An endorsement by Rush Limbaugh -‘Watts Up With That? It’s a cool little website’

Love or Hate him, millions of people listen to him. And to get an unsolicited endorsement, was not only a surprise, but it caused quite a traffic spike here yesterday.

During the last hour of his radio program yesterday, he was talking about Bernie Sanders view of climate. He said:

Anyway, Bernie Sanders, he vows to offset all carbon emissions from travel. “2020 presidential campaign plans to offset all carbon emissions from travel, it announced Thursday morning.

‘Bernie Sanders is a champion in the fight for climate justice and, like him, we know we need to address our emissions through action, not just rhetoric,’ campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement. ‘We are proud to lead the way in the fight against climate change by acting boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy sources.’”

Now, we shouldn’t let them get away with this. We’re not talking about offsets here. We’re not talking about offsetting carbon emissions. We’re talking about getting rid of air travel, Bernie. If you want to show allegiance to the Green New Deal, ground your airplane! This is about the elimination of fossil fuels, not offsetting your use of them.

And Bernie has endorsed the Green New Deal. This vow has nothing to do with a policy he would impose on everybody else. This business of trying to offset — we’re going to make sure that we offset all carbon. No, Bernie. No, Bernie, you ground that airplane. You ground everything that uses fossil fuels, and you get around, if you’re gonna be true to this.

But note they never do. They never actually live the stuff that they would make you and me live. But I’m now gonna violate one of my own rules. ‘Cause I’m gonna get into some science here. I found this at Watts Up With That? It’s a cool little website. It’s a long piece, but I can synthesize this with very little time.

“The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration. According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration,” in the atmosphere.

Meaning, you reach a point where the more CO2 you put up there, the less impact that it has, or greenhouse effect that it has.


“This inconvenient fact is well understood in the climate science community. It can be accurately modeled using the Modtran program maintained and supported at the University of Chicago.”


It’s like it has been discovered that, you know, when they were tearing up the Amazon rain forest, when they were clear cutting it down there, you know, when Juan Valdez needed more space for a house instead of coffee beans, they found that there was forestation in Europe as the earth itself was compensating!


Not that we had planted any new trees. They just were marveling at how we weren’t actually losing any net vegetation, despite Juan Valdez clear cutting in the Amazon rain forest. The Folger’s coffee guy. Juan Valdez, he was out there macheting. It was a disaster.

Advertisements

168 thoughts on “An endorsement by Rush Limbaugh -‘Watts Up With That? It’s a cool little website’

    • Rush is a busy fellow, and there is so much out there to read on the topic, but in adding Anthony to his mix with Dr Roy Spencer, now even more folks out there are going to learn about aspects of the AGW that the mainstream media (the PBS NewsHour, among others, as I quantified here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=3834 ) refuses to tell the public about.

    • Must be. I’ve been on the site almost everyday for… wow. Seems like 15 years. How old is this site?

      • November, 2006.

        I once went searching for my first comment. I thought it was in late 2008, but the earliest comment of mine I found was in 2009.

        Then there are the true ‘oldtimers’ I still see commenting here and there are some that still read here that rarely comment anymore, so until the real oldtimers quit commenting, I will always feel like a newbie.

        P.S. I admit I’m addicted to WUWT, but I have no intention of going into rehab ;o)

        • The Surface Stations Project was about halfway there, so I’m about as much an “old timer.” But I know that I lurked for quite a while before commenting. (Commenting takes time, which I didn’t have all that much of then – some eighty hours or so of work a week, plus fifteen for school, plus three teenagers in the house…)

        • H.R.

          “”””P.S. I admit I’m addicted to WUWT, but I have no intention of going into rehab ;o)””””

          #MeToo. The moment I saw manns HS, my BS detectors burst to space. There was no little ice age, no medieval warm period, and nothing about warmer periods of holocene epochs, which were wery well known from geologists.

          Also I have always been sceptic in UN:s role in science. So this climate-thing was just another political propaganda manifesto. And my BS detectors stayed in space.

          First I found Climate Audit and it was wery educating about statistics behind climate “science”.

          Then I found this treasure trove and that moment Climate”science” was settled. This site is the best ever because it brings so wide information about all possible sciences related to climate.

          I visit here everyday because I need my portion of common sense everyday. My BS detectors has calmed down, which means less headache.

          Thank you Sir Watts, and all you specialists who try to bring sanity back to fashion again.

        • I think I made my first comment in 2009. I wish the old-timers were still active. There are hardly any left. They were the best commenters, IMO. They should be sent an email inviting them to return.

  1. Given Rush’s listener base, I wonder what that comment will do with traffic on this site.

    • My experience is that a Drudge mention produces considerably more traffic than a Limbaugh mention. But it’s still great exposure.

