Jump to content

Anthony Watts (blogger): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 75: Line 75:
In March 2011 Watts visited the Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST), and said "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."<ref name=NYT1011 /> In October the project released data and a draft of their paper which produced results supporting the existing scientific consensus. Watts claimed that its methodology was flawed, complaining that the BEST study analyzed a larger period than his own research, and that it was not yet peer reviewed.<ref name=NYT1011>{{Cite news |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/climate-study-does-not-placate-skeptics/?ref=earth |title=Climate Study Does Not Placate Skeptics |first=Leslie |last=Kaufman |work=New York Times |date=2011-10-21 |accessdate=June 2015 |quote=Anthony Watts, had written in March on his climate-themed blog, Watts Up With That, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But neither Mr. Watts nor other longtime critics of climate science reached by The Times seemed satisfied with the report. Mr. Watts, a former television meteorologist, contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness.}}</ref> [[Richard A. Muller]], founder of BEST, later said their study directly addressed Watts' concern about the condition of weather stations; "we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflected temperature changes accurately."<ref name=blackSS>{{harvnb|Black|2013|p=1505}}: "We have done an initial study of the station selection issue...we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. We have also studied station quality. Many U.S. stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the "poor" stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the "good" stations."</ref>
In March 2011 Watts visited the Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST), and said "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."<ref name=NYT1011 /> In October the project released data and a draft of their paper which produced results supporting the existing scientific consensus. Watts claimed that its methodology was flawed, complaining that the BEST study analyzed a larger period than his own research, and that it was not yet peer reviewed.<ref name=NYT1011>{{Cite news |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/climate-study-does-not-placate-skeptics/?ref=earth |title=Climate Study Does Not Placate Skeptics |first=Leslie |last=Kaufman |work=New York Times |date=2011-10-21 |accessdate=June 2015 |quote=Anthony Watts, had written in March on his climate-themed blog, Watts Up With That, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But neither Mr. Watts nor other longtime critics of climate science reached by The Times seemed satisfied with the report. Mr. Watts, a former television meteorologist, contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness.}}</ref> [[Richard A. Muller]], founder of BEST, later said their study directly addressed Watts' concern about the condition of weather stations; "we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflected temperature changes accurately."<ref name=blackSS>{{harvnb|Black|2013|p=1505}}: "We have done an initial study of the station selection issue...we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. We have also studied station quality. Many U.S. stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the "poor" stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the "good" stations."</ref>


[[File:Global monthly temperature record.png|thumb|right|300px|The Berkeley Earth project temperature data matched with other independent reports, such as the IPCC's fourth assessment report, NOAA NCDC, and NASA GISTEMP.<ref>{{harvnb|FarmerCook|2013|p=107}}: "Temperature records constructed by NASA/GISS, NOAA, HadCRU, and UC Berkeley...find exactly the same quantitative results for global temperature rise."</ref> Berkeley Earth's findings supported the existing scientific consensus that a warming trend was evident, and estimated a rise in temperatures by 0.911°C over the last 50 years.<ref>{{harvnb|FarmerCook|2013|p=107}}: "The BEST study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics and deniers including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The BEST group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years the land surface has warmed by 0.911°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies...The BEST study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies."</ref>]]
[[File:Global monthly temperature record.png|thumb|right|300px|The Berkeley Earth project temperature data matched with other independent reports, such as the IPCC's fourth assessment report, NOAA NCDC, and NASA GISTEMP.<ref>{{harvnb|FarmerCook|2013|p=107}}: "Temperature records constructed by NASA/GISS, NOAA, HadCRU, and UC Berkeley...find exactly the same quantitative results for global temperature rise."</ref> Berkeley Earth's findings supported the existing scientific consensus that a warming trend was evident, and estimated a rise in temperatures by 0.911°C over the last 50 years.<ref>{{harvnb|FarmerCook|2013|p=107}}: "The BEST study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics and deniers including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The BEST group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years the land surface has warmed by 0.911°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies...The BEST study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|ISSCUNESC|2013|p=7}}: "Evidence of climate change is abundant, yet a degree of denial persists at the community and government levels...Despite these doubts, a new and independent assessment of the evidence by Berkeley Earth led to a series of papers in the period 2010 to 2013 that systematically addressed each of the five foremost concerns expressed by climate change skeptics, and concluded that they did not unduly bias the record. Berkeley Earth confirmed what previous studies had claimed: planet Earth is warming. The global mean land temperature had increased by 0.911°C since the 1950s, which is consistent with the findings from the [IPCC] and with other studies. The scientific community has now achieved broad consensus regarding the reality and threats of climate change. The major cause of climate change is understood as the emission of greenhouses gases...the major area of concern is the burning of fossil fuels."</ref>]]

