Moving Forward – A New WUWT Reference/Resource Site

A few weeks ago, I stated WUWT would be moving to a “war footing” due to the election of Biden and the inevitable headlong rush into the “climate crisis” mania that seems to be gripping elected officials, media, and teachers.

They seem to really believe that the world is headed for hell in a climate handbasket – of course, we know better. We know a good portion of it is just rhetoric and unsupported by actual observations.

To that end, the only way to fight such disinformation is with factual information, and that’s why after months of development by Charles and me, I’m proud to announce the companion website to WUWT: “EC” for short.

The idea behind EC is to cover specific climate topics in a pro and con way, so that people can examine and compare, and hopefully make up their own minds. We have four categories at the moment, and a few dozen sub-titles covering specific claims/arguments that are commonly in the news and are contentious.

You may have noticed the past couple of days that the word “EverythingClimate” appeared in the top WUWT menu bar. That’s because we have WUWT integrated with EC at the menu level covering topics.

You might ask: why do we have a second website done this way?

It’s simple – I wanted a site that was entirely a factual website, without discussions that could be used as a reference. I also wanted a website that has the word “climate” in it as opposed to WUWT, which has no such word. This might be helpful in search engines. It’s certainly helpful in discussions, since climate alarmists put on blinders, shut their minds, open their mouths and scream “climate deniers” anytime WUWT is mentioned. EC doesn’t have that baggage. Finally, speaking of search engines, EC will have SEO separate from WUWT.

We aren’t going to change the climatized brain-dead, but we will be able to reach thoughtful people.

I welcome pro/con topic ideas for EC.

There’s more to come. Thanks for your support.

– Anthony

4.8 75 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
January 25, 2021 8:58 am

Thanks for doing this important work.

Based upon my conversations, the most cited reasons to fear enriching our air with plant food are 1) supposedly vanishing sea ice, 2) allegedly accelerating MSL rise, 3) dangerous ocean “acidification” and 4) the myth that “97% of ALL scientists” are convinced that man-made climate change poses an “existential” threat to humanity and the rest of nature.

Intelligent, well-educated professionals believe that the risks of global warming far outweigh whatever benefits from enjoying more of an essential trace gas, vital to aerobic life on the planet.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Tillman
Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  John Tillman
January 25, 2021 9:03 am

That’s an interesting list.

Has anyone conducted a poll to get a sense of what the general public thinks? It seems like this must have been done but I don’t recall seeing one.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
January 25, 2021 9:35 am

The general public still thinks scientists are free spirited individualists who care nothing for money, prestige or convention.
They have no idea.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
January 26, 2021 1:00 am

Here is a new story that I have not heard before.
No idea if it is true or not.
It is true that the Covid-19 lockdowns never made any sense.


Posted Sep 7, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:
• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank. This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this!

Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.

And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world! The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!

Ian W
January 26, 2021 5:39 am

It does not surprise me – if you do a search: Figueres Capitalism

You will find that Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, was very open about using ‘climate change’ to crash capitalism and that there was a tight timescale for the UN to do that. Now they are using the COVID pandemic as an excuse to do that by locking down which has never worked to stop a viral epidemic but is very efficient in crashing economies. Face masks are required as a continual reminder that the pandemic ‘is real’ (have you noted the number of comments now that use that phrase?).

Then we see that the WEF ‘Great Reset’ will also use the Green New Deal (TM USA) and Net Zero (TM UK) ideas to deindustrialize the ‘West’ – China of course is absolved of any actions and is explicitly paid by the ‘West’ via the Paris Accord ‘Green Fund’, to continue commissioning coal fired power plants at the rate of 2 a month until 2030.

There is more but this was a cleverly implemented action following plans from globalist billionaires.

Reply to  Ian W
January 26, 2021 6:16 am

Hi Ian – the Belarus President’s story does fit the narrative doesn’t it?
Time for some Nuremberg trials?

I’ve published updates on this note since early July2020:

It’s ALL a Marxist-Democrat scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19, paid-and-planned protests by Antifa and BLM, AND NOW the mail-in ballot US election scam – it’s all false.
We published that the Climate-and-Green-Energy scare was a false narrative in 2002, and by 2009 I wrote that there was a covert agenda, Now the radical greens are admitting that “Global Warming aka Climate Change and Green Energy” was false propaganda, a smokescreen for their neo-Marxist objectives – see recent statements from environmentalist Michael Schellenberger, from Saikat Chakrabarti, former chief of staff for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the latest movie trashing green energy scams from Michael Moore, “Planet of the Humans”.

I called Covid-19 correctly on 21March2020 – NO LOCKDOWN! Covid-19 was a relatively mild flu except for the very elderly and infirm. Covid-19 is less dangerous than seasonal flu’s of recent decades that nobody remembers – the lockdown was not just a huge over-reaction, it was a global scam.

The UN, the WHO, the IMF and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are using the Covid-19 false crisis to reshape the global economy into their neo-Marxist model – the Great Reset.

In October 2019, Event 201, sponsored by the WEF, the Bill Gates Fdn, etc. simulated a global coronavirus pandemic.
Just months later a relatively mild Wuhan-lab-manufactured coronavirus flu was overblown into a false global pandemic, promoted by the WHO into an economy-destroying global lockdown.

The Covid-19 lockdown enabled the huge mail-in vote – the Dems produced millions of false ballots.
The radical green objective is to destroy prosperity and move the USA to a planned economy – with a few rich at the top looking down on the peasants – that describes most countries, and the USA is next if Biden wins.

We stand at the abyss. If Biden wins, it will be the end of freedom. Europe and Canada have already fallen far down that “poverty road to Venezuela”. If America falls, there will be nowhere left to run to.

January 28, 2021 7:19 am

I just sent this note to our Alberta Premier, other politicians and the media. [excerpt. w/o references]


I called the Covid-19 lockdown correctly back on 21&22March2020. Later, the Center for Disease Control in July 2020 and the World Health Organization in October 2020 published the same conclusions that I wrote in March 2020:
Full lockdowns for Covid-19 make the cure worse than the disease!

Nevertheless, we still have Covid-19 lockdowns in Alberta in January 2020, harming our society and destroying our economy.
As it becomes increasingly clear that the Covid-19 “pandemic” was similar in total fatalities to a bad winter flu season like 2017-2018 and less dangerous than the Hong Kong flu of 1968-69, rational voices have suggested that the full lock-down of the economy made “the cure worse than the disease”. While this was a tough call based on limited data, that was the conclusion I published early in the lockdown on 21March 2020:
Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five.
This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH.
This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.

It is notable that Sweden sensibly rejected the full Covid-19 lock-down, and that strategy has been far more successful in total than the “full-gulag” adopted by Canada and many other countries and states.

In July 2020, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta changed its recommendation and said lockdowns were killing twice as many Americans as Covid-19. The World Health Organization made the same reversal of policy in October 2020 – no more Covid-19 lockdowns.

Why do we still have destructive Covid-19 lockdowns in Alberta?

Covid-19 lockdowns of schools and businesses and their low-risk populations never made any sense, and this conclusion was obvious to competent observers by March 2020.

Governments are increasingly distrusted by citizens because they continue to adhere to lockdown policies that cause much more harm than good.

One individual contacted me to allege that our government officials were being bribed to needlessly prolong these Covid-19 lockdowns –

I am a significant financial supporter of the Alberta UCP and I don’t want to believe such claims, but apparently more and more people do – the Belarus story (below) bolsters such allegations.

The public commitment of the federal Trudeau government to the Marxist ”Great Reset”, as promoted by the World Economic Forum, leads people to question where Alberta political parties and our government employees stand on this extreme-left totalitarian scheme.

A rational Alberta government would “come clean” on all such matters as a means of restoring trust from the electorate. It should immediately release the Deloitte “Billion-dollar Bribery” report, and should make public the correspondence that caused it to implement its harmful Covid-19 lockdowns. Failure to do so will result in a further erosion of trust in our Alberta government.

Finally, our Alberta government should cease all Covid-19 lockdowns immediately – these lockdowns have obviously caused much more harm than good.

Regards, Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.

January 28, 2021 6:38 pm

After months of urging, the Alberta government will finally release the 31Jan2020 Deloitte report that lists the recipients of one billion dollars in bribes from USA leftist groups like the Tides Foundation. Corrupt politicians, green groups and native bands were paid to oppose the construction of much-needed oil pipelines, resulting in more than $120 billion in lost oil revenues to Alberta and Canada..

from my post above:
A rational Alberta government would “come clean” on all such matters as a means of restoring trust from the electorate. It should immediately release the Deloitte “Billion-dollar Bribery” report…

January 29, 2021 9:10 am

After months of urging, the Alberta government will finally release the 31Jan2020 Deloitte report that lists the recipients of one billion dollars in bribes from USA leftist groups like the Tides Foundation.

Reply to  Ian W
January 26, 2021 11:00 am

By Andrew Lawton -January 25, 2021
There are two highly influential Canadians on the WEF’s Board of Trustees. Mark Carney was a former Governor of the Bank of Canada and Chrystia Freeland is both Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in the Trudeau II government.

Last edited 1 year ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  Ian W
January 28, 2021 6:51 am

I think the less is said about the nutcase Lukashenko the better.

Anyone who somehow believes that cretin is capable of telling anything other than the latest fashionable crap to save his skin has no brain cells between their 2 ears.

Even his best mates in the Kremlin don’t listen to him any more.

Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 28, 2021 7:21 am

We have a well-documented one billion dollars in foreign bribes paid to Canadian leftists in the Deloitte report, issued 31Jan2020.

EdA the New Yorker
January 26, 2021 10:36 am

Just think, cuomo would have jumped at a chance to net a gigabuck that way. Too bad for him, he already had implemented all those conditions, with the net result of ny leading the US in covid deaths.

Reply to  EdA the New Yorker
January 29, 2021 2:02 am

Why do you think he was not bribed?

patrick healy
January 26, 2021 11:35 am

Thank you Anthony
If we ever have a patron saint of weather, can I vote for you?

Thank you Allan for all your good work.
Yes I read that story about the Belarussian attempted bribery some months age. I think it was on The Catholic Truth blog here in Scotland, which covers all matters diabolical.
On that subject I see OUR Pope is at it again. First of all he congratulated that other “great Catholic” pro abortionist – Joebama – on his election. Then, almost at the same time, he is haranguing us all about global warming. No mention of God anywhere – again.

