses are canned and devoid of thought?
    It’s not clear what happens in the other 10%, but research suggests that the curious folks only comment in these threads.
    Cryptic comments that create mystery will stimulate the curious (who were not afflicted with thoughtlessness) but will not affect the lazy folks. Thus, this would only be effective in the 10% of threads that are commented on by curious folks.
    The aim of getting people thinking again is not achieved.

  155. Mosh (note use of cryptic form):

    frankly I dont see how willis or Leif put up with the comments they get. generally speaking if one wants to have an in depth science discussion there are only two places that dont tolerate crap from commenters and stay on point: lucia and CA. every other place is not conducive to discussion. Look at the lengths willis has to go to to keep people on topic. Look at the way one of the worlds top solar scientists is treated here.

    ‘greed. If the universe of climate blogs didn’t include CA and Lucia’s it would be a much poorer place. But WUWT provides something different, such as comprehensive, timely coverage of many different aspects of the climate debate and the great thoughts of RG Brown. Can’t find a cryptic way to summarise all that – it just does a different job, despite considerable imperfections in the comments.

    every year we used to meet and anthony would ask us what he could do to improve the blog

    every year there were two groups.

    1. Make these changes 1-100
    2. Change nothing

    Anthony thankfully has never listened to group 2, and has always picked the best suggestions from the long lists of things, so I’d say make your suggestions. His judgement on how to improve things has been pretty damn good. So speak up.

    Love the history. But the main change I think needs to be made is to correct this:

    there are only two places that dont tolerate crap from commenters and stay on point: lucia and CA

    I don’t think WUWT should attempt to be like those two but less toleration of crap and staying on point more would be good. That of course means more moderation. As I implied earlier I’d vote for that but nobody should underestimate how much work is involved.

  156. Gunga Din says:
    June 15, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    Check out http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html on the sidebar.
    It’s also a good way see if additional comments have been made to an older post you are interested in.
    (PS A big “Thank you” to Ric Werme.)

    Thanks. I haven’t done a very good job of late keeping up with things like my list of key posts. Some ill-considered wind projects have taken up a lot of time so far this year. OTOH, I’m fond of my Guide to WUWT, I use it myself!

    On WUWT – One thing I encourage people to do is once or twice a poke around a page – look at the top nav bar, check the references on the right nav bar. Whenever I do I always find something that deserves more attention.

    A few commenters have asked for things that are already on the nav bars!

  157. You are doing a good job, Anthony. Having built several self-hosted and WP.com web sites, I understand what you are talking about. I, too, have complained to WordPress.com staff about the lack of editing features for those that comment on an article. But, you know that story

    I would like for you to consider changing themes to a news-like theme. One reader calls it a magazine theme. It would make reading the blog a lot easier. Right now, you have that block at the top of the string of articles showing several titles, but a News theme could eliminate the need for that.

    Thanks for running a great blog. I always make WUWT the first and last blog to read every day, You just can’t tell when a really good article will be published.

  158. 1. As I’ve mentioned earlier this year, I would love “recent comments” to be up higher.

    2. Numbered comments would be nice.

    3. For those suggesting a magazine theme, two or three examples would be nice.
    Although I found this – http://www.designrazzi.net/2014/wordpress-magazine-news-themes/
    Some interesting choices.

    4. I actually can’t stand Pat’s Off topic posts. Surprised he hasn’t been told to use Tips and Notes instead.

    5. As for Climate Etc. I tend to stay away because she’s so lenient. Most threads get ruined by alarmist spam.

  159. @richardscourtney, re Lord Monckton (again): you are conflating two different concepts here, namely (a) that of being a hereditary peer of the UK (by virtue of one or one’s ancestor holding Letters Patent from the Crown, often as from many centuries ago) and (b) that of being entitled to sit in the upper legislative chamber of the UK Parliament. They were once the same, but under the House of Lords Act 1999 are now different: Lord Monckton is of course a hereditary peer but is not today a member of the House of Lords. (Compare this, for example with the case of Matt Ridley who actually is a member of the House of Lords, but chooses not to keep on referring to himself as Viscount Ridley).

    I suggest the UK population must be entitled to know with certainty who is, and who is not, entitled to partake in any capacity in any legislation binding within the UK. Lord Monckton is not so entitled – though I have never myself seen his peerage doubted in these pages.

    And (although Anthony has my full name, as from my email address) I choose to abbreviate my full name here because, although my statements above are both legally and factually correct, they appear not to be relished in some quarters. Anthony is of course the host of this excellent, multiple award-winning blog/journal, and I am quite content to leave to his discretion whether he chooses to publish this (or any other) comment of mine. I would just add that requiring full names to be published inevitably carries a “argument from authority” risk – part of the joy of this blog/journal is that one’s arguments are considered on their own merits, whatever they might be – and if unmeritorious are often raucously dismissed!

    And as this is technically a “what could we do better at WUWT” open thread, may I respectfully just ask one thing – if anything were to happen to you, Anthony, would this blog just go off air, or is there an established succession? We would miss you terribly …

  160. “I don’t think WUWT should attempt to be like those two but less toleration of crap and staying on point more would be good. That of course means more moderation. As I implied earlier I’d vote for that but nobody should underestimate how much work is involved.”

    Huh. my flat mate is charles the moderator. I’m well aware of how much work it takes. Huge amounts.

  161. “So, in 90% of threads, 100% of responses are canned and devoid of thought?”

    err no. go back to square one.

    “Cryptic comments that create mystery will stimulate the curious (who were not afflicted with thoughtlessness) ”

    You will find that even curious people can be dragged into making thoughtless comments.
    Just read a thread and watch people who are otherwise thoughtful get caught up in
    what steve mcintyre calls “piling on”

    For grins do a test.

    Take a Tim Ball post

    read every comment. Categorize the comment. see what you come up with.

  162. Don’t go changin’

    I am very well convinced by history – by their own writings – that neo-Marxist thought is behind a lot of the rent-seeking we see nowadays. For me, I pay attention to the public-policy issues of blind devotion to unfettered, gov’t-funded abortion and top-down population control as leading strategies of these reds, right along with total management (control) of the energy expenditure of every nation and every person.

    I am sure most readers disagree with me on this, since most of us WUWT science-oriented readers are “secular-humanist,” where we are ostracized if you accept the scientific view that life begins at birth, and or believe that countries and peoples should generally be allowed to live however they want; we cannot help but meddle, assuming our superior intellect and morality.

    I try to not suffocate this good thing with my views – we are pretty well able to suffocate Fox News, so that is satisfaction enough.

