1. 

Watts is actually a pretty balanced researcher, he refuses to believe or even admit that the orbits of the outer planets are not much of the frontside cause of all the climate cycles we see. So he is not a die hard denier willing to cling to anything that promotes his cause. He simply does not see any evidence that the warming observed was not completely natural. Most sane people believe that the oceans directly control climate and the ocean cycles are modulated by some type of long term variability of solar Magnetic, TSI, and UV Irradiance Solar metrics. If there was evidence, I believe Watts would agree with a 3C+ doubling scenario. Right now it looks like climate sensitivity is very low, as most skeptics would agree. Don't make laws based on a broke theory.

I don't see a problem with your rationale, but will add a few comments related to perspective and context, both of which are topics near and dear to my heart. I lean a little left of center in terms of political philosophy and think of myself as a moderate; I have many friends who lean a little to the right of center whom I would consider moderates as well. I also have three friends whom I would consider arch conservatives. I do not consider their stances extreme, but they are very strongly in favor of policies that I do not support; the reason I note that these three are in particular friends is that in any political discussion they 1) stay focused on the issues and 2) do not fall back on name calling, insults, and so on. They can discuss topics, point out what they consider errors in the opposition view, but will also consider carefully their own views and can be influenced by logic and reason. This doesn't mean that they are ever going to change from an overall conservative ideology, but on any topic or issue they prefer and respect reason.

With that preamble, some years ago I was having an in-depth conversation with one of my arch conservative friends about the so-called 'liberal media,' and he commented that sources such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh provided balance to the liberal influences therein. I agree to a certain extent, although there are media sources and pundits who increasingly are little more than shills for political and business sponsors; regardless, I do not think that relying on any single source of information simply because one relates emotionally to the ideology espoused is a way of getting solid and objective knowledge. Information is one thing, but if it is just copied and pasted in one way or another it is not knowledge...which is what many of us are after.

Therefore, I would not reject a particular source simply because of a known bias, but I would evaluate the credibility of that source in terms of opposing viewpoints. For example, I check a lot of links that are provided here; I tune into Fox and Limbaugh to hear what they are talking about, even though I have other sources that I prefer and find more objective. And I will add that even though I might find other sources more objective, I keep in mind my own leanings and emotional loyalties and question the preferred resources, often going to other sources that have opposing viewpoints deliberately for that reason. The only exceptions I might make to that are-well, here's one example-if you have a media personality who is interviewing someone of an opposing opinion and consistently asks questions then interrupts before the interviewee can even answer. That's just BS and a waste of time, but an element in some people's nature. I've had a number of business associates who have done the same, ask a question and before I can answer it throw out five or six more. If people cannot grasp the simple concept that when questions are asked the answerer has to be given a chance to respond we are not going to make any progress on the issues. What we call people like that in my company is "unemployed."

Oh, I have to add that one of my arch conservative friends got into my car to head for lunch one day and when I switched on the ignition the radio came on and was tuned to NPR. The next time we went to lunch he drove, and when he switched on the ignition Rush Limbaugh TOTALLY blared out of the speakers. He looked over at me and grinned like the Cheshire Cat.

I don't regularly follow WUWT. But when I do come across most of the information, it is certainly more accurate and scientific than you get from James Hansen or the IPCC. There is so much we can learn from true science.

The very fact that these intelligence starved individuals on this site hate the blog only gives credence as to its validity. The stupidity mongers hate true science, accurate history and knowledge in general.

Why not get your info from a real science site, the source?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home...

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/ibex...

Edit: Yeah, throw away a respected science site and turn to a blog. Funny stuff. Here is another: http://www.sciencedirect.com/ and another: http://news.sciencemag.org/category/envi...

Because I often come across interesting articles like this one

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/14/nasas-ibex-helps-paint-picture-of-the-magnetic-system-beyond-the-solar-wind/

It would be hard for me to find all these article just by trawling, Watts is not just about debunking AGW is also about what interesting scientific findings are occurring.