January 26, 2021 4:52 pm

A financial advisor sent me this note, which describes the chicanery by the WHO when they falsely re-defined Herd Immunity during Covid.
Jeff Brown  | Jan 26, 2021
Last year, any discussion of herd immunity was often met with vitriol.
The ironic part is that herd immunity – and how to achieve it – is very well-established science that was first recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon back in the 1930s. A.W. Hedrick published epidemiological research on the measles after discovering that many children had become naturally immune.
Put simply, herd immunity is a threshold. It states that once a percentage of a population has achieved immunity, an epidemic/pandemic will begin to die out. It is the point at which there simply aren’t enough people without immunity to infect.
It is science that has been developed over the course of nearly 100 years. There is even a general equation used to determine the threshold:

1 – 1/R0

Where R0 (R zero or R naught is the basic reproductive rate of a virus)

If we assume that COVID-19 has an R0 of 2.5 (i.e., one person can infect 2.5 people on average), then the equation results in a herd immunity threshold of 60%.
This means that once roughly 60% of a population has become immune through natural exposure to COVID-19, or by receiving a vaccine, then the virus’ ability to spread has been encumbered and the virus will quickly burn out.
Generally, most research on COVID-19 to date indicates that herd immunity for COVID-19 is somewhere between 40 and 60%.
Visually, here is a simple representation:


Source: Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Quanta Magazine

This is such a well-established scientific fact that a change by the World Health Organization (WHO) really caught me off guard.
Due to the controversy around herd immunity, I went back in December and dug in to find out how the term was being positioned – or re-positioned.
The screenshots below are taken from the WHO website. On the left side is a screenshot from June 2020. On the right side is a screenshot from November.


Source: World Health Organization

The June definition of herd immunity is consistent with decades of scientific research. It acknowledges that immunity can be achieved both naturally due to prior infection as well as through vaccination. It goes further to correctly state that people who have not been infected or vaccinated are protected if those around them have already achieved immunity.
But look at the November definition. Herd immunity is no longer science. It is simply a “concept used for vaccination.” And it refers only to “a threshold of vaccination” without a single mention of immunity achieved naturally.
There was an uproar in epidemiology and virology circles over this chicanery when the WHO rewrote the definition of herd immunity like this.
And the WHO was forced to rewrite the explanation of herd immunity once again.
Here’s what it looks like:
‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
This is a somewhat incredulous political position for the WHO to take.
After all, it is well known that for most of the population COVID-19 is far less dangerous than influenza or pneumonia. Countries like Sweden stuck to the science and allowed their economies, schools, and society to remain open, knowing that the healthy part of the population would develop immunity with less risk than influenza. But they were derided for reckless policymaking.
And the WHO dug its hole even deeper when it said:
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick.
Please notice what I bolded. This comment is patently false. It is a misleading, unethical, and very dangerous statement.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) began publishing an online database of all deaths, hospitalizations, and other effects linked to vaccines. The data is publicly available in its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
At least it was… This morning as I was researching, I was met with this:


In fact, it has been down for the last couple of days. But fortunately I take screenshots of information just in case.
As of last Friday, January 22, there have been 148 deaths in the U.S. caused by the COVID-19 vaccines. There have been 170 life-threatening situations, 65 patients who are now permanently disabled, 449 hospitalizations, and 1,662 visits to the emergency room.
Again, these stats are just for the U.S., and they are lagging indicators. The actual numbers are worse, but we just don’t know yet by how much.
And for the most part, the current adverse events are the side effects from the first dose of the vaccines. Clinical trials demonstrated that the side effects can be more severe after the second shot.
Clearly, the WHO’s comments are not giving accurate information.
I’d like to reiterate what I said a couple of weeks ago. I’m providing this information because I would want to know this if our roles were reversed.
This information is not to suggest at all whether or not one should take the vaccine. I simply provide information to help us all make our own personal decisions according to our own risk profiles.

January 26, 2021 5:33 pm

The three image links you posted are all local filesystem links to your own files, they are not accessible to any of us.

Reply to  TonyG
January 26, 2021 6:58 pm
January 28, 2021 5:09 am

Speaking of Covid I found this article fairly nuanced and thoughtful from a science reporter-
4 reasons we’re seeing these worrying coronavirus variants now (
You can read between the lines these rushed out vaccines may not be the silver bullets the crusaders think they are and what’s more could be counterproductive in some ways.

Nice to see some nuance and healthy skepticism amidst the usual company line dross. The Biden admin have a lot riding on vaccines and their successful rollout but there are some warning signs that this virus has a lot of twists and turns left in it yet. Be cautious about sweeping statements and the cult of the true believer that Big Gummint and Big Pharma can fix all when you throw enough taxes at the problem.

Reply to  observa
January 29, 2021 4:53 pm

By insisting on the full-Gulag Covid-19 lockdown, our idiot governments gave the virus more time to mutate – and it did!
Not a surprise! That’s what viruses do!

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
January 26, 2021 4:20 pm

The big story here is the origins of the Covid-19 flu and Trudeau’s attempted cover-up.
By Keean Bexte | January 26, 2021


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s police officers just knocked on my door and threatened me. They pulled out an old tweet of mine and told me not to go one step further in my publications that expose their boss, Trudeau.
If I worked for the CBC, the cops wouldn’t have come to my door at my home. But then again, if I worked for the CBC, I wouldn’t have dared to publish these documents. Everyone talks about Trudeau abusing his powersilencing journalists and bringing our country in line with China. I knew we were headed in this direction, but I didn’t think it would hit me so fast, or at my front door.
To give some context, I recently published something that was deeply embarrassing to both Trudeau and China. Documents leaked to me by a senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces that show that the first people who were likely infected by the Wuhan Flu were military adversaries to the Chinese.
At the Military World Games in Wuhan, China in October 2019, just before the first whispers of a virus spreading in the city, Canada and the forces of other NATO countries returned home with brutal pneumonia and other critical symptoms. The Canadian plane was quarantined, it was so bad.
Months after the fact, when Canadian intelligence had a grasp of the facts, Trudeau’s government refused to test the soldiers for COVID antibodies. Confirming antibodies in the soldiers would upend the agreed upon narrative (by the World Health Organization, China and Trudeau) that the virus was born in a wet market. Spoiler: it wasn’t — but Trudeau’s government was not going to get on President Xi Jinping’s bad side and break that news — so he refused healthcare to Canadian soldiers.
I published the military documents weeks ago — they knew what was in them. They knew what the story was about, and they knew that I followed the law. The information that I published was sensitive, and it was embarrassing to Trudeau, but it was not a violation of any law for me to publish it.
So why the RCMP officers at my door? Well, Trudeau doesn’t control the Calgary Police Service. The RCMP, however, answer directly to him — their command comes straight from Ottawa.
I broke no laws in publishing the facts and documents I obtained. Sure, these were facts that showed that Trudeau is running defence for China at the expense of our men and women in uniform, but I didn’t break any laws. Despite that, Ottawa sent the feds to a reporter’s home, in Canada, in 2021, to intimidate me and my family.
Things are getting out of hand faster than anyone could have predicted. Mass censorship online, mass arrest of protesters in Toronto, feds knocking on reporters’ doors. I need to keep doing my job — and Trudeau is getting more and more tyrannical as the days go by.
If you are in the military, Global Affairs Canada, finance, or wherever you may be — the most patriotic thing you can do right now is inform on your government. Don’t break any laws, and especially don’t violate the Security of Information Act, but if you have information that needs to see the light of day — send me an email at

Tom Abbott
January 26, 2021 8:56 pm

That’s a disturbing report. Power corrupts.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 27, 2021 8:03 pm

Hi Tom.
You have to watch Justin Trudeau and his cronies to believe their extreme corruption – they make all the thieving Liberal punks who preceded him look like petty dime-store crooks. Justin has no intellect, education or accomplishments, but he’s a remarkably bold Kleptocrat – he should be running a third-world hellhole – but then, he will drag Canada there soon enough. 

Last edited 1 year ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Tom Abbott
January 28, 2021 6:00 am

Allan, it appears we have a similar situation here in the U.S. It was reported last night that an American reporter was arrested by the FBI, and as far as anyone knows, there was no legal reason to arrest him.

They charged him with something having to do with preventing people from voting, but there is no evidence of the reporter doing anything like that.

It looks like the FBI is harrassing conservative reporters, at least one, for political purposes.

I just heard this story last night on Fox News and didn’t catch the reporters name who was arrested.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2021 8:29 pm

I just got a little more information on this FBI arrest.

The guy’s name is Douglas Mackey, A.K.A., Ricky Vaughn, from Florida, and he is not a reporter but a supposed Twitter Troll and influencer, and is charged with deceiving voters into believing they could cast their votes via text and 5,000 people supposedly did just that during the last election. He is charged with violating Title 18, Section 241, of the Civil Rights law and faces up to ten years in prison. I haven’t looked at that law, but a talking head last night said it was a bogus charge.

I didn’t know you could go to jail for trolling in the United States. You learn something new every day.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  TallDave
January 29, 2021 12:38 am

Thank you Dave – You have cited a credible report from the USA, which states that a major source for the global transmission of the Wuhan flu was the 2019 Military World Games, held at Wuhan China from October 18-27, 2019.
The similar report that I previously cited from Canada is here:
By Keean Bexte | January 26, 2021
“The 2019 Military World Games, officially known as the 7th CISM Military World Games and commonly known as Wuhan 2019, was held from October 18–27, 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China.  The 7th Military World Games was the first international military multi-sport event to be held in China and also the largest military sports event ever to be held in China, with nearly 10,000 athletes from over 100 countries competing in 27 sports.”
“The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.”
“There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.”
“The World Economic Forum (WEF) has revealed its Davos 2021 Agenda, confirming the annual gathering of political and business elites next month will be a digital event heralding the public unveiling of its Great Reset Initiative.”
The Chinese government deliberately introduced the Covid-19 flu at the October 18-27, 2019 Wuhan Military World Games. They knew that these young healthy athletes would only be sick for a few days but would carry the virus back to their more than 100 home countries.
Event 201, held on October18, 2019 in New York was used to script the excessive panic that resulted as this relatively-mild Coronavirus flu was inflated into a false “global pandemic”, resulting in the shutdown of national economies around the world. Most countries in the world were duped (or bribed?) into adopting the strict Covid-19 lockdown that trashed their economies. Only a few countries like Sweden did not accept the false pandemic narrative and did not lock down their societies.
Evidence that the pandemic was fraudulent includes that false linkage by many world leaders of the “Global Warming / Climate Change Fraud” to the “Covid-19 Lockdown Fraud. Many of these world leaders, all about the same time, linked the two frauds by speciously stating that “To solve the Covid-19 Crisis we must also solve the Climate Crisis”, or similar. Then these leaders breathlessly stated that the solution to these twin frauds was the Marxist “Great Reset”, sponsored by the World Economic Forum.
It is notable that the Center for Disease Control in July 2020 and the World Health Organization in October 2020 released the same conclusions that I published in March 2020: Full lockdowns for Covid-19 made the cure much worse than the disease!
Nevertheless, many countries are still practising forms of Covid-19 lockdown that continue to trash sectors of their economies, particularly small businesses, energy, travel and tourism, restaurants and their owners and employees.
Based on observations, Covid-19 lockdowns were the result of false propaganda and false panic and were never justified. This conclusion was obvious by March 2020.

