NBC News:
Two government websites on climate change survive in the Trump era
Reports of climate science being scrubbed from U.S. government websites arrived early in President Donald Trump’s tenure. And the hits keep coming. From the Environmental Protection Agency, to the Energy Department, to the State Department and beyond, references to climate change, greenhouse gases and clean energy keep disappearing.
But even as some corners of the Trump administration sow a cyber garden fertile for the fossil fuel industry, a pair of websites funded by the federal government have proclaimed an unvarnished view of the dangers of carbon-driven climate change.
The two sites, Climate.gov and CLEANet.org, have expanded to more than 700 entries and collectively drew more than 68,000 page views in May, a more than 50 percent increase from the year before. And the lessons delivered by the two sites — about the threat posed by a planet warmed by human actions — extends well beyond that core audience. That’s because both sites are aimed at teachers, who say they use the taxpayer-supported websites to create lessons on everything from increasing CO2 levels to threatened biodiversity to the potential of solar power.
The mere existence of the sites might be a surprise to some in hyper-partisan Washington, where news outlets have been reporting for months about federal departments eliminating or toning down reports on the global warming threat. The durability of Climate.gov and CLEANet.org websites shows that — even under the administration of a president who once denied climate change as a “hoax” — mainstream views of global warming can survive and even thrive.
“In a lot of the federal government, scientists are continuing to do their jobs and to be heard.”
“I think these sites show that in a lot of the federal government, scientists are continuing to do their jobs and to be heard,” said Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “They are publishing data and sharing information with the American public, until they are told to do otherwise.”
Full story here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna891806
h/t to Dr. Willie Soon
While NBC News might think that 68,000 page views per month is impressive, in comparison to our regular daily traffic on WUWT, it pales in comparison. For example, here is a screencap from my WordPress dashboard from yesterday, July 16th, which was a fairly typical summer day for WUWT. Note that it shows 92,467 page views in one day.
And here is the last two weeks: (data as of 9AM PST 07/17/18)
In the summer, we typically have about 20% lower traffic than we do in the fall through spring period, which has weekdays that are often well in excess of 100,000 page views.
While the traffic now isn’t as much as it used to be in the heady days post-climategate, WUWT still exceeds any other climate related website in views, despite our detractors.
The overall trend for interest in climate has been down according to Google trends, which looks for keyword searches. Graph by Google Trends, annotations mine:
Source: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Global%20warming,Climate%20change
What’s most interesting is that while there’s been a slow, almost imperceptible increase in the phrase “climate change”, the search phrase “global warming” is getting far less use than it did when data was first collected, back in 2004. Right now, both “climate change”, and “global warming” have low interests.
A clearer illustration of the failure of “messaging” about the urgency of climate change could not be made.
For as long as I am able, WUWT will continue.
Thanks to everyone who has stood with me, who donated to keep WUWT going after seeing what we are up against, such as cyber-attacks, hatemail, and Google’s traffic throttling policy, among other things.
There’s still time to help support WUWT by making a purchase on Amazon during “Prime day”. See the details here.
Why we’re winning: WUWT gets more page views
thatthan the last two remaining government websites on climateyes/no?
Fixed, thanks. Dictation error due to voice recognition.
Anthony Do you have any idea of the total alarmist websites vs skeptic websites or the total hits of each?
No, I’m not privy to their internal data. There are estimators, but in my experience they tend to be inaccurate.
The Alexa site doesn’t show traffic per se, Anthony, but it does show the comparative rankings:
https://www.alexa.com/find-similar-sites#site=wattsupwiththat.com
You’re ranked at number 47,602 in the world (and 14,953 in the US). Your highest-ranking competitor is skepticalscience.com at 90,137 in the world, and 41,573 in the US. None of the others is better than 200,000 globally. Congratulations!
Yes, we used to be much higher, but Google started treating certain websites such as ours as a undesirable search result.
How did they do that?
They control the search algorithm’s weighting of results.
what legitimate recourse is there? They essentially own a monopoly on internet traffic (and I’m ok with that because they have a great model to attract business), however, where are these supposed anti-trust laws that would kick into effect? Wouldn’t it stand that a company that essentially owns nearly total market share of search engine usage ought to be forced by government to uphold fairness in the model? If you have the hits you have the hits. If they are using politics to suppress skepticism and dissent then they have crossed the boundaries of free association? How is there not a legitimate court case with this type of behavior?
