As you know, Your article talks about the reporting from the Guardian and the Daily Mail as if those are sources that decide what climate change is causing. How about asking an actual source of science instead of looking to media opinion?
Climate change answers to two bosses - science and politics. Both influence the other. Let's see if we can get the money and politics out of it. Perhaps then we will get a credible answer. For myself I don't question that we are in a warming period. I certainly question that the sky is falling because of it.
Indeed. ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS CNN Can’t Resist Mixing Climate Fiction with Truth Concerning Hurricane Research June 30, 2022
WUWT has posted a Trenberth paper. This is an example of the site's fundamental fairness. I look forward to any orthodox AGW site posting a skeptic paper. Another Energy Imbalance Paper. Guest Blogger He studied energy changes from the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice as climate system components from 2000 to 2019 and compared this to the radiation at the top of the…
What science organizations around the world has he convinced that human activity isn't the primary reason for Earth's warming?
Trenberth? He's a leading AGW activist/scientist. The point is that WUWT posted a paper with which they disagree.
This is still the methodology that isn't appealing. One paper standing alone really doesn't mean anything in the total scheme of things. One paper with no significant comment by a range of other scientists just leaves it up to the reader to decide whether the content is of value. One may know little more than that it passed peer review, which is almost always no more than a review of how the study was carried out. As for the WUWT site, I'd prefer to see a science site. WUWT publishes various papers, but it isn't a science site such as NASA, NOAA, or one of the other more than a hundred sites from around the world that were listed in a link I posted to Mushroom. Those sites live or die by their science. That is, when they blunder, it is a huge deal. WUWT lives or dies by clicks - not by science. With WUWT it doesn't even matter if they print a bogus paper, nobody even cares - nor should they. They can choose papers based on click potential. So, like a politician transitioning from primary to general election, they can adjust what they print in order to get likes. That is a crucial difference, and it disqualifies WUWT as a source of science.
I could not care less about what the paper does or does not mean. The point is that it presents a view opposed by WUWT and WUWT chose to post it in the interest of free debate. You have entirely missed the point.
Remember when Lancet published a bogus paper? It nearly eliminated the publication. If WUWT, Tucker Carlson, or Facebook publish a bogus article, nobody cares! NOBODY!! THAT is the difference between science and politics.
Sorry - I nailed it. Climatology is NOT a debate between editors at WUWT. WUWT has NOTHING to do with science. It is social press at best, and far more likely just a political rag by a guy who is working to promote a personal belief.
It doesn't matter whether the paper is bogus or not. It's the whole methodology of pretending that social media is science that is bogus.
Sorry, but no. WUWT posted and linked a peer-reviewed paper whose point of view WUWT does not share. They did this in the interest of free debate. WUWT posted the paper without comment.
You seriously think NASA or NOAA "live by their science"? Sorry, no. They live by playing politics and keeping the politicians in power happy. WUWT says as close to even as possible; often giving a voice to a scientists working away from the distractions of global politics. WUWT does a very good job curating the jumble of studies, reports, and academic papers. I've seen then present both pro and con opinions on items - you won't see from NOAA or NASA.
Why do you care if it's "even"??? Who the hell says the topic has anything to do with "even"? The whole idea of "even" in the press is just plain silly. Issues aren't "even". There is no force in nature that somehow ensures that the issues we face are all toss ups. But, even more interesting you think you are superior scientist to all those at NASA, NOAA and the other hundreds of sites throughout the world all put together? Sorry, but I seriously doubt that.
I think the "superior" science is the science done as far away from the pressures and influences of politics. Working in a politically sensitive atmosphere doesn't necessarily produce prime science. IF you've looked at all beyond your idol-worship regurgitation you'd find there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of factors and influences that govern climate. And government employees, e.g NOAA and NASA have no special capabilities or mental capacities that those in the private sector don't have. WUWT and other sites work to get ALL the data and information out so that WE can make our own conclusions. As I've mentioned before they all work from the same data. But they're ALL working with computer models that many scientists concede are primitive, at best, and frequently fail to duplicate past climates. If you've were here the story about the five blind men describing an elephant, climate science is that raised to the power of a googolplex.
WUWT isn't just near politics. It IS politics. WUWT has NO capabilities or capacities in science. They choose papers based on marketing. Also, WUWT has NO data AT ALL. Data comes from those with the funds to do the work to actually get data - the people with the satellites, the Arctic and Antarctic science sites, the people who populate our oceans with measurement buoys, the people with different kinds of ground measurement technology that has been in place for years so change is easier to measure, those boring ice cores to examine ancient atmosphere and weather cycles, the people with balloons that have the ability to test the different layers in our atmosphere, the solar probes for studying solar output and its cycles, etc., etc. So, you suggest WUWT is more "independent" or whatever, but they are TOTALLY dependent. With this work being done by scientists from numerous nations, there can be comparisons to ensure that there aren't mistakes being made. WUWT has NONE of that. And, that IS what is required. So, you take what WUWT chooses to feed you, and then what? Then you assume that's the final answer? Then you assume you are smarter than the rest of science, thus can look at it and determine what it "really" means instead of what the whole world of science is finding?
