Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Statement by Booker

The article currently includes:

According to journalist Christopher Booker in his book The Real Global Warming Disaster, in 2007 WUWT and its readers found that a significant number of weather stations used to capture temperature records were located in the US, giving the US a disproportionate impact on global temperature reports.

This is very hard to understand. The records are gridded. It doesn't matter how many stations you have; you influence is proportional to your geographical area. This looks like an error in Booker, or perhaps someones bad paraphrase. Either way it has no place in this article William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, if it's what Booker claims, the language should be changed to show that's what they believed, not what was the case. There's been debate before about Booker's reliability as an RS. It may be better to source from another reference. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The section as written reads like a coatrack. Just because some journalist uses comments from WUWT doesn't mean that we should quote his interpretation of the blog in an article about the blog. What is the rationale for writing the section this way? ScienceApologist (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume its being used to show the ways that the Blog is used by the medai, as well as the kind of data it includes. I am ambivilant about this passage. The language does need changing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the third "Booker, in one of his columns " para [1] - all that seems more Booker than WUWT. This section is supposed to be about WUWT, and it should quote facts from RS's - if we have to label stuff with "X, in a column for Y" then that is an indication that we don't trust the source, and the whole thing should go William M. Connolley (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many stations you have; you influence is proportional to your geographical area. This looks like an error in Booker, or perhaps someones bad paraphrase.. This smacks entirely of original research, William. It's also not strictly correct -- if you pore through some of the tens of thousands of lines of code GISS and other entities use to correct the data, stations considered to be more stable or reliable can and do introduce correction factors for other stations and/or grids. In any case, the statement by Booker speaks to the relevance of WUWT being used as a source by both the media and authors. It needs to remain in. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You fail to understand policy. If I was writing that on the page, based only on my opinion, it would be OR. But using our own judgement to evaluate teh quality of a source is entirely correct. the statement by Booker speaks to the relevance of WUWT being used as a source by both the media and authors - but that is far too tenuous a connection for it to be in the section describing the project. The problem we;re running into here is the obvious one - that there is far too little coverage of the project in RS's to produce a useful article.

As to the substance: stations considered to be more stable or reliable can and do introduce correction factors for other stations and/or grids - I'm not fully sure what you mean by this. More reliable stations can indeed correct neighbouring stations. But that has nothing at all to do with the US coverage biasing the global coverage. What Booker is saying, I think, is something like "the US stations, because there are more of them, bias the global results". He seems to think that the global result is just an average of the stations. But it isn't. Because the data are gridded first, there could be 100,000 stations in New York and it wouldn't bias the global coverage William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your judgement, in this case, is incorrect. You stated the glimmerings of truth in your own reply, but failed to see the obvious conclusion. Stations affect neighboring stations, and grids affect neighboring grids. In a time series analysis, a corrected neighbor can in turn affect its neighbors, allowing the impact of high-quality rated stations to spread considerably beyond their immediate geographic area. Still further, you misinterpret policy if you feel it allows editors to interject their personal opinion into articles...and interjecting by omission is no less a problem than by inclusion. Remember that, regardless of your personal feelings, this is not an article on the science of global warming. It's an article about a blog. The fact that a journalist and author has significatly cited the work of that blog in his work is most definitely significant to this article. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think WMC's excision is absolutely appropriate. Establishing WUWT's use by media sources should not be a case for putting in POV or simply wrong material (and the point about more stations in the US biasing global figures is an example of this). Perhaps improve what's there on the use of it as a reference/forum by notable AGW skeptics/deniers, rather than stating supposed findings based on WUWT information (we have awful forking dangers that way). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why niot just say that "Brocker has used Watts Up With That regularly and praised its approach" Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

no one has given any reason for excising this material, except for the fact that WMC's opinion differs from Booker's opinion. The use of material from WUWT -- along with the identification of what specifically was used and why -- is significant and notable to this entry. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it introduces unnecessarily a controversial viewpoint, and one that is made by Brooker, who is not the subject of this article. That's the reason, and it has already been given above. I'm puzzled that you haven't picked that up from comments above.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled you're misinterpreting or misrepresenting the statements above. The relevant statement is: According to Booker, in 2007 WUWT and its readers found that a significant number of weather stations used to capture temperature records were located in the US, giving the US a disproportionate impact on global temperature reports. The statement is from Booker, but its made specifically in relationship to WUWT and its reader base. It's not a disconnected opinion on a random topic. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the piece taken out by WMC. Aside from that, the reference by Booker to what WUWT readers did needs changing because it's written as if the readers were correct. In addition, it would be better if we avoid citing Booker, as his reliability is not the best. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are again confusing this article with a scientific piece. For an article section on opinion about WUWT, Booker's opinion on WUWT is an extremely reliable source. Further, if you feel the statement misleads readers, then a simple, "according to Booker" qualification solves the problem handily, without engaging in censorship or reference scrubbing. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. If one states, for example, that "According to Booker, white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and is therefore harmless", without making it clear that this view is scientifically wrong, one gives the impression that such views are a matter of opinion, or up for debate. At the very least we can (a) find someone more reliable than Booker, and (b) make the language clearer that the claim is not one supported by experts in the field. Relying on Booker makes WUWT look worse, not better. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're still confused on several points. The statement you question isn't Booker's opinion, it's merely Booker saying its the opinion of WUWT and its readership. You're also performing original research to claim it is incorrect, as WMC has essentially admitted above. A high number of stations rated as having quality data can and does expand their influence beyond their geographic area. Do you have a reliable source that claims otherwise? Finally, I state once again that if you are seriously concerned about the possibility of misleading the reader -- rather than simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT that further qualifying the statement as opinion solves the problem easily. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The we should say that WUWT said this and use brokker as the source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We should actually check the claim that Booker said anything of the like, and even more so, that such a debate happened on WUWT. Thus far, I cannot find anything referring to the argument that a large number of stations in the US causes global bias. This is surprising, as usually arguments are bounced around the "contrarian" blogosphere very quickly and widely. Indeed, around the same time, WUWT complains of a falling number of weather stations, and McIntyre's own description of finding the GISS error makes no mention of too many stations being a problem. Can anyone else find anything at all? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat the point again - can anyone provide anything (e.g. examples from WUWT) to confirm Booker's supposed claim that WUWT readers had been arguing that the number of US stations was exercising disproportionate influence on global figures? It's possible that either Booker is wrong, or the article misrepresents what Booker says. If either is true, it should be taken out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The WUWT claim is obviously incorrect, and displays the poor understanding of science that is typical of blog participants. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Boris, you misunderstand my point. I'm really not sure that WUWT contributors even made the claim that Booker supposedly says they did. That is, it's quite possibly a misrepresentation of WUWT - either by Booker, or by a misrepresentation of Booker. I cannot find anything from WUWT or in McIntyre's accounts that talk about this idea of US stations biasing the global figures through weight of numbers.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I don't have Booker book. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Booker says what he says, and the text reflects that. If you have a source that says something different about the weather stations and the GISS as they related to WUWT, then we can talk about adding it. Cla68 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Booker's reputation as a reliable source is not perfect, and I'm raising a flag about something he said that looks suspicious, accuracy-wise. What is the reference that Booker gives for the statement? (and - if it's not too much hassle - what does he say verbatim?) Is there a web reference? If the statement is correct, it should be easily verified by discussions on WUWT or statements from McIntyre. As I said above, usually such arguments are mirrored in one form or another across contrarian websites, but there doesn't seem to be such an ether-trail. Nor can I find responses to such an argument on non-contrarian sites. I could be wrong about that, so I'm asking if anyone can confirm it independently of Booker. Otherwise we're in danger of saying something not true about WUWT, with only a weak appeal to verifiability. This page is about WUWT, not Booker's views. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have anything that contradicts Booker's observation on something that WUWT was involved with, then I don't see any problem here. Cla68 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. First of all, there are enough reasons to be concerned about Booker's reliability that asking for some indication from WUWT itself of what he was referring to seems to be perfectly reasonable. Usually on wikipedia, if there are reasons to doubt a source, we use another one. But there doesn't appear to be another one, which should set off alarm bells. Secondly, you're asking me to prove the non-existence of something. All I'm asking for is a link of some kind. My concern here is to represent WUWT fairly. As pointed out above, the argument itself would appear to have no scientific merit, and as such, ascribing it to people at WUWT or to McIntyre would be unfair to their reputations. The statement itself is tangential to what the notable story is, which is the discovery of an error in GISS calculations.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The statement makes WUWT (and Watts) look like they don't know that they're doing; we often try to have especially good sourcing for material that casts people in a poor light. But if you believe that using Booker as a sole source for negative material it's up to you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