I could envision that they must display total website traffic and accordingly place most visited at the top, with those willing to pay listed above. no?
Additionally, why is Wikipedia not being sued over libel and slander?
“climate change denial blog”? Really? Wikipedia is a whole other can of worms that is engaged in active propaganda and truth suppression.
what legitimate recourse is there?
Use Bing or DuckDuckGo
Honest liberty:
“Wouldn’t it stand that a company that essentially owns nearly total market share of search engine usage ought to be forced by government to uphold fairness in the model?”
Aren’t you arguing for gov’t regulation? Internet neutrality was it – an Obama-era regulation that was repealed by the FCC of the current administration. Where have you been? It was big news.
The legal precedent has long been established. The Kings of England long ago determined that a ‘public house’ established for the purpose of offering shelter for the night could NOT turn away anyone because to do that would mean death by exposure in the winter. That principle of a ‘public accommodation’ has been a part of the common law for a long time. Service may not be refused {bad behavior is excepted].
The only question: Is Google Search, by it’s use and popularity, a public accommodation for these purposes. Restaurants are public accommodations, any non profit tax exempt fraternal organization is also – and must follow the rules for handicap access etc. The list is endless.
Net neutrality had nothing to do with search engines.
Sheesh.
Comparisons can be misleading between quantitative numbers like traffic and rankings which are ordinal. However comparing the charts suggests that https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/skepticalscience.com has been losing more traffic than https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com over the past 12 months.
The https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climate.gov site actually had been in a rankings uptrend until about three months age, but it’s currently ranked at 87,608 globally, substantially lower than https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com
I speculate that the downtrend in rankings for skepticalscience.com and wattsupwiththat.com reflects declining public interest in the topic. The rising trend in climate.gov might be due to promotion of the site among school teachers, which might also explain the recent downtrend when teachers are nearing or on summer vacation.
A Google of plant stomata vs ice cores used to return my first WUWT post at the top of the list. It now puts two moronic SkepSciBot posts at the top of the list.
Ok this is getting wildly off-topic. Please stop.
(The SOCKPUPPET Troll “Betty Pfeiffer” has been shut down and all of the comments deleted, including all comment in reply to the Trolls comments) MOD
Look at the SS comments averaging perhaps two or three per article. All confirmatory with the merest whiff of dissent rigorously censored by the outraged mods. And that’s all you need to know.
They don’t even list realclimate.org. Remember them? 🙂
https://www.alexa.com/find-similar-sites#site=realclimate.org
Ranked 313,583.
but in my experience they tend to be inaccurate.
I’d bet their raw data is adjusted upward…. 🙂
You can use alexa to estimate traffic. The number of alarmist sites is over a hundred. Individually none is bigger than yours, but do they get hits from the same pool or they get different customers?? an example: https://www.skepticalscience.com/
Any hits people want to give this startup skeptic website would be greatly appreciated:
https://electroverse.net/
Sounds like Consensus
Thanks for giving us a “Heads Up”.,..(Guess who is next)
Signed
Donald Trump !!
Anthony
Brilliant mate.
Your determination and persistence is amazing.
Of course, what we hope to see soon is zero interest in WUWT. When that’s achieved, you truly will have won.
Of course, what we hope to see soon is zero interest in WUWT.
Bah…speak for yourself, sir!
sycomputing
Awww……that’s nice, you would miss me.
🙂
I COMPLETELY disagree with that desire, sir. I come here for the climate SCIENCE – such as Eschenbach, Middleton, Monkton, and others.
There will never be an end of knowledge to be discovered about climate. I do look forward to the day when Anthony has nothing to post but science, instead of the latest scam being passed around.
Writing Observer
Oh! you flirt.
🙂
True. Even when this whole sorry episode is well and truly over, there will still be science to be had, questions to be asked, and discussions being done.
It’s interesting to know about the world, the atmosphere, other planets and their atmosphere, the sun, oceans, trees, and a thousand other things.
That’s so… 😎
I’d still come for the weird science.
and the company
MarkW
I’m afraid to admit, I’m only here to learn a smidgen of climate science.
I’m not educated and the rest of the science leaves me in the dust. So I really do look forward to the day this site is climatically redundant.
