GOOD NEWS: The update planned for this weekend went far smoother than expected, requiring only about an hour of time, with about 15 minutes of that in “maintenance mode” where the home page was hidden. I spent the last week testing the updates on a sandbox site, and all those tests and preparations made the update today go super smoothly. This method worked far better and with less headache than trying to backup the entire site, make changes, then port it over like we tried and failed to successfully do before in the fall. Lesson learned.
You may not notice changes right away, but they are there. I tried hard to keep the look and feel mostly the same, but fix a lot of stuff on the backend that has been troublesome.
WHAT YOU WONT SEE:
- Changes in the colors or site formatting.
- Changes in how the content is displayed.
- Changes in commenting procedure or display.
- Loss of any content or comments.
WHAT YOU WILL SEE:
- New header image – I decided to retire the old one we’ve had for a decade – new one is similar.
- Improved page loading speed on Desktop browsers, especially the main/home page.
- Improved Mobile/Tablet loading speed, and better compatibility.
A slight fade transition between clicking a link and a new page/story appears.slowed some loads down too much – will revisit.- Improved load speed when you press the BACK button or back arrow in your browser.
- Improved version of the Failed Climate Predictions Timeline – months in the making.
Coming up –
- Adding a search feature to the Failed Climate Predictions Timeline.
- At the same time, improve WUWT general search.
- Improved version of the Climate TV page.
Incremental speed improvements – now that we are using a modern theme that is supported – we can fix things.DONE.Changes/Updates to some of the right sidebar items to improve page load times. DONE.- Updates to the Reference Pages, which have long-been neglected.
Thanks for your patience. If you like these improvements, consider either leaving a tip, or becoming a subscribing member of WUWT.
-Anthony Watts
To the Readers of Watts Up With That,
I want to take a moment to offer a sincere thank-you to all of you who read, comment, share, and support Watts Up With That. When I started this site back in 2006, the goal was fairly simple: provide a place where climate claims could be examined critically, data could be discussed openly, and questions could be asked without fear of being shouted down for violating some supposed “consensus.” I never imagined it would grow into what it has become today.
WUWT exists because of you. The readers here bring an extraordinary range of expertise—engineers, scientists, meteorologists, statisticians, economists, farmers, pilots, and informed laypeople who simply refuse to accept claims without evidence. Many of you regularly spot errors the mainstream media misses, dig up original source material, run independent analyses, and contribute thoughtful comments that elevate the discussion far beyond what passes for climate debate elsewhere.
That kind of engagement matters. In an era when climate science has become deeply politicized, transparency and accountability are more important than ever. Models are treated as oracles, uncertainty is brushed aside, and dissent is often caricatured rather than addressed. Yet science does not advance by slogans, press releases, or appeals to authority—it advances by skepticism, replication, and honest debate. You help keep those principles alive.
I’m also grateful for your patience and good humor. Despite frequent attacks, mischaracterizations, and the occasional attempt to silence discussion altogether, the WUWT community has largely remained civil, data-focused, and grounded in reality. A little wit doesn’t hurt either—sometimes the best way to expose an absurd claim is simply to let it collapse under its own weight.
Finally, thank you to those who support the site financially, submit guest posts, send tips, or simply read quietly in the background. Every visit, every comment, every shared article helps ensure that alternative viewpoints don’t disappear in an increasingly narrow media landscape.
WUWT will continue to do what it has always done: question assumptions, follow the data, highlight uncertainty, and push back against claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny. None of that would be possible without you.
Thank you for being part of this community. Merry Christmas!
— Anthony Watts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Merry Christmas to all. And a Happy 2026.
I will 20th that sentiment. Hope everyone has a wonderful, peaceful and happy holiday however you celebrate!!
So will I.
Thank you Anthony, Charles and the rest of the admin and content providers team.
Let’s hope the meltdown of the CAGW conjecture continues apace in 2026.
Cheers!
Agree X 97% (:-))
19 yrs !! Hard to believe.
We’ve all learned a lot in that time.