    Will people listen to me or not? Well, I do not own the soapbox so I need to go by the owner’s rules, and not cross the line of hospitability. Eventually, I believe, the world view behind CAGW and “populaton control” a la Ehrlich will be very obvious, but for now, I strive to not take all posts off-track.

    Please continue to tolerate me.

    Don’t go changin’

  163. I still Like Likes.

    It’s real nice to get a bunch Likes for your comment, and it provides feedback, and may give you a better sense of what could be effective as far as arguments and so forth.

    Why not try it but just eliminate Dislikes? I think that was the main objection before, that people disliked getting Dislikes. But everybody likes getting Likes.

  164. The best thing about this site are 1) it distills the AGW scientific debate into terms any layman can follow and understand and 2) it notes examples of acedemic/scientific fraud by climatologists and universities. Keep doing that and I don’t care about the rest.

  165. TimC:

    In my post at June 15, 2014 at 3:57 pm which is here I wrote

    If an anonymous person makes a derogatory personal remark from behind the shield of anonymity then he/she/they/it is an anonymous coward unless they demonstrate their willingness to come out from behind the shield. Such personal remarks by such anonymous cowards are commonly made against Lord Monckton; e.g. untrue claims that he is not a real Lord. And the fact that the provider of the personal remark is an anonymous coward is pertinent to consideration of all comments by the coward.

    You have responded with your post at June 15, 2014 at 10:41 pm which is here and attempts to start a flame war about whether the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is or is not what you consider to be a ‘real Lord’. Importantly, your response includes this

    And (although Anthony has my full name, as from my email address) I choose to abbreviate my full name here because, although my statements above are both legally and factually correct, they appear not to be relished in some quarters.

    Thankyou for so clearly demonstrating that both my point and my illustration of my point are true.

    Richard

  166. Very many people-including myself-write articles here. Some are of the moment and are quickly forgotten. Others may have a more lasting importance.

    It would be useful if a small group of experts could review articles a month after they have finished in order to see if they are of greater importance than merely being of passing interest.

    I suspect some worthwhile avenues are being explored on occasion here, but they rarely seem to have any lasting impact or reach a wider audience.

    A collection of peer reviewed articles under the title ‘the best of…’ might be a natural extension of the WUWT ‘brand’

    tonyb

  167. I haven’t read the comments above so my apology if this idea has already been mentioned. WUWT often posts controversial articles, essays and research papers authored by climate scientists who fervently believe in AGW or human caused climate change. The many skeptic readers of WUWT waste no time criticising “shredding” the content. I would like see the author(s) formally invited to join the debate/discussion and given an opportunity to offer their rebuttal. I raised this idea many years ago however at that time Anthony or maybe a Mod suggested there was too much extra work involved. I understand this however I also believe that direct contribution from the Authors to the debate would add a nice roundness or balance to the discussion taking place. This balance is also sadly lacking at warmest blogs and so would add another point of difference for readers of WUWT. No?

  168. The only way to judge whether something is an improvement is to know what the goals are.

    The mission statement at the top of the page has led to success and a high readership. It says, “Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent events by AW.” Making improvements can only mean that the blog remains a commentary by AW, doesn’t it?

    That commentary has included the paper on the adjustments to the NOAA data, and the surface stations audit. Surface stations sitting next to air conditioners and parking lots is not a good thing, and adjusting data to match the worst sites is not a good thing either. Improvements might include continued attention to those surface stations. Improvements or any changes to the goals should mean that while professionals and experts duel it out here, those of us who have an authentic interest in the outcomes, including devastating losses of purchasing power and freedom, also contribute meaningfully in reviewing the science and the policies.

    If possible, more companies should hear from people who know it is counter productive and unnecessary to adopt expensive green programs, methods, and disruptions. Petitions or letters to oppose other petitions (esp. on change dot org) directed at companies might be a way WUWT can direct its energies to practical solutions. Some of the worst EPA policies are still only “voluntary.”

  169. How about a sophisticated companion app that runs natively on your computer, i.e. uses the full feature set of your computer hardware instead of sitting inside of your internet browser. A WUWT branded app with two versions, a free one and a paid one, both identical but the paid one offers an optional way to fund skeptics.
    The app could additionally work in such a way as to allow certain articles as appropriate to integrate with the app. For example locations on earth, Expansion of cryptic acronyms, databases of various climate science related entities.
    I have been thinking about this for a few years now, and some work has begun in coding (software development). A large amount of work has been done on what to develop, in coming up with ideas to include in the app.
    I would like to know what others think. If there is some enthusiasm for such an app, I could be encouraged to write a somewhat detailed blog post on a small subset of what I have in mind (don’t want to give away too much right now). Note : I will not accept any money for any work I do related to climate science, such as for the software I develop.
    2nd Note: New generation chips from Intel comes out for the late Fall / early Winter holiday season using new 14nm tech, a shrink from the current 21nm, that promises less power usage, better performance. What I’m getting at is, Moore’s law still continues, lets use the power of these new – and even more powerful near future – computers in consumer hands to help disseminate facts about the earth and its climate, in visually compelling and sophisticated ways.

  170. Steven Mosher says:
    June 15, 2014 at 6:54 pm
    “What Mosher should realise is this: what if we ALL made cryptic comments? ”

    1. most of you can’t…

    Mr. Mosher’s ego is very soon going to be equalized and this is not going to be pretty.

  171. Poptech,

    Why don’t you stick with what you’re really good at, and leave the threats out of it? Everyone has an ego. Including you.

  172. As far as the clickable links not being clicked enough. I often click on them but the references are often above my scientific knowledge. Perhaps other people feel the same way and and just don’t click.
    Thank you and keep up the hard work that keeps this website opersating. Your efforts certainly help me understand science.

  173. One thing that ought to be done–perhaps by crowdsourcing–is to assign Category tags to the first 1000 or so uncategorized WUWT threads. Those have become “dark matter” to any visiting journalist or researcher.

  174. Robert in Calgary says:
    June 15, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    2. Numbered comments would be nice.

    Several people have mentioned this. Comment numbers may actually be buried in the web page HTML, but there’s no good way to use them.

    I find the date stamp adequate in most ways and better in several.

    If you catch up with the “current” state of WUWT, you could make a mental note of the most recent date stamp in an active post (or the current time converted to Pacific time). The next time in, that will be your resumption point for all posts.

    What I do, this only works well on a “full computer” that’s on all the time, is to keep a browser tab open on each current post. To see new comments, I just refresh the page (function key F5 on Firefox) and keep reading. This has a drawback that I’ll miss some of the comments stuck in moderation, but compared to the mess threaded comments would be, it’s good enough.

  175. dbstealey says:
    June 16, 2014 at 3:36 am

    > Poptech,

    I dislike “me too posts.” I wonder if there would be fewer of them if there was a like button.