At that point we can all put our feet up, crack open a cold beer each, and have a virtual party across the globe.
I do hope someone’s keeping note of the trolls who will doubtless rock up and say “I was only kidding”.
(He say’s, cold beer in hand. Like I’m ever without one!)
those types lack the capacity for self-reflection, honesty, or integrity. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
honest liberty
“those types”?
I’m not sure who you mean.
A more accurate statement would be: “I don’t know what you mean.”
I do hope someone’s keeping note of the trolls who will doubtless rock up and say “I was only kidding”.
them being the stokes, zazove, chris, klipstiens, betty’s of the world.
The religious CAGW devout. Pardon the lack of clarity.
I’m afraid to admit, I’m only here to learn a smidgen of climate science.
I’m not…afraid to admit it, that is.
sycomputing
Good point.
Respect my authority!!
Sorry…
The Google Trends graph is interesting. It looks like Al Gore’s AIT (An Immense Trickiness) was the high point for public concern. It looks like Climategate was the nail in the coffin.
In spite of public disinterest the propaganda is unrelenting. I’m beginning to take Dr. Tim Ball’s musings on Agenda 21 seriously. There has to be some reason the CAGW zombie refuses to lie down and die.
The level of public concern about CAGW is indicated by my favorite Gallup poll: The Nation’s Most Important Problem. Presumably global warming/climate change is lumped in with Environment/Pollution. The whole thing is considered America’s most important problem by a mere two percent of respondents.
The “musings” link is a dead end.
AIT — An Idiotic Travesty.
You absolutely should take it seriously because they are.
Go look at how the UN Agenda 21/2030 is being implemented throughout the country, from local through federal. This ties directly to cashless society, 5G full interface homes where every single energy using device is trackable, especially smart meters which are being forced upon citizens through county and state regulation, Private-public partnerships which redirect how land is used, national park access shut downs all over (especially in Colorado) based on nonsense like “rehabilitation” and other horse-hockey, zoning and building code laws that are nearly exact across the country for insulation and very specific items that should naturally vary by region and climate, building code related to water usage on private land all of this based on “sustainability” and all the deceit that goes along with it, S.M.A.R.T. cities with mixed use, high density urbanization (although convenient, was not planned organically and was discussed in the original charter, an ever increasing land grab by localities for water and other resources where humans aren’t permitted (Denver county is horrific about stealing all that land and preventing the public from fair access for recreation, hunting, camping, etc..)
as posted the other day:
http://www.unsceb.org/CEBPublicFiles/UN%20System%20Chart_ENG_FINAL_MARCH13_2017_0.pdf
go through and look at all of those UN agencies, read through each, and notice how the international court system isn’t yet completed. You think these people aren’t serious? You think this tin foil? I would suggest it is worth watching a few videos from independent researchers who discuss the tactics and reality of it, then determine for yourself whether they are credible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRokoocSPQQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4
I don’t want to thread b-mb but that is about 15 seconds of searching. If you don’t believe what is being said then maybe dig deeper and attempt to verify the information which you find dubious. I’d be interested to see what conclusion you draw after spending a few weeks exploring.
this is about top down, iron fist ruling by international elites through 100% surveillance of every single individual. They absolutely despise humanity and they want extreme depopulation in line with the Georgia Guidestones (500 million). The discussions have touched on it here, slightly and hesitantly, but I’m not concerned with being labeled tin foil because I’ve spent 1000’s of hours looking into what was said and planned in the past as it has manifested currently, seemingly out of nowhere since 911, the Great Catalyst.
It is all hidden in plain site yet many folks refuse to recognize the patterns, understand their language (symbolism), refuse to accept the reality that what these power brokers have said for years has come to pass (they claim it isn’t related or is coincidence, or as my fiance says “that is just how the industry works” regarding architecture and art).
Here is a great example, and this isn’t just in Arvada, Denver, or St. Louis:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/naked-communist45-goals-destroy-united-states-america-waghelstein
#22. read it. Then start looking around where you live: the buildings, the art, etc.
https://stlouis.cbslocal.com/top-lists/top-bizarre-statues-or-public-art-in-the-st-louis-area/
https://arvadacenter.org/about-the-center/unbound-sculpture-in-the-field-re-imagines-the-grounds-of-the-arvada-center-for-the-arts-and-humanities
http://www.westword.com/arts/review-the-arvada-center-takes-a-leap-outside-with-unbound-sculpture-in-the-field-5787916
BTW, it is absolutely sickening to see this mentally ill gypsy camp of ugly constructions being passed off as “art”. look at that creepy stuff at Denver International Airport.
anyway, this is just one aspect that has leaped out to me, but it is absolutely worth exploring in my estimation.
honest liberty
Have I misjudged you?