This is the best place to learn how to deconstruct the climate nut jobs. Here in Wokeachusetts, all the media and all politicians follow that faith. I wouldn’t have understood this if I hadn’t been reading this site for several years. I see other sites but some are way too technical for me or they just don’t have enough variety of thinkers as here. It’s that variety that makes a difference.
And continues in 2027.
“Let’s hope the meltdown of the CAGW conjecture continues apace in 2026.”
The only thing melting is the credibility of the arguments here. Meanwhile, the globe just keeps getting warmer and warmer.
WRONG.. Been cooling since mid 2024, and is far cooler now than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.
“…far cooler now than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.”
Nope… https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
Dude, really? You gonna quote phys.org at me? That bunch of tards?
Here’s a dime, call me when you grow up.
Well let’s see who needs to grow up. Here’s your chance Einstein. Quote me a credible source that says they are wrong. Bet you can’t… prove me wrong.
See above.
So it appears you have been gifted a big mouth, but little else. Well that is a surprise.
“Been cooling since mid 2024″
Short term trends are not relevant to climate.
They are when they help him sleep at night.
Cooling since mid 2024, lol. Using that same “logic”, it’s been warming insanely fast since early 2022, so I guess we’re all about to be fried to a crisp.
Bnice only uses the data that match his view of the world. In his mind that is what data is for. You keep looking till you find what you want, all the time discrediting what you don’t like. Simple really.
The irony being that you completely lack awareness of just how ironic that statement is, coming from anyone pimping the “climate crisis” crap.
Were you looking in the mirror as you typed that?! You should have been.
“Were you looking in the mirror as you typed that?! You should have been.”
Nope I look at data like this. What do you look at? I’d be keen to know?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/11/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-october-2025-0-53-deg-c/
Using warming since 1850 (supposed industrial era start) as an argument for CAGW is the use of the ‘short term trends’ that you are decrying.
Man is an unimportant blip in the existence of the Earth
“Man is an unimportant blip in the existence of the Earth”
Correct. The earth (if it could talk) would tell us it does not care a jot whether it warms up a few degrees, nor does it care why. It’s been around for a good few bazillion years and will be for a good few more, irrespective of how much it warms.
It’s the creatures that live on it that have the issue.
Most creatures prefer a bit warmer. Which creatures are complaining other than climate nut jobs?
Actually, most creatures prefer a stable climate. You know the one they are used to.
Most can do OK within a range of weather patterns. But, they usually prefer part of that range, not all of it. If a slight change in climate resulted in more of the preferred weather pattern within that range, then it could be said that they benefit from that somewhat less than perfectly stable climate.
The creatures (and the plants) that live on it will enjoy further warming, aka IMPROVEMENT, of the climate.
A warmer climate IS BETTER.
Actually, most creatures prefer a stable climate. You know the one they are used to.
So, you agree the industrial era began around 1850, but then you dismiss the data from that period onward as invalid for testing the AGW hypothesis? Those two points don’t line up.
If the industrial era started then, that’s precisely when we should focus, since it’s when human activities are believed to have begun significantly affecting the climate.
Except of course for the dearth of observations in the SH, both land based and ocean. So much for a Global Temperature back that far. 😉
Believed? Yes, I see- you have the faith.
That wasn’t a statement of belief. It was a statement about experimental design. If a hypothesis concerns post industrial forcing, then post industrial data are the only logically valid test window. That’s how hypothesis testing works.
Inferring my position from a conditional, methodological point is interesting, but not surprising here.
“post industrial data are the only logically valid test window”
But correlation doesn’t prove causation. The “forcing” part has never been proven.
No one said correlation proves causation. The point here is about experimental design, not attribution.
If a hypothesis is that anthropogenic forcing began around the industrial era, then the post 1850 period is the only logically valid window in which to test it.
Declaring that window “too short” while also accepting it as the start of the Industrial Revolution is internally inconsistent, regardless of whether you think the hypothesis is ultimately right or wrong.