    People mention that was tried but proved to be too much of a distraction or people tried to game the system. I think missed that experiment.

    Where was I? Oh yeah, “Me, too.”

  176. I like the format as is. I’m not crazy about the new Top Stories repeating article. You already have it as a sidebar list, so no need to have it in the article stream, in my opinion.

  177. Like a lot of others an end to the name calling and save the sarcasm for the Friday Funny…..
    Personally I would not give Christopher Monckton such prominence because of his style – I would ask him to tone down his language and simply keep to the facts – I think because he is a caricature of an upper class Brit people don’t see beyond that and the good stuff from what he writes is often lost – I think it unfortunate that the world is like this but he does like to play along like it was some public school jape – often I feel he does more harm than good by presenting himself as a spokesperson for those of us who don’t believe that man is pushing the climate beyond its natural cycles.

  178. Being right means nothing if we lose. Because of your dedicated efforts you have achieved the status of skeptic leader and “With great power comes great responsibility”! All of the leading skeptics and their websites are beacons of scientific truth and integrity but mostly unfunded, isolated, disjointed and uncoordinated when compared the green juggernaut of government, press, industry and Wall Street pushing this scam.

    I would like to see you occasionally tap into the many logical, scientific and ethical minds who comment here and brainstorm about political action! What steps can people can take beyond being right in a blog/article comment section.

    Honestly a vast majority of the population doesn’t know or understand even 1% of the information that is available about climate change and we will never convince most of them to spend the enormous amount of time it takes to figure out that the whole thing is the greatest scam in world history. All we have now is an uneasy uninformed public gradually turning away from this scam because of a plateau in the weather and some major mistakes by the climate change scam artists. Eventually we WILL have another very hot summer or a major hurricane and the green juggernaut will quickly seize the advantage once again and our fickle public will read the screaming headlines and drift back into believing and supporting the scam once again. Only this time the liars and thieves are close enough to victory with the Obama/EPA fanatics in power that they will probably win and we will watch the global suffering, chaos and death that will result from carbon markets infecting and destroying what’s left of the global economy…and the UN will finally possess the political Holy Grail; unelected, unaccountable, unlimited, uninterruptible funding.

    We need to strike now while the enemy is weak! “Unite the clans”! (Braveheart reference…couldn’t resist!) We need a skeptics strategy for final victory and that means getting involved beyond winning insignificant personal debates.

    I get email every week from OFA, WWF, EDF…etc. and the rest of the green syndicate. They are unified in their message and continuing to rake in the funds and energize their base into political action. They have a long-term winning strategy and we need one ASAP but it must begin with the skeptic leaders because there is nobody else positioned to lead.

    My personal strategy idea; all skeptics and the blogs/websites that they run should unite on the debate topic. Even the uninformed masses can understand the simplicity of victory when the skeptics want to debate and the warmists run and hide. The fact that skeptics win every debate is just a bonus and every debate that we skeptics view will make us more informed and stronger for our own debates. If we had a chorus of every skeptic screaming on every website, every microphone, signs at every political gathering, letters and phone calls to elected representatives about debate, debate, debate…we will be pushing the warmists into a no win situation.

    Debate…they lose.
    Don’t debate…they lose.
    It’s a winning strategy.
    My 2 cents.

  179. I second TonyB’s suggestion of developing a section of reviewed high quality posts. Many of the components already exist here, and the review that ideas are subject to here is far more exacting than the typical periodical’s review. It would be useful if such a section were open to writings of both skeptics and warmists. MacIntyre, Curry, JoNova, and others also offer some serious contributions from time to time, so there may be ways to cooperate on something like this.

    And, by the way, for those who would like to see numbered comments, note that Tony’s comment is actually numbered as follows:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/15/open-thread-what-could-we-do-better/#comment-1663114

    The number is embedded in the date that accompanies each comment, as in, for example:

    >>climatereason says:
    >>June 16, 2014 at 1:29 am

    Perhaps it is possible to offer a way for the reader so inclined to toggle visible comment numbers.

  180. Poptech says:
    June 16, 2014 at 6:56 am

    Who is Steven Mosher?

    Apparently someone who claims on his resume that he has a PhD in English.
    _____

    One of the very attractive features of WUWT is that it employs minimal censorship, allowing critics a fair chance to make their points. But I wouldn’t complain if the blog simply deleted comments that contain nothing but an ad hominem.

    BTW, poptech’s remark might not technically qualify as an ad hominem, since it doesn’t attempt to make a substantive point.

    REPLY: More than ad hominem, Poptech’s post is about spite over being asked to stop thread bombing WUWT over his dislike of Mosher. I warned him at the time that such things may backfire. One of the downsides is that I’m not going to let him continue to threadbomb here. If Mosher makes a claim that is relevant to Poptech’s attack piece, then sure, it will be allowed. But the pattern where he posts some rant about Mosher ever time there is a comment by him or somebody mentions his name will most certainly immediately go to the bit bucket. I’m not protecting Mosher, quite the contrary. I’m protecting WUWT from being hijacked by a food fight. – Anthony

  181. Just one suggestion: On the Sea Ice Page, the graphic for the current ice coverage is compared to the same date in 2007. This was created when 2007 was the lowest extent ever. Now it’s 2012. Please change the 2007 date to 2012. Why compare to the second-lowest extent ever?

    And a comment regarding Freerepublic.com and their comment threading advocated by another poster: While the comment threading they use is quite helpful and functional, please don’t adopt any of their other practices. The comments on Free Republic have degenerated over the years to the point that they are nearly worthless, although the site itself is a good source for web articles that have a conservative bent. Your moderators are to be congratulated, as I believe that they, along with your insistence on good standards, are the key to maintaining a useful comment system.

  182. Eric Simpson says:
    June 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm
    I still Like Likes.

    It’s real nice to get a bunch Likes for your comment, and it provides feedback, and may give you a better sense of what could be effective as far as arguments and so forth.

    Why not try it but just eliminate Dislikes? I think that was the main objection before, that people disliked getting Dislikes. But everybody likes getting Likes.

    I’m not sure why Anthony doesn’t use them, but my observation has been that “Likes” generate an inordinate amount of inane comments, many of which would keep the moderators here busy snipping. Yes, some people like getting them, but they soon find that there’s an easy way to get them, usually by picking on someone who’s in disfavor at the moment (President Obama comes to mind for some reason) so that’s what they do, i.e., take the easy route to getting them.

    “Likes” are the seeds of destruction of an effective comment section, or of a serious one anyway.