John Tillman
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
January 25, 2021 9:51 am

The most recent survey lumped the environment and climate change together. I don’t have much success convincing liberal friends that CO2 is not a pollutant. Some think it’s associated with smog.

This link contains earlier polls on AGW or CACA alone:,are%20happening%20now%20in%202017.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 25, 2021 11:23 am

Perpetuated by the likes of the BBC and The Guardian constantly using backlit images of steam stacks whilst suggesting CO2 is a pollutant.

Hmm, maybe that’s why Greta thinks she can see CO2

Rick C
Reply to  Redge
January 25, 2021 12:19 pm

Maybe, but my suspicion is that Greta has looked at power plant stacks and noticed the optical distortion caused by heated exhaust and thinks she’s actually seeing CO2. Not that most people have any idea that the white stuff coming out of chimneys and vents is steam and not smoke.

Mad Mac
Reply to  Redge
January 25, 2021 12:44 pm

Why has no one ever asked her what the CO2 molecule looks like? Is the C black and the O2 white or clear or?? Inquiring minds want to know!

Reply to  Mad Mac
January 25, 2021 3:59 pm

Oxygen is blue,as in sky.

Reply to  Redge
January 25, 2021 11:07 pm

Maybe Greta can see CO2. It could happen…

I do know that I can spot Climate BS anywhere!
It is published by the usual suspects, and emits that unmistakable aroma of the barnyard

Reply to  John Tillman
January 25, 2021 11:51 am

What you are saying is that societal “acceptance” of the AGW farce is based purely on IGNORANCE

We see that with the local trolls all the time.

Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
January 25, 2021 2:17 pm

I thought it was Ignore-ance as they ignore inconvenient empirical evidence in favor of Model output

Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
January 25, 2021 3:20 pm

Polls have limited value.
Pollsters are not neutral because no-one is neutral and no-one even pretends to be anymore.
Just look at election polls and how useless they are.
They always under-counted Trump voters because pollsters always radiate an aura of anti-Trumpness and people are intimidated away from stating their true beliefs or intentions.
The same will be true of climate.
Most people will answer with what they think they are obliged to say, not what they really feel and believe.

Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
January 26, 2021 3:52 am

too many of the “general public” dont think!
they just absorb a headline or media talking heads few words and accept it unthinkingly
question nothing could be their motto

Reply to  John Tillman
January 25, 2021 7:48 pm

Intelligent, well-educated professionals believe that the risks of global warming far outweigh whatever benefits from enjoying more of an essential trace gas, vital to aerobic life on the planet.”

Is that what you intended to write? Or did you get part of it backwards? It seems like intelligent people would believe the risks of global warming are far outweighed

John Tillman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 26, 2021 6:55 am

Yet many do indeed think that man-made global warming is a far greater threat than any possible benefit flowing from more plant food in our air.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Tillman
January 26, 2021 1:37 pm

Probably, but wait until their electricity bills skyrocket as predicted by president Obama- and wait until some firm decides to build a monstrous wind or solar farm next to their home.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Tillman
January 27, 2021 4:52 am

“Intelligent, well-educated professionals believe that the risks of global warming far outweigh whatever benefits”

A Plague: Intellectual-Yet-Idiot

one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science.
Read the whole essay:

Reply to  JimK
January 30, 2021 10:30 am

Thank you JIm.
Excerpt from this worthwhile essay:
IYI = “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot”:

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

Our current crop of IYI’s have also been wrong about catastrophic human-made global warming / climate change, intermittent grid-connected green energy, Covid-19 lockdowns, the specious linkage of “Climate-and-Covid” (“to solve one we must solve the other” – utter nonsense) and their grand solution to all the world’s problems: the totalitarian Marxist “Great Reset” (“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy, sheep!”)

In fact, the Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep, and the IYI’s have enthusiastically supported these scams and have profited from them.

The Climate-and-Covid scares are supported by two groups – Scoundrels and Imbeciles.

The Scoundrels are the wolves, who know that both crises are deliberate lies, false crises they concocted to stampede the sheep.

The Imbeciles (aka the IYI’s and fellow dupes) are the sheep, who believe the Climate-and-Covid lies and fear them and repeat them without realizing that they are being led to the slaughter. Baaaaad!

Last edited 1 year ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  John Tillman
January 27, 2021 10:18 pm

No, the issue is that
1) alarmists academics have no visible fossil fuel COI
2) vocal non academics sometimes do, if they don’t, they are still suspect

The idea here is: “academics have no reason to lie.”
Same thing re: pesticides. (Why would that guy lie when he says that glyphosate is awful? He was no reason to lie. He is a pure researcher!)

But then there was the COVID scam. Many people have fed up with know it all academics or “Professors” who don’t know anything.

Until very recently, the WUWT commentariat was a hotbed of CDC worshiping!

Martin Gibson
January 25, 2021 9:00 am

Would it be possible to purchase a subscription to EC so that the annoying ads might be avoided?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 26, 2021 10:21 am

I don’t mind the ads, for that reason, but if I could make them go away by giving you money directly (you would probably get more that way) I would be happy to do so. I think that’s what he’s suggesting.

Emily Daniels
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 26, 2021 3:15 pm

I didn’t mind the ads when they were just at the top of the page, the bottom of the article, and along the right hand side. When they went to every two paragraphs within the articles, I had to install ad blockers on my devices. I am sorry, but that format was making the articles practically unreadable. If you get a page on Patreon, I will gladly support you with a few dollars per month.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 27, 2021 10:12 am

I don’t mind the ads, I hope they pay you more than enough, a lot more. Had a look at the new site, I really like it. Thanks.

January 25, 2021 9:04 am

Anthony, great idea. Something along the factual content of the now-gone-except-on-wayback-machine ““ is again needed. But even they were branded a “denier” site.

John Tillman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 25, 2021 9:45 am

From 2013, about Barrett and other skeptical chemists.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
January 25, 2021 8:03 pm

It was written as if there was something wrong with them.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 26, 2021 6:56 am

Hard to find anything by their supporters, or they themselves. The choice was that link or DeSmog Blog.

January 25, 2021 9:17 am

I would put the “Predictions” page there as that is what the scientific method is all about. Predictions, predictions and more predictions. If someone is claiming “science” then lets see their predictions.

Especially very detailed predictions with dates and temperatures. My favourite question is to specify a time frame, like 2020-2040, and ask “Hotter, Colder and by how much?”.

Reply to  TRM
January 25, 2021 9:28 am

PS. The reason I like predictions is that I don’t need a PhD in chem, bio, phys or math to know if it is correct. That is truly the brilliance of the scientific method. People only need to copy, paste, save and check back later. We all can, and should, do that.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  TRM
January 25, 2021 2:46 pm

TRM: a good idea to attract interest would be to have betting on the outcomes. There has been some betting, and Al Gore and other climate names have refused bets, but the proposed bet and its outcome became a newsy item. I think the ‘bet’ with Gore was concerning the disappearance of Arctic ice by 2013. Even though he refused the bet, it was chalked up as a loss for Al anway and reported on.

Another bet was with a Malthusian prof regarding the future cost of copper in constant dollars in 10 yrs. Prof lost this bet and paid up! This is a perfect wayback machine. You have to get agreement on terms hopefully detailed by the fellow who made the statement and you need someone to hold the bet and pay it out.

Always ask if a climateer makes a statement to define what he means and query details re statistical significance, etc. and then negotiate a precise statement, say, ” a minimum of +0.4C sustained for 5 years after the “10” yr period defined in the bet above the present 30 year climatology average as of the last full year before the betting date.” Also name the T series (Hadcrut? UAH?). Or if you counter the statement with, say, no statistical increase in temperature with defined technical error bars (this was done by someone). The trick is there has to be no doubt about the outcome. This is powerful and remediates a tendency for a forecaster to drift, move goal posts, argue circumstances etc.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 25, 2021 8:38 pm

I like the idea of placing bets as an avenue for laymen to get the gist of how pathetically poor the CAGW crowd is at predicting anything.
Apparently there are betting houses that will take on all sorts of wagers – even to whether the flip of a coin by a ref comes up heads or tails, election results, etc.
I don’t normally make wagers so I am not aware if any betting site or casino has ever tried to figure the odds and take wagers on climate/weather predictions. I think this is an idea that could provide awareness and revenue.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Brad-DXT
January 26, 2021 3:26 am

Unfortunately, betting shops aren’t legal in America. Only sports betting, in states that allow it.

Lee Scott
January 25, 2021 9:17 am

How about a section on the physics of GHGs? I read an interesting article the other day, “CO2 The Miracle Molecule, that supports the calculation that a further doubling of CO2 can only contribute about .7C to global temperatures. It also goes through the physics of IR absorption and shows that, yes, CO2 is a GHG, but as we ‘deniers’ have been saying for years, its effect is overwhelmed by that of H2O. I think a section showing just how GHGs actually work would be valuable.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2021 11:57 am

I think you are right to make easy to understand. I have read over 35 books on climate many written by PhDs fortunately for me they were written in layman’s terms (I am one of the laymen) if everything said or written in opposition to the cagw scam was written for scientists how would I have found what I believe is the truth. The msm give the public disinformation in simple terms if you are to compete and win more public support you have to do the same with the facts (truth). There’s a saying in England ” if you can’t beat them with logic baffle them with bullsh*t. Our problem is kind of the other way round if you baffle them with the truth they’ll stick with the bullsh*t. I look forward to reading post’s on the new site and wish you every success.

Keith Moore
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 25, 2021 1:36 pm

Here in the UK we are about to be bombarded with ”climate change” lies and deceit as a result of hosting the 26th COP meeting in Nov.. This bombardment will be led by the BBC , the whole of the Press and of course the ”celebs”.
Unfortunately any repost from us as laymen will be ignored or decried as rubbish. What we need is a lot more backing from real scientists. They need to stand up and tell the world what the real facts are. We do have the ”Nongovernmental Party on Climate change” but apart from their website one never sees any reference to their findings and I suspect most people do not know of their existence.
Good luck with the new site , give em the Facts!
Keith Moore

Reply to  Keith Moore
January 25, 2021 3:44 pm

I agree we need a lot more backing from real scientists but at the moment real scientists aren’t given a voice, the more of the public you win over the more public will want to hear from real scientists but this won’t happen if they don’t understand them. Hopefully then the msm will have to be more balanced and then real scientists will have a much bigger stage from which to speak. I think we are a very long way from that at the moment but we have to build our own stage because no one is going to give us one. Wuwt is one of the few who are trying, thank god.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Keith Moore
January 26, 2021 3:32 am

What we need is a lot more backing from real scientists. They need to stand up and tell the world what the real facts are. … one never sees any reference to their findings and I suspect most people do not know of their existence.”