But how can you test it? To show a relation you need to show causation- but all you can really show is correlation.
Got that right- should be looking at centuries and millennium, not just the past several decades.
Tell that to the “weather is climate change (when it is ‘bad’)” idiots.
As for what you think constitutes a “credible” source – LMAO.
ANY “source” indicating today’s climate is IN ANY WAY “unprecedented” is most definitely NOT credible.
“Tell that to the “weather is climate change (when it is ‘bad’)” idiots.”
By “idiots,” I assume you’re referring to climate scientists. In that case, climate scientists are quite explicit that climate is not weather. They clearly distinguish between the two:
What is the difference between weather and climate?
“To forecast the weather, meteorologists start with a model that reflects current weather, then add in observations such as temperature, pressure, humidity, wind direction, and so on to create an updated forecast,” Tierney said.
The team applied this same idea to past climate.
If you can’t comprehend compounding errors then you won’t understand how worthless these assumptions are.
Borders on simply idiotic.
Can you tell me where the thermometers were placed in 6250 BC.
wanna give some examples of credibility melting here?
I only wish it’d get warmer here in Wokeachusetts- so far, the past several weeks have been very cold and we’ve had 3-4 snowstorms already.
You said upthread, “Got that right — should be looking at centuries and millennium, not just the past several decades.”
Yet you speak here about a few mere weeks of cold weather in Massachusetts, adding a “woke” jab for flair.
I’m certainly NOT saying that the “emergency” is disproven by the current strong winter weather- just saying- you can’t convince people of an emergency when they see no emergency. If you’re in a jet and one engine is on fire, you can conclude you have an emergency.
“If you’re in a jet and one engine is on fire, you can conclude you have an emergency.”
Waiting to label something an “emergency” only after the worst outcome is the opposite of responsible risk management. It is a refusal to act on trends (negligence).
Furthermore, whether an emergency exists or doesn’t exist is not determined by short term personal impressions.
Something can be seen as a “potential problem” without it being seen as an emergency- or crisis, as is often claimed by the MSM, especially the left side of the spectrum. The rest of us don’t see an emergency. If anything, it’s a slight improvement if you live in a cold area- like New England.
As for trends, the weather’s trends go all over the place. There are of course also climate trends, but the longer term you look at it, you’ll see trends that change direction on different time scales. It’s dam complicated. But whatever it is- it ain’t no emergency- and that’s what bothers so many of us here- that the claim of emergency is why we have crazy political decisions to go to net zero, like here in MA, NY, CA, CT and most of Europe- which is destructive in many ways.
“Sees you” next Monday then! Merry Christmas!
“Google blacklist”
didn’t know about that- what’s it about?
The Googs need a fix, too. With a crowbar. Their server farm is just down the road. It’s the size of Manhattan (standard areal comparison unit). They suck electricity like nobody’s business, yet they’re the World Police for Global Warming. High tech schizophrenics with too much money. Tax them blue, Mr. President.
Happy Christmas, realist crew. Wishing 2026 will be even better than this one.
“standard areal comparison unit”. Most excellent phrase coinage!
We in Oz have, for 60 years that I can recall, used the unit of area the “size of Sydney harbour”, aka the “Sydharb” one of the world’s best natural harbours and a delight to cruise upon. Geoff S
Nah, we are better off without Google.
Very, very good question. Anthony writes,
“ The readers here bring an extraordinary range of expertise—engineers, scientists, meteorologists, statisticians, economists, farmers, pilots, and informed laypeople who simply refuse to accept claims without evidence. ”
So, my presumption is that Google includes no one who fits any of these categories. Remember that Google gave us the AI disaster called Gemini.You know, the program which gave us weird, radically non-historic images of people in the interests of DEI biases.
“extraordinary range of expertise”
Definitely true. I’ve been active on the internet since it started- put up a forestry web site in ’97 when few forestry folks even knew the net existed. I was active on the Usenet and many discussion forums on politics, religion, and especially computer tech. But this site really is the best site to learn about the supposed “climate emergency”. I even have to thank the critics who are active here because when people deconstruct those critics- that’s a great way to understand the subject and it helps me when I try to cope with climate nut jobs here in Wokeachusetts who have the typical nitwit criticism of the “non believers”.