      • A Drudge link sure does increase the number of comments for the referenced article. But does it meaningfully impact traffic to the site? I suspect a Limbaugh endorsement will have a small but meaningful impact on site traffic overall when compared to a Drudge link for a specific article. It’ll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens.

        • If you hadn’t notice, Drudge’s site is dying, bit by bit. Matt’s just mailing it in now, hasn’t put any actual effort into it for years. Most of the online people I talk to, myself included, can remember how we used to visit it daily, but have dropped it completely now.

          • Drudge drives me nuts the way it keeps reloading but maybe I’m doing something wrong. I never go on it anymore.

          • “Drudge drives me nuts the way it keeps reloading but maybe I’m doing something wrong.”

            The refresh rate is very irritating. I used to periodically write Drudge nasty notes about their constant refreshing of the page. You literally cannot read all the headlines, even if you do it as fast as you can, before the page refreshes.

            I solved that problem by getting NoScript, a script blocker, for my Firefox browser. Now, I’m in control. That page will sit there forever without refreshing. 🙂

            NoScript is good at blocking lots of nasty software. You set it to block everything on a page. Some pages won’t work properly unless some scripts or websites are allowed, but NoScript makes it easy letting you allow only things that are absolutely necessary and blocking all the rest.

          • In fact, Drudge has a little window on his webpage where you can send him messages, and the webpage would refresh so quickly that I would have to write my complaint in notepad and then past it into the little window, otherwise the page would refresh before I could type out my complaint! This was before I got NoScript. 🙂

      • Usually a drudge mention includes a direct link to an article on the mentioned site. And while Rush included a link in the transcript on his own website, the vast majority of Rush’s audience, I would imagine, are his listeners not his website visitors (I would also hazard to guess that Drudge’s website has higher traffic volumes than Rush’s website even though Rush’s total audience is much larger).

        So, yeah, I can see a mention on drudge (with link) would beat out a mention on the air (and thus no direct link for the majority of Rush’s audience) for driving up traffic. It’s easier to click a link that’s right in front of you than to seek out a site on your own based on hearing about it (particularly if you aren’t online already at the time you hear it mentioned).

      • Caution: Sample of one.

        I suspect that may be a result of many Rush listeners (myself included) being already aware of WUWT. Drudge gets me to click links to websites I never otherwise would visit.

        • Sample size = 2

          For a LONG time. Don’t comment much, but following since at least 2005 (because I try to stay ahead of the crowd) [That’s a joke, for those who have yet to purchase a sense of humor…]

    • It whacks iceagenow.info when Rush makes comments about Roger Felix’s site. His comment base is usually small – maybe 5-10 per post but it goes into the 80s-100s when mentioned on Rush. Interestingly about a 1/3 is hyper anti climate which makes me wonder just how many socialist types listen to Limbaugh or if some left wing group sends out messages to attack.

      • yeah iceagenow and wuwt are daily read for me, and i always know when I see a huge surge that drudge or?? have dropped a name. and yes always close to 50% are gungho warmers trolling.
        if they READ the articles it wouldnt be so bad..they just lob in and abuse/accuse usually

  2. Heard it yesterday and wondered if it would be picked up here. I also was hoping to see the link to the report he referred to and I see it above. I agree w/Rush, cool little site that I’ve also known about for years but only recently been frequenting. 🙂

  3. Rush, (I love him) is the gateway drug to conservative activism. Starting with Rush, many will listen to Mark Levin, and then move on to CRTV, and from there swallow a bunch of red pills that will make them effective enemies of the Deep State and their globalist masters. Rush is a hero!

    • Don’t forget Dan Bongino. He’s the one who’s collected, collated and exposed all the information proving the “Russia Collusion” investigation was nothing more than a giant attempt at overturning an election, that the Steele dossier was faker than fake, and the ‘obstruction’ charge now being bandied about is a follow-on attempted coup from that first failed coup.

      Andrew McCabe said on national television that the predicate reason they were investigating Trump was because Trump protested so much on social media about the on-going investigation! Now the libtards are using Trump’s post hoc protestations as their predicate for their obstruction claims, despite both Comey and McCabe stating under oath that no obstruction took place.

      Let that sink in for awhile, and you’ll realize the libtards are frantic to cover up their illegalities… illegalities which Dan Bongino exposes daily. So desperate, in fact that they’ve attempted to flip the ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ logical fallacy on its head.

      Proper post hoc ergo propter hoc:
      “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”

      Libtard post hoc ergo propter hoc:
      “Since event Y followed event X, event X must have been caused by event Y.”

      Prison for those attempting to subvert the democratic process is the only way to ensure this doesn’t happen again. We need to stop mollycoddling these kooks.

