Talk:Watts Up With That?

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)

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)

Nodnien's edit was reverted (diff) on December 9, 2013. I partially agree with the revert, in that the blog doesn't seem to be environmentally skeptical in general, based on what Watts has written recently on tropospheric ozone and particulate pollution. But neither is "skeptical" accurate, as that implies, in the context of a blog about science, scientific skepticism. The blog seems to be contrarian on only one environmental topic — the topic Watts posts most frequently about, climate change denial/global warming conspiracy theory. That seems, to me, a more accurate description of the blog's point of view than either environmental skepticism in general, and certainly more accurate than "skeptical". I'll start looking for a RS for that (the current cited source does not contain the word "skeptic" at all). Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, duh, "sceptic" with a "c" indeed appears in the cited source. But the source also acknowledges that "sceptic" is used in a misleading way. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong, the current source is more than fine, and I used it to guide the phrasing. "Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science." Since the article later discusses the potential of "sceptic" to mislead, I focused on the last four words of the sentence and wrote "criticism of global warming science". Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of external links section

Sorry for my edit summary being a mess. I removed the external links section at the same time as creating a new section. I removed all three external links for the following reasons:

1. WUWT link already appears in the infobox, making this EL a duplicate.
2. FB is ELNO when a regular Web site exists. The multiple reasons for this are discussed at WP:FACEBOOK.
3. The SS site contains no information relevant to the subject of this article, which is the WUWT blog. It is related only by common authorship. Would be ELYES for Anthony Watts article (if not for already being in the infobox there) but meets none of the criteria for the WUWT article.

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The blog does indeed feature guest contributions - indeed, nowadays, the bulk of the posts are not by AW. But the bulk of the guest postings are by "non notable" folk. Why does the list of contributors only mention notable folk?

Currently, posts in reverse order are: by AW, Steven Capozzola, AW, Howard Lowe, Bob Tisdale, AW, Richard Betts, copy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, David Archibald, Eric Worrall, AW, Jean-Pierre Bardinet, Eric Worrall, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, AW, AW, AW, AW, Bob Tisdale, SEPP (*not* FS), Paul Driessen, Tom Quirk. And so on. On what basis have " Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer" been singled out? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Goklany is on the masthead - not an independent source, but a source. The rest of that was unsourced, so I removed it. Guettarda (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeeessss... the about page says "Contributors: John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach". Why pick just one of them out? And why add "regular"? Goklany clearly isn't regular William M. Connolley (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this helps either. Why are we picking out some contributors? Because of the quality of their contributions? Their frequency? Their not-redlinkiness? Why is BobTisdale, who contributes rather often, ignored? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi WMC, I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts, for example his latest, a nice BOTE look at ocean thermal circulation. He's a fine writer and an interesting guy. I'm fine with adding Tisdale, although I find his writing style opaque & very hard to follow. But you're right, any selection of contributors will be arbitrary..... unless someone wants to do a frequency analysis of posters. Not me! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've realised that I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts Just won't fly. We're not recommending people. You might just as well add Bob Tisdale or David Archibald, on the grounds that their posts are particularly stupid William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Have removed names as a reliable secondary source needed for associating BLPs with this blog. Not straightforward: for example, the recent post by Richard Betts was a reposting of a blog article from ATTP, with minimal attribution. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just "a blog"

@A Quest For Knowledge: made this edit, which changed the lead sentence to read "Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog created in 2006 by Anthony Watts." I'm not sure I agree that is the best description of the topic. The blog is predominantly (even exclusively?) devoted to climate change denial, and that's what it's known for. We even discuss its prominence in that respect later. Doesn't it make sense to describe the topic of the site when defining the topic? "a blog" doesn't tell the reader much at all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, these edits removed the subject of the blog from the lead altogether. At best, it was described as a "climate blog" and a news site, which is definitely not representing the sources accurately. I've tried to incorporate the labels back in so we are at least covering the subject fully. I'd appreciate some discussion if there's disagreement. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're having the very first sentence be a derogatory label of WUWT. Is this Wikipedia? Or highschool? (very unprofessional) Besides, I'm not sure Mr Watts or those on his site would call themselves "deniers". Skeptic is the appropriate word. All you've done is set up a red flag that this page is biased and therefore probably inaccurate.24.9.166.120 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We're having the very first sentence represent what the sources say. It doesn't matter what Mr Watts prefers he be called in the article. It matters how our reliable sources describe him.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The RS sources support "skeptic". Capitalismojo (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source list from Anthony Watts:

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers. Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. pages 72, 222. page 27: Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist...and founder of the site "Watts Up with That?" which has overtaken climate audit as the leading climate change denial blog. Manne, Robert (August 2012). A dark victory: How vested interests defeated climate science. More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established. Dunlap, Riley E... The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. page 153: In recent years these conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine...the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)...Having this powerful, pervasive, and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message. Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.

Some of those sources are extremely strong, including Mann and Dunlap.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Rolled back to last half-reasonable version. Jess: would you please stop this? It's getting ridiculous. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You reverted a significant number of edits which added high quality sources authored by recognized experts in their field, with no explanation or discussion, and then accuse me of being a POV pusher? Can you respond my comments above any substantive way, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the contrary, Jess, keep up the good work, until someone who objects to your edits makes a substantive post to this talk page. Pete Tilman, as I understand it, rollback is not for use in content disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Hmm. Could there possibly be a problem with opening our article with:

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts.

Think about it for a moment. Could this possibly be considered inflammatory? Derogatory? Do you think this shows the project at its best?

This is even sillier than the great "Campaign to Quote Michael Mann" over at Watts' wikibio.... Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)