I would venture to guess that this site has the highest average education level and IQ of any website frequented by the public.
“—engineers, scientists, meteorologists, statisticians, economists, farmers, pilots, and informed laypeople…”
As one of the laypeople here that Anthony talked about here at WUWT, I wish to sincerely thank everyone here who has helped me learn and understand why the climate alarmist narrative is a lot of bovine hockey even though the science gets over my head at times. Even when it does, I still take comfort in knowing that the climate realist PhDs around here know what they are talking about regarding energy and the climate.
I have been following WUWT and commenting here for many years, and I welcome 2026 with open arms and the hopes that climate alarmism will continue to see the decline in credibility that it so richly deserves. Ditto with wind and solar and the Net Zero idiocy.
Even though I am not a scientist, climate alarmism is and has been a hot button issue with me for a long time. The U.S. and the world did nothing to deserve this when we understand that CO2 is a beneficial and a vital component of the Earth’s atmosphere to sustain life on this planet. Demonizing it is ludicrous.
Again, thanks to everyone. Merry Christmas and Happy 2026.
I am but one scientist, Chemistry major, who welcomes science questions from any reader with a genuine desire to have an answer. I will answer with “hard”, traditional science, not with belief or opinion when the question is within my competence. Geoff S
Google hires every alphabet person they can. That’s their main job requirement.
Using MS Bing, I did this search: What is Google’s black list? I got a lot of info, and learned that Google has black listed ca.10,000 website that they consider unsafe and could harm the user. I don’t use Google. MS Bing and copilot work just fine for me.
Suggest you try Grok. The narrative bias is less strong with it.
I second that. I haven’t tried many, but two examples stand out for it spontaneously(?) adding context I hadn’t known.
I asked Grok how much New Deal legislation would have passed if passage required 2/3 in each house. It answered with the caveat that a lot of votes were voice votes and could not be guessed at. The couple I checked did match.
I found some ancient programming code in an obscure language I haven’t used since, tried it, and it failed. It was useful, but I wasn’t interested in pawing through 25 years of change logs to see what had changed. I could have written it from scratch in 5-10 minutes, but gave Grok a chance out of curiosity. It not only supplied modern code, it showed exactly what had changed that crippled my old code. It did take longer than rewriting from scratch, but knowing it could research the history was worth it.
I used an AI once to make an image of an egg in a slightly concave bowl..
Seemed to do a good job, especially when I asked it to modify the initial image.
Might try to get it to create a .stl file of something one day, just for fun 🙂
Grok is still not any better than the average MSM climate activist media. Even if Musk claim to be a free speech absolutist, Grok was fed MSM nonsense from the get-go…
Grok itself is unbiased, but it scans the web for information and scum rises to the top (the blob knows to flood the web with misinformation). So on controversial topics, Grok will start by giving you the mainstream position. You have to have a good idea of what you are looking for in order to redirect it. It’s like doing your own web search, which is reasonable because when just looking for information Grok is a web search with language.
I often speed things up by adding a rider to a question like : ignore anything that comes from or refers to climate models.
Grok is better than most, but still like driving a car in need of alignment.
Without a firm hand on the tiller has a tendency to suddenly veer in another direction.
Has it black listed this site?
Oh, yeh. Do an assortment of internet searches on different search engines for CAGW items that run contrary to the IPCC / Al Gore orthodoxy, such as hurricanes decreasing, arctic sea ice prediction failures, etc. The Bing / DuckDuck / Yahoo search engines will turn up WUWT results, but Google?. Nope. Same actually applies for just generic searches for CAGW items. In my own recent curiosity effort to see how the notorious (and as it turns out, never implemented anywhere) “Reposition global warning as theory” leaked industry memo is promulgated as ‘smoking gun proof that the fossil fuel industry ran disinfo campaigns,’ I did a generic search within Bing for that memo phrase, and was happy to see my GelbspanFiles blog posts and some of my WUWT guest posts were in the results in just the first page. At Google for the same search? Nope, my work doesn’t appear until page 5. How many members of the otherwise disinterested public go farther than page 1 or 2 in their Google searches about global warming items? So, on pretty much any angle of the issue, Google tells you the science of it and the accusations about industry-paid scientists is settled.