  183. Steven Mosher says:
    June 15, 2014 at 10:58 pm

    “err no. go back to square one.”
    What you probably meant to say at square one is not what you said.
    Perhaps an illustration of your other point that curious people have lapses into laziness.
    Supercilious sniping seldom staunches the stream of silly statements.

  184. James

    Thanks for your support. There is potentially a lot of good material here which could be brought to other audiences but they need quality checking first.

    tonyb

  185. frankly I dont see how willis or Leif put up with the comments they get. generally speaking if one wants to have an in depth science discussion there are only two places that dont tolerate crap from commenters and stay on point: lucia and CA. every other place is not conducive to discussion. Look at the lengths willis has to go to to keep people on topic. Look at the way one of the worlds top solar scientists is treated here.

    Translation: commentators here are too stupid for him because he is such a “genius” and people need to stop disagreeing with his position on climate change or he will go where the luke warmer echo chamber is.

    I love the over-inflation of Leif’s importance simply because he agrees with him on climate change.

  186. Perhaps it makes no sense and there may be no benefit as I see it but I wish WUWT would occasionally (more often) critique some of the random alarmist’s pieces in our newspapers.
    The authors and commenters would then get the hefty dose of reality they deserve and give the regular folks some better understanding of the dubious nature of the climate team.
    Here’s are a couple of recent examples. One from a state climatologist and another by other officials.

    http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/climate-scientist-describes-hotter-drier-oregon/article_3c8f4d90-e220-11e3-b306-001a4bcf887a.html

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/06/now_is_the_time_for_aggressive.html

  187. David Riser says:
    June 15, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    “Harry Passfield,
    Don’t be a jerk. you can use Richards idea by using the hard menu button and selecting the menu item “find on page”. that is what I do on tablets and phones. If you can’t find the menu button its usually bottom left on all android devices. If you don’t have the menu item “find on page” then get a better browser like internet explorer. Just tryin to be helpful.”

    David, thanks for your opinion. Thanks also for offering me advice on how to use a tablet. Perhaps my initial comments about using find on tablets vs PC were not clear enough for you, although I’m aware that others understood my point. However, to be clear,I know full well how to use the menus in a tablet and how to ‘find in page’ etc. (Top right on my Nexus) And I had already explained that that was what I have been doing; it’s just that a fully designed system would enable this facility to the user in a far simpler manner. That is WordPress’s failure though, not Anthony’s.

  188. ***
    I can’t offer comment editing post facto, to do that I either need to spend $500/month to use the WordPress Enterprise feature (which I tried on invitation and decided it was not worth the price tag) or run on a self-hosted server.
    ***

    $6000 a yr?!? Yes, you were right — not worth it. Maybe $60 a yr would be…

    Can WordPress put a simple number on each reply? Could simplify referencing — ex: reply to comment #x (yeah, I know there’s other copy link/paste ways to do that)

  189. Don’t allow Viscount Monckton to drag his faith and his personal politics into his discussions. They are an annoyance and a complete distraction, that promotes nothing but discord and division. (Like unessesarily bad-mouthing the US on a US-based blog.)

    And yes, you might say i have been as bad as Monckton on occasions, but only in defense of rationality. I am not going to let Monckton’s ignorance and bias get traction, merely to keep the peace. Let him stick to the science, and nothing but the science.

    .

    Otherwise, can I say that without WUWT, scientific rationality would have been dealt a mortal blow. And we would have been all the poorer, not simply in the financial sense in terms of increased taxes, but also in the moral and rational sense too. We cannot allow science to be taken over by the political or the irrational.

    And finally, it is a while since i have left a tip in the tip-jar, a lapse that I will rectify tomorrow. Many thanks for all your hard work, Anthony, and may you eventually achieve some sort of recognition for all your hard and mostly unrewarding work.

    Ralph

  190. Steven Mosher says:
    June 15, 2014 at 10:58 pm

    For grins, do a test,

    Search out every Steven Mosher post,

    Categorize the responses. See what you come up with.

  191. @ Harry Passfield: Like you, … been there, … done that. I have designed, programmed and installed … more in-house “user applications” than you can “shake a stick at”. Said “apps” were for a mini-computer w/keyboard, 4” crt, cassette tape drives, etc., which we were manufacturing at the time, …. and which was like 10 years before a PC ever hit the market.

    I use to tell the System Programmers that were creating Customer Application Software that …. “just because that software is “user friendly” to you, …. because you designed it and worked with it, …. doesn’t mean it is going to be “user friendly” to the customer or their employees”.

    I now have a Dell PC just for my own entertainment but no Cell-phone or any other gadgets … and I don’t want to learn any “special” key-combo functions.

    If you don’t know your “user” base then you best adhere to the “KISS” principle.

  192. Richardscourtney:
    I refer to your post at 14:23am – and as on the previous occasion when we corresponded, I note that you again first raised this whole issue upthread, in the unpleasant assertion (“anonymous cowards”) contained in your post at 3:57 pm.

    The true issue, as to whether I am “an anonymous person [making] a derogatory personal remark from behind the shield of anonymity” as you suggest, is whether my remarks are legally and/or factually correct or incorrect. If they are correct it does not matter at all whether I choose to remain anonymous – truth is absolute, no matter who might state it.

    And the proper issue here is not what you or I might or might not consider Lord Monckton to be, but what the law of the United Kingdom says he is. You now having raised this I would draw your attention to the letter by the Clerk to the Parliaments (the parliamentary officer with responsibility under the 1999 Act to determine whether a hereditary peer is excepted from the Act, and whose certificate under the Act is conclusive) addressed to Lord Monckton, as here:

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

    and to the case of Baron Mereworth v. Ministry of Justice (referred to at the above link) and reported, for example, as here:

    http://cases.iclr.co.uk/nxt/gateway.dll/WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2011-217?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&vid=PoC:Sum

    You will see that it was judicially held in Mereworth that reference to “a member of the House of Lords” was reference “to the right to sit and vote in that House”, which I understand even Lord Monckton himself accepts he does not have. Lord Monckton of course is and remains a hereditary peer entitled to all the dignities of that title, but it follows that under Mereworth he has never to date been a member of the House and all UK legislation has therefore to date validly been enacted without input from or participation by him – rather an important issue to citizens of the UK, one might think.

    Having now cited these authorities, would you please point out where you consider I have erred in law?

  193. TimC:

    re your long-winded blather at June 16, 2014 at 10:13 am.

    I am not a lawyer so I have no intention of attempting to discuss legal questions posed by an anonymous and cowardly troll especially when those questions are egregious and insulting to an absent third party.

