Hmmm and nothing later than 10 years ago. Plus these are not exactly science awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weblog_Awards_(Bloggies) Translation: anyone could vote and often did - multiple times logical fallacy - argumentum ad populum
Do let us know when the study is peer approved. Do let us know when you find evidence of a link: 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 conspiracy theorizing is all on the side of WUWT's critics. As for impact, I suggest there would be no climate debate at all had it not been for WUWT's lantern in the darkness. Their impact can be measured by the growing depth and breadth of skeptic research and peer-reviewed publishing.
In Anthony Watt's own words: FAQs Q. How did WUWT get started? A. WUWT started out as a broad interest science blog under the umbrella of the Chico Enterprise Record Newspaper “NorCalBlogs” in 2006, where it is still listed. I decided to start blogging there because I had an interest in exploring and doing some experiments about “gee whiz” things. For awhile, it was general science and tech interest, catering mainly to local readers, but in the spring of 2007 that changed. One of the experiments in 2007 was something I’d always wondered about when I was in college in 1976, charged with setting up a remote weather station for Purdue University as a student assistant to the meteorology department (I was later hired full-time as a staff member). When I assembled the Stevenson Screen shelter, I was shocked to discover that whitewash was coming of in my hands, and even more shocked to discover that was still the standard coating for all U.S. Weather Bureau shelters. Later I learned that about 1979 the standard was switched to latex paint. I’d always wondered what that did to the ambient temperature characteristics, but never investigated it until I started blogging. In spring 2007, I did some paint experiments to test the differences, and while inspecting local NOAA weather stations to see how their paint characteristics were, discovered oddities in station siting in nearby station Chico and Marysville that led me to realize that there was an even bigger issue with station siting, one that eclipsed the paint issues. That led to the surfacestations.org project, which grew to international interest. In late 2007, to handle the traffic and to provide better blogging features, WUWT moved from the Chico ER Newspaper server to wordpress.com, where it remains today. Q. Why do you blog? A. I’ve been a TV and radio broadcaster since 1974, when I helped my high school setup a student radio station program. In 1978, I began doing television at WLFI-TV in West Lafayette, IN while working at the Purdue Meteorology Department as a meteorological technician and later at KHSL-TV in Chico, CA from 1987 to 2002. Currently I do daily radio broadcasts at Newstalk 1290 in Chico. Broadcasting and blogging seem much alike to me. Both jobs require you to be always “on”, and both jobs require you to be able to keep an audience interested. I simply see blogging as a natural extension of broadcasting in a different medium. The best part about blogging is that I can do it from anywhere, anytime. I don’t have to put on a suit and tie, do makeup, or be in a studio. Blogging also allows more freedom than TV or radio because there are no time constraints, and presentations can be far more detailed. I also blog because it is interesting, mentally challenging, and it allows me to meet new and interesting people. Prior to blogging, I had few contacts outside of my local sphere of influence. Now, I have friends and associates worldwide. Now that WUWT has become the most viewed (and arguably the most well-known) website in the world on climate related issues, I feel a sense of duty to keep people informed. I also feel a duty to make known what I see as the untold story of the climate debate from the climate skeptic side. Q. Were you always a climate skeptic? A. No, actually in June 1988 I recall watched the newsfeed at KHSL-TV of Dr. James Hansen’s address before congress telling of the issues of CO2 and its effects and that we a as nation had to do something about it. That moved me, and I though we needed to do something. I had wondered what I could do and in 1990 I came up with an idea that combined my emerging talents in computer graphics for television weather with doing something about the global warming problem. I approached the National Arbor Day Foundation in Lincoln Nebraska about an idea which was to provide TV weather-casters nationwide a series of computer graphics slides and animations that would tell the global warming story, and explain how planting trees could help offset CO2. Then president John Rosenow granted me the greenlight, and the production was put into motion. With the help of CBS Newsfeed’s Steven Ackerman, the graphics presentation was sent via their satellite newsfeed to all CBS affiliate stations and through an announcement on AP newswire, non CBS stations were told how to tune in and capture the video feed for use on their station. The program ran on TV stations during weathercasts in the week leading up to Earth Day 1990 and was dubbed “Arbor Day Weather Week”. 