That said, in my decade+ of digging into the false accusation side of the issue, Google is still head-and-shoulders above any other search engine. You simply have to force specific results out of it by putting key words within quotation marks. Google will tell you my blog exists, but you have to demand that specific search parameter.
What about all the AI out there? Are some also prejudiced against climate realism- or, at least offering info from this site? I’ve avoided playing with AI as I already have too many addictions. 🙂
Oh, yeh. I’ve already played with ‘A.I.’ so you don’t have to, I created a particular tag category at my blog labeled ‘Artificial Subintelligence‘ after performing a few basic experiments on the different AI sites – by way of example, in my “Artificial – somewhat lacking in – Intelligence … redux” blog post, I showed how the ChatGPT site spit out an outright false statement about the namesake of my blog within just the first 9 words of the biography paragraph it created about him (the man never won a Pulitzer). In my “Google’s “Artificial Intelligence Overview” – on ‘Industry Disinfo Evidence,’ trust its info as far as you can throw it,” I asked Google’s AI Overview to simply tell me the history of the notorious “reposition global warming” memos, and in several repeats of the inquiry, Google AI Overview could not keep the narrative straight at all, and every accusation narrative it offered was false.
When it comes to the alleged ‘A.I.’ out there, the systems are little more than aggregators of internet search trash, hardly different if you yourself did your own basic inquiry into the biased info that’s out there. What scares me about the whole AI phenomenon is that the 20-somethings in today’s big newsrooms may be relying on AI-generated information garbage in their reporting of the climate issue.
And AI is doing the homework for too many students. I wonder how often they get caught.
“… may be relying …”. I suspect that “may” is too optimistic.
I challenged Copilot to produce the dates and amounts oil companies supposedly contributed to ‘disinformation’ campaigns. Initially, the response was innuendo and guilt by association. When I continued to hold its little tendrils to the fire and insist on “who, what, when, and where” as evidence, it backed down and acknowledged that it could not provide the information.
I have found it useful for doing searches of product specifications, and to make up for my dismal lack of artistic talent. I have a sense of creativity, but no ability to draw!
I draw exactly like someone in kindergarten- I better have AI do some for me. 🙂
They censor sites that they don’t agree with/like their opinions by not letting them show up in searches.
I use Google and don’t know the details of the blacklist.
But I do know that years ago when I did a Google search of “WUWT” or “wattsupwiththat”, I’d get a lot of hits but the first page or two of the hits were other sites critical of this site, to put it mildly. (“HotWhopper” (sp?) commonly was the first couple of hits.)
Since then, while Google is still my browser, I set “Norton Safe Search” as my default search engine.
Oh, the nostalgia. Whatever became of HotWhopper?
😎 Don’t know. Don’t care.
But I do remember using Google Search to find one of my comments on WUWT using the site and my screen name.
(That was before WUWT had its own search function.)
I was a little surprised to find that combo gave HotWhopper as the first hit.
Curious, I clicked on it. Turns out she’d quoted my comment in one of her spews!
I looked into this a couple of months ago, from everything I can tell, she’s dead. She probably died of chronic bitterness.
Google has a deal with the UN to promote Climate Alarmism. It is not balanced in the slightest.
Weird- since it’s not in its interest to push renewable energy. Why should it care about what the UN may want?
Thank you, Anthony, for your very valuable contributions to our understanding of climate science (and climate politics).
Thank you, Anthony for all you do. Blessings and fulfillment of hope to you and yours.
Hope everyone has a happy and peaceful Christmas and a happy new year.