    Richard

  194. As a direct response to the question, there are a few options that I think WUWT could aim for that would be very pertinent. Not all of which would per se drive traffic but instead drive the evolution of skeptical arguments

    the first suggestion I would make would be a debunking the debunkers page. SKS has a wonderful design that allows them to post pieces debunking specific skeptic claims. Unfortunately for anyone who has ever tried to read them they are filled with logical fallacies(for ex. countering the skeptics position that global emissions policies hurts the poor and middle class, with a statement regarding the consequences of global warming impacting the poor the most. This is a strawman) . I think creating a similar page separate from the blog would allow for an appropriate and useful deconstruction of their group-think.

    The second suggestion I would offer would be an offshoot journal style E-publication. Such a publication should publish both the accepted and rejected manuscripts as well as reviewers comments as to why, publicly for maximum transparency. Allowing for the public to review publications at later dates and submit corrections or disqualifications. mandates that all associated data must be submitted with publication for replication would also help in this regard.You can impose much more strict limitations and requirements so that papers that utilize statistics must include 1-2 reviewers who are statisticians, or papers focused on chemistry require chemists, more specifically reviews require some experts outside of their field to review their work. There are enough people who read this blog that have the skills to peer review and many others which do this kind of work pro bono, Offering the reviewers a share of ad revenue in lieu traditional payments wont be as lucrative but it would be a great start to repairing the damage to scientific integrity.

  195. Anthony.
    When posting using WordPress my biggest problem is this message:-
    “Sorry, this comment could not be posted.”
    I have tried many suggested solutions, such as clear the Firefox cache, but nothing really fixes the problem long term.

  196. The House of Lords is a voted on group of Lords who represent the larger peerage, who are also themselves titled with Lord. Only the elected Lords from this group can vote on UK legislation. The claim to an existing hereditary peerage which bestows the title of Lord is regulated by the House of Lords through its Committee for Privileges and Conduct.

  197. leighhaugen says:
    June 16, 2014 at 6:37 am

    I think leighhaugen is suggesting that skeptics somehow coordinate and unify their public message. I’m not sure how or whether this could be done. But he mentions debates, so I’ll take the liberty of reminding others of my suggestion for periodic debates on contentious topics, here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/15/open-thread-what-could-we-do-better/#comment-1662974

    Putting up pro and con debate posts, plus rebuttals, could greatly focus readers on the key issues.

    /Mr Lynn

  198. Anthony:

    I know that you can’t create posts from a significant portion of what comes into tips & notes, but I often find things in there that are every bit as topical and important (and in some cases more so) than what you do post. You might consider an addition to your right sidebar where you can drop some of the more interesting tips and notes without the need to create a post. It could be a scrolling window so it doesn’t take up too much space on screen. Maybe moderators could help choose a few “nuggets” to include there. Just a thought, FWIW.

  199. No thanks on coordinating and unifying my critique and comments in this debate. I prefer my own specific path in this endeavor to critique existing science as well as its future directions according to my own education and understanding of the general topic and its subtopics.

  200. For the guest posters – a very short biography outlining their qualifications on the subject they are writing about would be helpful. It would also add to the scientific credibility of the site in this world where anyone can blog about anything.

  201. TimC is having a bunfight with my father so people will probably miss this comment he made:

    And as this is technically a “what could we do better at WUWT” open thread, may I respectfully just ask one thing – if anything were to happen to you, Anthony, would this blog just go off air, or is there an established succession? We would miss you terribly …

    This point shouldn’t be missed. Sadly, it is important.
    And we would miss you terribly…

  202. M Courtney says:
    June 16, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    If something were to happen to our host, no doubt Steven Mosher would take it over and entertain us with a full measure of cryptic, drive-by mysteries.

    /Mr Lynn

  203. I must confess at the outset that, although I read the entire original post (a rare event), I’ve only read perhaps a fifth of the comments (still even rarer). It’s hard to make technical suggestions, because I don’t know enough about the constraints imposed by WordPress. One enhancement that would please me would be the ability to give thumbs up or down to a post (even just the first would be good).

    But my main peeve, looking for reference at the title of the blog, is the myopic focus on climate. The “mysteries” of science don’t appear greatly discussed or presented. Perhaps this is due to the intimidating orthodoxy of the most aggressive posters, which reminds me of the stridency of a certain type of atheist who believes that atheism of necessity is incompatible with crediting supranatural (ie. as yet unexplained) sensory phenomena (ESP, clairvoyance, sometimes even UFOs). I remember asking my favourite high school teacher what he would think if he saw a UFO himself. He answered that he would think he had gone insane. I hope our scientific sensibility is so feeble…

    What I would most like to see here though, is an open, unbiased discussion of the technical and social issues that most threaten our global society, and how we might best prepare defenses against them individually, as regional communities, and as nations and alliances, and in what priority. I find the constant sneering at “alarmists” tiresome and offensive, and sorely wish some of the presitgious poster would speak up against such essentially bullying behaviour.

  204. otropogo says:
    June 16, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    . . . I find the constant sneering at “alarmists” tiresome and offensive, and sorely wish some of the prestigious poster would speak up against such essentially bullying behaviour.

    “Bullying”? Surely you jest! Or did you forget that the Alarmists are the academic and government elite, including the President of the United States and his Science Advisor? Did you forget the stories of science faculty who dared to express a skeptical view of Anthropogenic Global Warming being shunned and driven out of their jobs? Did you forget the legions of graduate students who dare not say a word against the “Climate Change” orthodoxy, for fear of losing access to grants and even their degrees? Can David be charged with “bullying” Goliath?

    “Alarmist” is too kind a label for these Inquisitors. A forum like WUWT is David’s stone.

    /Mr Lynn

  205. Some have made comments about people commenting using an alias. A valid point is that some use the alias to be able to “snipe” from cover. But some of those who do so do it, not so much to hide themselves but to protect themselves.
    Some of you will trust that I’m not making this up but, where I work an email was sent out (I looked for it but couldn’t find it.) that basically was about a training that included AGW issues. The line I remember was about it being a guide to hiring. (I have a government job.) So there is a push for government employees to not just be “politically correct” but ‘environmentally correct”.
    Just something to keep in mind.
    PS I make a lot of attempts at humor here. I’ve even mentioned God and the Bible. (Horrors!!) Some may not consider my (or others) attempts at humor successful. But the strength of this site wasn’t built on censorship but rather openness … that stays within site policy, of course.

  206. “Some have made comments about people commenting using an alias.” ~ Gunga Din

    Yes indeed, some twit has called those who use an alias an “anonymous and cowardly troll”. This is mindlessly stupid. It shows that the fellow has no argument and can’t take on the words printed and must go after the man himself. I think there is a neat Latin phrase to describe such behavior.