Around 22 July 2012, Watts heard that the BEST project was about to release further material, and decided to release a paper he and Evan Jones had been working on for about a year.<ref name="Watts 20120730">{{cite web | last=Watts | first=Anthony | title=Backstory on the new surfacestations paper | website=Watts Up With That? | date=30 Jul 2012 | url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/backstory-on-the-new-surfacestations-paper/ | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref> On 27 July he blogged that WUWT was suspended until noon on 29 July: "major announcement coming".<ref name="Watts 20120727">{{cite web | last=Watts | first=Anthony | title=WUWT publishing suspended – major announcement coming | website=Watts Up With That? | date=27 Jul 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-publishing-suspended-major-announcement-coming/ | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref> ''[[The New York Times]]'' published a summary of further draft results from BEST, including an announcement from Muller that their study now showed that humans "are almost entirely the cause" of the warming. Shortly afterwards, Watts announced his own team's draft paper which said that previously reported temperature rises had been "spuriously doubled", and made the serious accusation that NOAA had inflated the rate by erroneous adjustments to the data.<ref name="Washington Post 20120730">{{cite news |first= Jason |last= Samenow | title=Blockbuster climate change studies prove little | work=Washington Post | date=30 Jul 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/so-called-blockbuster-climate-change-studies-prove-little/2012/07/30/gJQAZZNMKX_blog.html | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='There's plenty of room for scepticism' – climate study author Richard Muller |author=Donald, Ros |newspaper=The Guardian |url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/aug/03/scepticism-climate-study-richard-muller |date=3 August 2012 |quote=Rolling back his previous promise to accept BEST's findings, the one-time BEST supporter has released a draft paper of his own, at about the same time as the new BEST results. Watts says his assessment of temperature stations shows that poor weather station siting has "spuriously" doubled estimates of temperature rise in the US}}<br>{{cite web | last=Watts | first=Anthony | title=New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | website=Watts Up With That? | date=29 July 2012 |url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref> Climate scientists and other bloggers quickly found flaws in the paper. [[Steve McIntyre]], who Watts had named as a co-author, stressed that his involvement had been "very last minute and limited". He agreed with criticisms including the point that Watts had failed to correct for time of observation bias, and noted that independent [[satellite temperature measurements]] were closer to the NOAA figures.<ref name="Washington Post 20120731">{{cite news |first= Jason |last= Samenow | title=More evidence attention-grabbing climate studies were prematurely rushed | work=Washington Post | date=31 Jul 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/more-evidence-attention-grabbing-climate-studies-prematurely-rushed-and-potentially-flawed/2012/07/31/gJQAYJkCNX_blog.html | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref>
Around 22 July 2012, Watts heard that the BEST project was about to release further material, and decided to release a paper he and Evan Jones had been working on for about a year.<ref name="Watts 20120730">{{cite web | last=Watts | first=Anthony | title=Backstory on the new surfacestations paper | website=Watts Up With That? | date=30 Jul 2012 | url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/backstory-on-the-new-surfacestations-paper/ | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref> On 27 July he blogged that WUWT was suspended until noon on 29 July: "major announcement coming".<ref name="Watts 20120727">{{cite web | last=Watts | first=Anthony | title=WUWT publishing suspended – major announcement coming | website=Watts Up With That? | date=27 Jul 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-publishing-suspended-major-announcement-coming/ | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref> ''[[The New York Times]]'' published a summary of further draft results from BEST, including an announcement from Muller that their study now showed that humans "are almost entirely the cause" of the warming. Shortly afterwards, Watts announced his own team's draft paper which said that previously reported temperature rises had been "spuriously doubled", and made the serious accusation that NOAA had inflated the rate by erroneous adjustments to the data.<ref name="Washington Post 20120730">{{cite news |first= Jason |last= Samenow | title=Blockbuster climate change studies prove little | work=Washington Post | date=30 Jul 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/so-called-blockbuster-climate-change-studies-prove-little/2012/07/30/gJQAZZNMKX_blog.html | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='There's plenty of room for scepticism' – climate study author Richard Muller |author=Donald, Ros |newspaper=The Guardian |url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/aug/03/scepticism-climate-study-richard-muller |date=3 August 2012 |quote=Rolling back his previous promise to accept BEST's findings, the one-time BEST supporter has released a draft paper of his own, at about the same time as the new BEST results. Watts says his assessment of temperature stations shows that poor weather station siting has "spuriously" doubled estimates of temperature rise in the US}}<br>{{cite web | last=Watts | first=Anthony | title=New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | website=Watts Up With That? | date=29 July 2012 |url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref> Climate scientists and other bloggers quickly found flaws in the paper. [[Steve McIntyre]], who Watts had named as a co-author, stressed that his involvement had been "very last minute and limited". He agreed with criticisms including the point that Watts had failed to correct for time of observation bias, and noted that independent [[satellite temperature measurements]] were closer to the NOAA figures.<ref name="Washington Post 20120731">{{cite news |first= Jason |last= Samenow | title=More evidence attention-grabbing climate studies were prematurely rushed | work=Washington Post | date=31 Jul 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/more-evidence-attention-grabbing-climate-studies-prematurely-rushed-and-potentially-flawed/2012/07/31/gJQAYJkCNX_blog.html | accessdate=4 Jun 2015}}</ref>


