Rather than persuading us with reason and logic, the World Meteorological Organization is making stuff up.
Journalists are betraying the public’s trust.
Instead of a tropical rainforest of diverse perspectives, the environmental conversation is an arid, dogmatic desert.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
A chief scientist, a statesman, and an heir to a throne all say climate disaster is imminent. But their schedules don’t agree.
Condemning people to grinding poverty is evil.
Asking a random group of climate scientists to comment on policy measures (as opposed to scientific questions) leads to some disturbing answers.
Will the American president throw thousands of US coal miners out-of-work in an utterly futile climate-change gesture?
Credentialed, experienced critics declare that the UN’s climate panel is politicized – and that many of its conclusions are mistaken.
The noble, beating heart of science is no more. Peer pressure, conformity, orthodoxy – these remain.
Help annotate the new IPCC report so that it’s more user friendly – and more informative about its authors and source material.
The New York Times publishes pablum about the IPCC.
The IPCC acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. It has a long history of recruiting activist personnel, and is led by a man prone to exaggeration.
Greenpeace isn’t anti-establishment anymore. Now it’s just another arm of the authoritarian, UN green machine.
In Berlin this week, environmental activists were allowed to attend a four-day meeting that journalists were denied access to. This is normal IPCC procedure.
I’ll be in Germany and Scotland this month, giving speeches about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This Thursday, I’ll be addressing the International Conference on Climate and Energy, which … Continue reading
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the marine biologist who led the IPCC’s Ocean chapter, is a full-blown environmental activist. He recently wrote a politicized foreword to a WWF brochure, and has a long history of employment with both the WWF and Greenpeace.
In one chapter alone, IPCC personnel relied on unpublished studies 21 times to make their case.
An IPCC document produced for its meeting in Yokohama uses emphatically activist language. What happened to the scientific body delivering a scientific report based on scientific research?
Manipulation of a Summary document makes the UN’s climate panel look like an overly-protective, hysterical mother.
How does the new climate report compare to the last one? Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pulled up its socks?
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.
A research paper doesn’t talk about increased crop damage by insects. But as occurred in the Himalayan glacier incident, the erroneous claim remains in the about-to-be released report.
The upcoming Working Group 2 report wasn’t thoroughly scrutinized by hundreds of external reviewers. Those people saw only early versions of the report. Unpublished research findings were still being incorporated months later.
At the United Nations, science doesn’t speak for itself. It’s hammered out during secret, all-nighter negotiating sessions.
Ordinary people don’t care about climate change. How many times do they have to say so?
The UN’s climate panel claims to be a ‘scientific body.’ But it’s actually in the business of writing reports that rely on thousands of judgment calls. It’s time to stop pretending that fallible human judgment is ‘science.’
If someone was systematically writing to journals that had published your work, making false allegations against you, would you be concerned?
A UK parliamentary committee. A Canadian journalist. A rat snake.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
A fake Nobel keynote speaker played an embarrassingly minor role in the IPCC.
A press release issued this week falsely describes economist Woodrow Clark as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
20 years ago, scientific superstar Carl Sagan urged us to use our brains – to be actively skeptical.
A climatologist urges her community to stop defending Michael Mann.
Chris Field – the head of the UN climate panel’s Working Group 2 – thinks the world “is staring down the barrel of climate change.”
Ontario energy minister says we should wear sweaters in winter.
In a 23-minute interview, filmed in the UK last month, I talk about activists and the UN’s climate process.
Government-mandated wind project meetings are supposed to be about two-way communication. But no questions from the public are allowed, and the notice period is ridiculously short.
From 1948 to the present, environmental activists have declared that the sky is falling.
15 months ago, it was a sin to declare out loud that the global temperature was no longer rising. Today, the IPCC, the UK Met office, and mainstream researchers are all admitting the obvious.
Having touched down in London, I’m chuckling over a Charles Krauthammer column titled Stop Jerking Canada Around.
Rockstar’s rhetoric about Canada’s oil sands is intemperate, offensive, and ill-informed.
A bona fide climate scientist tells US Senators we have no idea whether human-caused global warming will be a serious problem. The media doesn’t report it.
Why doesn’t the World Wildlife Fund argue for its vision based solely on that vision’s merits?
Thank you for your financial and moral support.
My first thoughts about the climate change debate were written five years ago today.
The distress call, the icebreakers, and the other scientific research.
At the heart of the climate change movement is the belief that we will be punished for our sins.