According to journalist Christopher Booker, in 2007 WUWT and its readers found that selected temperature records published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) based on data from United States Historical Climate Network appeared to be in error, causing GISS to mistakenly label 1998 as the hottest year on record for the United States.

It keeps to the story, and avoids any risk of wrongful attribution.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

that seems fair. After all its booker thats saying it not watts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No one opposing in the past 24 hours, so done.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several still opposing this. As for the statement that "we have reason to question Booker's reliability", I've seen nothing to support that except for the opinions of one editor. And SBHB is confusing a statement that casts people in a poor light with a statement of a person's opinion that casts an organization in a poor light. There are no BLP concerns here. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no one opposed my new version for over 24 hours, so I figured it was OK to go ahead with it. Doubts about Booker's reliability, as I pointed out above, have been raised on wikipedia more than once. It's not just me (indeed, not just me in this discussion), so I think we can pass over suggestions it's just one editor. Booker's reputation for accuracy in science is certainly not great, as his own wikipedia page details (and here of course I refer you to the references, not to wikipedia itself as a source). I have two questions to those who disagree with the change: firstly, why does the apparent lack of any other source - primary or reliable secondary for this story about US weather stations not bother you; and secondly, in any case, what's it got to do with the notable story, which is the discovery of errors in GISS figures? It looks a little WP:COATRACKy to me. If WUWT had successfully demonstrated that US stations biased global figures by weight of numbers, it would certainly be worthy of its own section!VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Is being named in a list of top thirty sites an award? Seems a bit odd to me. I don't think winning one award is enough to create a new section. It's a bit misleading.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the text specifically states that WUWT was named in a list of top 30 sites, how is the reader going to be misled? Will they possibly think it was named to a shorter list? Fell Gleaming^talk 01:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How about changing the section title to "Recognition"? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please move it back to "Reception" -- this was specifically a recommendation on the peer review comments, and that is what I am trying to follow. Please remember that this article is nominated for Good Article and is currently undergoing peer review, and we have had several peer review comments from two experience, uninvolved editors -- we really need to be addressing those issues.Minor4th 03:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure; my apologies. I didn't realize it was a peer review recommendation. Go ahead and move it to where you think best; I won't consider that a revert of my edit. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back with the qualification that if anyone disagrees with the peer review suggestion, please move it back. Thanks. Minor4th 03:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of official link

This edit is error.[2] It's standard practice to have an official link at the bottom of an article. The fact that it's also in the info box doesn't change that. For comparison, I checked every featured article and good article we have about a web site, 4chan, The Million Dollar Homepage, DeSmogBlog, Operation Clambake, Slashdot and Whedonesque.com, and every single article has an official link at the bottom of the page in addition to the one in the infobox. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit statement that the Surfacestations link violates WP:EL is also in error. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK: Look at the next diff. -Atmoz (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for fixing it. Not sure what this edit summary is supposed to mean.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I wondered why this page didn't show up when I googled "wikipedia wattsupwiththat" and I spotted the oddity that there wasn't a link to the site which is normal on every other page in wikipedia. Clearly this page has the same idiots putting their oar in that drove me away from Wikipedia ... so cherio I'm not wasting time editing any article if even the simplest things like a link to the item being written about are being argued about. 85.211.202.125 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the first result for "wikipedia wattsupwiththat". This page is the third result from en.wikipedia.org, behind Anthony Watts (blogger) and Anthony Watts. Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Merged to Anthony Watts

I tried out a merge to Anthony Watts (blogger). If it sticks, we'll archive the discussions here to the Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please put it back. Get consensus first. Q Science (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In the sphere of climate change there is a fine line between boldness and disruption, which this move may have crossed. I concur that this mass action should be reverted and discussed before reinactment. Weakopedia (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's get away from trying to decide what is "disruptive" or not. I know that's a favorite tactic being used by many people round these parts, but labeling like this is contrary to good faith assumptions, as I see it. At least, however, you hedged you label. But rarely is any progress made in improving the encyclopedia by arguing over whether a particular action was "disruptive". Let's move forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I unmerged it. I don't support merging the articles. Watts Up has plenty of sourcing to show its notability and has the highest Alexa ranking of all four of the major CC blogs. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you didn't really "unmerge" it because now content is duplicated at the other article, but that's okay with me anyway. Thanks for actually giving reasons, Cla68. However, the merge is not meant to argue that it isn't notable. It's also not supposed to indicate that its Alexa rank is high or low. Is this how we decide whether we should merge to the blog's author? I don't think so. WP:WEB is of some guidance, but not enough. If you prefer to start a merge discussion, that's okay with me! ScienceApologist (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I disagree that everything that is notable should have a separate article if it can be more effectively dealt with in another existing article and I find the whole idea of lots of separate articles when a split is not needed weakens wikipedia. However, in this case Science Apologist's actions were in my opinion disruptive. Bold is certainly not an excuse for any measure that is likely to be controversial and should not have been used as such. Content wise this blog has entries from people other than Anthony Watts therefore I understand the case for a separate article is stronger here than for an individual's blog. Polargeo (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the code by which I live. Reversion is fine with me, but there were two issues as I saw it:

1. There is not a lot of content in this article and there was not a lot of movement toward more content creation.
2. The Anthony Watts biography had almost no information about this website, even though it is controlled mostly by him. It's like having a Nate Silver page without mentioning FiveThirtyEight.