Now that is a real free speech issue. That’s the sort of thing the USA government should be confronting. Cutting down the over-powerful actors.
They did it before with the oil industry.
We need a strong leader now. But all we have are the easily bribed.
Still, t’is the season of goodwill.
Merry Christmas to all and blessings abound, even to those paid for politicians in Washington.
And if the upgrade goes badly, remember that it’s better to make the work go backwards than your own health. Look after yourselves, Anthony, Mods et al.
Yes, a Merry Christmas to you, Anthony, and Charles and Eric. The Three Musketeers guarding us against Climate Alarmism!
Don’t forget the MOD Squad!
Merry Christmas to all and thank you Anthony for WUWT.
Anthony, many many thanks to you and your fab contributors for keeping your non-scientific but sceptical readers, eg me, thoroughly up to date, and squashing hard the latest rubbish that so-called climate experts regale us with. And have a lovely Christmas!
Thank you Anthony, and Merry Christmas to all at WUWT.
Thank you, Anthony! Your persistent pursuit of open discussion to pressure test hypotheses has succeeded in breaking the stranglehold. When I started reading this blog, even the “conservative” politicians seemed to buy the Al Gore narrative. Not so any more. THANK YOU! and Merry Christmas.
Google black list? I use Google Chrome frequently and have had no difficulties at all getting WUWT.
It’s searching where it downgrades WUWT results.
Try doing a Google search for, say, “climate change skeptic sites”.
I just tried (Even using Norton Safe Search as my search engine) and went through a couple of pages. Never found a direct link to an actual skeptic site.
I tried Duck AI … this is what I got …
Here’s a summary of various sites and organizations associated with climate change skepticism, denial, or alternative narratives surrounding climate science:
Organization/SiteFocus/Details
Global Warming Policy FoundationA UK-based think tank that questions the consensus on climate change and promotes skepticism.
Heartland InstituteKnown for its climate change denial campaigns, they publish materials disputing climate science.
Cato InstituteA libertarian think tank that argues against regulatory measures for climate change
.American Enterprise Institute (AEI)Research organization promoting free-market solution s and often skeptical of climate initiatives
.Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)Focuses on climate change skepticism, often publishing articles that question the impacts of climate policies.
The CO2 CoalitionAn organization that advocates for the benefits of increased CO2 levels, emphasizing its role in plant growth.
Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL)Argues for a reevaluation of climate change theories and emphasizes natural factors in climate change
.International Climate Science CoalitionFocuses on promoting scientific research that questions the prevailing views on climate change
.Climate Change DispatchA blog that publishes articles skeptical of mainstream climate science and policy.
Climate RealismDedicated to presenting arguments against climate alarmism and advocating for skepticism towards policy responses.
These organizations often use various rhetorical strategies to cast doubt on climate science, promote alternative narratives, and advocate for less restrictive environmental policies.
Trends and Approaches in Climate SkepticismThe landscape of climate skepticism has evolved significantly. A majority of skepticism now focuses not just on denying climate change but also on questioning the efficacy of proposed solutions and encouraging “lukewarm” approaches. Key strategies include:
The overall approach can be highly varied, employing both outright denial and more nuanced arguments against climate action.
Search Results
So I tried “What are the most widely read sceptic sites” & got …
GPT-4o mini
Here are some of the most widely read and influential climate change skeptic sites:
Site/OrganizationFocus/Details
The Heartland InstituteKnown for promoting skepticism regarding climate change policies and hosting conferences.
Cato InstituteA libertarian think tank that often critiques climate policy as overly restrictive or ineffective.
Global Warming Policy FoundationFocuses on challenging mainstream climate science and advocating for a re-evaluation of climate policies.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)Engages in policy discussions emphasizing free-market solutions to climate issues.
Competitive Enterprise InstituteAdvocates against regulatory approaches to climate change, often publishing skeptical content.
Climate Change DispatchA blog that publishes various articles questioning mainstream climate science
.NoTricksZoneA German site focused on climate skepticism, translating arguments and research into English.
