Talk:Watts Up With That?

Funding

This states that "Climate skeptic blogger Anthony Watts, it appears, received [from the Heartland Institute ] US90,000 to relaunch his Website". Presumably this should be included somewhere? Any suggestions as to where to put it? SmartSE (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

El Reg isn't a reliable source, so better sourcing is needed. News items are starting to appear: Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science | Environment | guardian.co.uk gives overall coverage, and Climate sceptics – who gets paid what? | Environment | guardian.co.uk gives a brief overview. For more detail the WP:NEWSBLOG Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk is an informative reliable source, with some care needed to make sure that usage complies fully with WP:BLPSPS policy where applicable. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

El Reg isn't reliable for everything, but yeah The Granuaid is better, especially as it points out which website is funded by them. Considering that, it's better mentioned in the bio, which it already is. I'll add some 2ndry sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having seen this earlier in the Guardian I took a look at the website, Watts says he has not gotten funding from Heartland, only a 44k figure has been pledged according to him. I also saw that Heartland have released a statement saying at least one of the documents is a fake and others appear to have been altered. Perhaps WP:NOTNEWS ought to apply here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Watts blog? SPS applies, use with care. See also Heartland Institute claims fraud after leak of climate change documents | Environment | guardian.co.uk. Trust there will be comprehensive independent inquiries. . . dave souza, talk 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: "They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind." Watts, in an email, did not mention the entire cost of his temperature station initiative but said: "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project." dave souza, talk 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?..." -- gives us a good idea of author Suzanne Goldenberg, the Guardian's US environment correspondent, slant on things, doesn't it? In an (allegedly) straight news report. Tssk -- Pete Tillman (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete, appreciate that you don't like mainstream science reporting, but isn't "anti-science" pretty accurate? Watts seems to be about denying results he doesn't like, or has he come round to accepting the BEST work as he initially said he would? . 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a scientific, factual slant, as nearly every climate scientists agrees that the site is anti-science and the evidence bears that out. Of course, we all know your own slant on things. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reception

There is nothing incidental or minor in significance about David Suzuki's article. The topic is global warming scepticism and individuals/groups that strive to influence public understanding. Anthony Watts runs a blog that is sceptical of global warming. Suzuki offers an unfavourable opinion of that very same blog. He clearly identifies Watts by name. It's not as though Suzuki has strayed from one issue to another, unlike the concise quote attributed to Patrick Michaels when referring (so we are told) to Anthony Watts and his blog, even though neither is mentioned directly by himself. — ThePowerofX 18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with using the one phrase from Suzuki re WUWT. I don't think we need to reproduce his opinions on other climate blogs here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fair. — ThePowerofX 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony runs a blog that is pro-science. We only call ourselves sceptics to distinguish us from the non-sceptical "scientists" (all scientists are sceptics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The link to environmental skepticism seems like a good one. Is this something to which the sceptics object?Nodnien (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good scientists are generally sceptics. Anthony Watts is not a scientist or a scientific sceptic, the other authors at his blog are most non-scientists and the few scientists are not good scientific sceptics, and the commenters are generally ignorant dolts. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of date

Various desc here look badly out of date. The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer. isn't really true. Etc William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Have not read anything by Judith Curry for some time. Anthony publishes Fred Singer's weekly SEPP "energy news roundup". [1][2] Christopher Monckton remains a regular. Joe Bast is another notable contributor. — ThePowerofX 18:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Last thing I read by Judith Curry was quite interesting, but don't know if Tony wanted to publicise it. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would second (third?) that. They haven't even got that it won for the third time on the bloggies awards. But as Wikipedia doesn't allow sceptics to edit articles on climate it's their job to keep this up to date not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Skepticism vs. environmental skepticism

I have been a lurker on these pages for years, but today decided to get an account because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=550803791&oldid=550670260 . I am here to explain that if a link goes to environmental skepticism, it is only right that it be described as environmental skepticism.

The general skepticism movement does not take issue with the scientific consensus on global warmingNodnien (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I came here because of the post at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Watts_Up_With_That. I agree with you, Nodnien, that link pipes should best describe the article to which they go. Since the link in question goes to environmental skepticism then the link pipe should describe that term rather than the general term skepticism. It seems to me that it is correct the way you have done it and incorrect to do it the other way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)