Revision as of 00:33, 17 June 2015

For other people called Anthony Watts, see Anthony Watts.
Willard Anthony Watts
Anthony Watts speaking in Gold Coast, Australia, June 2010
Born1958 (age 65–66)[1]
NationalityAmerican
Alma materPurdue University(no degree earned)[2]
Occupation(s)Blogger
business owner
former broadcast meteorologist
Years active1978-present[3]
EmployerKPAY-AM[2]
Known forViewpoints on climate change
Websitehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/

Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an former American broadcast meteorologist and founder of the Surface Stations project, a volunteer initiative to document the condition of U.S. weather stations. He operates Watts Up With That?, a blog which hosts material opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change. Watts describes himself as a climate change skeptic;[4] however, climatologist Michael E. Mann states that Watts' blog has "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog".[5]

Education and career

Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[6] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][7] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]

He joined KHSL-TV, a CBS affiliate based in Chico, California in 1987,[2][3] and founded a company named ItWorks the same year.[8] He stopped using his first name "Willard" to avoid confusion with NBC's The Today Show weatherman Willard Scott.[3] In 2002, he left KHSL to focus on ITWorks full-time.[9] Watts has been the chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM, a Fox News affiliate based in Chico, California since 2004,[2] and the director and president of IntelliWeather Inc, a subsidiary of ItWorks,[8] since 2000.[citation needed]

Watts was a member of the Chico, California school board from 2002 to 2006.[10] In 2006, he was briefly a candidate for county supervisor, to represent Chico on the Butte County Board of Supervisors, but withdrew his candidacy due to family and workload concerns.[11] In 2010, Watts went on a speaking tour to 18 locations around Australia.[12]

Climate change opinion and activities

These graphs show the estimated contribution of solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols and human factors such as greenhouses gasses to climate change. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that human influences (pictured bottom) are the leading driver of a recent warming trend.[13]

Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[5][14][15] He believes that global warming is occurring, but that it is not as bad as has been reported, and that carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change.[4][16][17] Watts claims in his blog that variations in solar irradiance, the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind are driving changes to the climate,[16] contrary to the scientific consensus that the primary cause of climate change is an increase in greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide.[18][19] Climate models have been used to examine the role of the Sun in recent warming,[20] and data collected on solar irradiance[21] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[22][23] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[24][25]

Watts has written that he feels "climate change denial" does not accurately reflect his positions on the climate.[26]

Watts is a signatory to the Leipzig Declaration[27] as well as the Manhattan Declaration, which calls for the immediate halt to any tax funded attempts to counteract climate change or reduce CO2 emissions, and suggests the consensus among climate scientists is "false".[28] Watts says he advocates for alternative energy sources and for the United States to "disengaged from Middle East Oil."[29]

Climate change blogging

Main article: Watts Up With That?