      • Bongino is great… he reaches normal people since he’s not your typical polished speaker. He’s focused like a hawk. Don’t get me wrong, he speaks very well, but has that Bronx accent… Younger people will relate to him. Rush? He’s the original master of conservative thought on the airwaves, and always has a keen sense of what’s right and wrong. He almost always right in what he thinks will happen too. Very strong track record.

        • Dan Bongino is from Queens. And yes, “focused like a hawk”. Extremely focused, intelligent, and well-spoken.

      • Bongino is great. But Sundance at the Conservative Tree House takes the cake for investigative reporting on the Collusion Scam and other investigations like the Trayvon Martin farce.

  4. Agreed on the usefulness. While I’m a scientist, atmospherics isn’t my field, and a contrary view is always welcome to real scientists.

    Sadly, I’ve found that scientism has been on the rise lately, with “voodoo” math used far too often, requiring me to quote Fermi, “that’s not even wrong.”

    I suspect that’s what’s going on with climate forecasts, rather than actual error. Appreciate insight from those who’ve done the investigation though.

    • The malfeasance arose from the magic of misapplied positive feedback that’s literally creating energy out of thin air.

      The math isn’t necessarily wrong, it just doesn’t apply.

      • Just so co2isnotevil.
        In fact water provides a very strong negative feedback which has been consistently ignored.
        Have a look at cognog2.com for an explanation.

        • Alasdair,

          There’s really no such thing as climate feedback, positive or negative. The concept of feedback, as applied to the climate, is only relevant to Bode’s LINEAR, POWERED feedback amplifier analysis, where the climate system being modeled is neither liner nor does it have an internal source of Joules powering the gain, both of which are prerequisites for applying feedback analysis. Citing negative feedback only reinforces the flawed idea that positive feedback exists.

          What’s being confused as feedback are the temperature dependent components of the planets reflectivity and atmospheric absorption, but neither are characteristic of active amplifier feedback and both would be more accurately modeled as the temperature coefficient of a passive component.

          The climate system is a thermodynamic system that chaotically converges to a steady state in the energy domain. That steady state is a temperature independent average of about 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar forcing, where the extra 620 mw per W/m^2 represents the total surface emissions above and beyond the 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing characteristic of an ideal black body. Replenishing the excess emissions are GHG’s and clouds returning energy emitted by the surface in the past, absorbed and then re-emitted back. The closest you can get to something similar to Bode’s feedback is the extra 620 mw of surface emissions which can be considered feedback power, but even that’s not completely representative of the concept.

          • I agree, I’ve always thought the CAGW believers have bought into an ill-founded notion of “feedback”. It’s an unsuspecting audience that does not realize that true feedback systems cannot operate without auxiliary power. Carbon Dioxide and water vapor as GHGs produce no power whatsoever, they merely disperse energy from the surface produced by the Sun.

          • Put another way, GHG’s, and more importantly clouds, redistribute existing energy. Just like the left’s socialist position of redistributional economics, they think that energy and money are free and infinitely available.

          • +5. Appreciate your explanation of steady state chaotic convergence to 1.62 W/m^2 of earth’s emissions per W/m^2 of solar radiative forcing. The relation between ideal black body and the added emissions from other atmospheric gases is very helpful.

            Learned a lot from your comment re: power requirements of amplification feedback systems. Difference between passive and active components in climate GT regulation.

            Concept is easily seen in biological systems, for instance in the feedback regulation of blood glucose levels or body temperature, whether low or high.

  5. “It’s a cool little website”

    Rush was shooting for the “Understatement of The Week” award?

    He just might win it with that one.

    • How can it be cool during global warming😂. Seriously, been a Rush listener for at least 25 years and a WUWT follower for at least ten and I am sad weekends when Rush is off but Anthony always lifts my spirits.

      • Dan: Please try to keep up. It can be cool because global warming can cause cooling. Global Warming is not uniform, it can cause cooling too! h/t to SebastianH, who trolls another site, for that gem. /s needed.

      • The WUWT stats will likely surpass one-half-a-billion (500,000,000) views before the rapidly rising oceans can rise half the thickness of a dime or 2020, whichever comes first. 😉

  6. Anything that moves the narrative towards the real science will help the scientific truth eventually emerge.

    What otherwise bothers me is the tendency for many conservatives to acknowledge that the NGD demonstrates insanity taken to the extreme, while still giving lip service to the idea that climate change consequential to CO2 emissions is something to be concerned about.

    • That’s because a whole generation was taught ‘tolerance’ and ‘meeting in the middle’ – a fallacy since it’s strictly a one-way street.

      See, ‘live and let live’ is dependent upon both sides behaving such.

      • The two sides of the science and the politics are so far apart, there’s no middle ground to meet in. The only possibility is that one side is absolutely correct while the other is absolutely wrong and the laws of physics are pretty clear about which is which.

      • Take the middle ground and get shot at by both sides. It’s why most diplomats wait until the war’s over.

      • ENG: Tolerance: an allowance made for something to deviate in size from a standard, or the limit within which it is allowed to deviate.

        We’ve reached the point in which engineering definition of “tolerance” should have a broader application in modern life regarding socially acceptable behavior, what used to be referred to as politeness and civility, the limitless unaccountability for the perpetuation of falsehoods by MSM, Social Media, Academia, and even elements in DOJ and IC for objects, ideas and people that they happen to hate or merely dislike, and systems of thought that reject objective truth in favor of post modern principles of socially constructed truth and infinite interpretations of meaning, and the seeming inability to distinguish difference between the fact and opinion.

    • CO2 bothers me is the passing on comments like – ” from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy sources.’”
      Since part of Sustainable is the ability to reproduce itself, and none of their “renewable” sources can mass produce steel, glass and or aluminum, they are Not Sustainable.

      Also missed any comments on the travel methods used by Kim & Trump. Trump flew within 24 hours and over an ocean. Kim took a train for 1/4 the distance and took 4 days.

  7. Juan Valdez grows coffee in the mountains hundreds of kilometers from the Amazon jungle. Is any coffee grown in the Amazon? I don’t think so. Has any Amazon jungle been cleared by machete in the 20th Century to grow coffee? I don’t think so. Not by Juan Valdez and company. It is true that jungle has been cleared but not to grow coffee and not by Juan Valdez and company. Different climate.

      • MikeyJ:

        It was not my intention to be critical of the point that Rush was trying to make. Rush is absolutely correct about people with machetes cutting down rain forest, but not to grow coffee. It is to grow other crops that shall not be named. That was the point that I was trying very poorly to make.

        • Yes Phail, as my link that I provided you clearly states, they do indeed grow coffee in the Amazon. Why do you lefties deny reality? Do you ever tire of being stupid?

          • As I posted below, you have dishonestly distorted what I said. It was clearly implicit that I was referring to the Colombian Amazon. Your link was to the Ecuadorian Amazon. Different country. Perhaps Geography is difficult sometimes for you? Here is why a farmer would not plant coffee in the Colombian jungle. All of your epithets will not change that sad reality.

          • Yes Phail, you clearly did not write Columbian and did clearly write Amazon, so it makes perfect sense for you to attempt to weasel your way out of another of your idiotic comments. Who’s dishonest?

            “Throw your hands in the air like you just don’t care!” LOL

            You and Michael Mann would make great hand waving partners.

          • Right, because I ignorantly said that no coffee is grown in the Amazon.

            Oh wait, no, that was actually you Phail! LOL

    • Juan Valdez grows coffee in the mountains hundreds of kilometers from the Amazon jungle.

      Are you sure Juan Valdez himself grows coffee anywhere?

        • “He” isn’t a real world person. “He” is a fictional construct created in the 1950s to be the “mascot” of Colombian Coffee manufacturers. So, no, “he” does not grow it, brew it, or do anything that requires physical existence.

          • I remember the name now mainly as the punchline to an old joke – “You know you’ve been drinking too much coffee when Juan Valdez calls you up on the phone and says No Mas! No Mas!!!”

    • Yes, Rush may be ignorant of what’s gong on, but the truth is even worse than coffee.
      It’s being cleared to grow sugar cane to make ethanol – a biofuel to ship to Europe to satisfy their Green Stupidity mandates.
      Even many German farmers have now converted to making crops for biofuel, and Germnay is a net importer of its basic food needs now including its meats. Where before it was largely self-sufficient for basic foods and meats.

      The irony of the Greens – incentivizing people in far off lands to clear their rainforests.

      • For the record, it was not my intention to imply that Rush Limbaugh is ignorant of anything. I am not implying that is what you are saying about me, but, given the name calling, I just wanted to make it clear that I did not think that Rush is ignorant or wrong. If anything, he is understating the ecological disaster caused by clearing the jungle to plant certain agricultural products of high value. And yes, you are right about certain misbegotten incentives.

    • Phil, Juan Valdez doesn’t do any of those things because Juan Valdez is a fiction character created by the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia back in the 1950s

    • Phail strikes (out) again!

      You’ve cleared several more hectares of primary forest to grow cash crops to sell at the market. You’ve found that freshly-cleared land produces more crops with fewer weeds. You’re tempted to clear more land each year to ensure high crop yields, but you also want to preserve some of the primary rainforest on your land. Primary forest is a valuable source of natural medicines. It’s also an important part of your culture.

      What are you growing?

      Coffee beans on the bush Coffee from your fields is sold throughout Ecuador. One hectare of land produces between 120 to 250 pounds of coffee annually. At the market, that will bring between $85 and $200.

      http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/interact/www.eduweb.com/agriculture/comag.html

      Do you ever tire of being wrong Phail? I know I often tire from pointing out your ignorance.