    I like Lord Monckton, but I would never use language like “anonymous and cowardly troll” to defend him. I would simply ask the fellow to witness this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    There are people who have family obligations who can be attacked in the real world if a comment here was brought to the attention of their employers. Should they be banned from here? That is up to the host I suppose.

  207. Harry,
    Thanks for the reply! Yes Word Press definitely has some work to do in the “make it work a bit better” department. They are currently the best for the price in the business. Not sure how long till they become old news and someone new offers a better deal and becomes the new king of the blog but its bound to happen. Have a good day!
    v/r,
    David Riser

  208. @ WarrenBonesteel In your articles, don’t trash talk anyone. Ever. Don’t just be professional. Set the standard for professionalism. Just present what the other side said and then present the facts. e.g. ‘He/they said…’ then, ‘Here are the facts & here are the references and resources.’
    ________

    That would be quite dry and boring and rob his articles of all his humor which I very much appreciate. Even in a classroom, if a professor would teach as you suggest it would be a very dull class as well as a chore to be done, not enjoyed. He has a great sense of humor and I don’t consider it “trash talk” at all. Trash talk is vicious and he is never that. Rather, he is interesting and his humor adds to that interest and to the pleasure of reading the articles. I hope that your advice is not taken. Sorry, different people, different tastes.

  209. @Grant I’d like to be able to reply directly to a comment and/or read a thread of replies. I think it would focus discussion.
    ______

    I could not agree more. It gets very confusing in the present format and the comments and replies are disjointed and confusing. It is also annoying to have to jump from the comment to the bottom of the page to reply and the reply can be so far away from the original comment as to be meaningless or, at the least, very perplexing.

  210. Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval):

    I write to use the Eschenbach admonition; viz. “Quote what I said if you want to dispute it”.

    At June 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm you write

    Yes indeed, some twit has called those who use an alias an “anonymous and cowardly troll”. This is mindlessly stupid. It shows that the fellow has no argument and can’t take on the words printed and must go after the man himself. I think there is a neat Latin phrase to describe such behavior.

    NO, INDEED NOT!
    From your context I infer that I am the “some twit” whose words you have misrepresented because at June 15, 2014 at 3:57 pm I replied to Jeff Alberts by saying

    If an anonymous person makes a derogatory personal remark from behind the shield of anonymity then he/she/they/it is an anonymous coward unless they demonstrate their willingness to come out from behind the shield. Such personal remarks by such anonymous cowards are commonly made against Lord Monckton; e.g. untrue claims that he is not a real Lord. And the fact that the provider of the personal remark is an anonymous coward is pertinent to consideration of all comments by the coward.

    That does NOT show “the fellow has no argument and can’t take on the words printed and must go after the man himself”. On the contrary: it IS an argument, and it provides an assessment of the source of derogatory personal remarks together with a real-world illustration.

    TimC then demonstrated the truth, accuracy and veracity of both my argument and my illustration in his subsequent posts. Indeed, he demanded that I debate his interpretation of UK Constitutional Law pertaining to Lord Monckton.

    I rebutted that nonsense with factual response at June 16, 2014 at 10:27 am where I wrote in total

    TimC:
    re your long-winded blather at June 16, 2014 at 10:13 am.
    I am not a lawyer so I have no intention of attempting to discuss legal questions posed by an anonymous and cowardly troll especially when those questions are egregious and insulting to an absent third party.

    Your post I am answering also insists that I discuss the matter and cites a Connolley-approved wicki account which you want me to address.

    Although you are not anonymous, my answer to TimC applies.

    Richard

  211. @RobRoyWUWT community should welcome some “trolls” and bring them to the flock.
    Seeking to learn the facts is why I first came here.
    _______

    You sound like you are a remarkably kind person and patient. If someone is seeking knowledge, I agree with you. However, I have never met a troll who wanted knowledge or would even respond to facts presented. They seem to make statements that are grossly inaccurate and then never, ever respond to absolute facts no matter how many times they are presented to them. Then, in the next post or the next day, they make the same statement. Sigh. I admire your patience and for trying. I don’t have the same faith i them that you have, I guess.

  212. One last comment. I would appreciate the ability to recommend posts.

    I am not a scientist, so I feel it would give me a clue as to what is sound information and what is not. I had college science courses my first time through, and really didn’t understand much of anything. It was not exactly vital for a degree in sociology as I was going to save the world. I was disabused of the notion that the world had any particular desire to be saved fairly quickly by me or anyone else.

    Eventually, I returned to college to become a healthcare provider (respiratory therapy) and took many science courses and, to my amazement, loved them all. However, I am not at the level or anywhere near it of that of many here. Recommendations would assist me in separating the wheat from the chaff as I am not confident in my own abilities in this area.

    I do wish I had not been afraid of science when I was young as I do love it so. Well, I am enjoying it now and have since I became much more knowledgeable. I thank you for this site and appreciate all of you very much.

  213. Anthony Watts: “I note that articles that discuss papers sometimes don’t get as many click-throughs as articles that discuss the latest climate inanity. While such things can be entertaining, bear in mind it is important to keep up with the science too.”

    I agree with that sentiment. In fact, it was precisely that sentiment that spurred me recently to submit a proposed post directed to eliciting a more-substantive discussion of a paper by Velasco et al. According to my reading, that paper says that, although Hans Jelbring was wrong about lapse rate, Robert Brown’s attempted refutation wasn’t exactly correct, either.

    Anthony Watts: “I’d like to see . . . more in-depth comments.”

    We’ve had some discussion of the paper on this site, but it was superficial, presumably because of the paper’s intimidating math. By that post I intended to walk through the math as a way of inviting physicists here to identify the precise step where they think the paper goes wrong. That exercise might have raised questions of statistical, theoretical, and perhaps even quantum mechanics that some of us laymen would have found more enlightening than the latest venting over CAGW inanities.

    Anthony Watts: “I’d like less name calling.”

    Unfortunately (or fortunately, since there were things in the proposed post that I’d write differently now), Mr. Watts refused to post that submission, dismissing the Velasco et al. paper as “junk.” As far as I can tell, his only basis that assessment was that it had been brought to my attention at Tallbloke’s Talkshop. True, that site entertains some notions that are, well, speculative. But I would have hoped the paper could have been judged on its logic, not its provenance.

    The purpose of this comment is not to get that submission be posted; in fact, I’d rather it not be, since there are things I’d change in it. The purpose instead is to point out that some of what Mr. Watts professes to want could be achieved if he’d tighten up his game. If you want substance you have to be open to substance.

  214. Poptech says:
    June 16, 2014 at 6:56 am

    Who is Steven Mosher?