Watts established Watts Up With That? (WUWT) in 2006. The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, and presents material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, including claims the human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming.[30] It hosts several guest bloggers, such as Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer.[31] It is among the most prominent climate change denial blogs,[14][32][33][34] and according to Michael Mann, it is the most successful, having surpassed Climate Audit in popularity.[5] It receives more than half a million views per month.[15] Columbia Journalism School writer Curtis Brainard has written that "scientists have repeatedly criticized [Watts] for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record."[35]

Between 2008 and 2013, WUWT won internet voting-based awards for "best science blog" and "best blog" from the Bloggies[36] and the conservative Wizbang Weblog Awards. In 2013, Leo Hickman wrote in The Guardian Environment Blog that 13 of the 17 blogs nominated for the Science or Technology category for the Bloggies "were either run by climate sceptics, or popular with climate sceptics". When asked about concerns that the awards were being gamed, Bloggies founder Nikolai Nolan said that "legitimate science blogs don't want to make an effort to compete."[37]

The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[38] Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, wrote that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[39]

In 2009, Watts was involved in popularizing the Climatic Research Unit email controversy,[31][40] wherein emails of several climatologists were published by a hacker. Watts argued that the emails showed the scientists were manipulating data, and while a series of independent investigations cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing,[41] public accusations resulting from the event continued for years.[40] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations,[42][43] however, the reports may have decreased public confidence in climate scientists and the IPCC, and conclusively altered the Copenhagen negotiations that year.[44][45]

Surface Stations project

An example of a photograph taken by a volunteer from the Surface Stations project, which identifies several alleged issues with the location of the weather station. This photograph was used in the Heartland Institute Paper in 2009.[46]

In 2007, Watts launched the Surface Stations project, in which volunteers took photographs of weather stations forming part of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network to record their condition.[47][48][49] By 2009, around 650 volunteers had reported on around 70% of the 1,221 stations, and suggested most were below "good or best" reliability.[50][51] In March 2009 The Heartland Institute published an illustrated report authored by Watts, in which he argued that the surface temperature record in the United States was inaccurate and that the actual temperature was lower than reported.[52] Watts presented pictures from volunteers participating through his website to show that many surface weather stations were situated near artificial heat sources such as pavement and air conditioners, but did not show any comparison of the data from these sites and the data from well situated stations.[53]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) investigated the matter. While acknowledging the suboptimal conditions of many stations, NOAA concluded in 2010 that any bias had been nearly eliminated by their models, which compared stations over regions and time.[54] To the very limited extent that there was any measurement bias, it was in the opposite direction of what Watts expected: stations that were considered poorly situated reported slightly cooler temperatures.[55][56]

This graph shows the temperature record for the 1218 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) from 1950 to 2009, alongside the record for the 70 stations identified as "good or best" in the Heartland Institute's report.

Watts was co-author with climatologists John Nielsen-Gammon, John Christy and Roger A. Pielke, Sr. on a paper with Souleymane Fall as lead author, which found that mean temperature trends were nearly identical between poorly sited and well-sited stations, but poor siting led to a difference in estimated diurnal temperature range. The poorly positioned stations led to an overestimate of trends in minimum temperatures, balanced by a similar underestimate of maximum temperature trends. This meant that the mean temperature trends were nearly identical across the stations.[57]

BEST project, alleged doubling of trend by NOAA

Main article: Berkeley Earth

In March 2011 Watts visited the Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST), and said "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."[58] In October the project released data and a draft of their paper which produced results supporting the existing scientific consensus. Watts claimed that its methodology was flawed, complaining that the BEST study analyzed a larger period than his own research, and that it was not yet peer reviewed.[58] Richard A. Muller, founder of BEST, later said their study directly addressed Watts' concern about the condition of weather stations; "we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflected temperature changes accurately."[59]

The Berkeley Earth project temperature data matched with other independent reports, such as the IPCC's fourth assessment report, NOAA NCDC, and NASA GISTEMP.[60] Berkeley Earth's findings supported the existing scientific consensus that a warming trend was evident, and estimated a rise in temperatures by 0.911°C over the last 50 years.[61][62]

Around 22 July 2012, Watts heard that the BEST project was about to release further material, and decided to release a paper he and Evan Jones had been working on for about a year.[63] On 27 July he blogged that WUWT was suspended until noon on 29 July: "major announcement coming".[64] The New York Times published a summary of further draft results from BEST, including an announcement from Muller that their study now showed that humans "are almost entirely the cause" of the warming. Shortly afterwards, Watts announced his own team's draft paper which said that previously reported temperature rises had been "spuriously doubled", and made the serious accusation that NOAA had inflated the rate by erroneous adjustments to the data.[65][66] Climate scientists and other bloggers quickly found flaws in the paper. Steve McIntyre, who Watts had named as a co-author, stressed that his involvement had been "very last minute and limited". He agreed with criticisms including the point that Watts had failed to correct for time of observation bias, and noted that independent satellite temperature measurements were closer to the NOAA figures.[67]