Watts Up With That?A popular blog that features articles skeptical of climate science, often focusing on data interpretation.
Climate RealismFeatures articles that argue against alarmist views of climate change, promoting a skeptical perspective.
The CO2 CoalitionArgues for the benefits of carbon dioxide and emphasizes its role in plant growth, questioning its negative perceptions.
These sites are frequently referenced in discussions around climate change skepticism and often publish articles, commentaries, and research that challenge the prevailing understanding of climate issues.
Related Searches
most influential climate denial site
top climate change skeptic websites
popular climate skepticism blogs
AI has apparently…
“been…INFECTED…by it.”
(Channeling Agent Smith.)
If you search with “site:wattsupwiththat.com” added to the search terms you can find things on WUWT. But otherwise they prioritize an enormous list of garbage alarmist sources over even the very best of the climate realist sites.
A very Merry Christmas and a healthy, Happy New Year to all. Thank you Anthony, and all the contributors, for your insight and reasoned discussion.
The vicious attacks on WUWT by all manner of climate trolls and True Believer websites and pseudoscientists in the early years only served to make WUWT stronger. Thanks for hanging in there, Anthony.
I join my thanks to all the others. Amazing work, Anthony. I have been following WUWT since what seems like forever, certainly since it’s days analysing weather stations. In that time my understanding has grown from believing that if we explained the science then all the political consensus would collapse, to realising that climate scaremongering was just a convenient tool to crush us with socialist politics.
On the subject of AI engines, I find Alter AI (alter*dot*systems) to be excellent, if you’re prepared to wade through dense pages of well referenced research.
Anthony, on Friday, Dec. 12, on The Climate Realism Show #185, you mentioned (at 1:25:54) that you are using AI bots which you’ve tuned to be unbiased. Can you share that resource, please?
Thanks for the suggestion, auralaywales. I had not heard of alter.systems. I tried it just now for the first time.
I asked it to tell me about the benefits of CO2 emissions, and it provided a very good answer. Perplexity also did well. Both were MUCH better than ChatGPT, Gemini, or CoPilot (the worst of all).
(I couldn’t test Grok, because X won’t let me sign in, presumably because they suspended me on X / Twitter, so I only get a few prompts per day as a “guest.” The leftists have apparently figured out how to game X’s algorithms to censor conservatives.)
I also tried to get alter.systems to recommend my own site to me. The tagline on my site is:
To make it easy, I quoted directly from that tagline in my prompt. I asked, “Can you find a one-stop source for sea-level information, with interactive tools for linear and quadratic regression analysis, and graphing, of measured sea-level trends?”
No joy.
It took four prompts, but I eventually bludgeoned alter.systems into submission. I had to be very insistent.
It doesn’t have the ability to save a sharable link to the chat session, but here are the results of two attempts to get it to save the conversation:
Note: the Stockholm sea-level URL which it provided was a hallucination. The correct URL is:
Oh well. It looks like they’re trying.
It appears that you only get a few free prompts (maybe per day?). After that it’s about 50¢ / day. Did you buy the paid plan, auralaywales?
I tried the same prompt on ChatGPT, Perplexity & Gemini, and they all found my site on the first try:
I also tried CoPilot, but it struggled. The initial dialog was very similar to the conversation with alter.systems:
Once it had finally found my site, its instructions for using the site were pretty good:
Grok did better than CoPilot, but it took two tries to find my site:
Merry Christmas to all the WUWTers. 🎄🎅
I think the most important person I ever met was Captain Leschack after that it is the people here at WUWT, what an honor.
Thanks to Anthony, Charles, Eric and everybody else who makes this site so excellent. Merry Christmas to all!
Thanks Anthony and all the others!
Thank you Anthony and Charles.
A very merry Christmas to all
I’ll second that!
Me too!
Merry Christmas and thank you for all y’all do!!!!!!
A most Merry Christmas to you Anthony and many thanks for all of your efforts over the years creating, maintaining and improving WUWT!!!!
God bless you Anthony for your efforts to educate the masses.🇺🇸