    Apparently someone who claims on his resume that he has a PhD in English.

    I suppose I should come clean and admit that all I have is a BSEE, and about the only EE-ish thing I’ve designed and built was something to pulse the non-maskable interrupt line on a Z80. Clearly I’m incompetent to comment here on things outside of climate system feedbacks on things that can be modeled as electronic components.

    There are a number of people who are knowledgable about several fields, and the climate discussion covers so much territory there’s space for most everyone. Just because someone has a PhD in English does not imply he can’t learn something about the scientific method. One of Sally Ride’s first degrees was a BA in English, so Mosh has good company. (She eventually got a PhD in Physics, so that’s evidence that earning an English degree doesn’t destroy the science processing parts of your brain.)

    If you limit the debate to climate scientists actively producing NSF-sponsered research, you’d get something like RealClimate, remember them?

  215. “Just because someone has a PhD in English does not imply he can’t learn something about the scientific method.”

    Ric, no it is even worse than that, he doesn’t have a PhD in English but claimed to.

  216. richardscourtney (2:52 am): Great answer. We’re all aware of habitual misdirections within the climate scene – the most obvious being alarmist spinmeisters taking any attribution of warming to man as agreement that the world is going to end next Tuesday, as Lindzen puts it. But there’s another one within climate blogs displayed by Mark Stoval here: you criticise one person using a pseudonym and you stand accused of having written off all pseudonymous contributors. Thus the weasel words:

    … some twit has called those who use an alias an “anonymous and cowardly troll”.

    But the very next sentence is accurate:

    This is mindlessly stupid.

    The similarity of the misdirections at the two levels is a reason I assume more closeness between such actors than is generally assumed.

  217. Here’s my suggestion: encourage those who post graphics not to use horrible, low-quality jpeg images which are very difficult to read. Especially for line drawings or graphs (as opposed to photographs), png format should be used, or zero-loss jpeg. Doing so will greatly improve the readability of any article containing such graphs.

  218. I’d like to see a link under the “Resources” tab to Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT (really good index)and a link to a page dedicated to newbie introduction to climate, climate change, and skeptics with links to some of WUWT’s best articles for introduction purposes.

    I would nominate:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-reef-abides/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-and-al-gores-unwarranted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

    [I think you will find the link to Ric's excellent blog on the home page, but hey, you can never have too many links to good stuff . . mod]

  219. I will repeat my suggestions from May 18
    Is there anyway to search/list by rating? [and number of votes]
    I would still like to see a “Watts Best” menu item or Category to list the 5-10% of the exceptional pages.

    Thank god for Google! I can put my name into the search bar along with wattsupwiththat and a couple of key words and I can find almost anything I may have read in the past four years and commented upon. I may even have used the phrase “Watts’ Best” in the search bar to find those great post that way.

    But it seems to me, it would be far better to add a “Watts’ Best” Category or Tag Item so that it would be easy to tell and show others the Best posts in WUWT as an introduction to what WUWT is all about.

  220. Stephen Rasey says:
    June 17, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    …Thank god for Google! I can put my name into the search bar along with wattsupwiththat and a couple of key words and I can find almost anything I may have read in the past four years and commented upon…

    ===============================================================
    I’ve found some of my old comments that way but my alias happens to be the same as a famous poem and movie.
    It would be nice to be able to search across post but, even if WordPress offers that, I would [not] want our host and the mods to have to pay extra for it in money or time.

  221. TYPO!!
    “It would be nice to be able to search across post but, even if WordPress offers that, I would want our host and the mods to have to pay extra for it in money or time.”
    Should be:
    “It would be nice to be able to search across post but, even if WordPress offers that, I wouldn’t want our host and the mods to have to pay extra for it in money or time.”

  222. John West says:
    June 17, 2014 at 10:43 am

    > I’d like to see a link under the “Resources” tab to Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT (really good index)

    Thanks. I’m not certain which I would prefer. Probably the status quo – the graphic link on the right-side nav bar is visible on every page, but even so it’s accessed only a dozen times each day. Were it tucked under resources, it would be out of sight and used only by people actively exploring or are fond enough of it to remember it.

    Putting stuff on the resources pull down argues for putting the content on WUWT, and there are some reasons to do that. I haven’t asked for access rights to that area of WUWT, and some of my notes on HTML have already been copied to the Test page but are out-of-date and unimproved by a discussion about unequal signs. (BTW, mods, the comments on the test page can be discarded any day now!)

    Some stuff can’t be hosted at WordPress, as there’s no official way to get files to WordPress via a script. My scripts at home prepare the Tables of Content and FTPs them to one of my web sites along with my updated guide. So that would have to be a link off a new resources page.

  223. “””””…..Perig (Pierre-Alain) Gouanvic says:

    June 15, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Grant has an important point: it should be possible to reply to comments……”””””

    It already is.

    See, I just responded directly to your comment.

  224. richardscourtney: you take a very self-serving stand on our dialogue upthread.

    This started with your (less than pleasant) gratuitous post “Such personal remarks by such anonymous cowards are commonly made against Lord Monckton; e.g. untrue claims that he is not a real Lord”. I realised this was probably a reference to me resulting from a previous encounter between us which obviously still rankles with you – and following which this forum seemed to became rather more civilised for a while, when you took a break from posting here.

    Lord Monckton is of course a “real” Lord – by Letters Patent he has the hereditary title (3rd) Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, to which he succeeded in 2006. What actually started our earlier encounter was your flat assertion in the earlier thread that Lord Monckton was thereby a member of the House of Lords. I disagreed, since this is contrary to the House of Lords Act 1999, he does not have an exemption order under that Act and, under the supremacy of Parliament doctrine the Monarch of the day (long may she reign), Lords and elected Commoners (summoned to Parliament by her writ – which has never been an entitlement) may validly enact laws changing UK constitutional arrangements. Many times this has included changes to the structure of Parliament itself (numbers of constituencies, their boundaries, creation of life peerages and changes in presiding officer as some recent examples). The 1999 Act was cited by the Judiciary in the Mereworth decision as above, so is clearly now regarded as valid law by each of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the UK government.

    And I respectfully suggest that any claim to some half-baked form of membership of our upper legislative house must be a matter of genuine concern and fair comment to anyone potentially subject to any legislation (including laws as to criminality) enacted.

    When I (reasonably politely above) drew this to your attention, citing my formal authorities, you responded “I am not a lawyer so I have no intention of attempting to discuss legal questions” – although this is of course an archetypal issue of law, and you seem ready flatly to assert any legal issues as above at any time it suits you. You then proceeded to rant about me as “an anonymous and cowardly troll”.

