Watts Up With That?: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ce lead
Line 21: Line 21:
}}
}}


'''Watts Up With That?''' ('''WUWT''' for short) is a [[weather]] and [[climate]] commentary site ([[blog]]), created in 2006 by former [[broadcast meteorologist]] [[Anthony Watts (blogger)|Anthony Watts]] and known for its criticism of [[global warming]] science.<ref name=FE>
'''Watts Up With That?''' (or '''WUWT''') is a [[weather]] and [[climate]] commentary site ([[blog]]), created in 2006 by [[Anthony Watts (blogger)|Anthony Watts]], which is known for its criticism of [[global warming]] science.<ref name=FE>
{{cite journal
{{cite journal
| url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d0bfdbc-2b1a-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QOOIrhx4
| url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d0bfdbc-2b1a-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QOOIrhx4
Line 39: Line 39:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy|Climatic Research Unit controversy]]. Because of its high traffic numbers, the blog helped to spread the story. Subsequent investigations found that, contrary to allegations based on the emails, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct.<ref name=Investigations>The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: [http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html House of Commons Science and Technology Committee] (UK); [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html Independent Climate Change Review] (UK); [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html International Science Assessment Panel] (UK); [http://web.archive.org/20100704031346/views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html Pennsylvania State University] [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html first panel] and [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html second panel] (US); [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538 United States Environmental Protection Agency] (US); [http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/24/science-climategate-noaa.html Department of Commerce] (US); [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html National Science Foundation] (US)</ref>
In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy|Climatic Research Unit controversy]]. Subsequent investigations found that, contrary to allegations based on the emails, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct.<ref name=Investigations>The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: [http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html House of Commons Science and Technology Committee] (UK); [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html Independent Climate Change Review] (UK); [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html International Science Assessment Panel] (UK); [http://web.archive.org/20100704031346/views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html Pennsylvania State University] [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html first panel] and [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html second panel] (US); [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538 United States Environmental Protection Agency] (US); [http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/24/science-climategate-noaa.html Department of Commerce] (US); [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html National Science Foundation] (US)</ref>


In the early months of 2010, it was suggested the site might be "the most read climate blog in the world."<ref name="Pearce book" /> Observers and critics have noted the blog's influence and role in the debate over global warming science on the Internet {{cn|date=May 2015}}.
In the early months of 2010, it was suggested the site might be "the most read climate blog in the world."<ref name="Pearce book" /> Observers and critics have noted the blog's influence in [[climate change denial]] on the Internet {{cn|date=May 2015}}.


==Projects==
==Projects==

Revision as of 18:50, 17 May 2015

Watts Up With That?
Type of site
Blog
Created byAnthony Watts
URLhttp://wattsupwiththat.com

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by Anthony Watts, which is known for its criticism of global warming science.[1] The tagline of the blog is "News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news."[2]

In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy. Subsequent investigations found that, contrary to allegations based on the emails, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct.[3]

In the early months of 2010, it was suggested the site might be "the most read climate blog in the world."[4] Observers and critics have noted the blog's influence in climate change denial on the Internet [citation needed].

Projects

Watts's Surface Stations project, an analysis of terrestrial US weather stations, was often discussed on WUWT, but became dormant in 2012. Occasional mention is made of Watts's urban heat island transect project, which is dedicated to measuring the actual urban heat island effect in major cities as well as his Stevenson screen paint experiment, which is testing whether a little noted changeover from whitewash to latex paints could have caused a heretofore unrecognized warming bias during the 20th century as whitewashed screens were replaced with latex painted ones.[5]

Temperature records

According to journalist Christopher Booker, in 2007 WUWT readers, along with Stephen McIntyre, found that selected temperature records published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) based on data from United States Historical Climate Network were in error, causing GISS to mistakenly label 1998 as the hottest year on record for the United States.[6] In August 2007, McIntyre alerted GISS to the problematic numbers, which GISS acknowledged and corrected. As a result, the hottest year on record for the United States was changed to 1934, rather than the 1998 it had been earlier.[7] In response, GISS stated that the temperature differences were slight and of little significance globally as the United States represents only a small fraction of the Earth's surface.[8]

Involvement in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy

See also: Climatic Research Unit email controversy

In late 2009, an archive containing emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was leaked to the public. WUWT was one of three blogs "sent links to the cache of CRU leaked material, via anonymous servers, on the same day, Tuesday 17 November".[9] On the morning of 17 November 2009 (California time), a link was posted anonymously on WUWT to a Russian server containing the CRU emails and documents. Charles Rotter, a moderator for WUWT, noticed the link and notified Watts. Rotter made a CD copy of the files which he gave to Steve Mosher to analyze. Mosher called some of the individuals named in the emails and confirmed that the emails were genuine. Mosher began posting the contents of the emails on other blogs, including Climate Audit. Shortly thereafter, still on 17 November, Watts gave Rotter permission to post the emails and files on WUWT. Because of WUWT's high traffic count, according to Fred Pearce of the Guardian, this was the catalyst which broke the story to the media.[10] Resulting investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.[3]

In an interview with the Financial Times, Watts reported that his blog had become "busier than ever" after the incident and that traffic to the site had tripled. According to the same article, the total number of hits on the site since its launch had topped 37 million.[1] [11] In his blog for the Daily Telegraph, James Delingpole wrote that "Climategate", a term often used in the popular press to describe the controversy, was originally coined by a commenter in a post on WUWT.[12]

