Posts filed under ‘IPCC’
An economist who insists he’s never described himself as a Nobel laureate did, indeed, do so. In written testimony.
Press releases, event posters, news stories & speakers’ bureaus have all falsely described economist Mark Jaccard as a Nobel winner. He says it isn’t his fault.
Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
Canadian greens say lake-destroying research is all about science – but how do we know for sure?
Confronted with what some believe is a house on fire, Canadian Members of Parliament retire to the shadows and whisper to each other in secret.
Nobel-winning work about self-delusion and flawed judgment applies to all of us – even climatologists.
What happens when you slice half a pie into 9,000 pieces? You get a few crumbs of pastry.
Canadian economist Mark Jaccard is falsely described as a Nobel laureate in the headline of a press release – and then on the front page of a newspaper.
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
Climate crusaders urge us to Think of the children! But that can be used by anyone to advance any argument under the sun.
IPCC personnel are not the world’s “leading climate scientists.” They were chosen partly due to gender, age, and geographic considerations.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
The IPCC chairman’s response to The Great Global Warming Swindle sheds light on his pathetic leadership.
According to a new UN report, your meat consumption is killing the planet.
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
If the IPCC had done the sensible thing and banned activist publications, would the institute run by its chairman still be receiving activist cash?
Last week, a sustainability summit organized by the chairman of the IPCC was held in India. The World Wildlife Fund provided funding.
If climate change is as straightforward a scientific concept as gravity, why does the IPCC continue to produce multi-thousand-page reports?
Andrew Weaver: climate modeler, Green Party deputy leader, Greenpeace promoter.
The full text of an interview I recently gave to FoxNews – and a link to the story.
A majority of the 13 senior scientists responsible for a US government report are also associated with activist groups. (Eight of them have an IPCC connection.)
The head of the IPCC thinks “a large part of the human species” is endangered by climate change. Apparently that makes him an optimist.
The IPCC’s response to the leak of three data sticks is typical of that organization. It expects us to accept its version of reality at face value. Its statement provides no opportunity for the public to draw its own conclusions.
Simon Barnett has created a wonderful analysis tool for the new IPCC data.
The scientists who write IPCC reports have so little authority that changing the word “systems” to “ecosystems” involves multiple layers of bureaucracy.
IPCC review editors were supposed to file a report last September. A third of them apparently didn’t bother.
The Legal and Liaison Officer of the IPCC has sent me a boilerplate notice, requesting the removal of Secret Santa documents from my website.
Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.
Months before authors were even selected to write an upcoming IPCC report, its chairman was telling a live audience what conclusion that report would reach.
The German government’s chief climate advisor is the furthest thing from an objective, dispassionate scientist. He thinks using fossil fuels amounts to “a lifestyle of mass destruction” – and that the UN should be put in charge of trillions of dollars.
IPCC officials are telling Working Group 2 authors about scientific papers that haven’t been written yet. These papers will appear in a special edition of a journal guest-edited by an activist scientist.
Hundreds of souls have volunteered to serve as IPCC expert reviewers. But the review process lacks integrity – and the system is being gamed.
The IPCC describes itself as a completely transparent organization. If that is the case, the draft chapters of its upcoming report that were leaked on the Internet yesterday should be a non-issue.
Does the IPCC think Tuvalu will be the first island nation to disappear due to climate change – or has a gruesome art exhibit manufactured that claim?
UN officials say we should listen to science. Don’t be fooled. It’s a rhetorical ploy, a cover for their own agenda.
In an official statement, the IPCC says it’s improper for any of its personnel to describe themselves as Nobel laureates. But the statement is all but invisible on the IPCC’s website.
I’ll be participating in the WattsUpWithThat answer to Al Gore’s 24-hour web project this week. Additionally, I’ll be talking to a university class tomorrow and addressing a climate skeptics’ conference in Munich on December 1st.
A lead author of the IPCC’s ‘hard science’ section is a Green Party candidate and deputy leader.
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.
Forget every media claim you’ve ever read about the IPCC being a “gold standard” organization. It now admits it’s just an ordinary UN organization following ordinary UN rules.
The IPCC has abandoned science in favour of affirmative action.
Ideas being promoted by ‘climate scientists’ look increasingly scary.
The next IPCC report will include a chapter that discusses gender inequality, marginalized populations, and traditional knowledge. So much for providing “rigorous…scientific information.”
The author of a 2007 book on climate change failed to mention his own IPCC involvement while pointing to that body as an authority. This is called an undisclosed conflict-of-interest.
How can claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is objective be taken seriously when one of its authors has been arrested at an anti-coal protest?
UPDATE: Perth info now available. I’ll be speaking in four Australian cities between July 6th and 15th.
My reputation has been harmed by an odious ad campaign that equates climate concern with terrorists.
Would a scientifically rigorous organization have the owner of a PR firm as its chairman?
Will a load-of-nonsense IPCC press release be corrected?