If the Oxford Union were to hold an annual series of debates on various climate change topics, our side would get visibility and credibility. All it would take, I assume, is for a donor to fund it.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 26, 2021 2:58 pm

Roger, I agree with the hope of your second paragraph – seeing an open discussion in a series of televised debates would be soothing for us all including people who are alarmed by what they have heard so far about climate but are really not able to digest it all. However, even with a donor, getting public airtime is next to impossible. Commercial broadcasters and real scientists won’t go near it ‘cos of commercial risks that follow the hateful pushback from alarmists who are driven by politics, not climate concerns. If they were driven by climate concerns they would embrace factual discussions and put to bed all the doubts. No-one but no-one with anything to risk such as politicians / governments, scientists, electricity suppliers, newspapers, some engineers, journals, to name a few will utter a slightly skeptical whisper anymore. The propaganda war has been won to the extent that courts seem to have swallowed the kool aid. Fossil fuel producers (I have done 45 years as a petroleum engineer) and users have been pathetic in their response to the dishonest onslaught. When you realize that the bloke you are fighting is fighting dirty, you fight dirty back. They were too worried about their image and now it is too late – in particular the coalies in the West have lost. The oil and gas companies should play dirty with anti fossil fuelers (from pollies to Gretas to the MSM) and call out their utter hypocrisy whenever they fly, drive, collect taxes, by plastics, rely on fossil fuel backup electricity, etc. And keep doing it, loud and strong, and again and again. Hound them until they get pi$$ed off and angry. JUst keep them. Eventually they will drop their guard and blurt out garbage and look stupid and a few people will notice.

WUWT, and a few other sites, have provided a fantastic service so far. A separate dedicated site to retain factual references is a great idea given that alarmists and their political allies fight dirty and hate free speech to the extent that they think they have the right to shut down websites they don’t like.

Keith Moore
Reply to  4 Eyes
January 30, 2021 2:54 pm

Agreed. Surprised this week to find that my plea for real scientists to stand up and be counted has in fact already occurred.
See – ””.
This needs a wide circulation,please have a look and help .
keith Moore

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2021 1:20 pm

There was an article in today’s “Climate and Energy Roundup” article that covered this issue well and for me at least was easily readable.

Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2021 6:09 pm


I also read that and agree with you. It’s a very important weekly feature on WUWT that I look forward to.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2021 1:32 pm

Make sure that it does not become a new Scientific American.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2021 3:26 pm

Why not post a mixture of articles, most in layman vocabulary but some with more technical content of varying levels? Let the visitor browse and choose what they want to read?

YallaYPoora Kid
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 26, 2021 1:17 am

Diagrams and explanations similar to the absorption spectra as per Jen Marohasy’s book – Climate Change the Facts 2020 fig 11.3 page 173 would be a good start so everyone can understand why CO2 cannot absorb anywhere as much radiation as water vapour.

Reply to  Lee Scott
January 25, 2021 5:49 pm

”I think a section showing just how GHGs actually work would be valuable.”

No-one knows how they work.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mike
Ian W
Reply to  Mike
January 26, 2021 6:22 am

Yes I find that frustrating.

Perhaps a simple question – simple (if scientific) answer without any handwaving – section would be useful.

Simple question 1: Where and how does the water molecule store the latent heat it carries?

Simple question 2: When a water molecule evaporates, how does it ‘take the latent heat’ from the remaining water? You can feel the cool when water evaporates from your skin…so how does that work?

Simple question 3: You say that on condensation the water molecule ‘releases latent heat of condensation’ – how does it do that?

Reply to  Lee Scott
January 25, 2021 7:12 pm


I understand where you are coming from but that level of knowledge/understanding is far above the average person to even comprehend. The more involved discussions are right at home here on the WUWT site. Those deeper level of discussions are why we are here to begin with. An analogy might be that if you want to show someone new how to check their oil you would first need to explain what and where the engine is and how to open the hood.

January 25, 2021 9:25 am

A major barrier to imparting detailed information to the masses is that a significant proportion of the adult population is deficient in basic levels of literacy and comprehension.

Canada is an example –

So Anthony it seems that the “KISS” approach taken by the climate carpetbaggers has much fertile ground to work.

Reply to  Mr.
January 25, 2021 3:53 pm

There’s plenty of well educated people out there that can parrot what their read with no real understanding of process.

  1. We think in pictures not words.
  2. We use words to help paint a picture . eg Whether I say think of a elephant or don’t think of a elephant, you have to see a elephant. And if your never seen a elephant, a verbal description may not be enough to create understanding without a picture of an elephant. You ever herd the phrase “A picture paints a thousand words”
  3. There’s a 5 step process to every thought..

First comes the thought , Second, we rap the thought with the emotions of past experiences to help protect ourselves from unforeseen dangers. If we can get over ourselves and stop thinking emotionally, most people live in the first to processes of thought . We get to the Third process of thought, Seek& search, If you can think without your personal emotions getting in the way, you can move on to the next phase of thought which is Action, Now we are able to do or say something smart. and what we end up with by completing this 5 step process of thought is Knowledge or knowing. THINK, EMOTE, SEEK & SEARCH, ACTION ,KNOWLEDGE.
4 Money is a powerful emotional tool. Money Is Not About Finances, It’s About Emotions | HuffPost Life
5 There are 3 different types of sound ‘
Internal noise, eg, The voice inside your head that sees in pictures and can keep you awake at night.
External noise, eg, When conversing with others.
Semantic noise, eg, truck going past or plane flying overhead.
All these sounds can be very distracting, especially the noise inside our head. For good communication to take place between two people one person has to turn of their internal noise so they can listen and see the other persons picture clearly. Communication will always end badly if you think all conversing is a debate. It’s not always me against you if your trying to learn. Learn to stand beside your personal emotions and take onboard the good advise that you can give to others and practice what you preach.

Reply to  jmorpuss
January 25, 2021 5:13 pm

What you say may well be true.
But I have no f’n idea what you’re on about.

January 25, 2021 9:32 am

Biden has been very blatant about his love for the California policies and regulations and wants to clone them for all of America.

Biden loves CA and is starting to impose the same inflationary costs to the other 49 states, with higher costs for electricity, fuel, and labor, all of which impacts the cost of everything else.

Discouraging America’s energy independence will have Americans beholden to foreign countries for our crude oil, like CA, and beholden to China for the mining of minerals and metals to support wind, solar, and EV battery construction.

If CA can be successful in recalling Newsom, maybe that would send a strong message to Biden and the rest of the country, that it may be best if they avoid following the deteriorating state of CA.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Ronald Stein
January 25, 2021 11:43 am

c’mon man, he’s only doing what his “handlers” tell him to –

Stephen Wilde
January 25, 2021 9:34 am

Hope it helps.
We need to return to real science rather than the politically correct version that responds only to the paymaster (whoever controls taxpayer revenues at any given time).

January 25, 2021 9:37 am

You could always just link to ‘Skeptical Science’ 🙂
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2021 6:13 pm

When you have two piles of garbage, and you call one of them “compost,” you still have two piles of garbage.
Changing the name won’t make your garbage non-garbage.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 6:38 pm

“When you have two piles of garbage,”


Yep, griff mentions SkS and you mentioned

Two great big stinking piles of composted BS and rotting garbage.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 25, 2021 7:12 pm

A swing and a miss Fred

Reply to
January 25, 2021 8:06 pm


So you admit both SkS and are both piles of rotting compost and garbage…

Seems we are in agreement.

Reply to
January 26, 2021 6:28 am

Pathetic response, even by your low standards.

Ian W
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 26, 2021 6:28 am

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” 


Reply to
January 26, 2021 6:28 am

And yet again, the digital troll demands that everyone agree with it.
Does it attempt to refute anything posted? Of course not.
It’s confidence in it’s own omniscience does not permit it to actually argue with those who disagree.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 26, 2021 12:11 am

So: no place for jokes? Even bad ones? Lighten up!

I like the new look of the site, BTW

Reply to  griff
January 26, 2021 12:08 pm

So you admit SkS is a JOKE, and that you knew it when you commented.

Well done griff.

John Endicott
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 26, 2021 8:21 am

Hey Ed, You could always just shut your digital pie hole instead of contributing stupid comments.

But if he did that, he’d never make any comments. Then what would we have to laugh at?

Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 9:55 am

Only if you want to read bollocks…
it’s run by cheat John Cook, the man who cooked up the 97.1% consensus.

Reply to  saveenergy
January 25, 2021 4:53 pm

I see John Cook as a pirate. You can see he’s dropped the Arrr from C_ook.

Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 10:02 am

How “1984 Newspeak” is that domain name Griff?

And just like the proles in “1984”, you believe their perverted dogma.

Reply to  Mr.
January 25, 2021 5:12 pm

He probably doesn’t understand the reference to “1984”.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 10:30 am

If only “Skeptical Science” was skeptical or about science.

Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 10:44 am

Great idea! Link to a website devoted to climate alarmism and hyperbole, created by a “former cartoonist and web developer” who has a PhD in “cognitive science”, a field completely unrelated to climate and only marginally connected to science, who has submitted some of the worst “studies” ever published in science journals.

John Cook is a climate zealot and, unsurprisingly, even worse than Michael Mann at torturing data and extracting complete nonsense from it. That takes a bit of doing. His oft-cited “study” of climate science papers stating that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” is a complete sham. Analyzing his own published data surveying 11,944 abstracts of climate studies, the number is actually 32.6%, while 67.3% do not endorse AGW or explicitly reject AGW. Like Mann, he is a charlatan pretending to use science to support his outrageous claims.

You can find a hundred times more real science here than on Skeptical Science.

Last edited 1 year ago by stinkerp
4 Eyes
Reply to  stinkerp
January 26, 2021 3:17 pm

“…oft-cited “study” of climate science papers stating that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” is a complete sham. Analyzing his own published data surveying 11,944 abstracts of climate studies, the number is actually 32.6%, while 67.3% do not endorse AGW or explicitly reject AGW.”