If so, I apologise.
Possibly, and more than likely my words were too harsh with my criticism of how police work is funded, btw. I don’t think I was clear enough that I appreciate what cops do. I sincerely do. However, I strongly disagree with statism and monopolies of any sort.
I wager you would strongly agree with 75% of what I say, but when it comes to Israel/vaccines/GMO’s/taxation funded agencies of force, probably not so much.
Volunteerism is quite polarizing and those with my proclivities typically infuriate both sides of the aisle because they can’t neatly fit me into their box.
It’s all good though. I very much appreciate all of your input, even when we disagree about the fundamentals.
honest liberty
You were clear enough on your appreciation of Cops, however I didn’t acknowledge it. My bad.
The only thing I would say is that whilst it’s easy to criticise, unless you have a solution, then your criticism is meaningless.
I don’t like being taxed, but there is no alternative if we are to have communal running water, a functional grid, sanitation, roads, railways, hospitals and of course, civil and national defence.
Our world is founded on conflict, money doesn’t make the world go round, conflict does. Without it, man wouldn’t have progressed as far as we have.
In many ways, like science, someone has a solution for a peaceful, benign society and, someone else comes along and tests it. No society has ever survived that test. So we keep testing. We might hurl morals and laws at the concept, but nothing will stop it, ever.
likely a good reason for my frustration; the paradox. I’d still rather take the risks of a free society. Or not. I dunno. I’m working through it.
honest liberty
Free society is the best solution mankind has come up with so far. I’v’e worked through it, in my uneducated way.
Like I said, mankind evolved from trading before socialism was dreamed up as an ideological concept. The free market economy wasn’t dreamed up, it is what we are.
The problem is, allowing politicians any control over money. That’s where the problem lies. Any businessman will tell you, a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. Politicians don’t operate like that. They’ll cover one bad deal with another worse deal, just to save their own arse.
Perhaps if we compelled politicians to justify their existence by demonstrating what monetary value they have brought to their community, we cold determine the best one for the job.
Everything comes down to the filthy lucre.
Bob, more creative pollsters than Gallup get much higher rates of concern. A recent example is Jon Krosnick from Stanford with his latest report published in phys.org Poll shows consensus for climate policy remains strong. My deep dive into his website shows how to word questions to get the proper results.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/07/17/the-art-of-rigging-climate-polls/
Thanks Jake.
musings darn it!
so if the interest is piqued only with approximately 2% of the population, why are international banks moving from oil and gas funding to known unsatisfactories as renewables? Why is there this push for sustainability and S.M.A.R.T. growth? Inclusive communities? Green this and that?
It stands that this is not grassroots where the population is taking action but a top down edict from those with the money and power (dear Lord forgive me for sounding like a Marxist with that power play, but it is accurate). The super elite who have mastered the wonders of capitalism when it was relatively unregulated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have overtaken the state and education system to slowly train the populace to accept communism/socialism/fascism style economies where they no longer need to fairly compete, and the people don’t know better to understand what genuine free market capitalism provides. Those who have amassed the wealth from their personal exploits (and good for them) essentially became bored with money, and the next logical progression was complete domination of the individual. I fail to see why this is such an outlandish conclusion.
If you could have any woman you wanted, eventually the luster of domination would fade. Then what? You would want substance. Well, substance to dominators is raw power.
why are international banks moving from oil and gas funding to known unsatisfactories as renewables? Why is there this push for sustainability and S.M.A.R.T. growth? Inclusive communities? Green this and that?
My sense is that they are not. This an impressions fostered by certain narrow interests
…why are international banks moving from oil and gas funding to known unsatisfactories as renewables? Why is there this push for sustainability and S.M.A.R.T. growth? Inclusive communities? Green this and that?
