• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Watts Up With That, aka, LOLWUWT and WTFUWT

Lord of Planar said:
You are going to use evidence that Watts is a joke, by introducing claims by two websites that are a joke?

My God...

Just how hypocritical are you?

I'm curios. How do these two websites compare in ratings of blogs, to Watts? Watts is over and over, in the top five of blogs, and often number one. Year after year. the reason for this is they well source their material with verifiable fact.
Click to expand...

Facepalm.
 
Jack Hays said:
AGU is apparently a WUWT fan.
Click to expand...

Since it seems you are a fan of the AGU and respect their expertise (as you should), I'll just point you to their statement on AGW.

http://sites.agu.org/sciencepolicy/...ate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐
understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of
warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse
gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some
additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.
Click to expand...

Note that this statement illustrates that the bull**** denier argument tossed around here that a 'consensus' is just about the theory of greenhouse gasses, and clearly points to the fact that the consensus is about a need for action on those pollutants.
 
Threegoofs said:
Since it seems you are a fan of the AGU and respect their expertise (as you should), I'll just point you to their statement on AGW.

http://sites.agu.org/sciencepolicy/...ate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf



Note that this statement illustrates that the bull**** denier argument tossed around here that a 'consensus' is just about the theory of greenhouse gasses, and clearly points to the fact that the consensus is about a need for action on those pollutants.
Click to expand...

1. Another example of paradigm imprisonment. No one disputes the observed phenomena. The debate is about causation.
2. No scientific body has any business advocating public policy.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. Another example of paradigm imprisonment. No one disputes the observed phenomena. The debate is about causation.
2. No scientific body has any business advocating public policy.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's not much scientific debate about causation, as the AGU notes.

All scientific bodies advocate public policy, all the time. Who better to give recommendations on what needs to be done than the people who understand it best?
 
Threegoofs said:
Actually, there's not much scientific debate about causation, as the AGU notes.

All scientific bodies advocate public policy, all the time. Who better to give recommendations on what needs to be done than the people who understand it best?
Click to expand...

Policy advocacy corrupts research.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/27/advocacy-research-incentives-and-the-practice-of-science/

There is a problem with the practice of science. Because of poor scientific practices, and improper incentives, few papers with useful scientific findings are published in leading journals. The problem appears to be growing due to funding for advocacy research.

J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green have written an important new paper Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists. I encourage you to read the whole paper.
Here are some excerpts that I think are particularly important:
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
I saw that.

It's heresay!
Click to expand...
LOL.
It's Original document evidence, Not Hearsay
And again, it's NOT in dispute. (WTF!)
Making your usually weak posts especially empty and argumentative..

Another thing making them bad, is one can find the same with yet more sources on Wikipedia.
Every hear of Wiki?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#Education_and_career
Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[14] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]

He joined KHSL-TV, a CBS affiliate based in Chico, California in 1987,[2][3] ...
Click to expand...
[2][15] are yet more sources.
And I think the prolific Troll Watts would straighten everyone out if it was untrue.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
You are going to use evidence that Watts is a joke, by introducing claims by two websites that are a joke?

My God...

Just how hypocritical are you?

I'm curios. How do these two websites compare in ratings of blogs, to Watts? Watts is over and over, in the top five of blogs, and often number one. Year after year. the reason for this is they well source their material with verifiable fact.
Click to expand...

Thanks for now overtly revealing you're just another ideologically motivated zealous fanboi of the WUWT anti-science climate truther blog and it's rubbish pseudoscience and hysterical conspiracy claims. Not that it's any surprise.
 
Last edited:
It's a whackjob blog.

Of course, that qualifies as "alternative education" in anti-college environments. Those claiming universities are brainwashing institutions, and peer review is a scam, are quick to latch onto such crap.
 
mbig said:
LOL.
It's Original document evidence, Not Hearsay
Click to expand...

The email is asking and saying there is no record. That is not a document saying he didn't graduate, hence hearsay.

The wiki source is the same thing. Not actual evidence.

Tell me, would it pass a court of law test as evidence of what you say?

I'm pretty sure the judge would agree it's "hearsay."

In the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is the integrity of those who slime others... What level of integrity do you wish others to perceive from you?
 
Lord of Planar said:
...

In the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is the integrity of those who slime others... What level of integrity do you wish others to perceive from you?
Click to expand...
And "what level of integrity do you wish others to perceive from you" when YOU ignore A Multitude of sources, 'short-quote' my post pointing that out, including the fact the very vocal/Prolific Watts does NOT contest the Lack of degree, and that you try and nitpick for ceremonial UNtruthful/obligatory reason.
Despicable partisanship/Nonsense posting.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
And "what level of integrity do you wish others to perceive from you" when YOU ignore A Multitude of sources, 'short-quote' my post pointing that out, including the fact the very vocal/Prolific Watts does NOT contest the Lack of degree, and that you try and nitpick for ceremonial UNtruthful/obligatory reason.
Despicable partisanship/Nonsense posting.
Click to expand...