Every concerned skeptic should commit this quote to memory and whenever they hear the 97.1% or overwhelming majority BS uttered, they should interject and recite the quote. Loudly. Several times. People won’t believe you straight away but eventually someone will check it out.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 10:52 am

Like so many other aspects of the “climate change” cult, the name ‘Skeptical Science’ is a tautology, yet the entire site is founded on mysticism, politicized pseudo-science, obfuscation and gas lighting. Much like you and most other “true believers”, but for logical fallacies you’d have no arguments at all.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 25, 2021 3:56 pm

yup typical commie double speak, take a term your opposition uses and twist it 180 deg

e.g. how most socialist countries name themselves as “Democratic Republics”

Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 11:10 am

Anthony must think how to address this.
A. Ignore sceptical science.
B. Respectively pull it apart
C. Go full ballistic and ridicule it.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Waza
January 25, 2021 3:14 pm

You left out the Dragnet choice.

D. Just the facts

(Which is what “Everything Climate” is intended to be.)

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 11:23 am

“…You could always just link to ‘Skeptical Science’…”

Or Griffy-poo you could actually impress us by using your brain (for once) and learning
to tell the difference between religious cult-like narratives on one hand and science on the other.

Religion largely involves accepting things on blind faith as you are doing Griffy-poo. In science we do the opposite; we accept nothing on faith, only when it is proven beyond doubt. If the contributors to this website can poke holes in the credibility of the alarmist narrative (which they have done), then blindly believing in CAGW is religion.

This really isn’t hard to understand Griffy-poo, except probably by someone like you.

Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 11:36 am

griff means NON-skeptical NON-Science

As it is neither remotely skeptical, being a major shill for the AGW farce…

nor is it remotely “science”, but spends it time twisting non-facts into propaganda pap for the gullible AGW fools, like grifftard, to lap up and regurgitate.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 1:22 pm

He said he wanted science, not propaganda.

Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 2:54 pm

Have you the faintest idea about the meanig of “skeptical” ?

Reply to  griff
January 25, 2021 3:29 pm

“Skeptical science” is sceptical in the same sense that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

Donald cope
January 25, 2021 9:42 am

Just out of curiosity, I did a Google search for Everything Climate. Of course the search did not find this site. First line on DuckDuckGo.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2021 10:28 am

I think Google is blocking WUWT. I’ve Googled exact titles of WUWT posts, including using quotation marks and get nothing but alarmist BS. When I use DuckDuckGo, the WUWT posts appear.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 26, 2021 10:53 am

I stopped using google a long time ago, for exactly that reason. Their results are way too biased, on many subjects.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2021 4:56 pm

What everyone needs to do is go to it very often so that the visitor count climbs quickly.

I will be putting it as a “home” start-up page so it opens up every time I start my browser.

Thanks WUWT
Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 3:06 am

I think we all should search a few times a day in various search engines.

Reply to  Thanks WUWT
January 26, 2021 4:03 am

just did with DDG and got 2 top listed;-)

Donald cope
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 26, 2021 11:13 am

Google is finally finding EC. Even on the first page.

Donald cope
Reply to  Donald cope
January 25, 2021 9:52 am

We’ll see. Great job Anthony.

John Endicott
Reply to  Donald cope
January 26, 2021 8:28 am

#1 when searching on Bing, Surprisingly, it’s showed up for me in the #2 spot on Google. Google will soon see to it that doesn’t happen again.

January 25, 2021 9:42 am

Impressive… Already bookmarked and I will make it a daily read. Thanks for your devotion to the truth.

January 25, 2021 10:05 am

It looks like Google is already blocking it in searches. Type in EverythingClimate, without quotes, and they switch it to Everything Climate, and make you click again to change the search as entered. With the initial search, I went back 10 pages, 100 results, without any results for your new site (I gave up , don’t know if it ever shows up). If you click the offered alternate search, as entered with quotes added, it comes out on top. DuckDuckGo finds the new site in all of the top 3 results, without quotes.

Reply to  KentN
January 25, 2021 11:35 am

When I type everythingclimate without quotes into Google using the Brave browser with shields up, is in second place.

I think it just takes a little time for the spiders to crawl

Reply to  KentN
January 25, 2021 3:29 pm

Searching via Google: EC in 1st place.
Bing: 1st place.
DuckDuckGo: 1st place.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 26, 2021 12:40 am

Did you ever hear the accusation that the Google attempted to tell Democrat users to Get Out And Vote while the didn’t show that message to Republicans?

If true, I wonder what that does to search results?

Roger Knights
Reply to  KentN
January 26, 2021 3:40 am

Maybe Omniclimate would have been a better name.

Wim Röst
January 25, 2021 10:23 am

Great! Congratulations!

Interesting to add to the Sea Level section: the Deltares Aqua Monitor. It shows a map with details for all coasts: “Surface water changes (1985-2016)

Green and blue colors represent areas where surface water changes occurred during the last 30 years. Green pixels show where surface water has been turned into land (accretion, land reclamation, droughts). Blue pixels show where land has been changed into surface water (erosion, reservoir construction).”

WR: If sea level was rising seriously, all coasts should show a blue color, meaning ‘disappearing land’. They don’t. You can zoom in for every coast you are interested in. It is a great tool to find the real situation for specific locations.

More info:

The app itself:

Reply to  Wim Röst
January 25, 2021 11:23 am

Yes I quite agree. The sea level rise section is going to be extremely important. Living on a big island only 2km from the coast the sea level issue is what everyone focuses on. Local authorities spend endless amounts of taxpayer funds researching and planning for this non-existant problem. We need to put it to bed.

Reply to  Wim Röst
January 25, 2021 2:34 pm

I also agree.
SLR is one area where some governments have legislated explicit SLR values.
Here in Victoria Australia, the legislated projection is 200mm by 2040 ( from 2007).
They need more than 8mm/yr to get there.
The government has produced fancy maps to show SLR down to individual house level.

Reply to  Waza
January 26, 2021 4:11 am

and with dipsh*t dan in power until we can boot him out
zip will change regards sanity of fictitious claim re slr or anything else!

January 25, 2021 10:30 am

Climate feedback needs to be discussed, as this is the only theoretical rationalization for a climate sensitivity as high as claimed,

It’s based on a model that fails to conform to any of the preconditions for applying the analysis being used and whose use was justified by a math error confusing the feedback factor with the feedback fraction providing the illusion that the input and output of the model could have non linearly related units.

There’s also the fake ‘danger’ of runaway positive feedback.

Gunga Din
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 25, 2021 3:25 pm

I’m not sure of your point.
From what I understood, EC will be composed of just fact based studies with no comments or “opinion post”.
The “REFERENCE PAGES” on steroids’.
(Or perhaps you’d just like a post on EC about climate feedback?)
Sorry in advance if I misunderstood.

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 26, 2021 8:17 am

Gunga Din,

The idea that feedback analysis is wildly misapplied is not an opinion, but a readily demonstrable fact and is why it would be a useful EC topic so that people can understand how feedback actually works and see how the consensus claim of massive amplification by positive feedback has absolutely no legitimate basis.

The misapplication of feedback as their sole supporting theoretical justification is the Achilles heel of the IPCC and is why alarmists don’t want to address this failure. Every paper on climate feedback has referenced the same analysis by Hendrik Bode and made the same 3 fatal errors applying it to the climate. The errors were first made by Schlesinger when he ‘fixed’ Hansen’s paper on climate feedback and subsequently canonized by the IPCC as ‘settled’ and is why these errors have persisted for so many decades. These two papers were referenced together in AR1 as the ONLY theoretical justification for the high ECS which led to the formation of the IPCC.

Gunga Din
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 26, 2021 3:55 pm

I did misunderstand what you meant by “feedback”.
I was thinking of comments on the EC, you were suggesting a topic for the site.
“Sorry” in the present. 😎

January 25, 2021 10:39 am

Climate change is fully politicized down to supposed “science” published in leading journals by academics who need to get grants to pay their salaries and that of their staff (post-docs, research assistants, statisticians, programmers, secretary, etc).
The danger of politicized science described by Michael Crichton is here today in “everything climate.” And like Lysenkoism, it is consuming other disciplines in its corruption to career enabling and rentseeking behavior.

Everything climate cannot escape politics because it has been consumed by idiots from the Gretas to the Biden White House.

Last edited 1 year ago by joelobryan
Paul Penrose
January 25, 2021 10:42 am

I will definitely check out the new site. One of the problems that I encounter, even with people that understand that most of the CAGW claims are nonsense, is the notion that “Even though the science on climate change is very uncertain, we should still avoid ‘spewing’ stuff into the air that could possibly harm us later.” Some intelligent, thoughtful people have told me this. I asked one friend, “But what if CO2 is actually beneficial?” He was skeptical that could be the case because our contributions were changing the “natural balance”. My response was, “Where do you think all that carbon in coal and oil came from? It was originally in the air, and we are just restoring it, which the plants love.” He said he would think about it. I hope he does. The deceit surrounding this entire subject is so deep and wide, it’s difficult to counter it.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 25, 2021 12:40 pm

It would be helpful to include a section describing the constituents of the atmosphere, the role of so-called greenhouse gases, and distinguishing between carbon dioxide and genuine air pollutants etc.
It sounds basic but many well-meaning people are intentionally bamboozled by lying propagandists.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 25, 2021 3:17 pm

I find many otherwise educated people prefer to let politicians “exercise an abundance of caution” when it comes to any number of subjects that don’t concern them directly. They justify this by deferring judgement to someone else. I attribute this to intellectual laziness more than anything else. When I point out that it is a logical fallacy to both exercise caution when not required or accept arguments based on authority, it usually peaks their interest somewhat. Nobody likes to admit to being the fool.

Ian W
Reply to  Doonman
January 26, 2021 6:46 am

Try asking the author(s) of a paper how much replication or checking they did of the cited papers they reference in their paper. You will find the same trusting faith and gullibility in a research team of PhDs as you will in those trusting politicians.

Ideally, if a cited paper is withdrawn then the papers citing that withdrawn paper should also be withdrawn pending update. That might make the authors of the subsequent tree of citations check back to ensure that they are not building on sand.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian W
Reply to  Ian W
January 26, 2021 2:56 pm

The big problem with cited papers is the extent to which the citer only looked at the abstract. I frequently have to recommend taking statements that are not supported by the data reported out of the abstract when reviewing. And when reading, the “conclusion” given in the abstract turns out to reflect the authors’ beliefs rather than the actual report.

Mike Dubrasich
January 25, 2021 10:42 am

The concept is sound, but there is much to do. If I understand it, the site is for the mostly uniformed, which would include teachers and students. Aim for that target audience.

Good topics might be the History of Climate (the Ice Ages and all) and the Benefits of Warming.

Too much emphasis on dispelling myths might bog the site down. The Myth Machine churns out mountains every day. Some critiquing is necessary but try not to get lost in that. WUWT does that very well, and the expert commenters have it covered, even with all the annoying trolls.

Links? There are other sites where more in-depth analysis can be found. Such as WUWT. It might not compromise the mission to add some.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
January 25, 2021 3:39 pm

Too much emphasis on dispelling myths might bog the site down.