In 2012 BEST released its series of peer-reviewed papers confirming previous results that the surface temperature is rising.[68]

Connection with Heartland Institute

The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?[53] Watts has appeared as a paid speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change the Heartland Institute have sponsored since 2008.[69]

Watts says that he approached Heartland in 2011 to ask for help finding a donor to set up a website devoted to presenting NOAA's data as graphs that are easily accessible to the public.[70][71] Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute in February 2012 revealed that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 for his project.[72][73][74] The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[69] Watts has written that, aside from the help in funding this project, the Heartland Institute does not pay him a regular salary or fund his blog.[70][75]

Notes

  1. ^ "School board shakeup". Chico News & Review. October 31, 2002. Retrieved 2012-07-08.
  2. ^ a b c d e Grant 2011, p. 301: "Anthony Watts is a TV journalist, a weather presenter who studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University; there's no record of his having graduated, however, and he's been reticent in discussing this. After a career in local television, in 2004 he moved to radio, joining the FOX News affiliate KPAY-AM in Chico, California."
  3. ^ a b c d "Anthony Watts, Meteorologist". KHSL-TV. Archived from the original on March 6, 2001. Retrieved 2012-07-09. Anthony has been with KHSL-TV since October, 1987...Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana...His unique real name is Willard Anthony Watts...but he had to stop using "Willard" because of Willard Scott on the Today show!
  4. ^ a b Michels, Spencer. "Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message". PBS NewsHour.
  5. ^ a b c Mann 2013, p. 72: "Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist...and founder of the site "Watts Up with That?" which has overtaken climate audit as the leading climate change denial blog."
  6. ^ Watts, Anthony. "FAQS: Why do you blog?". Retrieved 11 April 2015.
  7. ^ Katherine Bagley (March 2015). "Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists". InsideClimate News. Watts studied electrical engineering and meteorology at Purdue University but never graduated. He then served as an on-air meteorologist for 25 years. He's a frequent speaker at anti-climate action events hosted by the Heartland Institute.
  8. ^ a b "About weatherframe.com". Retrieved June 2015. IntelliWeather's parent company, ItWorks, was founded in 1987 by Anthony Watts, a career broadcast television meteorologist. ItWorks provides a wide variety of products for broadcast TV, video, and weather use, ranging from video signal test systems to StormPredator, and unique personal weather radar program. IntelliWeather was founded for the purpose of providing unique and affordable broadcast quality weather imagery for a wide variety of multimedia venues. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  9. ^ Smith, Laura (January 31, 2002). "Forecast: No more Watts for KHSL". Chico News & Review. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  10. ^ "Chico Unified School District: Board of Education". Chico Unified School District. Archived from the original on April 25, 2003. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  11. ^ Indar, Josh (March 16, 2006). "One out, one in, one on". Chico News & Review. Retrieved 2009-10-13.
  12. ^ AAP (June 10, 2010). "Climate sceptic to tour". The Weekly Times. Retrieved 2012-07-09.[dead link]
  13. ^ "Is Current Warming Natural?". NASA. Retrieved June 2015. Although Earth's temperature fluctuates naturally, human influence on climate has eclipsed the magnitude of natural temperature changes over the past 120 years. Natural influences on temperature—El Niño, solar variability, and volcanic aerosols—have varied approximately plus and minus 0.2° C (0.4° F), (averaging to about zero), while human influences have contributed roughly 0.8° C (1° F) of warming since 1889. (Graphs adapted from Lean et al., 2008.) {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  14. ^ a b Farmer 2013, p. 462: "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis."
  15. ^ a b MooneyKirshenbaum 2010, p. 114: "Anthony Watts is an extremely popular blogger, drawing hundreds of comments per post and well over half a million visitors per month. Yet his blog contains highly questionable information–presented very "scientifically" of course, replete with charts and graphs–but all directed toward the end of making the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming seem faulty (in fact, it's extremely robust)
  16. ^ a b Anthony Watts. It's the Sun, stupid, wattsupwiththat.com, April 6, 2007.
  17. ^ Ryan Olson, Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine, Chico Enterprise Record, 2007.
  18. ^ National Research Council 2010, p. 26:Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks...This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assesments by the [USGCRP], the [IPCC], and other assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change...Most of the warming over the lsat several decades can be attributes to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2), and other heat-trapping grenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels–coal, oil, and natural gas–for energy is the single largest human driver of climate change
  19. ^ IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Detection and Attribution of Climate Change, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century" (page 15) and "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: (...) extremely likely: 95–100%" (page 2).
