SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

I know some claim SkepticalScience.com is no different from WUWT.  

I have been told: 

"it's just a different perspective:

you choose to believe SkepticalScience.com 

and I choose to believe WUWT.”

But, is it as simple as that?  How do we decide on the respective veracity of each?

Watts Up With DenialGate ?

Anthony Watts has made a good living proclaiming that the scientific community's “consensus” cannot be trusted.  A consensus that's been arrived at after decades of study by literally tens of thousands of researchers.  Instead trotting out a gallery of so-called independent scientists to present an alternative view of reality.

It seems that Heartland likes his work too.  As revealed by the recent revelations of DenialGate, or as I like calling it HeartlandGate.

Of course, Anthony is crying foul and claiming it’s all a fraud... though Heartland sounded less certain when apologizing to donors for their names being exposed.  They do assert at least one particularly damning document was a fake.  Worth mentioning is that Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman reporting for the NYTimes weren’t impressed with the denial writing:

“Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.”

As for Anthony ~ seems he was paid $44,000 in January with another $44,000 promised for setting up a website “devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s website."  Which in Watts' world means finding the slightest flaw and hyper-inflating it to justify a total disregard for what the data is telling us.

Recall that Watts’ previous effort to undermine trust in the official temperature records, the Surfacestations Project turned out to be a dud that, just like the recent BEST Study, turned out to validate the official temperature records {and here}... unless of course one takes Watts’ egomaniacal stand that anyone disagreeing with him is in on the “climate conspiracy” one that involves tens of thousands of researchers across countless scientific disciplines, no less.

Among the contemptible revelations perhaps this one reported at ThinkProgress.org by Brad Johnson is the worst.  A strategic attack on science within schools {no wonder America is falling behind in science education} :

Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy“), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather“), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.

Wojick will receive $5,000 per module, with twenty modules produced a year. Wojick, who manages the Climate Change Debate listserv, is not a climate scientist. His doctorate is in epistomology.

Another revealing and disturbing quote:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For more information:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/13/205343/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat-conflict-of-interest-weather-stations/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/14/425354/internal-documents-climate-denier-heartland-institute-plans-global-warming-curriculum-for-k-12-schools/ 

http://www.desmogblog.com/it-s-bird-it-s-hockey-stick-it-s-faked-document

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/16/denialgate-get-it-all-here/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73002.html

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Perhaps the finest example of the crazy-making Anthony Watts champions is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Anthony tells us we are supposed to trust a handful of scientists ~ while disregarding the efforts of tens of thousands of hardworking researchers.  

Ironically the 2011 Interim NIPCC Report's list of intrepid independent scientists consists of a total of three lead authors Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter and eight contributing authors Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar.

So while WUWT glibly demonizes thousands of mainstream scientists for their greedy grant money grubbing bias ~ we should remain blind to the fact that most of NIPCC scientists are on the Heartland payroll.  

Check it out: “The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012).”

As those Dana over at SkepticalScience.com have pointed out: 

“Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors {who donate their time}is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. 

Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

RealClimate took a look at NIPCC’s alternate reality back in 2008, it’s worth a read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SkepticalScience reports on the breaking story as do many other good sources.  To mention just a few:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/02/dissuading-teachers-from-teaching-science-the-leak-of-alleged-heartland-institute-documents/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~