Posts filed under ‘historical perspective’
Back in 1990, the head of the UN said our planet was ailing. Fast forward a quarter of a century, and a Worldwatch Institute press release issued today continues the ‘planet in distress’ meme.
Once again, people described as “leading scientists” turn out to be economists, UN officials, and those with links to activist organizations.
A new book appears to be a rehash of 40-year-old environmental scaremongering endorsed by that era’s men of science.
Emergency! Catastrophe! Earth is turning into an unprecedented hellhole – according to an Oxford professor and Microsoft official.
Supplying electricity to a typical family for 12 hours requires the pedal power of 80 elite cyclists. The same amount of electricity can be purchased from the grid for under $5.
It isn’t your imagination. You’ve been hearing that the world is “running out of time” for years.
Eminent individuals are urging US educators to encourage a genuine campus debate about fossil fuels.
A free, shortish book defends – and celebrates – oil and coal.
The WWF thinks we should all “live in harmony with nature.” Sounds great – except for the flies, wasps, venomous snakes, storms, and floods.
Back in the 19th century, newspapers declared that something had “gone wrong” with the climate. The public was told that the telegraph system might cause the destruction of the human race.
Why are female leaders rarer than rubies in green organizations?
According to 1960s radicals, the environmental movement has been funded and orchestrated by fossil fuel interests.
The language being used in 1970, the year Earth Day was born, hasn’t changed much: Crisis. Catastrophe. Endangered. Extinction.
Half of children perish in pre-industrial societies. Take your pick: a bucolic, green fantasy world – or one that’s safe for kids.
Drama queen scientists have been around for at least 89 years.
Far fewer human beings perish before their fifth birthday than ever before. More of us live longer. This is worth celebrating.
Before there was Al Gore, there was George Mitchell. Politicians have been casting themselves as environmental crusaders, saving the planet, for two decades.
A new report argues that alternative perspectives are vital to the scientific process. Expecting dispassion from individual researchers is probably a lost cause.
Affordable, reliable energy – a big reason most children now make it to adulthood.
According to the head of the United Nations, only one vision of the future is acceptable.
A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations.
Since the 1970s UN officials have tried to frighten us. Repeatedly, their predictions have failed. Repeatedly, their time frames have been preposterously inaccurate.
How are green groups different from yesterday’s colonial powers? Their global agenda is paramount, their lack of empathy for ordinary people breathtaking.
For half a century green activists have insisted that their historical moment – and a particular generation – are the planet’s last hope.
When you dim your lights for Earth Hour, you’re protesting in a manner approved by multinational corporations. You’re allowing banks and insurance companies to tell you how to spend your Saturday night.
The IPCC is supposed to be “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” How can it be OK for its chairman to lobby for one policy in particular?
Back in 2007 IPCC chairman Pachauri made a prediction regarding the year 2012.
UN bureaucrats say climate change is a planetary emergency and that time is running out. So when US senators unanimously rejected the Kyoto Protocol where was Plan B?
Emotional, over-the-top language doesn’t come from real leaders in a time of real crisis. Rather, it’s a sign that someone’s trying to stampede public opinion.
22 years ago the UN said we had only 10 years to take global warming action. Otherwise, entire nations would drown due to rising sea levels by the year 2000.
Al Gore says climate change is a planetary emergency. But he’ll only tell a campus audience about it if the cheque is big enough.
Media coverage of climate change has a great deal in common with how the press covered the Y2K scare. There’s little evidence that news outlets learned much from that embarrassing episode.
17 years ago a Greenpeace report titled The Climate Time Bomb tried to frighten us with lurid images and dire predictions that have since failed.
40 years ago scientists said radical change was necessary if humanity was to survive. Along the way they endorsed a population prediction that now seems foolish.
While the rest of us approach challenges with determination, optimism, and faith in ourselves as problem solvers, drama queens see only worst-case scenarios. They exaggerate. They emotionalize.
Perhaps the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn’t regard activist scientists as damaged goods because neither the National Academy of Sciences nor the American Association for the Advancement of Science does, either.
When people in affluent counties embrace new technologies we’re helping to make the entire world a better place. Really.
Having just spent 17 hours without electricity, I’m feeling especially keen on a stable energy supply.
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of what is supposed to be a respectable science body, has – with deliberation and forethought – publicly linked that body to left-wing political analysis and activism.
Before the IPCC was even founded, the Worldwatch Institute had already declared that global warming was caused by fossil fuels. Surely that makes the IPCC chairman’s decision to fraternize with this activist organization a bit awkward.
Museums acknowledge that, historically, Mother Nature killed off fish and caused glaciers to retreat. So why do these same institutions imply that similar events in the here-and-now are solely the fault of humans?
In the late 1800s cities were drowning in smelly, dirty, disease-spreading horse manure. The private automobile was a huge step forward, environmentally-speaking.
Half a century ago, a science journalist discovered that anything less than reverential reporting was interpreted by scientists as hostility. It would seem that climate scientists who label critics ‘anti-science’ come from a long tradition.
In 1970s and ’80s some scientists already believed human CO2 emissions would cause global warming. How do we know the IPCC’s 2007 conclusions weren’t preordained?
A full 13 years before the IPCC was born its first chairman seems to have already decided that fossil fuels affected the climate so adversely their use would need to be curtailed.
David Suzuki says the planet is in “far worse shape” today than 50 years ago. But a growing library of exhaustively researched books claim the opposite.
According to some people, only a “climatologist” can be a credible scientific voice in the climate debate. Why do we spend so much time trying to disqualify people – rather than addressing their ideas?
Australia’s poets have written about alternating droughts and floods since the early 1900s. Is a preoccupation with alleged global-warming-induced-droughts linked to too little government attention on precautionary flood measures?
Haunting the Library, a new blog, digs up news clippings that add important historical context to the climate debate.