Denial movement crumbling

Originally posted by UniTrader ↑

.
Redpencil asked "What else have you got?"

Redpencil, I think we should add a little more to the rating that goes with https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/. Let's add mediabiasfactcheck.com/ "history" so we understand where it is coming from and the type of person who runs to its site to validate their own concensus. It provides its own interpretation which i provide next:

History
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. According to their about page “WattsUpWithThat.com is the world’s most viewed website on climate.” Anthony Watts states he was a “television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

My problem with what you are doing Redpencil is your comment strikes of imbalance as seen by what is in bold above. Surely you can see that science is Not and never supposed to be consensual. To miss this is to not understand science. Clearly with you promoting this opinion,
you ignore all arguments on the AGW science because you believe that consensus makes it right.

So let's look at this History: mediabiasfactcheck tries hard to distort what WUWT is all about by cleverly stating that "The Blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change". Well right, right? But alas no. If you've smart you will know, WUWT missed the bus and should be only discussing "scientific consensus on climate change" as highlighted, .

It is so rarely remembered that the AGW of Climate Change is purely an hypothesis. This is what WUWT looks at. Those in consensus like to idolise it for they say it cannot be checked due to it's complexity (hence talk in terms of models which are so bad they have been adjusted and adjusted ... that I have forgotten which ones to criticise). It is an hypothesis that fails being an hypothesis so to speak!

Thus as mediabiasfactcheck stated, the website "Watts Up With That?" has a focus on "AGW climate change" not the generalist "Climate Change" where laypersons bound. So mediabiasfactcheck throws in the word "beliefs" so as to fraternise, like it using the "consensus" term to punctuate why the generalist "Climate Change" must be right (to the layperson). What specifically is actually classified as Climate Change anymore" It is all, yet nothing - just perfect for the layperson. It becomes clear that mediabiasfactcheck is so far outside the league in this scientific debate that it must be an IPCC donkey.

So instead of "promoting climate change denial", we instead see that WUWT as stated: "... focus on anthropogenic climate change" the difference you will note is in the source of the change - man-made Carbon Dioxide. Consensus scientists, however, then meekly report temperature and Carbon Dioxide rises and safely ignore many other variables like the sun and water vapour effects (The latter are not used in their models).

Naturally if you cannot prove some theory to be, well, proven then you better talk it up as "others denying the consensus". It also is important for the consensus AGWer's to quash the scope, the rigor of any opposition analysis by ignoring that that they have anything at all going for them. That is, in any way they can! For that use words like CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE and you find this on mediabiasfactcheck.com.

Expand

Anthony Watts is a former TV weatherman with no qualifications in any scientific discipline, let alone climate science. He is funded by the Heartland Institute an extreme right wing lobby group dedicated to continued fossil fuel consumption.

The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found (PDF) that “Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.” [1]

Wattsup web site blog has been shown repeatedly to present bogus science and ignore reputable sources. If you choose to believe what you read on Wattsup then you are irrational.

Every scientific organisation and their associated professional bodies supports the link between GHG's and global heating. If you choose to ignore the evidence in the form of peer reviewed publications then you are the one with a problem.

Climate modeling includes the effect of solar irradiance, water vapor and clouds. The models have made accurate predictions about our increasing global temperatures. If you have evidence to the contrary then you are free to present it in the scientific literature. The original OP in this thread was one such attempt, now debunked by rigorous peer review.

Your argument so far seems to be "I don't believe in AGW and because I say so that makes it true"

I notice you are a fossil fuel company investor

What else have you got?