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.
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.
In Coral Reefs are dying this should be 133-126. 33-26 thousand years ago
thank you.
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.
Great suggestion RoHa. I too would love to see such a “just the facts” section regarding such failed predictions.
Anthony
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?
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.
Best
Jack
“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.
All good points, however I was referring to the article on the everythingclimate.org website entitled Antarctic Ice Melt so I chose to use the same language.
So even though the “war of words” is important what I wish to present is a visual/emotional counter to the fear mongering claim that climate change is a threat to the very planet.
If Antarctica, in the last 25 years, has ‘lost’ only one coin out of 10,000…what the hell are we SAVING THE PLANET from?
That is the message I wish to convey, rather than melting v. calving.
Thanks for the reply. I’ve been banging on the “Please stop buying into their bullshit.” line for quite a while. Changing the language is an insidious form of propaganda. It’s now wild fire instead of forest fire, carbon instead of carbon dioxide, acidification instead lowering the pH. We are now naming tropical storms.
Antarctic Ice Mass since 1900
Will there be something on wildfires?
We used to call them forest fires. Wild Fire is a much scarier term. As the late Dr. Stephen Schneider said, “…we have to offer up scary scenarios…” As we go through this Climate War, it needs to be pointed out every time the left changes the terminology. We are dealing with propaganda, not science.
I’d love to see the top banner of EC’s homepage be an updated version of Dr. Christy/Spencer’s UAH global temp anomaly graph v. CMIP5 projections that’s updated monthly.
I’d also like to see Lord Monckton’s global temp hiatus graph towards the top of the EC homepage that updated monthly.
Both of these graphs are perhaps the visual representations showing CAGW is a failed hypothesis.
Cheers!
Since the beginning of recorded human history there are numerous stories of human ingenuity. I believe it essential for a site like this to have one section on coming up with appropriate technology to navigate our way through the varied weather conditions and climate changes.
As I have previously commented on this site there are many parts of the world characterized by droughts and floods. Thousands of years ago people were coming up with ingenuous ways to live with these and take advantage of the good years in anticipation of the bad ones. The cost of this is a tiny, tiny fraction of what alarmists want to throw at foolishly trying to engineer climate.
“….droughts and floods. Thousands of years ago people were coming up with ingenuous ways to live with these…”
Such as NOT building in flood plains. When I see stories about floods- the stories never say that it occurred in a flood plain that never should have been built in. It’s as if floods are unnatural. Ticks me off to see that low level of journalism.
Congratulations, Anthony. This is exactly what has been missing for a long time.
Importantly, presenting it as a factual website without discussions will keep the trolls out.
Some time ago, I prepared a short article on the ocean acidification scare. I explained how the pH system works from first principles, and also how the deliberately misleading ‘oceans have become 30% more acidic’ scam originated, along with a calculation to show clearly how this fiddling of numbers was done. I posted this on Jo Nova’s website for a reader who understood and appreciated my explanation.
If you’d like me to send a copy to you for appraisal with a view to putting it on ‘Everthing Climate’, I’d be delighted to do so – just get in touch; I assume you have my email address.
How ’bout a section on Methane.
Typo in EC: “Seawater is Alkaline and the Changes are Miniscule and Harmless”
Needs two U’s.
Anthony, for the top level topics on EC, I suggest a question based headline system. For example, if the issue is sea level rise in general, EC would allow only headlines that are posed as actual scientific conundrums. In this case, the top level headline might say: “QUESTION: Does sea level rise from CO2 emissions seriously threaten the Earth’s coastal cities?”
Once that convention is established, make sure each article posted under that headline is forced to state one of three positions on the top level question, such as PRO/CON/AGNOSTIC BUT RELATIVE in the headline for sub articles. Articles by Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher would need to declare that they were intended in support or oppose a particular question, instead of the infernal vagueness they routinely display in their WUWT commentary.