      • Ecuador was part of the Gran Colombia. It is no longer part of Colombia. I was not factually incorrect. The Amazon jungle of Colombia is being used to grow crops, just not coffee. Rush is correct about jungle clearing in the Colombian Amazon, just not for coffee. Coffee requires considerable post-harvesting processing and access to a good transportation network and other infrastructure to access world markets. The Colombian Amazon is very remote, difficult to access, lacks infrastructure and it is very expensive to transport crops from there to world markets. Therefore, only very high value crops that shall not be named can be taken to market and still make a profit. By contrast, the Ecuadorian Amazon is a lot more accessible.

        • Phail, quit lying. You stated above that no coffee is grown in the Amazon.

          Is any coffee grown in the Amazon? I don’t think so
          -Phail

          Phace it Phail, you are a consistent phailure, and now you are a liar. What is it with you lefties that causes you to continue digging when the grave is already six feet deep? LOL

          • Juan Valdez is not an Ecuadorian symbol. Geography is apparently difficult for you. Brevity is usually a virtue, but it can lend itself to deliberate misinterpretations. The mention of Juan Valdez limits the solution space to the country of Colombia. You bring in another country with out of context quotes. That is dishonest. Then you start name calling. Are you a student of the Michael Mann school of debate (i.e. when your arguments are invalid, you resort to name calling)? Mann and his colleagues calls those like me who question him deniers. You are of the same ilk as Mann and company.

            Because you appear to be deliberately obtuse, please let me restate explicitly what is clearly implicit:

            Juan Valdez grows coffee in the (Colombian) mountains hundreds of kilometers from the (Colombian) Amazon jungle. Is any coffee grown in the (Colombian) Amazon? I don’t think so. Has any (Colombian) Amazon jungle been cleared by machete in the 20th Century to grow (Colombian) coffee? I don’t think so. Not by Juan Valdez and company. It is true that (Colombian) jungle has been cleared but not to grow (Colombian) coffee and not by Juan Valdez and company. Different (Colombian) climate.

            Your blatant dishonesty consists of taking a quote out of context where the context clearly implies that I was talking about Colombia and not some other country and making it sound like I was making a general statement about the rest of the Amazon. This behavior has come to be known as “fake news.” Furthermore, your epithetical comments betray a very small vocabulary.

            Finally, I think that Rush Limbaugh is absolutely correct about the ecological disaster caused by clearing of the jungles. They are not planting coffee in the Colombian jungle for export. Other agricultural products of much higher retail value are being planted instead. That is the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, I don’t think you are going to be expanding your vocabulary in response. You will probably continue your juvenile name calling.

          • Nice phlailing Phail, but you are the party that said no coffee is grown in the Amazon. Fictional characters do not carry passports and do not have citizenship.

            Do you ever tire of being stupid and looking like a windmill?

          • Right, because I ignorantly said that no coffee is grown in the Amazon.

            Oh wait, no, that was you Phail! LOL

    • lot grown in Brazil (25 +/- % coffee consumed by americans, unsure % for rest of world) iirc with rain forest areas being cleared for it.
      so…I think I will have another cup now.

      • Where exactly the coffee is supposedly grown is not disclosed. In the FAQs, they say they get their coffee from the “Amazon region.” “Amazon region” is not defined. It could be very expansively defined and not run afoul of truth in advertising laws. They could be buying the coffee from northern Colombia and still claim that it was from the “Amazon region.” Sort of like saying cheese food instead of cheese. The Colombian Amazon is very remote. There is some coffee grown in eastern Ecuador in the Amazon basin, but that is more accessible than the Colombian Amazon.

  8. I think it is actually a positive development that Rush mentioned Watts Up, along with his prior mentions of Roy Spencer, as the amount of reputable material available to any curious segment of society has been limited in this field. I am a scientist (2 degrees in Geology and certified in Sequence Stratigraphy), and consider myself both entertained and informed by Anthony, Roy, and yes, even Rush. Kudos to the crew at Watts UP!

    • Anybody certified in Sequence Stratigraphy must be authoritative, knowing about slides, ups and downs, inside outs and absences. Fascinating how all that was figured out with field work. Thought experiment, take out all the fossils, but still lots of more blank stuff understood. Modelers need a geology field trip.

  9. Brings to mind the 2nd of the 3 pop-culture Chinese Curses:

    May you be recognized by people in high places
    (sometimes also reported as: May you attract the attention of the government)

    Anthony, you do live the Nuts and Fruits State.
    Be careful what you wish for.
    (the 3rd curse)

    • I was chatting with some Chinese nationals after our round of golf (I went solo and was paired with them), and I asked them if “May you live in interesting times” was really an old Chinese proverb. They looked at each other for a second and them politely explained that it might be, but they didn’t know it.

      I felt silly, but even if it’s not an “ancient Chinese proverb,” it’s still useful.

