New material won’t be added to this blog until Autumn. You are invited to explore the six-years-worth of content already published here – as well as my two books.
A Greenpeace activist thinks ‘the world would be a better place’ without a journalist who questions climate orthodoxy. Seventy years after the liberation of Auschwitz, he says we’d ‘solve a great deal of the world’s problems by chopping off everyone’s heads.’
20-year IPCC veteran Richard Tol says that entity is politicized and biased. Ecologist Daniel Botkin says there’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ it’s also wrong about species extinction risks.
Help annotate the new IPCC report so that it’s more user friendly – and more informative about its authors and source material.
If someone was systematically writing to journals that had published your work, making false allegations against you, would you be concerned?
A Simon Fraser University economist declared, on his blog in May, “I have never spoken or written of myself as a Nobel laureate.” After I unearthed written testimony to the contrary, he quietly rewrote the post, removing that denial.
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.
If climate change is the biggest challenge facing humanity, why have kids filled senior IPCC roles for the past 15 years?
Includes links to submissions various informed individuals made to the body examining the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The uncritical coverage by the mainstream media notwithstanding, the IPCC is a profoundly flawed organization.
831 people will help write the next edition of the climate bible. We’re being told their names and countries of residence but not much more. How do we know if they really are the world’s top experts?
“Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific” – so says Richard Tol (an economist who has participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process since the early 1990s).
The chairman of the IPCC has said that non-peer-reviewed research is so undeserving of the IPCC’s attention it should be thrown “into the dustbin.” Yet on one page of the climate bible, only 17% of the text is backed-up by peer-reviewed research.
Economist Richard Tol has written a series of blog posts regarding, among other concerns, the IPCC’s apparent use of non-peer-reviewed literature to neutralize peer-reviewed research findings.
Despite vigorous protests from its own expert reviewers, 42% of the documents cited in one chapter of the climate bible are grey literature rather than peer-reviewed.