  20. ^ IPCC 2007, Section 9.2: "Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity."
  21. ^ US NRC (2008). "Understanding and responding to climate change: Highlights of National Academies Reports, 2008 edition, produced by the US National Research Council (US NRC)" (PDF). Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy of Sciences: 6. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  22. ^ USGCRP 2009, p. 20: "Another fingerprint of human effects on climate has been identified by...studying the pattern of temperature changes from the surface up through the stratosphere. In all climate models, increases in carbon dioxide cause warming at the surface and in the troposphere, but lead to cooling of the stratosphere... models also calculate that the human-caused depletion of stratospheric ozone has had a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. There is a good match between the...combined carbon dioxide and ozone changes and the observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling."
  23. ^ Simmon, R. and D. Herring (November 2009). "Notes for slide number 7, titled "Satellite evidence also suggests greenhouse gas warming," in presentation, "Human contributions to global climate change"". Presentation library on the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Services website. Archived from the original on 3 July 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 60: "It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming observed during the past half century can be explained without external forcing. These changes took place over a time period when non-anthropogenic forcing factors (i.e., the sum of solar and volcanic forcing) would be likely to have produced cooling, not warming."
  25. ^ USGCRP 2009: "When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years. The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."
  26. ^ Anthony Watts (May 25, 2015). "The sad tales of the Wikipedia gang war regarding WUWT". Retrieved May 2015. 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".... {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  27. ^ "SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION". Retrieved June 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  28. ^ "Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change" (Press release). The Heartland Institute. March 4, 2008. Retrieved 2013-06-03. {{cite press release}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  29. ^ Anthony Watts. Pipe Dream or Viable Energy? wattsupwiththat.com, October 19, 2007.
  30. ^ SchneiderNocke 2014, p. 171: "Despite the well-known facts under discussion, the original graph, based on a single outdated study published in 1991, continues to reappear again and again in climate skeptical media, trying to prove that the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is causing global warming. The original curve appears, for example, on Anthony Watts' climate skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" in an article posted in 2011."
  31. ^ a b Grant 2011, p. 302: "Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers, notably Christopher Monckton. The blog played an important role in the Climategate fiasco, through its dissemination of the hacked CRU emails."
  32. ^ Dunlap 2011, p. 153: "In recent years these conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine...the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)...Having this powerful, pervasive, and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message."
  33. ^ Manne 2012: "More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established."
  34. ^ KirilenkoStepchenkova 2014, p. 9: "The most authoritative climate change skepticism web sites included Watts Up With That? and Climate Depot"
  35. ^ Brainard 2015, p. 172: "At the other end of the spectrum are influential sites for "climate skeptics", such as Watts Up With That?, a blog run by meteorologist Anthony Watts, whom scientists have repeatedly criticized for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record."
  36. ^ MooneyKirshenbaum 2010, p. 109: "With just days to go until voting closed, the 2008 weblog awards - an annual online popularity contest in which nearly 1 million voters pick their favorite opiners across forty-eight topic categories-featured a tight race for Best Science Blog...In the end, Watts Up With That defeated Pharyngula by a vote of 14,150 votes to 12,238."
  37. ^ Hickman, Leo (1 March 2013). "Climate sceptics 'capture' the Bloggies' science category". guardian.co.uk.
  38. ^ George Monbiot (15 May 2009). "How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 April 2010.
  39. ^ Leo Hickman (24 February 2010). "Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 April 2010.
  40. ^ a b Hansen 2015, p. 172: "In 2009, an unknown party acquired a large cache of private emails between climate scientists...and published them online. Cherry-picking quotes in order to make the scientists appear as though they were discussing data manipulation, bloggers such as Watts whipped up a pseudo-scandal that reverberated for years despite the fact that a series of nine investigations in the U.S. and the U.K. cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing.
  41. ^ The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)
  42. ^ Biello, David (2010). "Negating Climategate". Scientific American. ISSN 0036-8733. In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame
  43. ^ Lubchenco, Jane (2 December 2009) House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (House Select Committee). "The Administration's View on the State of Climate Science". House Hearing, 111 Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. "...the e-mails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses of thousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the Earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities." As quoted in the report published by Office of Inspector General.
  44. ^ AnshelmHultman 2014, pp. 154–156: "Climategate fundamentally damaged confidence in the IPCC climate reports and decisively changed the conditions for the Copenhagen negotiations...Climategate and the failure of Copenhagen coincided with a widespread decline in public acceptance that global warming was happening, was caused by humans, and was a serious threat...Climategate can also explain the erosion of public trust in scientists as sources of information on global warming after 2010."
  45. ^ Dunlap 2013, p. 153: "Having this powerful, pervasive and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message, as reflected quite recently by its success in turning a tiny and highly unrepresentative sample of thirteen years worth of personal e-mails hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia into a major scandal that has generated a decline in public belief in climate change and trust in climate scientists...despite the fact that several investigations have concluded that the e-mails neither demonstrate unethical behavior nor undermine climate science."
  46. ^ Watts, Anthony (2009). Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF). Heartland Institute. ISBN 978-1-934791-29-5. Retrieved June 2015. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  47. ^ Mann 2013, p. 72: "Watts also started the Web site SurfaceStations.org, which purports to identify poorly sited meteorological stations in the United States in an effort to demonstrate that the instrumental record of warming temperatures is hopelessly compromised by instrumental measurement biases."
  48. ^ Powell 2012, p. 136: "In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org...By early June 2009, thanks to a grass roots network of volunteers, SurfaceStations.org had examined about 70 percent of the 1,221 stations [and] classified 70 of the stations as having "good or best" reliability... since 1950, temperatures recorded at the 70 "good or best" stations are indistinguishable from the rest."
  49. ^ Black 2014, p. 1328: "A few critics continued to seek confirmation of their denial of the warming data on air temperatures from weather stations and satellites. In particular, former TV weatherman Anthony Watts established a popular website that mobilized people to report continental U.S. weather stations that were poorly located, such as near the exhaust of air conditioners."
  50. ^ Powell 2012, p. 136: "By early June 2009, thanks to a grass roots network of volunteers, SurfaceStations.org had examined about 70 percent of the 1,221 stations [and] classified 70 of the stations as having "good or best" reliability... since 1950, temperatures recorded at the 70 "good or best" stations are indistinguishable from the rest."
  51. ^ Hensen 2011: "[Anthony Watts] rallied more than 650 volunteers through Watts Up With That?...The investigators found hundreds of surface weather stations across the United States that were improperly located near water treatment plants, pavements, air conditioners, and other sources of artificial heat. A photo-studded report, "Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" was published by the Heartland Institute...Though the report wasn't a peer-reviewed study, it made quite a splash in the US media and the blogosphere."
  52. ^ Powell 2012, p. 136: "deniers say that the U.S. historical temperature record is unreliable because some weather stations are sited near trees, buildings, parking lots, air conditioners, and the like, causing the stations to record unrepresentative, and presumably warmer, local temperatures. The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts
  53. ^ a b Mann 2013, p. 72: "With the assistance of the Heartland Institute, Watts published a glossy, very official-looking report about the project... absent from that report, however, was any direct comparison showing what the surface temperature record looks like both with and without the sites that Watts deemed unworthy. Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) went ahead and calculated it themselves, producing versions of the continental U.S. average temperature curve both with and without the records in question...Eliminating the "suspect" data made virtually no difference at all; in fact, the small bias that was found was of the opposite sign. The "corrected" record showed slightly more warming!"
  54. ^ Weart 2015: "A study by members of the NOAA National Climatic Data Center separately analyzed the sites that Watts's volunteers identified as faulty, comparing them with the acknowledged good sites. They found that any bias introduced by poor siting had been mostly compensated for by the data reduction, which was designed precisely to remove biases by comparisons over regions and time. But if the raw data only were considered, the poor sites did not tend to overestimate warming compared with what NOAA had reported, as Watts had assumed; if anything the warming from these sites was greater than NOAA's earlier figures."
  55. ^ Washington 2013, p. 51: "There is a denial movement seeking to cast doubt on the surface temperature record using photographs of weather stations positioned near car parks, air conditioners and other warming influences (Watts, 2010). These photos attempt to communicate that the global warming trend is being inflated by poor temperature data... Poor sites show a cooler trend than good sites. All those photographed weather stations near car parks are actually giving cooler readings than pristine weather stations."