      • Curse. It’s supposedly an ancient Chinese curse. Interesting times = war, famine, floods, banditry, etc.

      • The three curses was an idea invented by a science fiction writer in the 1950s. So it is ancient but not from China.

      • “May you live in interesting times” was not a Chinses curse. But it was made famous by Presiden Kennedy in a speech he gave, I think, in Africa. In fact, it was really from an American writer who used it as though it could be such a curse, ie, in a novel. Kennedy’s speechwriters lifted it from that source and the attribution to the Chinese became pop knowledge that ain’t so.

        Wikipedia has a useful entry on . the quote; I am reciting my recollections based on that untangling of the quote

    • Joel O’Bryan

      The variation on the “3rd curse” that I particularly like is, “When the gods wish to punish us, they grant us our wishes.”

      • “How to torture progressives: give them what they want, and lock the door behind them.”

  10. Very Cool!!! More traffic that can expose folks to a little bit of sanity regarding the whole CAGW ridiculousness. It might spark some interesting comments and debate in the comments (maybe). Downside will be an increase in trolls. It would really help to fix the Reference Pages, they are a great source of information when they work properly.

    • This might not be a good thing.
      We know that WUWT allows opposing viewpoints in its comments and even in its post for those who dare submit one (Mann never has).
      But to be responsible for those CAGWer newcomers’ heads exploding or imploding, …. Anthony has enough on his hands. 😎

  11. A “little” web site? By what metric? Not readership, compared to climate-oriented peers. Little in terms of fluff and distractions, I grant him

  12. AnthroCO2 capability to warm will diminish toward zero long before its capability to green the earth will wane.

    Wane when? It’s a win win.
    =============================

  13. If any of the new visitors have a scientific outlook, they will return over and over again. This website is like Hotel California. You can check out anytime, but you can never leave.

  14. Does anyone know how to avoid thinking about Kentucky Fried Chicken, every time Bernie Sanders name is mentioned?

    • Bernie would never burn anything that releases CO2?
      Then again, he has no problem burning other people’s money….hmmm…guess I can’t help you.
      Sorry.

  15. Those of us who are regular listeners to Rush know that he has praised this website several times in the past. I found this website several years ago and I believe it was because of Rush mentioning it.

  16. I’ve been a Rush listener since the Reagan administration, and WUWT reader for about a solar cycle now, so maybe memory isn’t what it used to be, but I think Rush has mentioned WUWT on a number of occasions over the years, and I fairly sure that’s where I first heard of it. Am I wrong?

    • You must be in Sacramento, because Rush’s national syndication started in 1989 during GHW Bush administration. Though some people do call that Reagan’s third term. He had a program in Sacramento for several years before he moved to NY and signed his fame and fortune contract. A lot of his early shtick were things he had first tried out in California and he evolved from there.

      • That’s not necessarily true. Rush was on other stations long before he was nationally syndicated. I’ve listened to him from a “W” station, not a “K” station for some 36 years now; when that “W” station became a talk station ca 1983.

  17. Convection returns the atmosphere to the same old lapse rate-fixed temperature profile it has had for thousands of years, with only a trifling effect from greenhouse gasses. Ignoring it gives you “The Greenhouse Effect,” and looses a horde of climate warriors to punish us for our “sins” and fund an army of pseudo-scientific rent seekers.

    • Yup! Our planet gets rid of a day’s worth of heat every night. Can’t stop it and CO2 doesn’t even slow it down.

  18. Rush also mentioned Dr. Susan Crockford by name on his show the other day.

    I had a suspicion that Rush was reading WUWT just by the way he would characterize things. He just seemed too well-informed. 🙂

    • I should add that I think Rush Limbaugh probably reads WUWT regularly, because, as I said, he is very well-informed on the CAGW subject, and one would have to read WUWT in order to keep up with all the latest that is going on in the CAGW drama.

      There are valuable nuggets in every WUWT post. If you want to know what is going on, you have to read them all.

      Love this place!

  19. A few days ago Rush was speaking with one of his guests about climate change. After which I decided to send him an email message and a link to this site. I heard him mention the site yesterday and just wondered…

  20. While here in Australia I am not familiar with this particular person, must see if I can find him via the Internet, what he says is correct. All of thee real scientists can say that Global warming come climate change is a hoax, but the average person who comes home from work tired out does not see or hear about that.

    All they hear and see is politicians and other talking heads telling us that we must do this or that and all will be well.

    There is a lot t talked abut politically by Labour her re. our Federal politics, about a “Liveable wage”, the message being that the average person knows that the cost of living is far too high. But never a mention as to why.

    Now we all know that its part far too many taxes, both Federal and State, but a lot has to be the high cost of energy, mostly electricity. But no politician of either party wants to talk about that.

