Tamino points some things out:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/cherries-jubilee/

Cheers - John

So you agree with spreading deliberate misinformation?

Remember the quote...

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

You seem to be advocating doing nothing about WUWT.  Maybe the word 'evil' doesn't quite fit but it is close enough for me.  When you set out to peddle misinformation to a gullible receptive audience who don't like the mainstream message what else would you call it?

Thought provoking?
Is the AGW theory not robust enough to be continually tested ?
I find it amusing how Watts seems to have become practically some sort of Demonic Anti-Christ figure in some circles.
And there are some genuinely quite interesting pieces on there, you would admit I hope he often gives quite positive comments about alternative fuel vehicles for example.

Po-faced ineptitude deserves to be exposed too - a common theme to many posts.

You should have PM'd yourself with that one.

I don't see Watts as a "demonic anti-christ" personally.

Rather, he is a preacher who appeals to a certain mindset in his daily sermons, just as petrolheads like watching Jeremy Clarkson and authoritarians like(d) listening to Glenn Beck. It's the right brand of entertainment for them, straight and simple.

Cheers - John

Some people take "their" science way too seriously ........

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2011/04/18/death_threats_sent_to_weather_chief

Indeed AGW has certainly stood up very well to scientific investigation all WUWT have left is disinformation. However, we have education through universities, schools and public events to combat this. It is up to real scientists to make use of these opportunities.

I know the idea of gold mining is to dig through tons of rubble and junk to look for that isolated gleam, but I'm not really up for it in this case

I don't know what gave you that idea???.

I very much get the 'feeling' that the 'truth will out'?

We have had two winters now where the Arctic has given us a 'splash' of the type of variability the N. Hemisphere can now expect.

 I know it's only 'weather' but this April makes me wonder just how 'common' the blocking that Russia suffered last year is to become in our side of the 'pond'?

 July/August will be the 'teller' as the 'P' poor ones of the past 4 years are themselves 'noteworthy? so any 'swap' to Atlantic blocking ( and high neg AO) may show us the 'new' way we can expect our neck of the woods to act over the coming years.

The HP now controlling ice loss in the Arctic is a double edged sword (IMHO) with clear skies into summer speaking (to me) of warming Arctic Ocean waters over the 'hot months'?

La Nina,Low Solar, PDO Neg?  Shouldn't this be a 'cold year'?

An interesting case-study surfaced today on the whole topic of misinformation.

I wasn't aware of the paper in question until someone posted the following on a Guardian comments thread this morning:

This being the case, the IPCC's mantra - that Co2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming - is false.

This means the Climate Change Act is now effectively obsolete, and that all the green policies to reduce Co2 emissions, in order to try and reduce global temperature, are obsolete and will result in nil effect, except for the fact that they have significantly increased the cost of living for everyone, and made a miniscule minority filthy rich.

You can read about it here:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1

The last part of the first paragraph caught my attention. I followed the link and posted the abstract. The abstract said:

Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains

P. Jonathan Gero

Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
David D. Turner

NOAA / National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Abstract

A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 minutes, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument. The measured infrared spectra, numbering over 800,000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method. The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications. Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this data set has high value due to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves, and to test the performance of climate models.

The bit in bold is mine.

Googling the title of the paper lead to several pages worth of links to "denialist" blogs.

My response in the Guardian thread was as follows:

Let's just repeat that:

and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site

What they do not say:

has scientifically proven that the greenhouse gas theory is not a valid theory

Just to make sure you understand:

A sensitive auto-calibrating detector is deployed at a single site on one continent. It detects statistically significant trends in downwelling spectral IR radiance (decrease, summer-autumn-winter; increase spring). These it attributes primarily to long-term changes in cloudiness above this single site.

At the same time, just in case I had misunderstood (and we can all do that), I emailed the lead author. This evening, I had a reply. No, he told me, I had it just right, and the other Guardian commentator was completely off the mark.

In reflection on the day, it seems to me that "The Great Global Warming Hoax" is not that the theory is a scam: instead it is that almost on a daily basis, something is distorted by the opposition and sent out through the echo-chamber, so that it appears on site after site within 48 hours, and thereby onto Google, the mainstream media, etc. Perhaps this thread should be retitled: "The Great Anti-Science Hoax"?

Cheers - John

I've read the paper and it is showing a downward trend in downwelling radiation and precipitable water vapour (there is no data presented on cloudiness just water vapour). 

So, obviously it does not falsify the theory (something of a strawman argument there) but it is inconsistent with the predictions of what should be happening. 

GISS shows roughly 0.5C of warming in this area over the period.    So the warming was not caused by the theoritical impact of downwelling radiation and the impact of GHG forcing but something else.

The paper clearly concludes that the trends in downwelling IR are due to changes in cloudiness. You may wish to take that up with the author/ journal via a coment if you disagree and consider the evidence in the paper to be inadequate.

Earth Day 1970
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-predictions-of-1970-the-reason-you-should-not-believe-earth-day-predictions-of-2009

Yes, a quick google and it does seems this list of 'quotes' is doing the round of right wing, hate filled, science rejecting blogs.

I don't believe a single one of them is either right or in context.

Is this famous image from the WWF(who apparently support good science)?.An encouragement to believe the scientific truth?.

Should I read WWF or WUWT?.Both have been proven to be not honest?.

I do think questions should be asked as to how far this debate has departed from reality on eitherside, as regards science.

It increasingly seems to be the case that Science (climate science)is being Hyjacked by vested interestests.

The Basics of  "exchange of understanding" seems to be lost.

No slight to you Dev, or Four.

Just an opinion.

fk this thing.

What mistakes has WUWT made?

Corrected   

Of course the thing with blogs is that there is no reason whatsoever to even consider facts or truth - but if you tell people what they want to hear, you can convince them of anything

WUWT has been known to make mistakes but they soon get ignored in the comment section.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

 

Corrected   

Of course the thing with blogs is that there is no reason whatsoever to even consider facts or truth - but if you tell people what they want to hear, you can convince them of anything

Originally Posted by: Essan 

Can we include the IPCC in that as well! 

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 

I really don't think we could include the IPCC as a blog site.

But I do think they want to hear some of the things they are listening out for, rather than taking a neutral approach.imo.

I'll probably get bashed for even questioning the ethics of the IPCC.Honest as I belive they are.

But mabey needing to be a bit more open to unconventional science for want of a better expression.