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: everythingclimate.org “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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
I agree…”For/Against” or “Supporting/Dissenting” is better than Pro/Con
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Bob
You beat me here 😀
Could the books be rated from “for the layman” to “highly technical”?
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.
Wasted effort, there already is a website with factual climate postings. http://www.realclimate.org/
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.
I think it was a very polite response with some respect to the authors of realclimate.org, not always providing “real climate” – offen just the opposite
But, as I understand it, EC would be just factual studies.
No comments to be edited or deleted.
Just the facts.
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.
And you have NONE…
AGW is NOT based on FACTS..
…are you so dumb that you hadn’t figured that out yet !
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.
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.
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?
Try this.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/cmhrec.htm
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.
But it is another source.
(Where did it advertise itself a “one-stop shop”? But it is one of the stops to check out.)
Thanks Bethan, here’s another site with content similar to realclimate:
http://fe2019.com/
And another one https://www.theclownschool.com/
You meant https://realclimatescience.com/ didn’t you !
realclimate.org 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.
Fred says: “realclimate.org is a propaganda site”
.
LOL, i regret to inform you but THIS site is no different.
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.
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
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.
How so? Propaganda for whom and for what gain?
Why am I not surprised that bethan prefers a site that bans anyone who disagrees with the “consensus”?
are climate models factual?
I’ve had quite a few alarmists who have made the claim that the output of models count as “facts”.
but much better is https://realclimatescience.com/
Tony Heller’s site
It does bring up an important point.. whatever you do, do not censor the critics!
Great idea, thank you.
I think the layout of https://everythingclimate.org/ 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.
Excellent work, but coral being around for 40 million years jumped out at me. Isn’t the figure 500 million plus?
“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 ??
Retreating?
More like shoring up the defense is my take..
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.
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..
Anthony
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 – https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/103877.html
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.
Anthony,
Love it! Easily digestible, bite-size pieces of usable information. Can’t wait to see how this grows over time.
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.
Instead of alarmists should they be called deniers? Uninformed? Misanthropes?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
Lots of experiments have been done. Here’s one:
https://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
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.
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””
No.
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.
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”
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:
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. 🙂
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.
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.
PS If someone put such a thing together, it could be shared among other sites.
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.
Excellent.
Not sure I follow the “Pro” and “Con” bit in the subjects :-
makes it sound like
Prois 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.Conis too close to ebingconnedi.e duped. in some way suggesting that the paragraph is theConi.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 hoursin each day !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.
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.
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?
You aren’t socialists, you just support socialists and support socialist goals, as well as talking like socialists all the time.
You are a marxist, and a fool, griff.
Also a manic alarmist.
The TRUTH and FACTS mean nothing to mind-numbed twerps like you.
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.
Yeah, one of the mostly widely read and awarded science blogs, it’s gotta be seriously lacking to reach that level.
WRONG as always, marxist idiot.
Who would not like a reputation as the MOST HONEST and MOST READ scientific site.
SkS and Realclimate.org 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 Realclimate.org
Envy and jealousy are an inherent part of being a leftist shill, aren’t they.
fred250,
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!
Three flavors: Useful idiots, Useless Idiots, and morons!
For the most part, envy and jealousy are the reasons why a person becomes a leftist in the first place.
Blog Stats
438,113,760 hits
No wonder SkS and Mickey Mann are jealous !!
Alexa rank :
WUWT 85,913
SkS 210,019
realclimate.org 914,449 (roflmao) !!
No wonder SkS and Realclimate.org are SO ENVIOUS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Poor tapeworm, JEALOUSY is such a curse for far-leftist scum like you, isn’t it.
But its all you have..
That’s hilarious coming from the guy who claims that 97% of scientists agree with him.
NOTE: The 97% is also a lie.
What is obvious is that you are a troll trying to waste people’s time.
Bethan
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?
You are a strange poster indeed.
It’s probably a sock puppet for Russell Seitz or Miriam O’Brian, or possibly a sycophant thereof.
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?
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.
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.
@ur momisuglybethan456@ur momisuglygmail.com
Wow, “somewhat lacking”.
That might be the hardest reverse I’ve ever seen in a comment.
Anthony
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.
John
I have long advocated the creation of a Climate FAQ for WWUT. It could be integrated into the new site.
Sadly in the UK, your children just aren’t going to know what snow is…
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKeohSilW8I/
Joel
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.
Real Men everywhere will not notice any snow in that Instagram picture.
But what about German kids?
‘You can’t build igloos’: German children on growing up without snow – The Local
Why should they be allowed ‘cultural appropriation’?
And later that month…
https://www.thelocal.de/20200330/in-pictures-winter-returns-to-germany-as-snow-falls-across-the-country
Why are you such an idiot, griff. !!
Why are you such an idiot, griff. !!
Just doing what comes naturally
https://genius.com/Irving-berlin-doin-what-comes-naturally-lyrics
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.
Maybe somehow discuss debunked or failed climate predictions. 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.