    Obviously its because of the massive increase in the use of renewable, their erratic supply and the massive subsides , but then if we complin we are told that we must make sacrifices to “Save the World” .

    MJE VK5ELL

  21. I was listening when he said that, and thinking that there was a new article here that I could use in a certain online dispute I was in, came here to look for it.

    I never found the article. He must be referring to something old from the archives.

  22. Been following Anthony and Watts Up With That for years!!! Now we’re going to be mainstream!!

  23. I’ve listened to Rush ever since i saw him on his TV show back in the 90s. I found Watts Up With That a few years later, and visit it every day. I also introduced it to my husband.

    I imagine Rush’s mention will bring a number of people here. I’ve seen it happen before, when his fans accidentally crashed a website after he mentioned it on his show. I hope it has a similar (but not so drastic) effect here.

    • The part that sticks out to me most about the Rush Limbaugh tv show was the video clip he showed of President Bill Clinton joking and laughing as he was leaving Ron Brown’s funeral, and then Clinton noticed the cameras were on him, and in a split-second he transformed himself into a grieving man. The companion Clinton was laughing and joking with looked puzzled at the switch in Clinton’s demeanor (he didn’t see the cameras).

      It was an amazing transformation. The real Bill Clinton. He can lie in a heartbeat.

      • Yet more telling when you consider that Clinton probably bumped Brown off.

        Like the mafia don who sends his victim the biggest flower bouquet.

        • “Yet more telling when you consider that Clinton probably bumped Brown off.”

          That may have been why Clinton was laughing! 🙂

          Just kidding. I have no evidence that Clinton has ever murdered anyone or had anyone murdered. I wouldn’t put it past him, since he seems to have a proclivity for raping women, which is pretty much equivalent to murder in my book, but I have no evidence of any Bill Clinton murders.

          Can you tell I don’t like the guy?

          My question is why would the moral Bush family have this guy as a friend? A “brother from another mother” as G. W. put it in describing his relationship with Bill Clinton. Isn’t this kind of sick? What do these folks talk about around the dinner table? I can’t imagine thinking normalizing a sexual predator like this guy is a good thing. When Bill comes visiting, does George keep an extra-watchful eye out to protect the womenfolk?

          George, I’m disappointed in you. What are you thinking?

          • Just the political class birds of a feather flocking together.

            There are good circumstantial cases in the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster for murder by the Clintons. Plus others in Arkansas.

            Hillary’s staff thought she was kidding when she suggested “droning” Julian Assange, but then realized she was serious. After the story got out, she claimed to have been joking.

  24. Thanks Anthony. I have learned more from this site including comments than any website I have ever visited.

  25. When you call it “ a cool little website”, it makes it sound more mysterious and cutting edge.
    Then they’re hooked 🙂

  26. My brother and I dedicated our 1992 techno-thriller, “The Sixth Battle”, to Rush, risking damaging sales to show appreciation for his uphill struggle against the fake news media.

    https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Battle-Barrett-Tillman/dp/0553294628

    He has staff, who clearly have been aware of WUWT for a long time. The Sanders panders “offset” bilge water just provided him with another golden opportunity to promote this excellent site.

  27. CO2 bothers me is the passing on comments like – ” from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy sources.’”
    Since part of Sustainable is the ability to reproduce itself, and none of their “renewable” sources can mass produce steel, glass and or aluminum, they are Not Sustainable.

    Also missed any comments on the travel methods used by Kim & Trump. Trump flew within 24 hours and over an ocean. Kim took a train for 1/4 the distance and took 4 days.

  28. I remember Rush talking in the early 90’s how the ozone hole and depletion was causing global warming and that he didn’t know much actual science. But he did start talking about Environmental Wackos. I didn’t care much for his thoughts about science then and drifted away from listening to him, when I discovered Howard Stern talk radio.
    Haven’t listened to Rush lately, but I rarely miss the Mark Levin radio show as he has written about global warming/climate change with a much better understanding of the science.
    I got hooked on WUWT probably around the climate-gate time period, as I always referred to the CAGW people as “Global Warming Kooks”, and I have been here ever since.

    • But I did listen to Rush off and on through the 90’s and I’m really glad that he has learned a few things about global warming, and glad he has learned things from WUWT, as I have. He is a true constitutional conservative.

  29. And I guess it would be appropriate in the “Rush Limbaugh” thread to announce that Special Prosecutor Mueller has turned his report over to the Justice Department and has said he recommends no further indictments. The Special Prosecutor Witch Hunt is over.

    Trump was right: Russian collusion with Trump was a Hoax.

    Trump has shown this Hoax for what it is. Up next: Show the CAGW Hoax for what it is.

    • That should be Special Counsel, not Special Prosecutor. They changed the name a while back.