I point out that the sources used by most here are not good sources. The information could be wrong.

Then the fact that it doesn't really matter if a person has a degree or not. That only matters to snobs.
 
[h=1]WUWT milestone – 10 years[/h]Foreword by Anthony, decade in review by Janice Moore. Ten years ago today, I started Watts Up With That with one simple blog entry. Since then, I’ve had 15,559 Posts and 1,902,684 Comments and 291,103,411 Views as of this writing. (updated at publish time) Running this website, changed my life, and helped to change the…
Continue reading →
 
Lord of Planar said:
I point out that the sources used by most here are not good sources. The information could be wrong.

Then the fact that it doesn't really matter if a person has a degree or not. That only matters to snobs.
Click to expand...
I see. So We can expect No peer-reviewed anything from you. Just Breitbark, Infowars, and WhatreallyHappened.com.. in addition to the usual denier blogs.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
I see. So We can expect No peer-reviewed anything from you. Just Breitbark, Infowars, and WhatreallyHappened.com.. in addition to the usual denier blogs.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you? Seriously? Why do you make up such lies?

Why do you accuse me of using information that I never seek out?

Do I need to consider you a liar every time you post something because you cant get the simple truth about me right?

Please show me posts that I reference such material. I almost always reference actual peer reviewed papers. Rarely ever anything else.

Please... I challenge you to prove me wrong!

What is the last paper you read, quoted, or linked? I'll bet you read blogs and material by pundits, then have all this hypocrisy coming out of your mouth.
 
mbig said:
I see. So We can expect No peer-reviewed anything from you. Just Breitbark, Infowars, and WhatreallyHappened.com.. in addition to the usual denier blogs.
Click to expand...

Peer review has its own problems. These citations are from ​Retraction Watch.


 
Jack Hays said:
[h= 1]Awarded TOP 100 Status[/h]
[FO NT=inherit][CO LOR=#404040][ B]"...the world's most viewed climate website"[/B]
- Fred Pearce The Climate Files:
The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming[/FON T][/COLO R]
[FONT =inherit]"...invaluable" - Steven F. Hayward, [URL ="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climategate-part-ii_610926.html"]The Weekly Standard[/ I] [/URL]
[FON T=inherit][B ]"...changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming.[/B] -
[COLO R=#b26 600]Jonathon Moseley,[/COLOR ]
[FONT =Arial] [COL OR=#b26600] [/COLOR] [/FON T] American Thinker[/FONT ][v /FONT]
Click to expand...
(Broken enhanced doodads)

Yeah it's in the top 100 popular Blogs... #41.. Behind another 40 who do NOT share it's position.
(Like Sciam, AGU, NatGeo, etc)

And the POINT is.. WTF is this!
What if I went in the Israel-Palestine section and posted ElectronicIntifada, and one or two more of Same, EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK, EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR?
And oft posted One on top of the other, with usually NO comment, NO other content, and No responses in between.
This is INSANITY.
No one does this anywhere else on the board.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Yeah it's in the top 100 popular Blogs... #41.. Behind another 40 who do NOT share it's position.
(Like Sciam, AGU, NatGeo, etc)

And the POINT is.. WTF is this!
What if I went in the Israel-Palestine section and posted ElectronicIntifada, and one or two more of Same, EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK, EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR?
And oft posted One on top of the other, with No responses in between?
This is INSANITY.
No one does this anywhere else on the board.
Click to expand...

You're the one who started a thread dedicated to WUWT. That's an invitation.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're the one who started a thread dedicated to WUWT. That's an Invitation.
Click to expand...
Duh, No
It's a "REACTION" to YEARS of Your Whacky/Obsessive posting practice.
Unless paid, I've NEVER seen anything like it in 15 years of posting on 100 message boards.
Never.
Cut/pasting denier blogs daily with virtually NO other sources, No comment, No conversation, and oft No responses.
That's not an interest, it's a Job or obsession.
Again, Never seen anything like it.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Duh, No
It's a REACTION to YEARS of Your Whacky/Obsessive posting practice.
Unless paid, I've NEVER seen anything like it in 15 years of posting on 100 message boards.
Click to expand...

As you wish. I see your thread as an opportunity. Thanks.
 
mbig said:
Duh, No
It's a "REACTION" to YEARS of Your Whacky/Obsessive posting practice.
Unless paid, I've NEVER seen anything like it in 15 years of posting on 100 message boards.
Never.
Cut/pasting denier blogs daily with virtually NO other sources, and oft no responses.
That's not an interest, it's a Job or obsession.
Click to expand...

The blogs are data aggregators and the posts almost always link to peer-reviewed research or a commentary thereon. Sources I use most often are: Climate Scepticism, Science Bits, Retraction Watch, JoNova, Climate Etc., Climate Audit and WUWT.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h =1]Awarded TOP 100 Status[/h]
[COLOR=# 404040][FONT =pt-serif-1]"...the world's most viewed climate website"
....
Click to expand...


wuwt2.png

`
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom