Watts Up With That?: Difference between revisions
this belongs in the crit section |
mv crit up |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7043753.ece Richard Dawkins' pro-am clash in the boffins' blogosphere]</ref> In 2010, ''[[The Times]]'' online blog named WUWT one of the top 30 science blogs,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/best-science-blogs.html | title=Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs}}</ref> and in 2008 it won best science blog on [[Weblog Awards]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://2008.weblogawards.org/ |title=The 2008 Weblog Awards Winners}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/will-the-real-science-ple_b_157370.html | title=Will the Real Science Please Stand Up? -- Global Warming Denier Site Set to be Crowned the "Best Science Blog"}}</ref> |
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7043753.ece Richard Dawkins' pro-am clash in the boffins' blogosphere]</ref> In 2010, ''[[The Times]]'' online blog named WUWT one of the top 30 science blogs,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/best-science-blogs.html | title=Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs}}</ref> and in 2008 it won best science blog on [[Weblog Awards]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://2008.weblogawards.org/ |title=The 2008 Weblog Awards Winners}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/will-the-real-science-ple_b_157370.html | title=Will the Real Science Please Stand Up? -- Global Warming Denier Site Set to be Crowned the "Best Science Blog"}}</ref> |
||
[[Matt Ridley]], writing in ''[[The Spectator]]'', described WUWT thus: "Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5749853/part_3/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml | title=The global warming guerrillas}}</ref> Leo Hickman, blogging for The Guardian, was less complimentary, describing Watt's approach as risking "polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/24/climate-change-debate |title=Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate |author=Hickman, Leo |work=Environment Blog |date=24 February 2010 |publisher=guardian.co.uk}}</ref> |
[[Matt Ridley]], writing in ''[[The Spectator]]'', described WUWT thus: "Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5749853/part_3/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml | title=The global warming guerrillas}}</ref> Leo Hickman, blogging for The Guardian, was less complimentary, describing Watt's approach as risking "polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/24/climate-change-debate |title=Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate |author=Hickman, Leo |work=Environment Blog |date=24 February 2010 |publisher=guardian.co.uk}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | {{Expand section|examples and additional citations|date=March 2010}} In ''[[The Globe And Mail]]'' Jeet Heer wrote of WUWT and the blog [[Climate Audit]] (which takes a similarly circumspect view on the subject of [[Attribution of recent climate change|man made global warming]]): "The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community".<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climategates-guerrilla-warriors-pesky-foes-or-careful-watchdogs/article1474924/ |title=Climategate's guerrilla warriors: pesky foes or careful watchdogs? |author=Jeet Heer |date=19 February 2010 |publisher=The Globe and Mail}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | Leo Hickman, a blogger for The Guardian, describes WUWT as somewhere between genuine climate science sceptics and out-and-out denial: ''in between are the likes of Anthony Watts who risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/24/climate-change-debate |title=Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate |author=Hickman, Leo |work=Environment Blog |date=24 February 2010 |publisher=guardian.co.uk}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | In late 2009, an archive containing emails and other documents from the [[Climate Research Unit]] of the [[University of East Anglia]] was illegally released to the public. ''[[The Guardian]]'' reported that WUWT was one of three bloggers "sent links to the cache of CRU leaked material, via anonymous servers, on the same day, Tuesday 17 November".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks]</ref> |
||
====Involvement in "Climategate" controversy==== |
====Involvement in "Climategate" controversy==== |
||
| Line 40: | Line 47: | ||
Booker also claimed that WUWT played a major role in discovering a data entry error in GISS data that made it appear that October 2008 was the warmest October ever.<ref>{{cite book|author=Booker, Christopher|title=The Real Global Warming Disaster |publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd|year=2009|isbn=1441110526}} page 253</ref> {{rs}} Climatologist [[Gavin Schmidt]] described how the copying error had been removed within 24 hours while corrections were prepared, claims that there had been a GISS press release were false, and commentators on WUWT had made claims alleging scientific fraud and conspiracy.<ref name="urlRealClimate: Mountains and molehills">{{cite web |url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/ |title=Mountains and molehills |author=Gavin Schmidt |authorlink=Gavin Schmidt |date=11 November 2008 |publisher=[[RealClimate]] |quote= |accessdate=2010-03-11}}</ref> |
Booker also claimed that WUWT played a major role in discovering a data entry error in GISS data that made it appear that October 2008 was the warmest October ever.<ref>{{cite book|author=Booker, Christopher|title=The Real Global Warming Disaster |publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd|year=2009|isbn=1441110526}} page 253</ref> {{rs}} Climatologist [[Gavin Schmidt]] described how the copying error had been removed within 24 hours while corrections were prepared, claims that there had been a GISS press release were false, and commentators on WUWT had made claims alleging scientific fraud and conspiracy.<ref name="urlRealClimate: Mountains and molehills">{{cite web |url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/ |title=Mountains and molehills |author=Gavin Schmidt |authorlink=Gavin Schmidt |date=11 November 2008 |publisher=[[RealClimate]] |quote= |accessdate=2010-03-11}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | {{Expand section|examples and additional citations|date=March 2010}} In ''[[The Globe And Mail]]'' Jeet Heer wrote of WUWT and the blog [[Climate Audit]] (which takes a similarly circumspect view on the subject of [[Attribution of recent climate change|man made global warming]]): "The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community".<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climategates-guerrilla-warriors-pesky-foes-or-careful-watchdogs/article1474924/ |title=Climategate's guerrilla warriors: pesky foes or careful watchdogs? |author=Jeet Heer |date=19 February 2010 |publisher=The Globe and Mail}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | Leo Hickman, a blogger for The Guardian, describes WUWT as somewhere between genuine climate science sceptics and out-and-out denial: ''in between are the likes of Anthony Watts who risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/24/climate-change-debate |title=Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate |author=Hickman, Leo |work=Environment Blog |date=24 February 2010 |publisher=guardian.co.uk}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | In late 2009, an archive containing emails and other documents from the [[Climate Research Unit]] of the [[University of East Anglia]] was illegally released to the public. ''[[The Guardian]]'' reported that WUWT was one of three bloggers "sent links to the cache of CRU leaked material, via anonymous servers, on the same day, Tuesday 17 November".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks]</ref> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 09:49, 12 March 2010