  30. It’s ironic that when you come across someone who says “rivers don’t get growlers, therefore the painting of Washing crossing the Delaware is baloney” (Mann’s statement in 2005) and this is in the middle of a bodacious flood event in the Dakotas that rivers full of ice chunks (GROWLERS, Mann, you numbskull!), you realize that everything this dude says is meant to feed his ego and put money in his pocket. This bad attitude of mine toward him is also because of videos posted online of the Kankakee River during more than one spring ice dam breakup which producers GROWLERS – BIG CHUNKS!!!! – and even more GROWLERS on the Des Plaines River, floating past someone’s house. Then you start looking for something more reasonable and less lopsided, and you find all sorts of resources.
    You also wonder how on earth someone can ignore historical records in his quest to be at the top of some heap he invented as Mann did and has done repeatedly, but you know it’s always about CASH. Keep that in mind.
    Then, after much searching, you do find sites like WUWT, where things are archived and there seems to be a bit of common sense involved, and you find that because someone like Mann has resolved to ignore natural cycles in his quest for glory, you can find a way to get back to some common sense.
    I spent a (for me) bodacious piece of cash for a single-volume collection of papers from a climate meet-up in the early 2000s, all of which showed that climate changes are cyclical and beyond our reach and/or control. This was long before any of this hysterics about climate change began.
    I found article after article published online and in magazines that indicated clearly that climate changes occur constantly and that we have no control over them at all. Some of them were written by people recovering ancient tree remains above the current treeline in the Alps. Bingo! There are recorded observations as well as physical evidence to tell us that the Alps have been completely snowless in the past, and that Greenland was once upon a time covered in forest.
    So then I asked that obvious question: what is this really all about?
    The answer was obvious: Cash in the cash drawer, plus some attention, and nothing else.
    It has never been about anything else. The people who object, sometimes violently, to being told they are wrong and it’s all cyclical and we CANNOT control it, have a problem, politely referred to as ‘afraid of losing all that cash (and maybe attention, too)’.
    I went to a popular fishing spot yesterday morning. The DNR has its “No fishing yet” sign posted, which is a good thing because the three mated pairs of geese who have arrived were not happy about the ice/slushy surface of that little lake. But it will melt soon and they’ll be nesting and brooding and then swimming with a trail of fluffy feather flockers behind them. There is still an iceberg in my yard, which is slowly melting away. The trees are about to burst with buds. We’re having a regular Spring.
    Despite the hysterics from the Warmunistas, the Greenbeaners, and the ecohippies everywhere, the planet will move on and do her thing, whether we’re here or not. I feel a little sorry for them, because they have no idea what a miracle this planet really is. They want “save” it but they constantly trash it and blame others for that. That is so SAD.
    You all have a nice weekend. I know I will.

  31. So Rush Limbaugh mentions Modtran. Cool.

    Here is a screenshot of a simple exercise in Excel using the University of Chicago’s Modtran website. I wanted to see for myself how the numbers work out. The “greenhouse effect” of a doubling of CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is tabulated here for the specific case of the temperature profile of the 1976 U.S. Standard Atmosphere, no clouds. The net input of IR energy from above and below at each altitude is tabulated, and the difference is taken.

    What is illustrated here is that thunderstorms reaching up to 20 km or higher solve the warming problem. For this doubling of CO2, the net heat surplus at the surface and the deficit at higher altitudes simply means that thunderstorms can form a bit more easily and perform a bit better as a heat engine, moving heat to higher altitudes thousands of times more powerfully than the “greenhouse effect” can trap it down low.

    (The 16,000 W/m^2 number is simply the latent heat released as water vapor condenses into rain at a rate of 1 inch per hour.)

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/4kcnn9k17s8rc67/modtran_exercise_032319.jpg?dl=0

  32. “Climate Justice”?

    Oh lord. But I did see a funny one the other day. Trump is guilty of obstruction of social justice.

    • I read somewhere a while back that anything like social justice or climate justice, or whatever ______ justice is “no justice at all” compared to “equal justice”.

      • Anything other than equal justice is secretly spelled “just us”. They’re demands for special treatment, not fair treatment.

  33. It was great that Rush mentioned this website. If it does nothing more than bring on additional climate skeptics to routinely use the site to enlarge their knowledge, that is great. One can hope that a few climate change endorsers will come here to check it out and change their minds, but that might be asking for too much. Anyway, Rush and Anthony make a great team. Keep up the great job Anthony.

  34. It does not surprise me that Rush would be supportive of this site. Been listening to him since the early 90s … and reading this site since the Climate Audit Mann wars back whenever that was.

  35. I have been feeding Mr Limbow links to WUWT for several years, and have directly quoted quite a few articles from here. He is a voracious and wide casting reader and no one should be surprised by the depth of his understanding on a very wide range of topics. He also takes care when mentioning blogs and websites, he has caused a few to be totally swamped just by mentioning them on-air.

Comments are closed.