  56. ^ Manne 2010: "Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous United States (CONUS)...Results indicate that...associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative ("cool") bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive ("warm") bias in minimum temperatures...In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting."
  57. ^ Fall, Souleymane; Watts, Anthony; Nielsen-Gammon, John; Jones, Evan; Niyogi, Dev; Christy, John R.; Pielke, Sr., Roger A. (2011). "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research. 116 (D14120). Bibcode:2011JGRD..11614120F. doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.
  58. ^ a b Kaufman, Leslie (2011-10-21). "Climate Study Does Not Placate Skeptics". New York Times. Retrieved June 2015. Anthony Watts, had written in March on his climate-themed blog, Watts Up With That, "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." But neither Mr. Watts nor other longtime critics of climate science reached by The Times seemed satisfied with the report. Mr. Watts, a former television meteorologist, contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  59. ^ Black 2013, p. 1505: "We have done an initial study of the station selection issue...we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. We have also studied station quality. Many U.S. stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the "poor" stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the "good" stations."
  60. ^ FarmerCook 2013, p. 107: "Temperature records constructed by NASA/GISS, NOAA, HadCRU, and UC Berkeley...find exactly the same quantitative results for global temperature rise."
  61. ^ FarmerCook 2013, p. 107: "The BEST study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics and deniers including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The BEST group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years the land surface has warmed by 0.911°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies...The BEST study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies."
  62. ^ ISSCUNESC 2013, p. 7: "Evidence of climate change is abundant, yet a degree of denial persists at the community and government levels...Despite these doubts, a new and independent assessment of the evidence by Berkeley Earth led to a series of papers in the period 2010 to 2013 that systematically addressed each of the five foremost concerns expressed by climate change skeptics, and concluded that they did not unduly bias the record. Berkeley Earth confirmed what previous studies had claimed: planet Earth is warming. The global mean land temperature had increased by 0.911°C since the 1950s, which is consistent with the findings from the [IPCC] and with other studies. The scientific community has now achieved broad consensus regarding the reality and threats of climate change. The major cause of climate change is understood as the emission of greenhouses gases...the major area of concern is the burning of fossil fuels."
  63. ^ Watts, Anthony (30 Jul 2012). "Backstory on the new surfacestations paper". Watts Up With That?. Retrieved 4 Jun 2015.
  64. ^ Watts, Anthony (27 Jul 2012). "WUWT publishing suspended – major announcement coming". Watts Up With That?. Retrieved 4 Jun 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  65. ^ Samenow, Jason (30 Jul 2012). "Blockbuster climate change studies prove little". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 Jun 2015.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  66. ^ Donald, Ros (3 August 2012). "'There's plenty of room for scepticism' – climate study author Richard Muller". The Guardian. Rolling back his previous promise to accept BEST's findings, the one-time BEST supporter has released a draft paper of his own, at about the same time as the new BEST results. Watts says his assessment of temperature stations shows that poor weather station siting has "spuriously" doubled estimates of temperature rise in the US
    Watts, Anthony (29 July 2012). "New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial". Watts Up With That?. Retrieved 4 Jun 2015.
  67. ^ Samenow, Jason (31 Jul 2012). "More evidence attention-grabbing climate studies were prematurely rushed". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 Jun 2015.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  68. ^ Farmer 2014, p. 44: "Global average temperatures for 2013 have recently been published by the BEST study...2010 and 2005 remain the warmest years since records began in the 19th century. 1998 ranks third in two records, and in Cowtan and Way's 2014 analysis...2013 is warmer than 1998."
  69. ^ a b Gascoyne, Tom (February 23, 2012). "Leaked documents hit home Climate-change scandal has a local connection". Chico News & Review. Retrieved August 8, 2012.
  70. ^ a b Hickman, Leo (February 15, 2012). "Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
  71. ^ Burleigh, Nina (February 17, 2012). "Secret papers turn up heat on global-warming deniers". Salon. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
  72. ^ "2012 Fundraising Plan" (PDF). The Heartland Institute. January 15, 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
  73. ^ Hickman, Leo (February 15, 2012). "Climate sceptics – who gets paid what?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-02-15.
  74. ^ Black, Richard (15 February 2012). "Openness: A Heartland-warming tale". BBC News.
  75. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (February 14, 2012). "Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-08-10.

References

Wikiquote has quotations related to Anthony Watts.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts_(blogger)&oldid=667276726"