    Anthony sets site policy here, not you. He allows anonymous postings, with the consequence that this is a truly democratic forum where points actually made by contributors, and quality of debate, are ranked more highly than identity or standing of the contributor, so avoiding “argument from authority” issues and permitting challenges to any such authority claimed. If this is not to your taste you can rail about trolls all you like (within policy), but you are actually pointing in the wrong direction – by 180 degrees.

    And how would identification practically work, with its obvious risk of personation? Are you suggesting that we all produce photo-ID and utility bills before being allowed to post – what would be the practical admin consequences to our host?

    richardscourtney: you produce some outstanding contributions in this forum (your recent “modern luddism” posting as one example) – but is it not time to calm down a little, become rather more civilised, accept this site’s policies and rise above the occasional, inevitable, pinpricks?

  225. Gunga Din says, I’ve found some of my old comments that way but my alias happens to be the same as a famous poem and movie.
    ________

    Yes, it is and it was one of my favorites as a child. Your name brings a smile to my face every time I see it along with fond memories of many hours of pleasurable reading.

  226. TimC:

    re your long-winded and gratuitously offensive post addressed to me at June 17, 2014 at 11:34 pm.

    I refer you to my earlier (and probably far, far too polite) reply to you which is at June 16, 2014 at 10:27 am and is linked here.

    Richard

  227. If WordPress has an option to paginate only the comments, go for it. Waaah, I have to scroll to much.

    I trust this blog… Keep that up!

    WUWT is a info machine, full time job now to actually follow, do not know how you keep up. Whatever, just keep full throttle and redline the cause…Thank you

  228. Gunga Din says:
    June 16, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Some have made comments about people commenting using an alias. A valid point is that some use the alias to be able to “snipe” from cover. But some of those who do so do it, not so much to hide themselves but to protect themselves.
    Some of you will trust that I’m not making this up but, where I work an email was sent out (I looked for it but couldn’t find it.) that basically was about a training that included AGW issues. The line I remember was about it being a guide to hiring. (I have a government job.) So there is a push for government employees to not just be “politically correct” but ‘environmentally correct”.
    Just something to keep in mind.

    =======================================================================
    I still haven’t been able to find the email but I did find this. (The email referred to a different but related training.)

    http://www.cscaweb.org/EMS/sector_team/support_files/page_1/History_of_EMS.pdf

    We do EMS where I work. They even have people come around to do “EMS audits”. Part of the audits involves asking random people questions about our EMS policy.
    We are even supposed to give a paper copy of it to people that make deliveries here. (So much for “Save the Trees”.)
    I’m not saying this to defend the “snipers” but rather to put in mind that not all who use an alias do it so they can be “snipers”.

  229. I would second Greg White’s suggestion (far) above, in that some basic “anti-alarmist” factsheet would be a great diving board for the site. Thanks for the site just as it is!

  230. ” L. E. Joiner says:
    June 16, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    otropogo says:
    June 16, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    . . . I find the constant sneering at “alarmists” tiresome and offensive, and sorely wish some of the prestigious poster would speak up against such essentially bullying behaviour.

    “Bullying”? Surely you jest! Or did you forget that the Alarmists are the academic and government elite, including the President of the United States and his Science Advisor? ”

    Examine your logic, please. It’s not the President of the USA who’s being bullied here by those using the term “alarmist”. It’s being applied willy nilly to anyone who thinks that the sky might conceivably fall, and that we should take some timely precautions.

    So many posters seem so focused on ridiculing climate change zealots, they throw everyone who has any concern about a host of ills that beset humanity into the same category, whether it be concern about overpopulation, food distribution, pollution of our drinking water and air, or nuclear accidents. They’re all “alarmists”.

    It sometimes seems that the ONLY THING the loudest posters here, and, I’m sorry to say, our host, are worried about is “alarmism”, presumably because (apologies to Voltaire), if it were not for alarmism, we would be living in the best of all possible worlds.

  231. Please eliminate the… ” Watts Up With That? ” and link to the home page , OR wuwt_header10.jpg and link to the home page. One of them is redundant, and uses valuable real estate.

    “WUWT Top Stories” is not of any help to this user. When I arrive on the home page I would like to know if any new stories have been added (old behavior), without scrolling down. Another reader noted that Top Stories is already available in the side bar.
    The current home page has nothing of use above the “fold” most of the time.
    … Recent Posts in the side bar might be useable if it were above the fold.

  232. “””””…..Gunga Din says:

    June 18, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Gunga Din says:
    June 16, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Some have made comments about people commenting using an alias. A valid point is that some use the alias to be able to “snipe” from cover. But some of those who do so do it, not so much to hide themselves but to protect themselves.
    Some of you will trust that I’m not making this up but, where I work an email was sent out (I looked for it but couldn’t find it.) that basically was about a training that included AGW issues. The line I remember was about it being a guide to hiring. (I have a government job.) So there is a push for government employees to not just be “politically correct” but ‘environmentally correct”.
    Just something to keep in mind……”””””

    Well your post raises several issues Gunga.

    1/ You apparently don’t feel you are able to defend your position (whatever it is) regarding posts made here (or elsewhere). So if you couldn’t convince your employer (us taxpayers), why would you expect others to take your posts seriously ?

    2/ I hope you are posting on your own computer on your own time, and not misusing our tax paid computers, and wasting tax paid time doing so.

    I use MY computers, and MY time, so I have no problem using MY name, because if I didn’t firmly believe what I post, I would not waste my resources; and everybody else’s time, posting stuff I can’t defend. People actually pay me, only for what I do for them; not for what I spend MY resources on.

    And anybody, can probably find a bio of some sort out there , and I can guarantee, that at least one I know of, has errors of fact; none of which came from me, but were the product of un-necessary over-hype. I’m happy to rely on the reality; not the hype.

    You, after all, are best qualified to judge, what your stuff is worth. It’s hard to claim any kudos, without braving the flak.

    George

  233. So glancing at this entire thread, it seems that “what can we do better?” is the gist of the discussion; well just as Anthony asked.

    My conclusion is that WUWT is just like the climate.

    It changes. Not drastically; a change here, a tweak there. At the time I can question the change; do I like it, or don’t I ?

    More importantly; can I live with it ?

    Adaptation you say!.

    You know something. regardless of how I might vote on some tweak; (or irregardless as the case may be), I simply adapt. Not even aware I’m doing it.

    So why do I even bother to vote; silently or in the cement. A few time constants go by, and I don’t even remember how it used to be.

    So right on Anthony; I take it for granted, you know how to steer the ship. I know a little about rowing a ship, so I’ll just do that, and when you want to change the heading; well I’ll just keep rowing. It’ll probably work out ok.

    George

Comments are closed.