As I saw it, one way to deal with this was to try a merge. It simply is not against Wikipedia policy to try things. That's the whole point of the wiki. Sometimes these actions work out, sometimes they don't, but telling longtime editors who have had success with these techniques in the past that their actions are disruptive is ignoring a good deal of Wikipedia history, culture, and agreed-upon best practices.

Now, as to the substance of your comments, it is interesting indeed that the there are other contributors to the blog. However, as I see it, we have only two sentences that relate to this at all. I did not deem that to be justification to have an entire article. WP:CFORK seems to indicate that the correct way to do this content creation is to start at the main article and then fork when the article gets too big. Anthony Watts (blogger) is a piddling size and I think benefits greatly from the merge. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just added an important quote from Fred Pearce's new book, which I received in the mail today. When an established environmental journalist describes the blog as the "most viewed climate website," I think that notability shouldn't be an issue. I've barely started reading the book, but as a I come across more information on this site, I'll be adding it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is arguing, I think, that notability is an issue. Otherwise we'd be talking about AfDs. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if someone were to propose the opposite merge, of merging Anthony Watts into this article, I might support that although I would want to study it a little more. It appears to me that this blog may be more notable than its founder, especially since Climategate caused its readership to skyrocket. Cla68 (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An interesting thought, but Watts himself has toured, is a moderately well-known broadcast meteorologist, and started SurfaceStations.org as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that as an interesting thought. I've never heard of Mr Watts, except that he appears as the "editor" of wattsupwiththat. But to put it in perspective I recollect a discussion as to whether a person of no fame whatsoever except for editing wikipedia should have an article (William connolley) and I seem to recollect that the concensus was that even someone of no notability outside wikipedia except a completely unheard of blog should be included ... or perhaps things have changed? 85.211.202.125 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @SA you are not new to this area and should clearly know that you should not have boldly done anything to this article but certainly not boldy merged it. I'm not the sort of editor who goes running to enforcement but that action is a big negative mark against you. If you wish to start a new merge discussion please do so in the appropriate way and start a new section on it. Polargeo (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, telling people to not do anything WP:BOLD is flatly contrary to the openness of Wikipedia. The wiki exists to be changed and tested. I do not object to Cla68's reversion, so please explain how this is disruptive? If anything, it's sparked good conversation, I think. There is a merge discussion above. It was inconclusive. Instead of being bound to inane processes, sometimes it's good just to try things out. That's the way Wikipedia works best, to me. I don't criticize the way you edit Wikipedia, so please stop harping on the way I edit Wikipedia, okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been entwined in some of the most disagreable conflicts over GA etc. CC enforcement etc. etc. on blogs and BLPs in the CC area for at least 2-3 weeks now. To suddenly merge a CC blog to a BLP is not bold but disruptive end of discussion. Polargeo (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous statement. Just because someone is involved in disagreeable conflicts does not mean that WP:BOLD is suddenly nullified as a guideline. End of discussion? Who do you think you are exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you really going to force me to provide the multitude of diffs required to get you blocked? I have better things to do with my day. Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

??? Seriously? Blocked? Multitude of diffs? There's one diff of relevance here and that was replacing the article with a redirect. What is your deal? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this

• With this edit 07:26 13 September 2010 ScienceApologist merged the blog Watts Up With That? to Anthony Watts.
• This was undone by Cla68 here
• Any actions on the article were clearly likely to be contentious because it was under 1RR restriction, as labelled on the talkpage by this edit
• The article is also currently GA nominated here and a peer review request had been made.
• ScienceApologist has recently been heavily involved in disputing the GA reviews and delisting of global warming skeptic articles (e.g. Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1) and also this can be seen in discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. This is to the point where SA's actions have been questioned on several occassions. This is also at the point where it is not concievable that SA did not fully realise the disruption such a merge could cause.

Okay it needs some refining but it is there. Polargeo (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have anything there, Polargeo. I think you're wasting your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And I think you knew that you should not have merged the article I will now post this and warn you on your talkpage not to apply bold to CC articles. Let us leave it at that. Polargeo (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD, and I would hope you don't engage in this kind of brow-beating of users who have thinner skin than I. You cannot unilaterally declare WP:BOLD void on climate change pages. That is simply beyond your remit. If you don't believe me, go ask at WT:BOLD if they agree with you. One more thing: WP:DTTR. Let's leave it at that. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been brought to AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.241.60 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review reminder

• Please also see the peer review page. There are peer review comments that no one has paid attention to. Minor4th 10:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly some good comments from Ruhrfish there. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Active editors: Please address the comments from the peer review, found here: [4] and copied below for reference:

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs somewhat more work before it is ready for WP:GAN, aside from any edit wars / arbcom cases, etc. Here are some suggestions for improvement and thanks for working on this article.

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However, there are somethings in the lead like the year the website was founded, that are only in the lead and infobox, but not in the body of the article itself.
• Similarly, as a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not really see how the "Temperature records project" section is in the lead.
• I think it is important in a History section to focus on the creator of the website and the mechanics of the website itself too. A bit of background on Watts would help to provide context to the reader, and how can this be a history if it does not include the start date?
• I would also include, if they are know, Watts' reasons for starting the blog in the first place - what motivated him to begin this? As it is, the History section begins in media res
• I would also include things like the structure of the website - when were moderators added? Who are the contributors besides Watts? What kind of traffic does it get? What kinds of forums are available for readers or for people to post at? We are told about a moderator in the Climategate section and Alexa rankings in 2010, and some is mentioned in the lead, but any more details in the article body would help.
• The article should not include URLs in the text (surface stations) - that is what refs are for
• The 2010 and Reception sections are very choppy - almost all one or two sentence short paragraphs, and almost no narrative flow. Can these be made into more of a story as to what is going on?
• Some refs are incomplete - 9 is just a title and 20 just a URL. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed.{{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Make sure the refs used meet WP:RS - I have no idea if they do, but that is one way to avoid some controversy. Newspaper refs seems good, not sure on the others.
• Any chance for a free image? I looked at the article on Mr. Watts to see if there was one of him, and see he runs the Surface stations website too -this should be clearly stated in this article.
• WP:NPOV issues will be crucial here - are there repsonses to the websites' positions on all this that critque them?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours,Ruhrfisch