174 TV stations participated, and about 250,000 trees were planted (according to National Arbor Day’s logged requests for free Colorado Blue Spruce Seedings) as a result of the program. The program was repeated in 1991. Clearly, I was fully engaged in the idea that global warming was a serious problem. It wasn’t until the mid 1990’s that I began to question the issue. My questioning started due to a professional friendship that came about with Jim Goodridge, who was the State Climatologist of California, and had retired to Chico. He had showed me some of his investigations into California’s temperature and precipitation records that didn’t quite add up to some of the claims about warming I was reading about. In a short essay published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1996, Mr, Goodridge demonstrated that California counties warming rates varied with population, and when I saw this graph from his BAMS paper, that was the moment when I really began to question if the observed surface warming was really a signal of CO2 or an artifact of UHI and population growth. . . . Watts Up With That? – The world's most viewed site on global ... Watts Up With That? https://wattsupwiththat.com World's most viewed site on climate change, global warming, extreme weather, IPCC, NOAA, NASA, Arctic sea ice, urban heat islands, environmentalism.
The fact that the paper drove policy before peer review is precisely the point of the thread. Peer review remains incomplete as of today AFAIK.
Actually, I think we do know. ". . . “From what I am told by reporters and what I read in the press, yes, my paper has had some impact,” Howarth said. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported Howarth’s work influenced the Biden administration’s decision to pause approvals for new LNG export hubs. Howarth’s study “clearly was a factor in the Biden administration’s decision to pause making the required determinations required for approval of new LNG export projects and launching a U.S. Department of Energy study of the climate impact of LNG exports,” Steven Hamburg, the Environmental Defense Fund’s chief scientist, told Bloomberg News. . . . "
WUWT receives no "fossil fuel industry" funding. The only "well established fact" is alarmists' cultish belief in their founding myths.
should we be exporting when the cost is high for Americans? or be America first? Biden wants cheaper natural gas for Americans.... is that bad? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...vals-liquified-natural-gas-exports-rcna135831 ""They no longer adequately account for considerations like potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers beyond current authorizations or the latest assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions," the White House said."
There is no basis for that fear. Please see the link in #2. Increased U.S. Natural Gas Exports” ≠ Higher U.S. Prices We are able to export natural gas because we produce more than we consume. If natural gas exports were prohibited, we wouldn’t have excess natural gas production. Natural gas explained: Natural gas imports and exports We did all this while actually driving prices down. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2A.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9140us2a.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdA.htm While short-term disruptions in supply and demand can trigger short-term upward and downward spikes in prices, as in 2022, prices were far higher when the US was a net importer, rather than exporter, of natural gas.
only cause it's a global price, it should be a local price, but we all know they will charge as much as they can, more US oil and Natural gas does not mean cheaper
exactly, so creating more US oil and natural gas does not mean cheaper prices for Americans, that has been a lie
I guess you missed the part in #41 where it explains that US prices were higher before the US became an exporter. Please review #2 again. "What would happen if the Biden maladministration did actually halt LNG exports? The US market would suddenly be oversupplied by almost 12 Bcf/d of production. This would cause natural gas prices to collapse, shale gas producers would slash production and oil producers would ramp up flaring of associated gas. The largest Marcellus producer recently announced production cuts due to natural gas falling below $2/mcf."
Sorry but did you miss the bit “in his own words”. Are there ANY and I mean ANY academic credentials? Affiliations with academic or scientific institutions?
shows no such thing but if exports were halted, that means US supply is up, so supply and demand should lower price.... but it does not
Because there has never been any evidence of that presented, or even a credible claim. Watt's position has been a categorical and public negative.