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
 | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. |
Type of site | blog |
|---|---|
| Created by | Anthony Watts |
| URL | http://wattsupwiththat.com |
Watts Up With That (WUWT for short) is a blog set up in 2006 by former broadcast weather presenter Anthony Watts that is best known for presenting information, data, and reports from the point of view of climate change skepticism.[citation needed] The blog was reported by the Sunday Times in 2010 as receiving "more than two million readers each month".[1] In 2010, The Times online blog named WUWT one of the top 30 science blogs,[2] and in 2008 it won best science blog on Weblog Awards.[3] [4] Matt Ridley, writing in The Spectator, described WUWT thus: "Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians".[5] Leo Hickman, blogging for The Guardian, was less complimentary, describing Watt's approach as risking "polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary".[6]
Criticism
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion with: examples and additional citations. You can help by adding to it. (March 2010) |
In The Globe And Mail Jeet Heer wrote of WUWT and the blog Climate Audit (which takes a similarly circumspect view on the subject of man made global warming): "The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community".[7]
Leo Hickman, a blogger for The Guardian, describes WUWT as somewhere between genuine climate science sceptics and out-and-out denial: in between are the likes of Anthony Watts who risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary.[8]
In late 2009, an archive containing emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was illegally released to the public. The Guardian reported that WUWT was one of three bloggers "sent links to the cache of CRU leaked material, via anonymous servers, on the same day, Tuesday 17 November".[9]
Involvement in "Climategate" controversy
| This section needs expansion with: examples and additional citations. You can help by adding to it. (March 2010) |
In an interview with the Financial Times, Watts claimed that his blog became "busier than ever" after the incident and that traffic to the site tripled. According to the same article, the total number of hits on the site since its launch had topped 37 million.[10][11]
According to James Delingpole, writing in the Daily Telegraph, the name "Climategate" was first coined by the WUWT contributor "Bulldust". [12]
Analysis of temperature records
| This section needs expansion with: examples and additional citations. You can help by adding to it. (March 2010) |
Journalist Christopher Booker, in the 2009 book The Real Global Warming Disaster, describes one of WUWT's functions as "systematically checking the reliability of the 1,221 weather stations recording surface temperatures across the US".[13][unreliable source?] WUWT readers provided Watts with photographs of weather stations located near sources of heat, and these were published by the right-wing thinktank The Heartland Institute together with a claim by Watts that they showed that US temperature record was unreliable. These weather stations were investigated by National Climatic Data Center scientists, who published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that weather stations Watts thought would be influenced by heat sources actually showed a slight cool bias, probably due to these stations being more likely to have newer measuring equipment. Watts said he would be analysing more of the stations.[14]
One of the articles posted on WUWT about how local weather stations were affected by their surroundings[15] led to an article in The Telegraph with the incorrect headline "UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings".[16][failed verification] In fact trends in the surface temperature record from urban heat island effects are negligible.[17]
Booker also claimed that WUWT played a major role in discovering a data entry error in GISS data that made it appear that October 2008 was the warmest October ever.[18] [unreliable source?] Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described how the copying error had been removed within 24 hours while corrections were prepared, claims that there had been a GISS press release were false, and commentators on WUWT had made claims alleging scientific fraud and conspiracy.[19]
References
- ^ Richard Dawkins' pro-am clash in the boffins' blogosphere
- ^ "Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs".
- ^ "The 2008 Weblog Awards Winners".
- ^ "Will the Real Science Please Stand Up? -- Global Warming Denier Site Set to be Crowned the "Best Science Blog"".
- ^ "The global warming guerrillas".
- ^ Hickman, Leo (24 February 2010). "Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate". Environment Blog. guardian.co.uk.
- ^ Jeet Heer (19 February 2010). "Climategate's guerrilla warriors: pesky foes or careful watchdogs?". The Globe and Mail.
- ^ Hickman, Leo (24 February 2010). "Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate". Environment Blog. guardian.co.uk.
- ^ Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks
- ^ "E-mail leaks that clouded climate issue".
- ^ "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue".
- ^ "Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name".
- ^ Booker, Christopher (2009). The Real Global Warming Disaster. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. ISBN 1441110526. page 198
- ^ James Randerson (15 February 2010). "Scientists dispute climate sceptic's claim that US weather data is useless | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-03-11.
- ^ "Christy and McKittrick in the UK Times: doubts on station data".
- ^ "UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings".
- ^ doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<4079:DMUTSC>2.0.CO;2
- ^ Booker, Christopher (2009). The Real Global Warming Disaster. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. ISBN 1441110526. page 253
- ^ Gavin Schmidt (11 November 2008). "Mountains and molehills". RealClimate. Retrieved 2010-03-11.