Minor4th 07:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be working on these suggestions over time. I am about to add a "background" section with some general blog information. I will be updating the lede as well today hopefully. Minor4th 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the material on Monckton is doing in the "reception" section. Perhaps a section on use of the site by skeptics. Curry's comments also seem slightly disconnected - about blogs in general rather than WUWT, although she clearly had WUWT as one of several blogs on both sides of the debate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I probably wasn't finished moving things around, and I had to stop editing for a while. Feel free to move it or create a new section that will improve the article. I think Curry's thing is in there because she actually posted on WUWT. I did think about creating a "Guest contributors" section , and I wanted to go look at the blog and see if there were others besides Monckton and Curry. Havent had a chance yet to do that though. Minor4th 06:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As a regular reader of Wattsupwiththat, I was surprised by the article here. The summary that "its about his subsurface project" doesn't ring true. I would say that it is predominantly on climate and climate related articles with a fair scattering of general science and some social commentary. The other point is that this article is frankly boring. (Unlike wattsupwiththat) It didn't inspire me to read beyond the first paragraph. Perhaps the most obvious glaring omission in the lede is that the blog runs on wordpress. It also receives a huge number of comments on each article ... so much so that I often skip the article and just read the comments! Other points are that it is open to everyone to comment This should be in the lede, because to be frank there are a huge number of blogs that don't accept comment from anyone -- or perhaps I'm being misled -- perhaps a lot of people can't comment. I also notice when I google it, that Wattsupwiththat has a huge number of sites that refer to it including many Main stream media sites. It might be buried in the article, but this aspect does separate out this site from the vast array of blogs on the internet. So basically, I have to be frank, the article doesn't reflect what I know of the site and it is boring.85.211.202.125 (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

1934

I'm a little perturbed that, on searching for the string "1934", I see no mention in the archives. There appears to be a very severe error in the article concerning that date. The article currently states:

The discovery of the errors in the temperature records resulted in a corrected GISS report which indicated that 1934 was the hottest year on record, rather than 1998 as reflected by the erroneous data.

The wording there is a bit misleading because the GISS record covers the globe and 1934 was only the warmest year in the USA. Elsewhere I've encountered many misstatements based on the confusion and it should be corrected. --TS 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an imprecise summary of the main section. I've added the restriction. I've also thrown out an opinion piece by Booker that did not even mention the claim it was supposed to source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Watts Up With That?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded my review and made a few very minor corrections. This one is unusual. The subject is controversial, and the article had recently been merged elsewhere, which was pretty unanimously rejected and undone by the community. Other than that, the content seems stable. The article is also under a 1RR restriction, and it is loosely related to an arbitration case that is nearing conclusion. On top of that, it appears that most of the editors may soon be topic-banned!

Given all that, it may be tempting to quick-fail. I will not do that, because if this article, the peer review, all the good-faith effort to improve the article based on the peer review, and the history were viewed in a vacuum the article appears to be pretty close to good. The subject is only loosely related to the arbitration case, so I would not expect this article to become unstable in the near future. I don't know if an editor is left or willing to work on this, but I think it can be fixed. I will hold this article for up to a week. Aaron north (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

N After about 5 days, not much has been done and more problems were discovered. There's not much of a chance that this article will pass, so I'm failing it now. Aaron north (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Given that this is a blog with a focus on the skeptic POV on climate change, NPOV is obviously important for this article. However, this is an article about the blog, not necessarily the issues argued and raised by the blog, so we need not balance the blog's opinions with opposing opinions, we should instead make sure the blog itself is fairly represented, along with criticisms of the blog. In my opinion, this has been done adequately. This article consistently avoids using problematic language, and instead recites a collection of relevant facts, using quotes when opinions and analysis about the blog is needed. Descriptions, history, and opinions about the blog are portrayed with a NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   very lively history (including an excessively bold merge that was reverted!), but I wouldn't call this unstable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• As noted in the peer review, the history section seems to be lacking content about the creator. How and why did the blog start? Do secondary sources exist to flesh this section out? Is there an article written about Watts somewhere to help with this? I will probably check to see if such a source exists if no one else does in a week. If there are no secondary sources to expand on the creator and beginnings of the blog, I'll cross this out as a requirement and not hold this against the article.
• Under temperature records, this topic seems to be only loosely applicable to the two paragraphs, neither of which really have anything to do with one another except that temperature records are involved. I think the layout should be improved by giving each paragraph its own, more specifically descriptive section. (perhaps something like "Temperature Records Projects" and the second topic referring somehow to the GISS error?)

Y Aaron north (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• The paragraph under Projects appears to be insufficiently sourced. We don't need much, just a verification that these projects are in fact discussed on the blog. There is little or no analysis here and a secondary source would not likely exist for all of this, so a primary source would be fine. (Blogs are typically a lousy source per WP policy, but if we merely need to verify that something is regularly or occasionally discussed on a blog, what better source is there than articles talking about the project on that blog?)
• Is the very last sentence of the article (photo credit from Fox News of oil rig) relevant? Looks like trivia to me when it is listed under "reception".
• N New issue, the entire "Temperature Records" section appears to be suspect, the sources currently do not support the idea that WUWT readers discovered the error. See the discussion below. Aaron north (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if a free or fair use image of Watts exists, but if it does it might be a useful addition, probably under history.

Many thanks to Aaron north for taking the trouble to write a very helpful and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. I'll do my best to try to deal with as many of these as possible this week, though I'm a little bit concerned that a blank may be drawn regarding sources. We'll see what turns up. Jprw (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues is fixed. I think you mentioned that you will be working on a new history section to expand on the 1st paragraph of the lead, but just in case, I wanted to mention that the lead (specifically, the 1st paragraph) is supposed to be a summary. I cant contain significant information that is not in the article. Aaron north (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the history section. I see that another issue has come up below -- that some of the sources in the article are tenuous. I wonder if this means that it won't be possible for GA status to be reached? Jprw (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If a secondary source isn't available for the history of the creator and the blog (and I can believe that, Watts and this blog aren't exactly part of the general pop culture), then a primary source can be used, if used carefully. A secondary source is always preferable, but primary sources can be used to give a basic biography when necessary. When you get into how or why someone did something (like how or why the blog was started), that starts to get into analysis and you have to be more careful. If the source says "I did x because of y", you have to write that "this person said he did x because of y" (with better prose than that quick example), rather than just stating "the person did x because of y" like it was a verified fact from a reliable source. Aaron north (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as the GA review goes, I do suspect at this point that it won't get there, but I'm in no rush to fail it. Its not like this is a deeply flawed article that should be quick-failed, and I don't know if an editor is willing to put in a lot of time on it in the next few days or not. If it does fail, at least this process could serve as a guide to improve the article. Aaron north (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

History section

It seems as though the immediate task facing this article is creating a relevant and properly sourced history section. I've deleted the old one which just repeated almost verbatim stuff from the intro. Jprw (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking a scientific claim by a non-scientist

This sentence in the article:

According to journalist Christopher Booker, in 2007 WUWT readers, along with Stephen McIntyre, found that selected temperature records published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) based on data from United States Historical Climate Network were in error, causing GISS to mistakenly label 1998 as the hottest year on record for the United States

coatracks a scientific claim that is attributed to Christopher Booker, a non-scientist. I recommend either changing the content of the sentence or removing it outright. Booker cannot be a reliable source for this claim and the claim itself is not about WUWT but is rather about GISS. This makes the statement a coatrack. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am not sufficiently familiar with this to know whether the problem is that the wrong person is being quoted or that it's just not something that has been introduced into the scientific debate, or has been refuted there – but we can certainly not leave it in this form. Hans Adler 21:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. This is a flaw in the article that I will mention above in the GA review. After reviewing the sources, I have to agree. The most reliable source in the article (from my perspective) discussing the issue (Geotimes) only attributes the discovery to Stephen McIntyre, not to "WUWT readers". Unless there is another good secondary source available which would somehow support the idea that readers of the blog originally discovered the error, who then alerted McIntyre, who then alerted NASA, then the entire Temperature records section should probably be removed. (the other properly supported sentences would no longer be relevant to the article if the connection to WUWT is lost) Aaron north (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help wattsupwiththat.com/2007/08/08 Basically, a reader found and reported a possible problem. Based on that, McIntyre did some research and found a much bigger (and different) problem. The point being, that a blog reader was partially involved with this and, more to the point, the blog itself created the atmosphere that allowed the error to be found. Unfortunately, I have no way to verify what Booker actually said, but the current text appears to disagree with the account on the blog. Q Science (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That may present an avenue to keep some of the work that went into producing the section. As you say, the existing text is clearly wrong. A blog is also a lousy source for anything except to simply report what the blog says, when it is relevant to the article to report on what the blog says (like in this article). The article would probably also have to make it clear that Watts wrote about what happened, rather than just saying this is what happened as if it were a verified fact, due to the primary blog source. Aaron north (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This, to me, seems to be likely to have been the origin of the claim in the article: but it's sourced to advocacy rather than facts. Claims that McIntyre had done any "discoveries" or "proved" anything are hotly disputed by relevant scientists and experts. I'm having a hard time seeing exactly how this whole thing is relevant to the blog as a blog. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide links to support "hotly disputed by relevant scientists and experts". Q Science (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

[5] ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A 2004 response to an error discovered in 2007 isn't exactly what I was expecting. Q Science (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Watts makes two claims about what McIntyre has "proved": one regarding the ongoing reconstruction graph dispute further argued against here and one regarding the Y2K discontinuity. Here's the link to where the 2007 "discovery" is disputed by experts: [6]. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the blog piece supports "disputed by experts". Instead, it says "an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis ... was updated accordingly", which clearly indicates that the experts appreciated the input. Q Science (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The keywords were "discoveries" and "proved". The reaction by the experts who wrote that piece for RealClimate seems to me to dispute, and rather hotly, McIntyre's importance in the grand scheme. That's all I was really saying. But it's not exactly relevant since the section itself looks like it will be removed for reasons outlined below. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That section in that article seems to strictly limit itself to the discovery that 1934 was the hottest year at the time in the US rather than 1998. I did not see that article making a claim in that section that the blog has proven anything beyond the incorrect temperature rankings. The question at this point is really whether WUWT readers had anything to do with it. It appears so, but perhaps only by indirectly causing McIntyre to examine the temperature data while investigating an unrelated issue. The source does not support the idea that a reader discovered the error and then directly alerted McIntyre, so the article appears to be incorrect in that respect, but for a blog to directly or indirectly lead to any kind of correction from GISS is certainly relevant, and the comment from GISS in that article that the change makes little difference in the bigger picture puts it in the proper context. Aaron north (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we could verify that the correction happened because of readers of WUWT, it definitely should be in the article. But I'm having a hard time verifying that. There are even some who dispute the relevance of the "1934 correction" to anything but stamp-collecting and record-making, but I'm not really in the mood right now to do a thorough investigation (I'm inclined to believe the RealClimate article I link to above). This statement really does not seem to belong in the article in any form, IMHO. But if better sources can be found that make the case more explicitly, I could be persuaded otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this Aug 7, 2007 post by Anthony Watts will clarify things. Q Science (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Don Kostuch is the “Guy” who did the Detroit Lakes site survey. ... Don and I just set the stage with the survey and posting, and Eli, et al helped too by snarkily complaining enough to motivate Steve to canvas the data looking to explain the jump.

Steve McIntyre deserves all the credit for this important find.

If McIntyre deserves "all the credit" then this blog is deserving none of it, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, reading through this again including that simple statement, I think the entire temperature records section should be removed. The connection to the blog (which was always very tenuous to begin with) now looks to be zero if Watts neither claims nor wants credit. Aaron north (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't about what Watts "claims" or "wants", but the fact that the blog encourages discourse and that that lead to discovering the (very real) error. Q Science (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there have been any sources offered which can verify this connection. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Romm vs. Watt, BLP vio

Someone added what is (imo) rather scurrilous criticisms of Watt by "noted climate expert" Joe Romm. I changed this to the more-accurate climate "activist", and I suppose someone should assemble some RS criticism of Romm himself, who doesn't enjoy a high reputation for probity or even common sense, from what I've seen. Plus, there's no response from Watt. AND:

So I've reverted out the Romm bit, for gross violation of WP:BLP -- blogs can't be used in a BLP! --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Monbiot's blog: BLP violation?

This one : George Monbiot (15 May 2009). "How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds". The Guardian. -- is more borderline. Clearly labeled as "George Monbiot's Blog", it is sponsored by The Guardian, which also runs his non-blog column. Is there any evidence the Guardian exercises editorial control over Monbiot's blog? -- see WP:BLPSPS. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Add Scientific American or ClimateProgres.org copy regarding Richard A. Muller's responses

Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick (Michael Lemonick) May 25, 2011 Scientific American.

In the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Al Gore and the An Inconvenient Truth, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology).

The SciAm link is on again off again, but here it is from Joseph J. Romm's ClimateProgress.org http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf 99.119.131.248 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Easier to read? 99.181.156.30 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael Lemonick May 25, 2011 Scientific American reprint

Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael Lemonick May 25, 2011 reprinted from Scientific American of Richard A. Muller response to skeptics such as Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Critical balance. 108.73.113.82 (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You waited less than 24 hours for a response after two users previously reverted your addition to this page. We both (and I suspect most other page watchers as well) disagree with including it. By my estimate you have asked to add this link or ones like it to no less than four wikipages. The problem is that Dr. Muller's information really doesn't belong anywhere except in his biographical article at this point (this is not an endorsement to add it there, however). We don't know at this point if it's had a larger impact. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It certainly doesn't belong in either of these two blog articles, to which it only has the most tenuous of connection. So please stop your campaign to spread this link throughout the Climate change area until there is a clear consensus of users other than yourself that support adding it. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you disageee Sailsbystars? Scienific American isn't a blog, and the interview with Muller directly comments on the Climate Audit work of Stephen McIntyre. There is nothing wrong with notable voices calmly making scienfic counter-points. Wikipedia is about balanced well-rounded articles, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The SciAm online version is currently accessible http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-stick-to-science 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then suggested would be add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael Lemonick May 25, 2011 Scientific American of Richard A. Muller response to skeptics such as Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? 99.181.135.177 (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you consider your (multiple IPs) request as a consensus, I still see no reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User access levels, Wikipedia:IPs are human too, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.136.35 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

More recently, Muller called Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods. Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming.