I would argue because banks are in business to make money, and at the moment, “renewables” are to projected profit as tulips were for the same purpose to a certain generation of Dutch gardeners.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/07/11/top-renewable-energy-financiers-reveal-pathway-to-1-trillion-in-u-s-investment/#215c2f1934b0
What’s most interesting is that while there’s been a slow, almost imperceptible increase in the phrase “climate change”, the search phrase “global warming” is getting far less use than it did when data was first collected, back in 2004. Right now, both “climate change”, and “global warming” have low interests.
Congratulations that you’ve managed to keep the site fun, relevant, informative and popular, even in the face of a waning interest in AGW from the general public.
I do think that there is still interest in climate SCIENCE – just not in the scam.
Right, hence – “…in the face of a waning interest in AGW…”
Is there a way to make a donation by sending a check in the mail to an address? Thanks
Anthony do you have an address? Thanks
AAAS promotes AGW, and “science” educators buy in bigtime. Lesson plans available https://www.epa.gov/students/lesson-plans-teacher-guides-and-online-environmental-resources-educators
Still on government website. Public school must be changed at every level.
I dropped in at climate.gov to see what sorts of brainwashing info exists there.
On the “teaching climate literacy” (laugh) page — https://www.climate.gov/teaching/essential-principles-climate-literacy/essential-principles-climate-literacy
we find the bulk of the standard mantra.
Teachers are ingraining this, and teachers are ingraining their students with this.
I’m glad I’m beyond this level of “education” (laugh) now. Sadly, there’s still a government-funded machine churning out global-warming/climate-change, brain-dead zombies.
Mandated by the state, funded through forced theft for the benefit of the state to continue it’s feigned legitimacy. This is about transferring deference of the individual to a Divine authority with consistent, unyielding moral laws (don’t steal) {an authority with whom the state cannot compete, and we know how the state despises fair competition} to the external arbitrary authority of man and his institution as god, because man has the original sin of naturally evil intention (self reliance and rigged individualism).
This GAIA cult is the unifying narrative the non-deists defer their authority, just as deists defer their worldly authority to the invisible creator.
This is no different and will end worse than any theologically controlled society, because the godless have no morals.
It must be stopped
It’s even better than that. WUWT gets some very smart and knowledgeable commenters. It is far better at education and the dissemination of scientific ideas than either the MSM or the scientific journals. The former sometimes called the YSM, and the later could be called a swamp.
A critical question is whether teachers use WUWT to “create lessons on everything from [the beneficence of] increasing CO2 levels to [the non-threat to] biodiversity to the [fringe benefits of] solar power.”
Not to mention that no one knows, or presently can know, whether human CO2 emissions can cause climate warming.
If no one disseminates the content of WUWT to teachers, schools, and especially to children (calming the depressive trauma induced into them by the incessant drumbeat of alarmist doom-mongers), then the views here will have no lasting impact.
I wonder whether it would be possible to put together a “Teachers’ Corner” on WUWT? Lesson plans could be composed on various issues of central concern. Are there any teachers among WUWT readers who could contribute to that?
Not to assign work, but it seems to me that Willis Eschenbach has exactly the right temperament, story-telling talents, and personal outlook to shepherd, and contribute to, such an effort.
Further thought: wouldn’t a WUWT-based childrens’ book featuring illustrations by Josh be a wonderful idea?
That’s the Democrats’ strategy. Convince children to become political.
Like letting children dictate public policy and limits on Constitutional rights… not a good idea.
The Adults need to stay in charge and keep the Party of Children out of public policy.
Pat’s suggestion has nothing to do with children becoming political. The problem is ; children do not seek out skeptic sites. The school indoctrination has been complete.
Alan Tomalty
All the kids I know actively seek alternative views. The internet is a weird and wonderful place. Scepticism is the default position for kids. Tell them one thing and they’ll find a million reasons not to believe it, much like socialists.
Take that to the conclusion you and I reached in our early lives, that our parents were lying toe rags, then consider what our youth will discover in the years to come.
Whilst the greens whine about our children and grandchildren, our kids don’t give a monkeys and will rebel against ‘the oppressive liberalised, climate obsessed, patronising tossers that dare to direct their future.
There is a backlash brewing, it wont be from us, although we may have lit the blue touchpaper.
The planet’s future is secure in our children’s hands, because they don’t take no shit.
joelobryan
Children should be seen and not heard.
They lowered the voting age in Scotland to 16, conveniently, shortly before the independence referendum. And the SNP still blew it.
