The disgraced former head of the UN smears skeptics while ignoring the dubious motivations of green opportunists.
A UN official delivers a speech. An account of that speech is written up to look like a news story. It gets published on a website funded by the UN. Casual readers are unlikely to appreciate that this is 100% spin.
Celebrities are making public pronouncements about the upcoming climate summit in Paris. Just as they did about the Copenhagen summit six years ago.
Rather than persuading us with reason and logic, the World Meteorological Organization has recruited TV weather presenters to deliver pretend weather reports from the year 2050.
The BBC – one of the world’s most venerable news brands – has substantially altered the direction and meaning of a news story without advising its audience that it has done so. This is straight out of Orwell’s 1984.
Greenpeace isn’t anti-establishment anymore. Now it’s just another arm of the authoritarian, UN green machine.
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
Ordinary people don’t care about climate change. How many times do they have to say so?
According to Ban Ki-moon, the latest IPCC report vaporized climate skepticism.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
After frisking us for explosives, the UN repeatedly assures us that we’re good people.
If the UN were serious about a new climate treaty, it would turf the activists. They are a distraction no one needs.
It is improper for a UN official to criticize Australia’s 6-week-old election results.
It may not be wise to judge a book by its cover, but it’s entirely appropriate to judge an organization by its leader.
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
Multiple UN entities falsely describe the chairman of the IPCC as a Nobel prize winner.
The UN’s Climate Secretariat will get free PR advice so it can inspire politicians to take action. But the UN’s own survey says the public ranks climate change last among 16 priorities.
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.
Five years after they said they’d get right on it, more than one-quarter of UN organizations have done nothing about their carbon footprint.
A UN press release falsely describes those attending an IPCC meeting as “climate scientists,” In fact, these people are policy wonks, economists, political scientists, and UN advisors.
A UN survey of public priorities reveals some disturbing assumptions.
It isn’t your imagination. You’ve been hearing that the world is “running out of time” for years.
Canadian greens say lake-destroying research is all about science – but how do we know for sure?
Greenpeace says we should deprive ourselves and harm our communities.
For Earth Hour’s eco-campaigners, barbaric oppression in North Korea is merely a talking point, something to casually make use of.
According to a new UN report, your meat consumption is killing the planet.
Green activists want to restrict your ability to fly, but they themselves remain addicted to the UN’s pointless annual beach party.
Before there was Al Gore, there was George Mitchell. Politicians have been casting themselves as environmental crusaders, saving the planet, for two decades.
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.
Liberty. Freedom. These ideas inspire risk-taking and self-sacrifice. But the green movement offers the exact opposite.
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.
The current United Nations response to environmental concerns is doing more harm than good.
Since the 1970s UN officials have tried to frighten us. Repeatedly, their predictions have failed. Repeatedly, their time frames have been preposterously inaccurate.
Nine papers are being distributed by an upcoming save-the-world conference. They’re explicitly intended to influence the behaviour of world leaders at the Rio summit in June. But the claim that they represent the latest scientific thinking is a gross distortion.
People who want to save the planet are fond of more laws and more red tape. They talk of silencing their opponents and sending people to prison.
Iowa scientists have signed a letter about climate change. News reports don’t mention their activist leanings.
Many jurisdictions frown on advertising that is aimed at children. But UNESCO says nursery schools should teach kids about sustainable development.
A collection of NGO brats, self-important rich folks, and UN bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to be the voice of future generations.
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?
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.
The head of the UN has told the inhabitants of a country still recovering from civil war that the greatest threat to their well-being is climate change.
You gotta love the UN. The 31-member IPCC bureau includes representatives from undemocratic and unsavoury countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Malaysia, Madagascar and the Maldives. Soon, these countries may be deciding the fate of billions of UN-administered climate change funds.
In 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme published a map suggesting there’d be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. When a writer called attention to this failed prediction recently, the map disappeared.
As a young woman I embraced feminism because I didn’t want to be bossed around by men. These days it’s greens who want to regulate my behaviour.
If much of the world were to snap out of it and realize that global warming has been over-hyped, large companies would lose hundreds of billions.
According to scientists who’ve helped write its reports, the IPCC is not a scientific body first and foremost. Rather, its primary purpose is to lay the necessary groundwork so that an international climate change treaty can be negotiated.
Ted Turner has fathered five children. But he thinks China’s coercive one-child policies should be exported to other countries. Why aren’t other UN officials scrambling to distance themselves from his remarks?
First, UN researchers conduct a climate change survey. Second, they release a report that fails to provide even an overview of the results, never mind detailed evidence of the assertions being made. Next the report gets cited as though it were gospel by Canada’s Library of Parliament.
Koko Warner is a UN employee whose research has been funded and brazenly promoted by the UN in order to advance the UN’s climate change agenda. Now she is a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Sudan is a troubled, impoverished nation with a questionable human rights record. Why is a representative of that country occupying one of the most senior positions with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Is the fight against climate change to be led by the violent & unsavoury?
The UN’s Nobel-winning, allegedly gold-standard climate bible bases factual assertions on dodgy source material like press releases.
The climate bible is the ultimate weapon in the global warming debate. Skeptics are told the experts have spoken and that carbon dioxide is the Great Satan.
The World Wildlife Fund raises half a billion dollars a year. What does it do with this abundance? Short answer: it behaves much like any other large corporation.
Drug trial results are closely scrutinized. Corporate financial statements are routinely audited. Yet science academy bureaucrats – and a lot of others who should have known better – have advised us to blindly trust IPCC reports.
Climate change protesters who decline to distance themselves from the capitalism-is-the-problem crowd aren’t really serious. If they were, they’d declare loudly that the merits of various political systems is a separate debate.
If one were looking for reasons to dismiss global warming skepticism, these 13 pages of text provide ample fodder.
Climate change activists aren’t the only ones who resort to hysteria & hyperbole.
We are all entitled to ask questions – about anything, but particularly about a topic that is rarely absent from the daily news. Yet according to a spokeswoman for the United Nations it is immoral and irresponsible to question climate change.