Posts tagged ‘IPCC’
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 is being held in Mannheim, Germany (info here).
At 3 pm on Saturday, I’ll be in speaking in Berlin, at an event organized by Achse des Guten. It will take place at the Stasimuseum and I will be sharing the podium with fellow Canadian, Patrick Moore.
His eye-opening book, Confessions of Greenpeace Dropout, reveals how science and environmental activism parted ways long ago. Moore is currently touring Europe in an attempt to expose Greenpeace’s immoral and irrational stand against golden rice. See the Allow Golden Rice Now website.
At 7 pm on Tuesday, April 15 I’ll be the main attraction at another event at the Stasimuseum in Berlin. For further details, please use the contact info on the website here.
On Monday, April 28th, I’ll be speaking in Edinburgh from 7:30-9:00 pm at the City Chambers, High Street. This is a free event, open to the public.
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In one chapter alone, IPCC personnel relied on unpublished studies 21 times to make their case.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.
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.’
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.
Chris Field – the head of the UN climate panel’s Working Group 2 – thinks the world “is staring down the barrel of climate change.”
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.
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?
My first thoughts about the climate change debate were written five years ago today.
At the heart of the climate change movement is the belief that we will be punished for our sins.
Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”
I’ve been invited to give oral evidence to a UK parliamentary committee – and have been offered a research fellowship at a think tank.
The editors of Foreign Policy magazine inhabit a fairy tale world of planet-saving superheroes and wicked climate deniers.
UN climate panel leaders don’t behave in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes itself as a “scientific body.” Where in its multi-year, multi-thousand-page bureaucratic report-writing process is science actually practiced?
According to Ban Ki-moon, the latest IPCC report vaporized climate skepticism.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
I’ll be making a written submission to a UK parliamentary committee examining the latest IPCC report
My work is being discussed in prominent newspapers and magazines – in Germany as well as the US.
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
The latest document the IPCC doesn’t want you to see.
Kirsty Duncan no longer describes herself as a “Nobel Peace Prize laureate” on her Facebook page.
As the gap between its models and reality has grown, the IPCC has become more adamant that its conclusions are correct – rather than more cautious.
What happens to people who claim to be Peace Prize winners even though they aren’t? They get a job at the White House.
Michael Mann’s boss at Penn State University – Dean William Easterling – falsely claims to be a Nobel laureate on his CV.
What do Greenpeace and the Natural History Museum have in common? They both employ people with impaired reading comprehension skills.
Cigarette packages come with warning labels. So should IPCC reports.
Greenpeace says 95% certainty is the same as 100% certainty. Tell that to people who die on the operating table.
According to the agenda of an upcoming conference, three Nobel laureates will be participating. But only one of them is genuine.
Like those sad souls who walk around with military medals they themselves didn’t earn on their chests, a forestry professor continues to bask in undeserved glory.
A news clipping from 1995 – concerning an earlier IPCC report – was hilariously wrong.
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
On the basis of a politically-massaged summary and a stack of press advisories, the media has blasted IPCC talking points around the world.