And I disagree with most of that. The citation referenced was to a privatization of the NWS discussion.Seabass wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:53 amTrigger Warning!!!1! :Watts up with that?
googles...
Oh no... Ooh boy...
Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[2][3][4][5][6] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]
The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Contributors include Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors.[7] In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy, and a driving force behind its coverage.[7]
In the early months of 2010, it was reported the site might be "the most read climate blog in the world,"[8] and in 2013 Michael E. Mann referred to it as the leading climate change denial blog.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3FWatts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[4][5][20] He believes that global warming is occurring, but that it is not as bad as has been reported, and that carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change.[21][22][23] Watts has written that variations in solar irradiance, the sun's magnetic field and solar wind are driving changes to the climate,[22] contrary to the scientific consensus that the primary cause of climate change is an increase in greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide.[24][25] Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]
Watts is a signatory to the Leipzig Declaration[32] as well as the Manhattan Declaration, which calls for the immediate halt to any tax funded attempts to counteract climate change or reduce CO2 emissions, and suggests the consensus among climate scientists is "false".[33] Watts says he advocates for alternative energy sources and for the United States to "disengage from Middle East Oil."[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)Monckton advocates for climate change denial,[49][53][54] and has stated that those who warn of the dangers of climate change should be jailed, calling them "bogus".[55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph ... ate_changeAccording to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[53] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[54] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science". Singer told CBC's The Fifth Estate in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had "cooked the data" to show that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. "They don't carry a note on a dollar bill saying 'This comes from the tobacco industry,'" he said. "In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn't ask APCO where they get their money. That's not my business."[8] In December 2010 he wrote in American Thinker that he is nonsmoker who finds second-hand smoke an unpleasant irritant that cannot be healthy; he also wrote that his father, a heavy smoker, died of emphysema when relatively young. According to Singer, he serves on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization, and has never been paid by Philip Morris or the tobacco lobby.[55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Sing ... hand_smokeWillard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_WattsWillard Anthony Watts is a former radio and TV weatherman and notable global warming denier. He claims to have subscribed to AGW years ago before he saw the light and became a denier. He also claims that he is (otherwise) an environmentalist. This makes him something of an AGW concern troll.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_WattsSources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Factual Reporting: LOW
Notes: Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.
In review, the sole purpose of the website is to debunk human influenced climate change. Climatologist Michael E. Mann has called WUWT the leading climate change denial blog. There are numerous articles written about WUWT and many failed fact checks that can be seen here through a factual search. Overall, WUWT is a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 4/12/2018)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
Is it not even acceptable to cite sources in a back-and-forth discussion of an issue?
Are we supposed to treat different sides of arguments and debates as Lord Voldemort?
"There are no "sides" in this debate!!!!!! Scrreeeeeee!!! Screeeee!!!!! You are infidel!!!! You are not of the body!!! Scree!!!!!"
Fuck of, know-nothing.