I agree. There is no point in endless defensive posts along the lines of “Claim: climate change to make armpit hairs more wiggly”. Why add to the publicity of the worthless dross that flows forth every day? Instead the message should be organised and positive. Everything should circle back to a small number of impactful statements of position (these can even be questions). Some mind maps and / or flow charts could help.

Last edited 1 year ago by Hatter Eggburn
January 25, 2021 10:43 am

As important a mission as exists in our civilization right now. The groundless hysteria has become astonishing. Just as “racism” as being used by some to destroy faith in and love for the American way of life enjoyed by most Americans of all backgrounds, so certain political activists are trying to ride environmental hysteria to political power with the destruction of our way of life as their goal.

Thank you for your efforts!

January 25, 2021 10:53 am

Brilliant idea, bookmarked. And right at the top and in a very prominent place have the definition of – climate. Then I would suggest looking to the two “Climate Change, The Facts” books for a start on subject matter, i.e., Problems with Policy Science, Ocean Acidification, Understanding Climate Change ….., The sun-Climate Connection, Co2 and Plant Growth, etc.

January 25, 2021 10:55 am

Good to see new web site. Read article on hurricanes.

How many know the history behind the Japanese use of kamakazi.

Devine Wind

The huricane that destroyed the Mongol fleet getting ready to invade Japan.

Reply to  Devils_Tower
January 25, 2021 3:43 pm

Who’s Devine Wind?
The face that sank a thousand ships?

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
January 25, 2021 4:31 pm
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Devils_tower
January 25, 2021 5:39 pm

He’s just digging you for misspelling divine

Reply to  Devils_Tower
January 25, 2021 5:39 pm

I thought the origin was “Tai Fun” ( = big wind)
I could be wrong.
(Now that there is a sentence you’ll never see in “settled science” papers)

Joseph Zorzin
January 25, 2021 11:25 am

“I’m proud to announce the companion website to WUWT: “EC” for short.”

Funny, but just today I was wondering when we’d see a site to compete with the ultimate web site dedicated to put down climate skeptics at:

The skepticalscience site is scathing of those not of their faith. The EC site, from what I can see is far more professional.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 25, 2021 2:59 pm

You read the subtitel on the skepticalscience site ? 😀

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 26, 2021 4:21 am

Yes, I did read it- “getting skeptical of global warming skepticism”- so, I asked there if it’s OK to be skeptical of those who are skeptical of global warming skepticism- and I got a warning that with any more comments like that I’d be locked out.

Laws of Nature
January 25, 2021 11:28 am

Dear Anthony,

good idea! Keep up the good work and spread the information!
I wold love to see a chapter about potential natural influences to the global warming.

In particular it would be great if someone could discuss the following data:
comment image

Which shows temperature changes in Great Britain in September of about 2K over 100years in good correlation with solar activity (not radiance)
I dont see how this effect could be limited to GB or September, so if this is a real phenomena the global data requires additional effects to mask this at different places and times.
Last not least the solar activity seems high in the last 100 years compared to the centuries before (there are some alarmists sites disputing this fact, which seems unbelievable!).

John Parsons
January 25, 2021 11:28 am

The section on “El Nino” seems to have been scrambled:
“However, if you remove the effect warming El Niño events in the climate record, the amount of warming since 2000, you find almost half of the global warming in the 21st century is due to El Niño events.”


Robert of Texas
January 25, 2021 11:29 am

Won’t do any good if search engines can hide you. They may even declare your material as dangerous hate media and ban your sites. The ability to censor is the ultimate power in control of the general population.

January 25, 2021 11:35 am

Wikipedia to list as a dirty denier site run by dirty deniers in 3…2…1

January 25, 2021 12:08 pm

This is awesome. Suggestion: change “Pro/con” to “For/against” or “Supporting/Dissenting” or something less value-laden. Pro sounds like “benefit” and con like “downside” which I don’t think is the intent.

Reply to  Jason
January 25, 2021 5:26 pm

I agree…”For/Against” or “Supporting/Dissenting” is better than Pro/Con

Rud Istvan
January 25, 2021 12:46 pm

An EC pro/con topics list suggestion. Go to AR5 WG 1 and 2, and maybe also the most recent US National Climate Assessment. Each major topic (usually delineated by chapters or major subchapters in the table of contents) makes a potential EC article, as these sources have literally all the ‘official big picture’ pro claims stuff. It also give you a logical groupings framework so that EC becomes something of an easy to navigate mirror to the official propaganda.

Climate believer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 25, 2021 1:36 pm

I think that’s a very good idea, might help keep a very spiderly subject matter more coherent.

I also think Jason made a good point commenting above.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 26, 2021 3:48 am

Another framework around which to organize the site, or a portion of it, is the SkS “rebuttals” document. Its claims could be in turn rebutted. This would be helpful because many believers have read it and think it’s the last word.

January 25, 2021 12:47 pm

After a degree in science, I worked as a management accountant for many years, producing financial results and forecasts for a well known consumer brand.

Reporting of climate numbers is done in a way that would have got me fired from the job. Climate is always reported in MSM as “last year was the hottest on record” – never giving the size of the increase nor, far more important, how this compares to the forecast value. If you expect 2020 to come out with a value of 100 (units immaterial) when 2019 had a value of 90, then when 2020 turns out at 91 then, yes, it was higher than 2019, but the main message is that your forecasting is appalling and cannot be trusted for the future, not a miniscule increase compared to previous years.

If climate realists want to provide better information to the general public and stimulate meaningful discussion, this might be a good place to start.

January 25, 2021 1:02 pm

Hi Anthony. I’d like to suggest a books page. There are lots of great books by numerous skeptics, covering lots of topics at different levels.
I would even close my Amazon sales of Extremes and Averages in Contiguous US Climate and provide it to you for your new website in PDF form to distribute free. The data run for 100 years, ending in 2018, so it’s a few years out of date. The graphs should still get the point across regardless.
As a reminder, we introduced that book at WUWT here:
The Book That NOAA Should Have Published: Extremes and Averages in Contiguous U.S. Climate – Watts Up With That?

Let me know if that sounds good to you. I’d even help put together the books page.


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 25, 2021 2:41 pm

You beat me here 😀

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 25, 2021 6:45 pm

Could the books be rated from “for the layman” to “highly technical”?

Eric Stevens
January 25, 2021 1:06 pm

My first reaction on looking at the new site was that the titles of the various articles should be more carefully thought out and the current ones changed. Otherwise the first reaction of a person who really needs the information is going to be “another climate denier site” and just pass on. You should hype the information and better conceal the outcome, otherwise you will end up putting off a lot of people before they have even started.
January 25, 2021 1:11 pm

Wasted effort, there already is a website with factual climate postings.

Rud Istvan
Reply to
January 25, 2021 2:27 pm

I respectfully disagree. Realclimate is good, but is too much ‘inside baseball’. As I understand it, EC is not for knowledgeable skeptics, it is for laypeople seeking factual perspectives on a highly politicized (John Kerry) topic.
The sort of person I was until uncovering actual deliberate NRDC fraud to Congress concerning crop yield impacts, the subject of my first post here back in 2011. Completely by accident, as was researching future food sufficiency for that long chapter in ebook Gaia’s Limits. Took years and to get up to speed.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 25, 2021 2:49 pm

I think it was a very polite response with some respect to the authors of, not always providing “real climate” – offen just the opposite

Gunga Din
Reply to
January 25, 2021 3:41 pm

But, as I understand it, EC would be just factual studies.
No comments to be edited or deleted.
Just the facts.
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 25, 2021 4:45 pm

According to the post: “The idea behind EC is to cover specific climate topics in a pro and con way”
You can’t have pro-facts and con-facts.
Facts are facts.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 5:01 pm

“Facts are facts.”


And you have NONE…

AGW is NOT based on FACTS..

…are you so dumb that you hadn’t figured that out yet !

Reply to
January 25, 2021 6:47 pm

The only facts available regarding climate science is that the earth has warmed up by less than a degree C since the coldest point of the Little Ice Age.

Beyond that, it’s just opinions as to why this warming occurred and what is going to happen in the future.

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 26, 2021 8:52 am

I think this is a great weakness of the EC site. In my review of the various topics posted on the site I found numerous errors or misrepresentations, and unfamiliar readers will have no way to know whether the information they’re seeing is accurate or not.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 26, 2021 4:13 pm

Well, maybe they’ll check it out for themselves?
Back in 2007 when Al Gore was talking about “Global Warming” and temperatures were rising, I checked out my local record highs and lows.
For my little spot on the Globe, that was not so.
I kept of copy of the 2007 records. I checked again a few years later and noticed a curious thing. Record highs for a date were sometimes lower that the old record. The same for record lows.
Then I heard the the temperature records were being “adjusted”. I saw it myself.
Should I have just trusted and accepted what Al Gore claimed?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 26, 2021 4:19 pm
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 27, 2021 11:56 am

Of course we hope that people will look into things for themselves, but that would tend to eliminate the need for yet another site like this new resource, which rather advertises itself as being a one-stop shop for people wanting both sides of the issues.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 27, 2021 6:00 pm

But it is another source.
(Where did it advertise itself a “one-stop shop”? But it is one of the stops to check out.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Gunga Din
Reply to
January 25, 2021 3:55 pm

Thanks Bethan, here’s another site with content similar to realclimate:

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
January 25, 2021 4:32 pm
Reply to
January 25, 2021 4:17 pm

You meant didn’t you ! is a propaganda site set up for that direct purpose.

….. nothing more…. often far less.

If you rely on it for “information” you will remain, as you are… UNINFORMED

As soon as you see con-artists like Zeke involved you know it is the absolute PIT of DISINFORMATION.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 25, 2021 4:47 pm

Fred says: “ is a propaganda site”
LOL, i regret to inform you but THIS site is no different.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 4:59 pm

You poor ZERO FACTS, ZERO EVIDENCE little trollette !

One day you might grow up enough and become educated enough to tell the difference between blatant propaganda, and REALITY

At the moment, you are obviously CLUELESS.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to
January 25, 2021 5:35 pm

I did try to follow Mann’s site, it’s one of the things that drove me to question fraudsters and look for real answers

Reply to
January 25, 2021 6:49 pm

Any site that allows people who disagree with the sacred consensus is just a propaganda site.
How typical.
At least WUWT don’t ban anyone who disagrees with the sites owners, the way your preferred sites do.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 11:13 pm

How so? Propaganda for whom and for what gain?

Reply to
January 25, 2021 6:48 pm

Why am I not surprised that bethan prefers a site that bans anyone who disagrees with the “consensus”?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to
January 26, 2021 4:26 am

are climate models factual?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 26, 2021 6:33 am

I’ve had quite a few alarmists who have made the claim that the output of models count as “facts”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to
January 26, 2021 4:29 am

but much better is
Tony Heller’s site

Laws of Nature
Reply to
January 26, 2021 7:21 am

It does bring up an important point.. whatever you do, do not censor the critics!

January 25, 2021 2:01 pm

Great idea, thank you.

I think the layout of needs a little bit of tuning. On the top page, the text of the previous article just hangs together with the image of the next article, which, at least for me, is a bit confusing.

Tom McQuin
January 25, 2021 2:30 pm

Excellent work, but coral being around for 40 million years jumped out at me. Isn’t the figure 500 million plus?

January 25, 2021 2:51 pm

“A few weeks ago, I stated WUWT would be moving to a “war footing” …
What is a rear guard action?
1 : a defensive or delaying fight engaged in by a rear guard (as in covering the retreat of an army or the evacuation of a besieged garrison).

Really got nothing better to do, but are we retreating ??

Gunga Din
Reply to  u.k.(us)
January 25, 2021 3:48 pm

More like shoring up the defense is my take..

January 25, 2021 3:18 pm

Nice work. It would be great to see some sections that also focus on what actual data the alarmists might show/use in support of the CO2 greenhouse effect directly changing our climate and temps. I am not referring to correlation phenomena, but actual measured and “documented cause and effect” situations of CO driving up Temp. The data seems rather sparse, which would be good to highlight.

Pop Piasa
January 25, 2021 3:28 pm

We’re just going to “Hell In A Bucket” here in Chile-nois, USA.
perhaps EverythingClimate will get folks tuned to reality.

I’ll dedicate this next song to Kamal A. from Joe B..

January 25, 2021 3:29 pm

Excellent concept. I will look forward to it’s development
WRT to SLR you have used Battery Park in New York as an example.
There are many “official” projections for New York SLR.
Example –
Others include NOAA and USACE.
The DEC medium projection for the 20s is 6 inches.
This required 5+ mm/yr from 2000 to 2004, but with only 10 years left 9+mm/yr is needed.
These “official” projections will not come true.
I recommend you highlight some of these official projections.

Rick K
January 25, 2021 3:35 pm

Love it! Easily digestible, bite-size pieces of usable information. Can’t wait to see how this grows over time.

Dr. Brendan Glass
January 25, 2021 4:01 pm

Very good idea, but if you want to convert the indoctrinated do not offend them by using the term alarmists. If they call us names we just switch off and go to another sites that support our view. Included in this I think you also have to tone down the anti Democrat attitude on this website. Don’t tie yourself to any political banner, be an apolitical scientific voice for all.

I am a trained ecologist initially taught by Amyan McFadyen the founder of British animal ecology and his department and then a Masters in Hydrobiology in London. The fake information of the climate alarmists has distressed me for years. However, I am very aware that name calling will not endorse our cause. The polarised political views on the website often stick in my craw but I stay because I want the scientific information.

Keep fighting for the truth but do not offend.

Reply to  Dr. Brendan Glass
January 26, 2021 12:57 am

Instead of alarmists should they be called deniers? Uninformed? Misanthropes?

January 25, 2021 4:16 pm

I say this in the true spirit of constructive criticism…

I think it is a fabulous idea, but it may have missed the mark. My suggestion being to leave the style as is, and I’d be ecstatic if I turned out to be wrong.

That said, it comes across to me as a skeptic leaning site rather than a neutral site, which I think was the goal. For example, I’d have a headline like “Are Tornadoes Getting Worse?” and then a link to graph’s of tornado frequency and intensity. No comments, no explanations at all. Just the source of the data and the graph. People think in pictures (which is why they are worth a thousand words) and the lack of commentary makes it impossible to accuse you of bias, and it makes it really easy to send as a link to someone I’m having a discussion with because its just data and they can draw their own conclusions.

The other thing I would include (apologies if you have, I didn’t get into detail on site) is an entire section on the IPCC. Start with a factual explanation of who the IPCC is and what their job is according to THEIR site. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I’ve referenced the IPCC in an argument, only to have to side track and explain who the IPCC even is. I would then have a whole series of questions like What Does the IPCC say about X? Followed by a brief excerpt from the relevant IPCC report and a link to it. When you dig into the details of what the IPCC ACTUALLY says, rather than the Summary for Policy Makers or what is reported in the media. I’ve slam dunked entire debates by offering to limit my arguments to data in IPCC reports. One of the things you could put is a section that explains what terms like “high confidence, wide acceptance” actually mean (I’m thinking Judith Curry’s article for example, which was an eye opener, the IPCC’s ‘high confidence” does NOT mean what most people think of when they read those words)

A lot of work went into this new site. I applaud that, and I sincerely hope it proves effective.

4 Eyes
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 26, 2021 3:58 pm

Having one or 2 links to the source of data is very important otherwise it just smacks of assertions. After a while visitors who have verified for themselves the scientific sources will trust the article on face value and be happy to refer it to others. Then the site will have real influence.

Re the IPCC, I have exactly the same problem. People who want to argue with me about climate change have no idea what the IPCC is – extraordinary! Most get their info from MSM and nowhere else. So highlighting the IPCC position is a good suggestion.

Right-Handed Shark
January 25, 2021 5:03 pm

How about issuing a challenge at the head of the home page to Mann, Schmidt, Jones or indeed anybody to describe a reproducible experiment that actually shows the extent of the so-called “greenhouse effect” by CO2 in open atmosphere. Of course, proof by computer model does not qualify, it has to show the measurable amount of warming by CO2 ALONE. As far as I’m aware this has never been done.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
January 25, 2021 8:06 pm

I’ve often thought this. I’ve an idea that pointing an infra-red thermometer at the sky at night time in a desert and in a humid place might reveal something interesting, but I’m not sure what.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
January 25, 2021 10:42 pm

Right-Hand – the direct effects of CO2 have been known for a very long time, the debate is over the magnitude and sign of secondary effects (feedbacks). To measure via experiment you would need an additional Earth identical to your own. Sadly, not even Elon Musk can build one of those.

Zig Zag – if you did it right you’d wind up proving that the greenhouse effect is real. How big it is, from which gases, and what the feedbacks are, you’d have no idea. Well, unless you have a second Earth handy identical in all respects except CO2 concentration….

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 26, 2021 2:26 am

It cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise an experiment that at least gives an indication of the effects of CO2. Perhaps arrange a number of IR thermometers towards the open sky at various angles on a cloudless and windless day. Suspend a CO2 meter in the field of view of each thermometer, then introduce a large quantity of the gas into the area, perhaps a hot air balloon sized envelope of dry CO2 from above. Being heavier than air there should be sufficient time to measure any immediate change in “back radiation” before (and as) the gas dissipates. It may not be definitive, but maybe it would be enough to calculate whether it is indeed worth the eye-watering sums of money we have already spent on something that has never been measured, let alone the amounts yet to be spent.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
January 26, 2021 7:46 am

You would not be allowing for enough time for feedbacks to appear, you’d be measuring a parcel of mostly CO2 instead of a well mixed gas at tiny concentrations, you’d be completely skipping the effects of CO2 that change as the altitude changes and as the geography below it changes. CO2 makes very cold places like Antarctica even colder for example. There’s so much your suggestion doesn’t cover it is not worth doing.

On the other hand there was an experiment that ran for 10 years quantifying the change to direct effects of CO2 over that time period and it was quite small and only two locations on earth were measured.

The earth system is entirely to complicated to measure it by releasing a tiny (relative to earth) balloon of CO2 over one tiny spot on earth at one tiny altitude. You need an extra earth to do such an experiment.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 26, 2021 9:16 am

I agree, it won’t give a definitive result and I said as much. But it might show if there is any effect TO measure. I suspect not. But my suggestion is for the alarmists to come up with the proof, so let one of them design an experiment. Because I, like most here, do not accept computer models with the premise built into the program, and you are never going to convince me with formulae on a blackboard. If I am to be taxed for my “sins of emission” I want to see tangible proof.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
January 26, 2021 6:44 pm

Lots of experiments have been done. Here’s one:
You may get a security warning as the site is old and not being properly maintained, certificates have expired, etc, but its OK.

Point is this experiment is written up in a manner that most people can understand. The measured effect is real. The conclusion that sensitivity is over estimated is wrong because Hug neglected to take the scale of the atmosphere into account, he could have had to build a device many km high and do the same thing to account for that. But if you want a small scale experiment that proves the effect exists, there you go.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 27, 2021 2:47 am

This is a similar question/s to what I often ask.

“”Is there a documented “data trail” of the CO2 effect in the open atmosphere, from the beginning to the end of the process. Ie from CO2 release through to the increased surface temperature with a positive feedback loop””

Reply to  diggs
January 27, 2021 10:47 pm

If there was, we’d know what sensitivity actually is. Instead we have an estimate derived from indirect observations and a whole pile of assumptions of somewhere between 1 and 4.5 deg/doubling.

Pat from kerbob
January 25, 2021 5:31 pm

We talk about the “adjustocene”
Last week I think Steve Case posted a simple graph showing all of the changes made from 2005 to 2020 of the GISS temp record from 1850 to present in which you can easily see all changes positive in last 5 decades and many changes negative back in the 30s warm period

Clear and concise

Title it “how to make a hockey stick so people won’t notice”

Last edited 1 year ago by Pat from kerbob
Steve Case
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 26, 2021 7:33 am

Thanks for the ink, here’s a new one for a 2020 vs 2010 comparison since GISTEMP came out last week with the latest that includes December 2020:

comment image

Reply to  Steve Case
January 26, 2021 12:14 pm

I still think you should make the word “changes” in much bigger letters.

So as to distinguish it from final published fabrications…

… which can look very similar to the changes graph. 🙂

Steve Case
Reply to  fred250
January 27, 2021 12:53 am

Yes, good word smithing to convey that the graph isn’t about rising temperature, but is rather about rewriting historical data.

Orwell covered that aspect of propaganda in “Animal Farm” when the Seven Commandments were constantly rewritten.
comment image

Gunga Din
Reply to  Steve Case
January 26, 2021 4:40 pm

A suggestion for EC and your work.
How about a prominent and easy to find Glossary for terms and acronyms used?
(Instead of a list buried under a “drop down”, put it on the sidebar. If possible, keep the link visible as people scroll down?)
How many laymen know what an “anomaly” is? “TOB”, even when “Time of Observation Bias” is spelled out, what does that mean to the layman not familiar with the terms?
I suppose what I’m suggesting is more of a Glossary/Dictionary for readers easily accessible.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 26, 2021 4:42 pm

PS If someone put such a thing together, it could be shared among other sites.

Steve Case
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 26, 2021 8:07 am

Forgot to point out that the previous graph referenced by Pat was 2005 to 2015 since 1880. The new one is a five year update of that and uses the AnnMean J-D column on GISTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index for comparison.

January 25, 2021 6:05 pm


January 25, 2021 6:23 pm

Not sure I follow the “Pro” and “Con” bit in the subjects :-
makes it sound like Pro is for the motion (suggesting the paragraph is positively supporting and agrees, and it appears first so will be more read than the follow on passage.

Con is too close to ebing conned i.e duped. in some way suggesting that the paragraph is the Con i.e. the fake message.

“Both sides of the argument” would be a a good fit in their somewhere showing the impartial nature of the discussion

the site looks nice and simple and easy to scroll thru but the search bar could be made more obvious.

I need to book a course in speed reading to now try and read that as well as WUWT and there are only so many small hours in each day !
January 25, 2021 6:31 pm

What is really obvious about this move by Mr. Watts, is that he has finally recognized that his web site has earned a reputation that he doesn’t like. Creating a “new” site will not absolve him of his sins. Creating a new site is a blatant admission that his original creation is somewhat lacking.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 6:51 pm

Once again, the socialist assumes he knows what others are thinking.
What is it about socialism that causes it’s worshipers to presume their own omniscience.

Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 12:20 am

Really, we aren’t socialists or Marxists (and neither is the new Democrat administration). I guess alarmist isn’t an unfair term within the Skeptic community, but does it, as suggested in comment above, really play well when trying to change peoples’ minds?

I guess that’s a point: is this preaching to the converted or trying to reach across the divide?

Reply to  griff
January 26, 2021 11:38 am

You aren’t socialists, you just support socialists and support socialist goals, as well as talking like socialists all the time.

Reply to  griff
January 26, 2021 12:16 pm

You are a marxist, and a fool, griff.

Also a manic alarmist.

The TRUTH and FACTS mean nothing to mind-numbed twerps like you.

Reply to  griff
January 27, 2021 7:03 am

griff, your “side” is textbook socialism/fascism/totalitarianism. Those are just phrases for the general desire of government control (taking away local control) of as much as possible. The simplest mind should be able to understand this.

Last edited 1 year ago by beng135
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to
January 25, 2021 8:09 pm

Yeah, one of the mostly widely read and awarded science blogs, it’s gotta be seriously lacking to reach that level.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 8:16 pm

WRONG as always, marxist idiot.

Who would not like a reputation as the MOST HONEST and MOST READ scientific site.

SkS and could only wish !!

This extra, will just make an already good site EVEN BETTER

And of course, ignorant AGW apologists like you will have ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS as come-back.

That is just the way you are.

Now, off you trot, back to the PITIFULLY EMPTY PROPAGANDA MESS that are SkS and

Envy and jealousy are an inherent part of being a leftist shill, aren’t they.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Abolition Man
Reply to  fred250
January 25, 2021 9:25 pm

Isn’t Marxist idiot redundant? I thought they only came in two flavors: idiots and morons!
Of course there are the criminally insane, but they’re usually in leadership positions like we see in the DemoKKKrat Party!

Great idea, Anthony! Thank you for all the hard work you have done and are doing to expose the truth so many try to hide!

John Endicott
Reply to  Abolition Man
January 26, 2021 8:34 am

Three flavors: Useful idiots, Useless Idiots, and morons!

Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 6:37 am

For the most part, envy and jealousy are the reasons why a person becomes a leftist in the first place.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 9:21 pm

Blog Stats

438,113,760 hits

No wonder SkS and Mickey Mann are jealous !!

Alexa rank :

WUWT 85,913

SkS 210,019 914,449 (roflmao) !!

No wonder SkS and are SO ENVIOUS.
Reply to  fred250
January 27, 2021 8:30 am
Reply to
January 27, 2021 12:21 pm

Poor tapeworm, JEALOUSY is such a curse for far-leftist scum like you, isn’t it.

But its all you have..

Reply to
January 30, 2021 7:48 pm

That’s hilarious coming from the guy who claims that 97% of scientists agree with him.

NOTE: The 97% is also a lie.

Reply to
January 25, 2021 11:17 pm

What is obvious is that you are a troll trying to waste people’s time.

Reply to
January 26, 2021 12:06 am

The outraged reflexive jowlflapping of your alarmist crowd lost any credibility a long time ago. It was just one lie too many. Or was it a thousand?

Reply to
January 26, 2021 12:59 am

You are a strange poster indeed.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Derg
January 26, 2021 6:18 am

It’s probably a sock puppet for Russell Seitz or Miriam O’Brian, or possibly a sycophant thereof.

Reply to
January 26, 2021 6:36 am

So the reason given by Mr. Watts for producing this new web site is wrong, and only you know the real reason.
Is that really the position you want to take?

4 Eyes
Reply to
January 26, 2021 4:02 pm

What a stinking pile of crap that comment is. I now know what sort of creep you are and I know that you know you are a creep.

Gunga Din
Reply to
January 26, 2021 5:00 pm

What is really obvious about this move by Mr. Watts, is that he has finally recognized that his web site has earned a reputation that he doesn’t like. Creating a “new” site will not absolve him of his sins. Creating a new site is a blatant admission that his original creation is somewhat lacking.

Hmmmm … the same information presented minus “input” from the likes of you and me.
Just information for people to find that are suspicious of what the (artificial) Consensus and the MSM have presented.
A site that Google might not “devalue” in it’s search engine.
Just shoring up the defenses against the “misinformation” gestapo.

Reply to
January 26, 2021 7:15 pm

Wow, “somewhat lacking”.
That might be the hardest reverse I’ve ever seen in a comment.

John Macgowan
January 25, 2021 6:31 pm


Brilliant Idea!

As an Engineer and a scientist have always believed that data and common sense always prevail in the long run. The new website hopefully will accelerate the process to the point when you,Charles, and the other people who make WUWT work will be alive when you are recognized as true giants of Science and beacons of rational thought in a somewhat irrational world.


Walter Sobchak
January 25, 2021 7:30 pm

I have long advocated the creation of a Climate FAQ for WWUT. It could be integrated into the new site.

January 25, 2021 7:51 pm

Sadly in the UK, your children just aren’t going to know what snow is…

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 26, 2021 12:08 am

They aren’t going to know what food is, the way things are going. The country should realise it has bigger real problems than the climate pantomime.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
January 26, 2021 12:23 am

Real Men everywhere will not notice any snow in that Instagram picture.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 26, 2021 12:23 am
Steve Keohane
Reply to  griff
January 26, 2021 9:06 am

Why should they be allowed ‘cultural appropriation’?

Reply to  griff
January 26, 2021 12:19 pm
Reply to  fred250
January 30, 2021 7:51 pm

Why are you such an idiot, griff. !!

Just doing what comes naturally

Zig Zag Wanderer
January 25, 2021 7:56 pm

Actual quotes from IPCC reports (not political summaries) that demonstrate the non-catastrophic predictions of AGW. Things like any effects of a warning climate are most likely to be mitigated by changed 3 in society and technology.

The summaries and media are all that most people get to see.

January 25, 2021 8:02 pm

Maybe somehow discuss debunked or failed climate predictions. Maybe why they failed.

Reply to  OK S.
January 25, 2021 8:19 pm

“Maybe why they failed.”


They failed because they were built on a foundation of quicksand.

There was no real and solid foundation of science holding them together.

François Riverin
January 25, 2021 8:12 pm

I must confess that a reproduce as soon as today one of your report. Our national TV Broadcaster (CBC) just present a BBC televised documentary titled ‘Climate change Facts’ featuring Michael Mann, Oreste and a full of green activist. Incredible level of one side activist views. As soon as saw your document, It was possible to me to confront their view about temperature on my Facebook site. I will send it to CBC and protest againts their bad journalism. It’s important however that what you describe as facts are facts, in the limit of current science knowledge. I thank you very much for your involvment in the climate science.

Jack Hopkins
January 25, 2021 10:26 pm

In Coral Reefs are dying this should be 133-126.  33-26 thousand years ago

Reply to  Jack Hopkins
January 26, 2021 6:41 am

thank you.

January 25, 2021 10:44 pm

A pro idea.

Set up a “failed predictions” section for formal, and preferably quantifiable, predictions strictly based on the CO2 hypothesis.

In this section show the prediction (e.g. upper equatorial Troposphere hotspot), with a reference showing who made it, and what it actually said, along with the data (again, referenced) that shows that the prediction failed.

This section is not for informal predictions of the “Global Warming will make your moustache droop” type. Perhaps a separate section for those.

John Endicott
Reply to  RoHa
January 26, 2021 8:32 am

Great suggestion RoHa. I too would love to see such a “just the facts” section regarding such failed predictions.

January 25, 2021 11:25 pm


A generic suggestion for your new site but with a specific example.

Many of my friends are reasonably intelligent but they are also rather innumerate. They buy into the CAGW story because the way it is presented does not require math & science skills. Save the planet, save the whales, alternative energy will create jobs…yada yada. To a lot of them charts & graphs might as well be abstract paintings, and when encountering millions, billions, mega & giga they space out & loose interest. However they do have enough math so that dollars & cents are understandable. Considering this, I am going to offer an additional way to discuss the message being presented in your “Antarctic Ice Melt is Dangerous” article.

(My math could be wrong but I hope not)

The below picture is an image of 10,000 quarters, ($2,500.00). Imagine that these quarters represent the ice cover on Antarctica in 1992. So that each of these 10,000 coins is equivalent to 2,500 gigatons of ice. So how many coins will it take to represent the 25 year ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland?

comment image

Boy this is scary…drum roll please…the answer is…ONE, one quarter. Just one out of the 10,000 coins has melted away.

Should we be scared yet?

Is global warming a catastrophe yet?

I believe that this is an explanation that can be understood by the average person that Jay Leno used to interview on his “jaywalks”

BTW – Are we really supposed to believe that the CAGW scientists can accurately determine the volume of ice on Antarctica to one part in 10,000?…..Really?

Considering the main message of the CAGW crowd is fear, this kind of message might minimize it.

I’m sure you can do a better job of presenting this than I did.



Steve Case
Reply to  JWurts
January 26, 2021 7:51 am

 “Just one out of the 10,000 coins has melted away.”

No it didn’t melt, “calved into sea” may take a little more effort to say, and pointing out that the ice loss is a function of snow that fell decades ago and isn’t enough to counter the formation of ice bergs today, takes a lot more effort. But it needs to be pointed out that the ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland has nothing to do with temperature as both of those God forsaken places are well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all of the time.

The climate war is a war of words, and a losing tactic in that war is accepting the language used by the other side to promote their lies.

Reply to  Steve Case
January 26, 2021 2:04 pm