How did the BEST project come about?

A colleague of mine drew my attention to some of the issues that were raised by Anthony Watts, who was showing that many of the stations that recorded temperature were poorly sited, that they were close to building and heat sources. I also separately learned of work done by Steve McIntyre up in Canada, who looked at the “hockey stick” data [the data behind a 1999 graph showing temperatures remaining more or less steady for 1,000 years, then rising sharply in the 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick].

Anthony Watts, whom some climate scientists consider a denier, not just a skeptic, has denounced you for going public before the final results are in. Why did you go public?

The idea that you don’t show anybody, including your colleagues, results until they are peer-reviewed is something new in science. And it’s brought about because of media attention. I don’t think that’s good.

Now, the problem becomes even more difficult when someone like me is asked to testify before Congress. I didn’t volunteer. I came close to turning it down. And I discussed it with my colleagues, and for the most part they said, “Look, this is the government. This is important. If you don’t give them your honest opinion, your honest thoughts on what you know, they’re going to pass legislation that doesn’t take into account the current status of the science.”

Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic?

No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there.

I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

For "B.E.S.T." see Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Also see United States Congress, Climate change policy of the United States, Global warming controversy and Climate change denial for "denier". 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone see a purpose in this last sentence? If relevant, perhaps those articles should have irrelevant sections trimmed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to clarify the text above (not yours, of course). 99.181.140.243 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Only to those with no knowledge of English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

An attempt at WP:INSULT? Or Rhetorical question followed by attempt at Rhetoric? Save space, and attempt Pithiness. 99.181.146.221 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, just an observation. If you understood English, you could see that it does not clarify anything previously written here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Besmirching ones use of English is a WP:INSULT, no? Unbecoming behavior of "an Admin", Art. 21:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

Thank you Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188! \\(^o^)// 99.181.146.41 (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Noting that the English no sense makes is not at all an insult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

English is a living language. If Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin is just Arthur Rubin and not a group of people and/or automation, then be aware Art, the "language" of mathematics is not the same as English and your wp page doesn't include Professor of all that is written. Please attempt more Wikipedia:Civility. 99.181.156.173 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

English may be a living language, but the language you are using, whatever it is, isn't English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Another failed attempt at civility Art. Sad. 99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this criticism of each other is going anywhere. May I suggest you go back to discussing the inclusion or non inclusion as it seems to me of the original link and leave off the personal rhetoric. Cheers ^Khukri 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP has been pushing the link on no less than 4 different articles and seems to be missing the point that no one else finds it relevant. I still don't see a point in adding it to this article in that Mueller only mentions WUWT in passing. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The last couple of days has seen a number of IPs come out of the woodwork that are certainly knowledgeable about Wikipedia's ways with respect to environmental articles. In the case of this anonymous editor I would suggest if this point has been raised elsewhere then this section should be collapsed and closed with link to the original discussion detailing why it is not relevant for inclusion. Getting into debates about English comprehension does neither editors viewpoints or themselves justice, no matter how exasperated one may be with the other. Though I do see the IP asked a question above that may warrant answering or again pointing to where you responded previously and then close the thread. Cheers ^Khukri 14:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of date

Various desc here look badly out of date. The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer. isn't really true. Etc William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Have not read anything by Judith Curry for some time. Anthony publishes Fred Singer's weekly SEPP "energy news roundup". [7][8] Christopher Monckton remains a regular. Joe Bast is another notable contributor. — ThePowerofX 18:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Last thing I read by Judith Curry was quite interesting, but don't know if Tony wanted to publicise it. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would second (third?) that. They haven't even got that it won for the third time on the bloggies awards. But as Wikipedia doesn't allow sceptics to edit articles on climate it's their job to keep this up to date not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Funding

This states that "Climate skeptic blogger Anthony Watts, it appears, received [from the Heartland Institute ] US90,000 to relaunch his Website". Presumably this should be included somewhere? Any suggestions as to where to put it? SmartSE (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

El Reg isn't a reliable source, so better sourcing is needed. News items are starting to appear: Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science | Environment | guardian.co.uk gives overall coverage, and Climate sceptics – who gets paid what? | Environment | guardian.co.uk gives a brief overview. For more detail the WP:NEWSBLOG Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk is an informative reliable source, with some care needed to make sure that usage complies fully with WP:BLPSPS policy where applicable. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

El Reg isn't reliable for everything, but yeah The Granuaid is better, especially as it points out which website is funded by them. Considering that, it's better mentioned in the bio, which it already is. I'll add some 2ndry sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having seen this earlier in the Guardian I took a look at the website, Watts says he has not gotten funding from Heartland, only a 44k figure has been pledged according to him. I also saw that Heartland have released a statement saying at least one of the documents is a fake and others appear to have been altered. Perhaps WP:NOTNEWS ought to apply here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Watts blog? SPS applies, use with care. See also Heartland Institute claims fraud after leak of climate change documents | Environment | guardian.co.uk. Trust there will be comprehensive independent inquiries. . . dave souza, talk 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: "They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind." Watts, in an email, did not mention the entire cost of his temperature station initiative but said: "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project." dave souza, talk 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?..." -- gives us a good idea of author Suzanne Goldenberg, the Guardian's US environment correspondent, slant on things, doesn't it? In an (allegedly) straight news report. Tssk -- Pete Tillman (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete, appreciate that you don't like mainstream science reporting, but isn't "anti-science" pretty accurate? Watts seems to be about denying results he doesn't like, or has he come round to accepting the BEST work as he initially said he would? . 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a scientific, factual slant, as nearly every climate scientists agrees that the site is anti-science and the evidence bears that out. Of course, we all know your own slant on things. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reception

There is nothing incidental or minor in significance about David Suzuki's article. The topic is global warming scepticism and individuals/groups that strive to influence public understanding. Anthony Watts runs a blog that is sceptical of global warming. Suzuki offers an unfavourable opinion of that very same blog. He clearly identifies Watts by name. It's not as though Suzuki has strayed from one issue to another, unlike the concise quote attributed to Patrick Michaels when referring (so we are told) to Anthony Watts and his blog, even though neither is mentioned directly by himself. — ThePowerofX 18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with using the one phrase from Suzuki re WUWT. I don't think we need to reproduce his opinions on other climate blogs here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fair. — ThePowerofX 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony runs a blog that is pro-science. We only call ourselves sceptics to distinguish us from the non-sceptical "scientists" (all scientists are sceptics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The link to environmental skepticism seems like a good one. Is this something to which the sceptics object?Nodnien (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good scientists are generally sceptics. Anthony Watts is not a scientist or a scientific sceptic, the other authors at his blog are most non-scientists and the few scientists are not good scientific sceptics, and the commenters are generally ignorant dolts. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Skepticism vs. environmental skepticism

I have been a lurker on these pages for years, but today decided to get an account because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=550803791&oldid=550670260 . I am here to explain that if a link goes to environmental skepticism, it is only right that it be described as environmental skepticism.

