When scientists become advocates, advocacy is disguised as science. Integrity is traded for influence, and faith in science itself is eroded. It rings hollow to say "follow the science" when the science has followed the politics. The Entire Push To Halt New Natural Gas Exports Traces Back To One Ivy League Prof And His Shaky Study Nick Pope First, you allege a problem exists without any scientific basis. Then, you identify a ‘study’ with findings you like that can be used to form a basis for policy advocacy . . . . A questionable study by a Cornell University climate scientist gave climate activists and the media ammunition to wage a pressure campaign against the Biden administration to take action against liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Cornell’s Robert Howarth authored the October 2023 study, which purported to find that lifecycle emissions associated with LNG exports are far greater than those attributable to domestically-mined coal. Numerous media outlets, including The New York Times, amplified the study, and climate activists lobbying the Biden administration to kill LNG exports cited it as evidence to substantiate their position before the White House announced the moratorium on LNG export terminal approvals on Jan. 26. The study, titled “The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States,” found that “greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are also larger than those from domestically produced coal, ranging from 44% to more than 2-fold greater for the average cruise distance of an LNG tanker.” Howarth, who openly opposes the use of fossil fuels, admitted to releasing his study before it was peer-reviewed in order to influence the LNG export debate. . . .
A trail of idiocy follows this decision. The Incredible Dumbness of Biden’s War on LNG “You Can’t Fix Stupid, Part Deux” by David Middleton FYI The Old News: Biden pauses LNG export approvals after pressure from climate activists By Timothy Gardner January 26, 2024 WASHINGTON,…
Here's an example of calling out bad science used for advocacy. ‘Blatant Violations’: Watchdog Challenges Key Data Used by Biden Admin to Push Sweeping Climate Agenda NICK POPE Sensational climate claims made without proper scientific basis and spread by government officials threaten the public’s trust in its scientific officials and undermines the government’s mission of stewarding the environment. . . .
The links you've posted above show a serious bent toward domestic politics (calling our president "Brandon", stupid, etc.) and the push for wealth in the fossil fuel industry. Those aren't the only objectives.
Whatupmybutt quoting the “Daily caller”….. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/ Don’t do rabbit holes
Tsk tsk. Diversity is more than just a word. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Nah! Not denying anything just don’t waste time on conspiracy theory sites. When was the last time anything was published on WUWT that had any real scientific import?
You seem stuck in the shallow end of the pool. “In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is concern for content.” ― Noam Chomsky
Science isn't identified by noticing what childish names the president is called - even though freedom allows that.
WUWT is a political site, not a site interested in credentials OR content unless it fits the political objective.
Then don't notice them. I don't. And neither side has a monopoly on good manners on that score. In any case, that side issue has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Simply not true. Please see #11. And as I've pointed out before, you are many times more likely to see a "consensus" article on WUWT than you are to see a skeptic article on RealClimate. You are being led astray by mirror-imaging "consensus" prejudice.
Yes - WUWT gets a lot of hits. It's the premier site for those who oppose anthropogenic climate change as science and any related policy.
Actually, WUWT is the site that accentuates science over the religion of "climates". It presents data and real science vs the religion catechism of the true believer of "climatism". There's climatology which is a science, and climatism which is a religion. Climatology encourages investigation and scolarship; climates encourages obedience to the catechism of AGW, embraces "social justices" and "Noble lies" to advance its objectives. It preys on the unquestioning fealty of the true believers.
I note you have no argument proving WUWT is NOT a conspiracy theory site neither have you proven that they have had any significant impact on the accepted science. They have been going for a few years now - should have accomplished something in that time