At 16 years old I was still figuring out how best to use my dick.
At 50 years old I started wondering about politics, climate change, the EU etc.
At 61 years old I’m back to figuring out what to do with my dick.
But at least I understand the difference between Capitalism and socialism, the more subtle nuances learned on a science site, WUWT.
Thank you guys.
“At 61 years old I’m back to figuring out what to do with my dick.”
Do you mean that in mixed company, you still dont know which way to turn ???
saveenergy
Nope. At 16 I could piss over very high walls, now, not so much.
I’m suggesting the truth of critical physical science, Joel, not some partisan tract.
A group of Democrats have proposed lowering the voting age to 16.
Thank you!
It looks like the news circuit is benefiting in the process judging by all the odd placements of paid news out there including the call for carbon taxes on the general economy at CNBC.
“… the heady days post-climategate”
Just wait till the UofArizona emails are released unredacted.
Professor Overpeck may have run off to Michigan, but he won’t be able to hide from the internet.
joelobryan
ETA for the UofArizona emails?
It’s sad that the teachers are propping up support for these sites and yet it’s probable that any decrease in WUWT visits is attributable to an increase in the understanding that man’s not driving climate change after all! Even though the need for continued challenge is as great as ever, it’s logical that the new and better educated simply ‘move on’ without worry!
The teachers need to teach the difference between computer-run ‘near misses’ and the gathering of empirical evidence.
What is scary about the federal websites is they are now aimed directly at our youth through out education system. There is a strong belief among the left that they should give up on everyone over fifty, who are not already converts, and work on the coming generations. I have been told, “when your generation finally passes on we then can fix all the mess you people made.” [I have been told that a couple of times in the last year. The scariest was when a young nurse said it while she was prepping me for surgery.]
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Che all believed that if you gave them the children to “educate” they would “change the world.”
“when your generation finally passes on we then can fix all the mess you people made.”
yup, they can toss the western world in the bin and go about being all natural and feeding the ticks, lice and tapeworms along with those other highly attractive nations devoid of Western civilization and it’s protection. I can just picture their glee..
I have been told that a couple of times in the last year. The scariest was when a young nurse said it while she was prepping me for surgery eek. stay away from those guys.. they’re not good for you. I added another 2 names just this week to the extraordinarily long list of the ‘profession with the world’s worst mass murderers’. The latest was nurse injecting cleaning products into drips because she couldn’t be bothered dealing with the relatives of the sick..
Edwin
I sincerely hope you reported your nurse for her comment.
What these idiots forget is that a generation doesn’t just demarcate itself by a single birth period; baby boomers, the X generation, or the snowflakes, its a rolling concept.
A generation is a conceptual description of an influential period, and in my opinion it’s punctuated by other periods of influence, WW2, then the Korean war, then the Vietnam war, the cold war, the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, the Reagan Thatcher alliance, Monica Lewisnky, Iraq etc. etc.
Today, the punctuations are Trump and Russia, climategate, green obsession, the rise of the left, energy policy, the technological revolution etc.
Ultimately, all lost in the sands of time by the next crisis.
I hate the idea of our kids being indoctrinated, but mankind is resiliant and they will rebel against the establishment. This time it happens to be the concept of climate change, which is the cold war of yore. Seemingly never ending until someone rebels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
Enjoy our children’s rebellious nature.
It was ours!
Edwin
Our song. The taste of sweet revenge, a dish best served cold.
While WUWT is being read more than those two sites, I fear “we” have not won at all. Those two sites are used to provide “lessons” about CAGW / CCC. From the article: “[a]nd the lessons delivered by the two sites — about the threat posed by a planet warmed by human actions — extends well beyond that core audience. That’s because both sites are aimed at teachers, who say they use the taxpayer-supported websites to create lessons on everything from increasing CO2 levels to threatened biodiversity to the potential of solar power.” (“lessons” “extends”. Oh well, guess even journalists don’t have to have the number of the subject agree with the number of the verb.)
“They” are going for the hearts and minds of the impressionable young. As suggested above, “we” need to be getting “our” message into the classroom. Fat chance, unfortunately. Closed minds and closed doors.
Anthony:
We love you, and thank you.
Alexa stats for WUWT: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com
A contribution sent directly rather than through click bait – although I may use that as well.
Thank you Anthony
Ian W
Hmmm — I did a google search on “Climate Change” and didn’t see wattsupwiththat on the first 20 pages of search results, unless I missed it.
of course you didn’t.. failure to adhere to The Narrative is hardly likely to earn you a place in the race.
NASA still has climate sites as well. Several of them. Full of the same exaggerations.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/
Climate.gov Essential Principle 6: Human activities are impacting the climate system.
https://www.climate.gov/teaching/essential-principles-climate-literacy/essential-principles-climate-literacy
… presents five main points, designated “a” through “e”.
Just looking at the first point, …
a. The overwhelming consensus of scientific studies on climate indicates that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the latter part of the 20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
… I offer the following critique:
First, I do not believe that it is necessary to use the word, “overwhelming”, combined with the word, “consensus”, in an attempt to strengthen what this word already means. This use seems to be an attempt to equate “consensus” to “majority”, in a further attempt to equate the force of the phrase, “overwhelming majority” to the phrase, “overwhelming consensus”. But “consensus” already means “overwhelming majority”, and so to use the word, “overwhelming” again is not necessary. This is wordiness intended to give more weight to the word, “consensus” than it already has. But this is a wrong approach to language, designed to force importance where it does not exist. The proper way to start the sentence is either, “The overwhelming majority of scientifc studies”, or simply, “The consensus in scientific studies”.
Fabricated use of language to force emphasis, then, is the first problem here. The second problem is that what this sentence attempts to express is simply NOT true. No attempt is made to qualify what “scientific studies on climate” means. Instead, a broad term is used as if it were a specific term. There are numerous climate studies that do NOT endorse the so called “consensus”. Again, this is a manipulative use of language.
My third problem is with the unspoken given that the concept of “global average temperature” is a valid metric that can tell us anything about human influences on the planet. The fundamental concept is open to question, as well as the statistical manipulations of the data gathered in the name of this questionable concept.
My fourth problem is with lack of proof for attributing increases in a questionable metric (represented by statistically manipulated data) to so called “greenhouse gases” — a term that, itself, is a misnomer perpetuated for the sake of continuing a simple-minded, mistaken notion that Earth’s atmosphere somehow acts like a greenhouse.
… and I could go on, with the other four points, but I’ll save you the boredom of enduring the same old broken-record tit-for-tat.
Probably more scientists and engineers viewing WUWT and contributing comments/articles too.
Anthony and the contributors, thanks for doing the hard work – it’s appreciated by thinking folk the world over.
Bravo Anthony. Keep shining the lights.
We still have the same problem folks.
That is the problem is not the number but who????
If that is still the fertile minds of the young then we still have a huge issue!!!
I just realized another annoyance — with the source-story photo, whose caption reads, The dome of the U.S. Capitol is seen behind the emissions, and a smokestack, from the Capitol Power Plant, which stopped burning coal after years of protests.
Aren’t those … “emissions” … steam ?
And isn’t mentioning protests over burning coal in conjunction with a strong visual involving UNNAMED smoke, blatant conflation designed to mislead ?
Isn’t that photo one big lie ?
The photo, as it is framed, suggests that the big smoke stack is what has emitted the smoke, but I think another smoke stack OUT OF THE FRAME is what emitted that smoke, and that smoke is STEAM ! — water micro-droplets, dear fertile minds.
Surely, the writer knew (or reasonably should have been expected to know) what this smoke was. Surely, the editor publishing the story knew (or reasonably should have been expected to know) what this smoke was.
This is editorial fraud.
“Isn’t that photo one big lie ?”
It sure is. More CO2 propaganda from people who should know better.
Very little escapes WUWT’s attention. We’ve been there. Well, James Hansen has been there. And got snowed on.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/hansens-coal-and-global-warming-protest-may-get-snowed-out/
*Stands on chair and pumps fist*
So go wider.
The AGW scam is dying. Not dead yet; don’t let them get away. But it’s beaten.
The reproducibility scandal is a clue to where the real scientific method is not being applied.
WUWT could be the bastion of the Renaissance.
Or it could be another partisan political rant-fest. Pointless
Is this partisan? Absolutely, but not nearly as strictly partisan as the opposing “side”. We have a variety of opinions if you actually read closely, but from what I have seen, you have no interest.
I just love the inflated egos of your type. Funny, I don’t recall you ever contributing data, or what you believe as evidence, or anything of the sort to counter what is being laid out here by actual scientists and lay people, such as myself, who have spent no less than 4,000 hours directly studying the science behind this narrative.
But just like every other adversarial commenter on this site, you refuse to actually debate the science (Save for Nick Stokes. I must give him credit the guy actually puts forth evidence and defends his position) The rest of you are worthless for you contribute nothing but empty platitudes and condemnation/derision/smug holier-than-thou virtue signaling.
I do an informal poll every day while I drive to work to see how many of my neighbours are living in terror of the scientology of Climate Change. I find without fail that the vast majority are driving their full size trucks and/ or SUVs to work or play and paying the obscenely taxed gas prices with barely a whimper. The people who are taking transit that I know of only do so because it is so expensive to park downtown.
My results: there are only the media and politicians trying whip up fear with the help of some NGO’s heavily funded by American interests. The average person gives a big yawn when they hear the endless drivel about climate change.
Here a Santana song fitting for a soundtrack to this article.
If you want to see how truly biased Google is, go to Alerts.Google.com and set up a daily summary alert for “Climate Change”. I did this years ago and my impression is that the results are about 90% alarmist 100% of the time with an error margin of 5-10%. I don’t bother to look at the summary every day anymore but have looked at hundreds of them over the years and WUWT has only made it into the summary a handful of times.
They call steam emissions? Too funny!
Anthony: “For as long as I am able, WUWT will continue.”
Should something occur — God forbid — that you become unable to continue WUWT — what then?
I would like to see this site continue in perpetuum. People will always be interested in the weather, even after a few more decades when the AGW scare will have been discarded in the dust-bins of history.
Holy cow this article is a bunch of garbage
Would it kill you to be a bit more specific as to what IYO constitutes garbage?
Thanks!
Reasons for WUWT’s success relative to those boring, depressing alarmist sites (a subjective list):
1. There’s always something new and different;
2. It’s not only global warming/climate change, there are articles that only touch on GW/CC quite loosely and inform us about subjects we otherwise wouldn’t come across;
3. There is humour. Not only that, there is humor. A lot of it based on the transparent imbecility of so many “climate science” articles of the “climate change causes ingrown toenails in hermit crabs” type, and we all have a good laugh, spill coffee on our keyboards and feel immensely superior;
4. You can learn stuff from the comments as well as the articles; there are a lot of real scientists who hang out here. Even I contribute the odd snippet of geology when a topic veers into areas I know something about.
5. There are original contributions from people like Javier and Willis and vukcevic that actually provoke thought and provide fresh insights into the whole lithosphere-atmosphere-hydrosphere-biosphere system.
For these reasons and others more subtle, visitors who have found WUWT tend to keep coming back. WUWT is INTERESTING as well as INFORMATIVE and AMUSING
Anthony Watts you are a hero. Keep it going long as you can, man.
Thanks for the kind words.
You need to consider the multiplier effect. If that 68k set of viewings is from teachers, then we might assume that they are teaching their classes of perhaps 30+ kids the contents of these pages.
I’m surprised that the Trump administration hasn’t closed down this rather important propaganda channel…
I visit WUWT 2 or 3 times a day now. Whenever I’m on the WWW, it’s in my top 5 of websites I must browse.
Bye Skepticalscience, bye RealClimate
WUWT (Watts Up on World’s Top)
Nothing equals those days! I don’t have time to hunt it down, we have a post or comment on it, but after the dust settled, most climate sites returned to their pre-Climategate levels, WUWT remained at a significantly higher level than before at a little below 100K views per day.. I’m certain that shows the influx of new people looking into the controversy found WUWT the most approachable site and overall, most informative.
It influenced my commentary and posts – ever since then I’ve tried to make them be informative and educational, especially to newer readers.
As the concern over climate change wanes and sites like Google derate WUWT, I’m amazed that readership here has been so stable. Anthony has a done an amazing job at finding the sweet spot in climate blogdom and deserves all the accolades we can deliver.
Just made a small donation to WUWT,
I assume it will give me a seat at the Middleton/ Pfeiffer rematch 🙂
Near as I can tell, neither one conceded.
The Sockpuppet Troll “Betty Pfeiffer” comments and the replies to them have been DELETED.