And on the politics front, you perhaps need to take a similar approach, IF you intend to allow the political debate over the CAGW movement to invade EC. In my opinion, so much of so-called “climate change” is political these days, it may be impossible to discuss climate at all if the big political questions are not being addressed. Or maybe political will simply be implied by the editorial inclusion or exclusion of certain topic, such as “QUESTION: Is wind power an intelligent source of energy to power human civilization?”
My two cents. Take it or leave it.
Two comments; 1) in the section on the Antarctic, Arctic is spelt Artic. 2) The link for flooding takes one to tornadoes.
OK as far as point 20 is concerned, the picture now takes you to the correct page, but the text link is still to tornadoes.
The WUWT menu bar is taking up a bit too much space, now that it’s gone to two lines. You probably can make it shrink back to one line if you change the right side of the menu to something like: REFERENCE | STORY | NEWS TIP
Thank you for creating “EverythingClimate”. It will be a valuable resource for checking alarmist claims.
Where possible, I think it would also be a good idea to convey how much (or rather, how little) various metrics have actually changed for somebody, say, 20, 30, 40, 50… years old. There are surely many 30 year olds who may not yet realise they’ve been told to expect disaster all their life but it doesn’t seem to be happening.
Relevance is also helpful. After a while I think the UK Met Office saw it was a mistake to tell the UK population that we might get a Mediterranean Climate. Not only have they realised it’s not happening but also that many people in the UK would welcome such a change.
Be sure to find The Conservative Treehouse’s website and then find their “story” of being deplatformed by WordPress and migrating to a new hosting site.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you to have offline, locally stored backups of everything you can possibly backup from your years of posts.
The WayBack Machine at Archive.Org archives some, but not nearly all, of Watts Up With That post back to 2008:
Sorry, wrong link. Should be: https://archive.org/web/
WUWT, I have a great resource for you to pursue. Would you start a posting and compile a list of all weather stations that show no warming?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
The objective would be to identify stations with BI’s of less than 10 as a control for the Urban Heat Island Effect. Readers could sort through all the weather stations and identify stations that have either shown no warming or actual cooling. It would be a crowdsourced project where readers would post a link to the station graphic and people would vote if it shows an uptrend or not as a “Peer Review.” Trends are often in the eye of the beholder. My bet is that if you control for the UHI effect and Water Vapor, you will find no warming in those stations.
Here is the first example for the list:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=NIM00065082&ds=14&dt=1
Maybe that list should track maximum summer temperature instead of average annual temperature since we’re always shown summer heat waves as illustrations. Just Google “Climate Change” and choose [Images]. If you do track Summer TMAX for the United States, here’s what that looks like:
Summer afternoons have been cooling in most of those states around Tennessee and Kentucky since the 19th century.
I like the concise point/counterpoint format. The value of this new website is huge for those of us who don’t have time to delve into all of the issues as much as we’d like but still need logical, factual, and sensible arguments to pose to those who would listen.
Thank you Anthony. I’ve been thinking that what was needed was an easy to understand site or “Cliff Notes” version of the facts to refute warmunista propaganda. You’ve done it here.
Graph title error.. Global temperature “Without.. El Nino” the “without” is erroneously missing and “with” is used twice.
Can’t say enough how important your site has been to me over the years. Let us know when you need help!
Watch this video.
https://www.facebook.com/510921790/videos/10157097043526791/
I think this articulate little girl understands the science of contagion better than our provincial chief medical officers. Or at least as well…
We are still in Covid-19 lockdown here in Alberta, and some other provinces like Quebec are under curfew.
We are still in lockdown months after the CDC and the WHO correctly published that Covid-19 lockdowns do much more harm than good.
I wonder how much SNOW there is in Viner’s back yard at the moment 😉
UK is getting plenty of fluffy white global warming !
Thank you for your important work.
Could you please find temperature proxy series that cover the last decades? I cannot understand why ice core series are not regularly updated with recent layers.
“I welcome pro/con topic ideas for EC.”
Attached is a slide that shows how radiative heat transfer actually works, why the earth’s surface below 20 miles of atmospheric molecules cannot radiate as a BB and cannot produce the “extra” energy the GHGs need to “trap” “absorb” “delay” or whateveh.