That is fully a falsehood. The original paper is always linked so it can be checked against the headline.
WUWT always links the original papers for comparison. And, unlike alarmist sites, WUWT will often post papers with which they disagree for discussion purposes.
Errrr - that is not how you get papers published. The IPCC just does systematic reviews on published research. About 10-15 years ago it included a report that was NOT peer reviewed and published and they got called out for it! Big time! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake I think first thing you need to do is check out how the IPCC actually works instead of taking the word of “sum bloke on da internetz”
I didn't say anything about getting anything published. Those are the short list of all your answers when anyone questions the gospel of "climate change". It's like clockwork.
Not always and more often than not it is cherry picked to a fare thee well I cannot count the number of times I have identified the misrepresentation of the studies in the blog posts you post. Just the fact they are unsupported by any academic institution should have something to say. Just compare a blog like “Whatsupmybutt” with Skeptical Science Skeptical Science Won the Eureka prize for science Several links to universities Majority of positions held by qualified scientists But most importantly all articles are written to a high academic standard with not just one or two links but multiple links throughout
They don't publish pieces by Flat Earthers either. By your standards, that proves Flat Earthers are being oppressed. Your standards are dumb because they're uber-PC. Your standards assume, no matter what the evidence is, that all viewpoints are equally valid. That is not the case. Some viewpoints are stupid and wrong, like the ones held by deniers, because the hard evidence says so.
Sigh. So much disinformation, so little time. The IPCC does not do systematic review. The IPCC reports are literature reviews. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44...based on,review processes have been developed. The difference? Glad you asked. Quite a bit of difference! https://libanswers.liverpool.ac.uk/...reviews don't usually,a new piece of research. Now you know why I often refer to the IPCC as a curator of information to form a narrative. Because that’s exactly what they do. To be clear, that’s not necessarily a criticism of the IPCC. It’s just the facts. They do not do systematic reviews. They engage in curation of information to form a narrative—they do literature review.
There will always be findings that seem to lead in one or other direction. We see this in other domains as well. Does the latest JWST view invalidate current cosmology, or does it just take some time to understand. We see this happen repeatedly in science. It's a natural part of science. The challenge is to find our best understanding. That can't include whipping back and forth based on individual papers. It has to come from expert analysis of the broad range of findings.
True. Climate models and their outputs are not "findings" they're hypotheses; whose accuracy is subject to broad interpretation and which may be valuable to further research but not for policy decisions or broad societal upheavals.
So it won an award for being the most intent on spreading climatological lawn fertilizer. ironic those who cite the graphic above" are amongst the biggest, most well financed conspiracy theorist groups around.
Our policy must be informed by the best science has to offer. This is true throughout our decision making, not just on this issue. Policy is to be informed by science, but also informed by other factors in decision making - such as costs. I don't see evidence of your concern about "broad societal upheavals".
I agree, and should not be coerced/purchased by rich demagogues looking to build a world organization superior to country powers. Yep and the desire for political power, economic gain and massive egotism . Where have you looked. Several books have been recommended to you by me and others - have you even read the dust jackets? Have you read any policy statements from World Economic Forum? Or any of the COP 28 statements? You continually dismiss WUWT without even considering the content; "oh, it a blog" is all you say. Have you ever checked the authors' credentials and CVs? Until you read, study, and contemplate both sides of the issue, you're a hapless drone in the discussion.
WUWT doesn't have anything to do with encouraging scientific consensus on issues of any kind. It's a site that has a firm position that it promotes by publishing blogs and single papers - which is fine for politics, but doesn't encourage any method of scientific progress. In fact, why would a scientist visit a site focused on political promotion of an opinion? They have work to do.
Science doesn't make progress by consensus - that's a political entity. Science makes progress by questioning, doubting and proving theses. . You got it entirely backwards. You thing government's interests are NOT POLITICAL? You been living in a cave>.
Because consensus is irrelevant to science and always has been. Science is about being open to numerous viewpoints and a variety of research and trying to decipher truth. Always has been.
It most definitely does. Nonsense. It provides alternate analysis and research - the way science is supposed to work. You don't seem to grasp that the mainstream is the political channel, not WUWT. Look at the discussions at Devon or the various COPs - they're packed with politicians.
Scientists aren't watching WUWT. It exists for politics. It's like you or I might provide alternate analysis, and thus climatology changes - lol!
Nope it's the other way around. Not even close. As I said IF you check the credentials of submitters on WUWT they have as many degrees and credits as those you worship. Judith Curry, for instance has a long CV of climate related papers, she's been a high official in university, and runs her own blog and company dealing with climate change risks and remediation.
I've pointed that out. WUWT looks at science to pick and choose blogs and papers that the site believes supports their beliefs. Once again, single papers don't cause the inclusion of the numerous sciences involved in climatology. And, that's OK with WUWT, because their objective is the political promotion of their opinion. I like Dr. Curry. She has some good ideas. Her idea of having a second tier of journals more oriented to papers that would not otherwise get published, as their methods and results are weak or significantly different from the mainstream - the purpose being to allow the airing of ideas outside the mainstream. Also, she points out that the changes proposed for protecting ourselves from climate change tend to be sound benefits, regardless of whether climate change is substantially less than projected. But, one can not deny that wrt climatology, she is an outlier.
