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
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.
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.
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
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/
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 ??
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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/
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.