A new, 73-page paper about America’s “most visible environmental activist” doesn’t mention that he’s an emotional basketcase.
This blog will return in mid-September. In the meantime, here’s a video of a presentation I gave in Australia last month – and some thoughts on the bankruptcy of contemporary green analysis.
In the world inhabited by this environmental crusader, climate change is “a crisis that’s breaking over our heads at this moment,” ExxonMobil peddles petroleum the way drug dealers peddle heroin, and we “have no choice” but to turn our backs on fossil fuels.
Those seemingly nice people brimming with such concern for the planet are actually profoundly intolerant.
Smart, thoughtful people value dispassionate investigation, careful analysis & logical arguments. Eco guru McKibben seems to think we should listen to him because he cares. Because he cries.
No matter what voters say in the upcoming US election, a coalition of Attorneys General intends to push for ‘even more aggressive’ climate action.
Activists have predicted environmental catastrophe for decades. In addition to a poor track record, they share similar arguments, language, and metaphors.
The new IPCC chairman is an economist who, ironically, began his career with oil giant Exxon.
The climate scare rests on predictions produced by mathematical modeling. Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s finest scientific minds, says prediction isn’t what those models do – and that the climate conversation is ignoring important facts.
The European Environment Foundation doesn’t make it easy to analyze the names of the 160 individuals who signed last week’s climate declaration. Part 4 of 4
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
If carbon dioxide is pollution, every human being is a perpetual pollution factory. Every toddler in their sandbox generates CO2 every minute of every day.
It isn’t your imagination. You’ve been hearing that the world is “running out of time” for years.
A free, shortish book defends – and celebrates – oil and coal.
The WWF thinks we should all “live in harmony with nature.” Sounds great – except for the flies, wasps, venomous snakes, storms, and floods.
Students in the fossil fuel divestment movement employ venom and vitriol, but little persuasive argument.
The campus fossil fuel divestment campaign may be stylish, but it’s short on substance.
Civilized debate appears to be an endangered species.
Opposition to oil pipelines has led to sharp increases in train transport. Not only is that method less safe, it costs significantly more.
An oil pipeline is described as a “carbon bomb” that will impact the “children of all species forever.”
Why do journalists never doubt green groups?
People are surprised to learn that eco icon David Suzuki (who insists there are too many humans on the planet), has himself fathered five children. But his autobiography reveals this to be the case. It also tells us he began dating his second wife when she was 22 – and he was 35.
The video in which people are summarily executed for questioning the need for emissions reduction is being denounced by prominent global warming activists. Organizations that have aligned themselves with the 10:10 Campaign – such as Sony, Oxford University, and UK local governments – also need to distance themselves from it.
21 years ago, environmental guru Bill McKibben said we’d “burn up” in “a few more decades” if we didn’t stop using fossil fuels.
Activist scientist James Hansen is entitled to his personal political views. But he should not be citing his employer in order to advance them.
Scientific investigation produces facts. But even when we have full confidence in the accuracy of these facts we must still choose how to respond to them. When activists insist there’s only one possible response they’re attempting to preempt important democratic discussions, to silence our voices, to substitute their own views for those of the community.
Roy Spencer is a bona fide climate scientist who disagrees with the dangerous global warming hypothesis. I review his book Climate Confusion – and also discuss Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature.