This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Watts Up With That? | |
|---|---|
| Name | Watts Up With That? |
| Type | Blog |
| Language | English |
| Owner | Anthony Watts |
| Author | Anthony Watts |
| Launch date | 2006 |
| Current status | Active |
Watts Up With That? is a widely read climate blog founded in 2006 by meteorologist Anthony Watts. It positions itself as skeptical of mainstream climate change consensus and emphasizes critiques of climate model projections, paleoclimate reconstructions, and instrument temperature record adjustments. The site has been a focal point in debates involving climatology research, science policy, and public communication about global warming.
Watts Up With That? was established by Anthony Watts, a former television meteorologist associated with local broadcast outlets and regional National Weather Service interactions. Ownership and editorial control have remained closely tied to Watts and a network of recurring contributors including Steve McIntyre, Christopher Monckton, and Patrick Frank. The blog arose amid public controversy following the release of the United States Climate Change Science Program assessments and debates over the Hockey Stick reconstruction, interacting with actor Theodore "Ted" Nordhaus and organizations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation through shared contributors. Over time it aggregated posts from citizen scientists, retired researchers, and activists from groups like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, while maintaining separate fundraising and hosting arrangements.
Content typically includes critique of peer-reviewed articles published in journals such as Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and Journal of Climate. Posts often focus on instrument siting issues exemplified by datasets from the United States Historical Climatology Network and Hadley Centre products, discussing homogenization and station metadata. The editorial approach privileges blogging commentary, reader-submitted analyses, and reposts of preprints from servers like arXiv, often accompanied by detailed charts and comparisons against records from NOAA, NASA, and the Met Office. Guest posts have come from figures linked to the George C. Marshall Institute and scholars associated with the Cato Institute, reflecting an alignment toward skeptical reinterpretation of IPCC assessment findings. The site frequently highlights disputes over statistical methods such as principal component analysis and temperature reconstruction techniques debated in the context of the Hockey Stick controversy.
The scientific community and professional societies such as the American Meteorological Society and the Royal Society have critiqued many of the blog’s claims, citing discrepancies with assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and literature synthesized in journals including Reviews of Geophysics. Peer reviewers and climate scientists like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and Katharine Hayhoe have engaged directly with specific posts, pointing to methodological flaws, selective citation, and conflation of uncertainty with lack of evidence. Independent investigations of station siting issues, including those by Menne et al., found that homogenization reduces biases highlighted by some blog analyses. At the same time, some academics including Ross McKitrick and Nicola Scafetta have published work sympathetic to themes raised on the site, resulting in citation networks between the blog and academic fora such as Energy & Environment and conference proceedings hosted by think tanks.
The blog has influenced commentary in mainstream outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, The New York Times, and The Washington Post through op-eds, citations, and amplification by pundits. Politicians and policymakers from bodies like the United States Senate and the European Parliament have referenced analyses popularized on the site during hearings on climate legislation. International media organizations such as BBC News and Reuters have reported on controversies linked to the blog, while broadcasters including Fox News and CNN have featured climate skeptics associated with its network. Its prominence contributed to wider public debates during events such as the release of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy and the negotiation cycles surrounding UNFCCC meetings.
The blog and its contributors have been involved in legal and ethical disputes, including defamation allegations and contestations over access to scientific data. High-profile episodes intersected with the Climategate emails and subsequent inquiries by institutions such as the University of East Anglia, prompting investigations into researcher conduct rather than the blog itself. The site has also been criticized for hosting content tied to fossil fuel–adjacent advocacy; links between donors, think tanks, and litigation over disclosure have emerged in reporting involving the Los Angeles Times and investigative bodies. Editorial choices, comment moderation policies, and ad placements have periodically drawn scrutiny from media watchdogs and academic ethicists.
Traffic metrics have placed Watts Up With That? among the most visited climate-focused blogs, drawing a readership from journalists, policy actors, hobbyist climatologists, and members of environmental NGOs. Revenue sources include advertising, reader donations, and sponsorships from sympathetic organizations and small publishers; the site’s business model resembles that of partisan commentary outlets with a combination of direct support and ad networks. Audience demographics skew toward English-speaking regions with political constituencies active in United States and United Kingdom climate debates, and social media amplification on platforms like Twitter and Facebook has broadened reach during peak controversies.
Category:Climate blogs Category:Climate change skepticism