The general skepticism movement does not take issue with the scientific consensus on global warmingNodnien (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I came here because of the post at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Watts_Up_With_That. I agree with you, Nodnien, that link pipes should best describe the article to which they go. Since the link in question goes to environmental skepticism then the link pipe should describe that term rather than the general term skepticism. It seems to me that it is correct the way you have done it and incorrect to do it the other way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nodnien's edit was reverted (diff) on December 9, 2013. I partially agree with the revert, in that the blog doesn't seem to be environmentally skeptical in general, based on what Watts has written recently on tropospheric ozone and particulate pollution. But neither is "skeptical" accurate, as that implies, in the context of a blog about science, scientific skepticism. The blog seems to be contrarian on only one environmental topic — the topic Watts posts most frequently about, climate change denial/global warming conspiracy theory. That seems, to me, a more accurate description of the blog's point of view than either environmental skepticism in general, and certainly more accurate than "skeptical". I'll start looking for a RS for that (the current cited source does not contain the word "skeptic" at all). Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, duh, "sceptic" with a "c" indeed appears in the cited source. But the source also acknowledges that "sceptic" is used in a misleading way. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong, the current source is more than fine, and I used it to guide the phrasing. "Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science." Since the article later discusses the potential of "sceptic" to mislead, I focused on the last four words of the sentence and wrote "criticism of global warming science". Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of external links section

Sorry for my edit summary being a mess. I removed the external links section at the same time as creating a new section. I removed all three external links for the following reasons:

1. WUWT link already appears in the infobox, making this EL a duplicate.
2. FB is ELNO when a regular Web site exists. The multiple reasons for this are discussed at WP:FACEBOOK.
3. The SS site contains no information relevant to the subject of this article, which is the WUWT blog. It is related only by common authorship. Would be ELYES for Anthony Watts article (if not for already being in the infobox there) but meets none of the criteria for the WUWT article.

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer

The blog does indeed feature guest contributions - indeed, nowadays, the bulk of the posts are not by AW. But the bulk of the guest postings are by "non notable" folk. Why does the list of contributors only mention notable folk?

Currently, posts in reverse order are: by AW, Steven Capozzola, AW, Howard Lowe, Bob Tisdale, AW, Richard Betts, copy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, David Archibald, Eric Worrall, AW, Jean-Pierre Bardinet, Eric Worrall, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, AW, AW, AW, AW, Bob Tisdale, SEPP (*not* FS), Paul Driessen, Tom Quirk. And so on. On what basis have " Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer" been singled out? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Goklany is on the masthead - not an independent source, but a source. The rest of that was unsourced, so I removed it. Guettarda (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeeessss... the about page says "Contributors: John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach". Why pick just one of them out? And why add "regular"? Goklany clearly isn't regular William M. Connolley (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this helps either. Why are we picking out some contributors? Because of the quality of their contributions? Their frequency? Their not-redlinkiness? Why is BobTisdale, who contributes rather often, ignored? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi WMC, I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts, for example his latest, a nice BOTE look at ocean thermal circulation. He's a fine writer and an interesting guy. I'm fine with adding Tisdale, although I find his writing style opaque & very hard to follow. But you're right, any selection of contributors will be arbitrary..... unless someone wants to do a frequency analysis of posters. Not me! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've realised that I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts Just won't fly. We're not recommending people. You might just as well add Bob Tisdale or David Archibald, on the grounds that their posts are particularly stupid William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Have removed names as a reliable secondary source needed for associating BLPs with this blog. Not straightforward: for example, the recent post by Richard Betts was a reposting of a blog article from ATTP, with minimal attribution. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

The frequent use of the pejorative term "denier" is inappropriate. It would be the equivalent of frequently using the term "nigger" in a post about civil rights. Please replace 'climate change denial' in the first sentence with 'climate change skepticism'. In the third paragraph, it would also be more appropriate (and better grammar) to say, "...and among the most influential climate change skeptic blogs..." KMAnomalocaris (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

From a quick search, the only use of the word "denier" is in a footnote, a quotation from a reliable source saying that WUWT provides "a rallying ground for other AGW deniers". Published by Prometheus Books, perhaps you don't appreciate a genuine skeptical view? Good quality academic sources refer to climate change denial as a specific topic, and that's what's shown in the article itself. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This page linked from WUWT, requesting his viewers sway consensus

FYI, our article was just linked on WUWT's homepage, requesting his readers try to sway consensus, because "it's a numbers game".   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page. If anyone considers me too involved to do that, I will undo it. But given the sudden arrival of all these brand new accounts, I was starting to think it needed doing. Given this, I think it's strongly warranted. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I was about to do the same and endorse the semi-protection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I had made a request at RfPP, but it hadn't been filled yet. I appreciate you getting to it quicker!

To any of Anthony's viewers who were linked here from his blog, please feel free to contribute to this talk page to discuss changes to the article. Wikipedia works through discussion, so we're trying to focus on doing that instead of "edit warring". Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Watts had posted a statement of his position on climate change, and I feel it would be appropriate to post it somewhere in the article to clear up any misconceptions as what he and his blog are about.

"For the record: I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate."
Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit this, but I will give it a whirl. This does appear to be a very biased article. Most of the references are to media articles and blogs expressing the opinion of the author and are often little more than ad-hominem attacks and name calling. In which case balancing opinions should also be quoted and cited. It is clear from many articles written by Anthony, including the one referenced here, that he is not a "denier" of climate change. He does not deny that the climate has warmed, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the climate, nor that man's production of CO2 contributes to that warming. He is, like many of us, sceptical of the positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity necessary to support the more extreme predictions of global warming. That is a fairly nuanced position and not one that deserves the tag "denier" - or at least it should not be stated as if it were a "fact" that he is a denier (as the first line does), just that some commentators think he is. If you read his blog regularly you will see that nearly all the articles from other contributors come from that "sceptical" position. Many of the comments are from people you might class as deniers, but you cannot judge a blog by its most extreme commentators. This article needs to be adjusted to make it clear that most of the references and articles cited are opinions and they should be better balanced by citations of the many other articles that take an opposing view. Oefinell (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed below, this article has to show how the opinions expressed on WUWT have been received by mainstream scientists, and how they're covered by academic publications discussing the topic area. Please put forward good quality sources supporting the points you want covered, and be as specific as you can: generalised complaints can only be discussed in principle. Note that blogs can only be used in certain circumstances. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, using the word "denier" is derogatory and inflammatory, which, I'm sure, Wikipedia does not want. Surely this would go in a "Controversy" subsection? Shame on Wikipedia for allowing Gatekeepers to drag it down :( CWernham (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what impact this will have, and I'm not sure how to sign this. But... Is this how you build consensus? You block any changes from those who disagree with your unbalanced and biased editing? I will no longer be contributing financially to Wikipedia in future. It has gone from being a light and hope for correct and unbiased information on the internet to being a political weapon for special interest groups. Shame on you.16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Gmakwiki (talk)

Jess, swaying consensus is a good thing. If done properly. Are you suggesting there is an attempt to do something inappropriate? Did you notice that the article doesn't even urge readers to make any specific edit, and states clearly If you do participate, please stick to facts, not opinions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? You might enjoy a reading of WP:VOTESTACK and the (in-)appropriateness of one-sided recruiting of a partisan audience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I am serious, although I think I catch your point. I see a fundamental difference between an established editor, who is expected to know how this works, going out to recruit contributors by visiting a biased sample of sites, and the subject of an article explaining the process for editing. Had Watts pushed for certain types of edits, or slyly suggested ways around the rules, it would be problematic, but he is the victim of a few editors pushing a lie, and his response is to provide links on the proper way to edit, and urge people to stick to facts. I would be on board with you if some editor here decided to go only to skeptic sites and encourage edits, but that isn't what happened. To put it another way, what action would you think is acceptable by the subject? Do you think we can realistically require that he contact sites who disagree with him?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Watts may have made a mistake by mentioning only this WUWT article. For a long time the action has been in the article Anthony Watts (blogger). On that page, clicking History will show that there has been conflict since about March 15 about whether to call Mr Watts and WUWT denier/denialist (including in the lead), and whether to remove the original mentions of words like skeptic. By the way, Mr Watts is not the first person to blog about Wipedia's coverage of the issue, he was preceded by William Connolley. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For new editors: good sources needed

Hi, and welcome. Wikipedia has a trio of interrelated policies: "no original research" requires that we don't use unpublished arguments, articles have to be "verifiable" from good quality published sources, and "neutral point of view" requires due weight to mainstream views. Specifically, fringe views about science have to be shown as such, in the context of mainstream views of that minority view, to meet fringe and pseudoscience policy.
Watts clearly promotes fringe or minority views in opposition to mainstream science, and so we have to reflect that, and find the best academic sources covering the issue. Good quality academic sources describe Watts' blog as promoting climate change denial, and we should therefore show that mainstream view. Other more flattering terms appear in the mass media, but good quality sources are explicit that the so-called "climate skepticism" of WUWT is similar to climate change denial, while lacking essential qualities of scientific skepticism.
Bottom line: find high quality sources discussing Watts and his blog, and discuss them on this talk page with suggestions for wording based on these sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For new editors: hi and welcome (really)! Now that you've seen Dave souza's advice, have some more from someone who has been disagreeing with him about WUWT: (1) Most of the known reliable sources describe Watts and/or his blog as skeptical not denialist, and one of our "issues" on the Anthony Watts (blogger) article is that editors have removed mention of those sources and emphasized anything that says denier/denialist. (2) Currently the editors pushing quotes re Watts/WUWT denial are in the majority, but there is dispute that they have achieved consensus, and they may not represent the mainstream attitude of Wikipedians. Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales told Dave souza in 2011

Yes, as always, good sourcing is crucial. Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent.

Bottom line: discuss on this talk page and the Anthony Watts (blogger) talk page, and edit when you can and when you've read the rules. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As on the other page, Peter's counted quantity of google hits showing up news sources, but fails to recognise that good quality academic sources point to climate change denial, in one or other of its manifestations. As for the holocaust assertion, that's a strawman reversing history of the term, and a disrespect to the famous holocaust: denial long predates that usage. Also, mainstream views can't be disregarded because Watts opposes the mainstream: weight policy requires quite the opposite. So, let's see more sources, and discuss their quality. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there's enough disagreement about the quality of the existing sources, and how they are being used, without further complicating the issue. Let's correct that first. --DGaw (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Detailed discussion welcome, we're currently in the process of improving sourcing and there's some way to go. Assistance welcome. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I'm out today for the holiday, but things seem to have blown up. Yes, new editors (and established editors who are new to this page) need to propose specific proposals to change the page, and provide reliable sources to back up their proposals. We can't really make changes unless that's done. All the requests below seem to be vague complaints without any references to sources. Unfortunately, those don't really get us anywhere. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The blog's subject matter is covered in its about page. I'm reproducing it here for the convenience of the community:

About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts

This science news site feature original content from myself as well as several contributors:

Editor:

Anthony Watts

Contributors:

John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach

Moderation Team:

charles the moderator DB Stealey Evan Jones Mike L. Mike J. Andy C. Verity J. Lee K. Robert C. Keith B.

Moderator Emeritus:

Robert E. Phelan (REP)

TMLutas (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@TMLutas: as I asked above, do you have an edit suggestion, based on high quality, third-party sources, which also takes into account the existing sources? (Obviously the website itself isn't an independent source.) Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to stop exclusively using unfriendly sources to describe the blog which is why I put the NPOV tag on. TMLutas (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is ridiculous, a proposed hagiography for fringe views when policy requires us to show how they've been received by the mainstream. If you've got good quality published "friendly" sources, they can be used too but not given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ridiculous not to exclusively use sources hostile to the outlet. Right. To seek to have a balance between positive and negative sources is fringe. Right. TMLutas (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@TMLutas: - What sources do you want included in the article? And how do you propose to use them? Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a preconceived notion as to what sources to use. The usual habit is to give a neutral depiction followed by friendly and critical characterization. The characterization by Watt's frequent debating opponents right up front needs to be worked out to consensus. It can go back in when the criticism section is sorted. I do notice that the current first footnote is wrong. The url does not go to the cited publication. I don't feel like getting past the FT paywall to see whether there's anything else wrong with it. That's as far as I've gotten. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're referring to the Fiona Harvey article "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue"? I was able to pass the paywall once by going here, but no longer. Anyway: it doesn't say the year that the blog started, it doesn't mention denier/denialism, and says "Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science." A citation to it was recently removed from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My original complaint was just that the ref went to a different publication than the link but your analysis does make it appear to have worse problems than that. What's the reason that ref is in there? According to the FAQ page on the site, it started out as part of norcalblogs.com in 2006 and still has a link there. It then seems to have made a move to wordpress in 2007 and later on to its own domain according to the archive.org site grabs. TMLutas (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It started off as a cite for the sentence "Watts Up With That? (WUWT for short) is a science blog created in 2006 by former broadcast weather presenter Anthony Watts which concentrates on the global warming controversy from a global warming skeptic perspective.", five years ago. If your sole interest was in sourcing the date, yes the WUWT FAQ page http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/ might be better for that. But I guess originally it was intended as a cite for the skeptic-perspective bit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm loathe to edit a reference to an article I can't read because I can't personally verify that it belongs there at all. My impulse would be to kill it for being behind a paywall, and claiming to point to a publication it doesn't. If you'd like to rescue it and move the cite further down in the article for the skeptic perspective bit, I'll take your word for now, that it's on point somewhere. TMLutas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's already cited further down. There's no rule that says cites to paywalled sources should be regarded as bad, but I wasn't objecting about keeping it exactly as is in this particular spot. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)