or
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change/ ?
Why?
Anthony Watts will post anything, no matter how ridiculous it is, if it supports AGW denial. No doubt he believes that is "Fair and balanced".
Scientific American has standards; Watts doesn't.
If we were to JUST go off of the article you gave from Scientific American, then WUWT is better. In fact, SA just placed a HUGE LIE as an article, so Dr. Seuss's website, Seussville is more credibile.
Why? Because there is no current link between droughts and AGW globally, which would be the first step. In fact, over the last 60 years, droughts globally have not increased.
OH, this is true IF you still are looking at this globally.
IF you want to go with locations and shorter timeframes, THEN last year's winter in the US was cold, so there is no AGW, thus nothing at all to worry about. Is that right???
You want to play this idiot game that YOU KNOW is wrong. Accepting WEATHER as CAUSED by AGW??? COME ON. Are you telling me that you are too stupid to figure this out, WHILE being smart enough to figure out that last year's winter in the US did not disprove AGW???
Is AGW just a game to you??? Do a little dance and sing a little song and pretend that this is science??? You warmers are talking about spending trillions. You need to get your crap together and stop playing these idiotic games.
One thing that article did get right was the affect of the POLICIES. Those policies that are created due to our FEAR of AGW... Are they going to be rational??? Or are they going to be done without thinking of the overall effect?
And lets talk about those effects, ... More than 4 million die in third world countries due to burning dung and other things, OR ... lack of electricity. What is the effect of the World Bank not porviding loans for coal power plants??? How many deaths? How many saved from limiting AGW by this measure? Shouldn't this be a rational decision made based upon respect for life, not scare-mongering???
Easily WUWT. Scientific American is a magazine written to sell to people for entertainment. Trying to suggest that our CO2 has caused climate change in Darfur, knowing that most of the change is supposed to be in the polar regions, I have to call BS on that one.
Well I have'nt read that many articles from Scientific American but I have read that it's standards have dropped and many people have cancelled their subscriptions.
Watts is a climate blog and of course it sometimes posts nonsense and sometimes good articles, it does have a very complete reference page which is usefull.
However I try to approach these different sources with an open mind, and rate each article on it's merits, it doesn't matter if the source is Scientific American, Watts, or SkS.
Edit.
Having just read the Scientific article I change my mind and say it is crap, much of what it said is just not true and it does not supply links to the sources, Watts always does.
When reading any news source, look for the accuracy of the reporting and the credibility of the people the story is based on. ScientificAmerican is written by writers, Anthony Watts is a fired small-town weatherman. Neither should be your source for credibility. Critical thinkers can consider the experts an article, the experts are quoted. Look for the credibility of the writer and especially of the quoted experts.
WUWT has been shown to be dishonest many times. Very few of its posts come from experts. It is written by amateur political animals especially for an audience who wants a given narrative, is poorly educated in science, resents people who study science and are not critical thinkers. WUWT is written for "ditto-head", not for thinking people.
WUWT is conservative first, science only sometimes
I think S.A. overstated the case so far for AGW. But even so, it is more truthful than much of the cherry-picked propaganda at WUWT.
WUWT is conservative first and science sometimes
I once had a subscription to Scientific American
SA talks to scientists, Watts talks to himself.
Who cares? How many lives have they saved and how much of the planet? How much of it is indirectly funded with Government money?
Climate Clown Alarmism gets most of its money from Governmental sources. Where would Watts get his? Private sector maybe?
The Koch Brothers are "SOCIAL LIBERALS" for the most part. Why would they NOT care about others? If everyone is dead from CO2 GLOBAL WARMING, then their legacy couldn't live on.
I used to be a subscriber to SA but they became unscientific. WUWT is better at publishing REAL science. Prove him wrong. Don't just claim he is wrong, like Peggy does.The proof of the pudding is in the eating and SA has turned into garbage. Who wants to pay good money for garbage?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ ?
or
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change/ ?
Why?