Reception

According to Alexa internet statistical analysis, What's Up With That? is ranked No. 9,282 in the U.S. and No. 24,144 world-wide.[13] In February 2010 it was reported that WUWT receives more than two million visits per month.[14] Fred Pearce, environmental writer and author, cited that number in his 2010 publication The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming as indicating that "WUWT may be the most read climate blog in the world."[4] In February 2010 Matt Ridley of The Spectator described WUWT as having "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".[15]

On Fox News, climatologist Patrick J. Michaels described WUWT in April 2010 as part of a new "parallel universe" of emerging online publications, manned by serious scientists critical of world governments approach to climate change: "A parallel universe is assembling itself parallel to the IPCC. This universe has become very technical – very proficient at taking apart the U.N.'s findings."[16]

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[17] Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[18]"There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts", wrote David Suzuki.[19]

In February 2010, climatologist Judith Curry, as a guest contributor, published an open letter on WUWT and other climate-related blogs, "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust," in which Curry commented on the benefits of blog-led debate and called for greater transparency in scientists' work.[14] Also in 2010, Christopher Monckton published on WUWT his account of his "influence on Lady Thatcher's views about climate change during the 1980s".[20]

Fox News has attributed to WUWT exclusive photographs used in FoxNews's coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster.[21]

Awards

WUWT was voted the "Best Science Blog" in the 2008 Weblog Awards.[22]

The Eureka Zone blog of The Times named Watts Up With That? as one of its 30 best science blogs, describing it as "one of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs".[23]

WUWT was voted best science blog in the Bloggies in 2011, 2012, and 2013, and weblog of the year in 2013.[24][25][26] The Bloggies founder acknowledged in 2013 that climate skeptic bloggers had influenced voting and made it difficult for legitimate science blogs to compete,[27] and discontinued the science category in 2014.[28] WUWT was then voted best group or community weblog in 2014 and weblog of the year in 2014.[28]

Wikiquote has quotations related to Watts Up With That?.

References

  1. ^ a b Fiona Harvey. "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue". The Financial Express of Bangladesh. 18 (89). Retrieved 6 September 2010.
  2. ^ Watts, Anthony. "About – Watts Up With That?". Retrieved 27 July 2010.
  3. ^ a b The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)
  4. ^ a b Pearce, Fred, The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming, (2010) Guardian Books, ISBN 978-0-85265-229-9, p. 165. In a brief note about Watts on p. XVI he called it "the world's most viewed climate website", in a note about WUWT on page XIX Pearce said "Perhaps the most visited climate website in the world."
  5. ^ Montford, A.W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion. London: Stacey International. p. 363. ISBN 978-1-906768-35-5.
  6. ^ Booker, Christopher (2009). The Real Global Warming Disaster. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. ISBN 1-4411-1052-6. pp. 198–199
  7. ^ Gramling, Carolyn (August 16, 2007). "Error in NASA climate data sparks debate". Geotimes. American Geological Institute. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
  8. ^ "Global temperature trends: 2007 summation". Goddard Institute for Space Studies. NASA. Retrieved 15 September 2010.
  9. ^ David Leigh, Charles Arthur and Rob Evans (4 February 2010). "Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 March 2010.
  10. ^ Fred Pearce, "Search for hacker may lead police back to East Anglia's climate research unit", The Guardian, 9 February 2010.
  11. ^ Harvey, Fiona (8 March 2010). "E-mail leaks that clouded climate issue". Financial Times. Retrieved 15 September 2010.
  12. ^ "Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name". The Daily Telegraph. London. November 29, 2009."The person who really coined it was a commenter called "Bulldust" on the Watts Up With That site."
  13. ^ "Alexa Site Information: Watts Up With That?". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 31 January 2013. Wattsupwiththat.com has a three-month global Alexa traffic rank of 24,144
  14. ^ a b Turner, Amy, "Richard Dawkins' pro-am clash in the boffins’ blogosphere," The Sunday Times, 28 February 2010. (full text of essay)
  15. ^ Matt Ridley (3 February 2010). "The global warming guerrillas". The Spectator. Retrieved 11 March 2010.
  16. ^ Koprowski, Gene J (April 28, 2010). "EXCLUSIVE: Citizen's Group Plans Extensive Audit of U.N. Climate Report". Fox News. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
  17. ^ George Monbiot (15 May 2009). "How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 April 2010.
  18. ^ Leo Hickman (24 February 2010). Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate "Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 April 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  19. ^ Suzuki, David. Climate change denial isn’t about science, or even skepticism, Carman Valley Leader. March 8, 2012.
  20. ^ Bob Ward (22 June 2010). "Thatcher becomes latest recruit in Monckton's climate sceptic campaign". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 July 2010.
  21. ^ "The DeepWater Explosion: How the Gulf Oil Spill Began". FoxNews.com. May 4, 2010.
  22. ^ "The 2008 Weblog Awards Winners". The Weblog Awards. 15 January 2009. Retrieved 16 September 2010.
  23. ^ Moran, Michael (3 February 2010). "Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs". The Times Online. Archived from the original on 15 August 2010. Retrieved 16 September 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ Watts, Anthony. "WUWT – Voted Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies". WHUT.
  25. ^ "The 2012 Bloggies". Retrieved 10 April 2013.
  26. ^ "The 2013 Bloggies". Retrieved 10 April 2013.
  27. ^ Hickman, Leo (1 March 2013). "Climate sceptics 'capture' the Bloggies' science category". The Guardian environment blog. Retrieved 5 February 2015. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  28. ^ a b "The 2014 Bloggies". Retrieved 5 February 2015.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&oldid=662804838"