Greenpeace isn’t anti-establishment anymore. Now it’s just another arm of the authoritarian, UN green machine.
Greenpeace says 95% certainty is the same as 100% certainty. Tell that to people who die on the operating table.
The mere presence of environmental activists undermines the integrity of scientific endeavours. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long embraced Greenpeace personnel.
Once again, the ‘world’s leading scientists’ provide cover for UN machinations.
The new IPCC chairman is an economist who, ironically, began his career with oil giant Exxon.
A Belgian activist scientist seeking leadership of the UN climate panel flies to Pakistan – and is fawned over by the media.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele became an IPCC official in 2002. Two years later he got into bed with Greenpeace. Part 2 of 2.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
On page 25 of Chapter 2 and page 58 of Chapter 4 (Working Group 2 report of the AR5), the sole evidence the IPCC cites for a claim about the … Continue reading
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.
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.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
Does a responsible organization make videos in which children call adults enemies?
What do Greenpeace and the Natural History Museum have in common? They both employ people with impaired reading comprehension skills.
With attention focused on the IPCC’s imminent Working Group 1 report, a prestigious science journal has published a misleadingly-headlined profile of Working Group 3 co-chair, Ottmar Edenhofer.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
The next IPCC report will include a chapter that discusses gender inequality, marginalized populations, and traditional knowledge. So much for providing “rigorous…scientific information.”
How can claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is objective be taken seriously when one of its authors has been arrested at an anti-coal protest?
40 people belonged to the IPCC’s 2007 ‘core writing team.’ 11 of them have documented links to either the World Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace.
17 years ago a Greenpeace report titled The Climate Time Bomb tried to frighten us with lurid images and dire predictions that have since failed.
Where, on the CV of a person employed by Greenpeace for the past 17 years, does it say distinguished scientist?
A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report once again relies on research conducted by Greenpeace. Once again, Greenpeace personnel are serving as IPCC lead authors.
Jennifer Morgan was recently recruited to help prepare the upcoming edition of the climate bible. Rather than being one of the world’s finest scientific minds she is a professional activist – as in chief climate change spokesperson for the World Wildlife Fund.
One of the most senior authors for the upcoming climate bible has spent the past 17 years cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
New Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines declare that blogs “are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports.” Yet these same guidelines say nothing about advocacy literature published by groups such as Greenpeace.
Regarding James Hansen’s (tax-payer funded) salary, David Suzuki’s despair, and Ross Gelbspan’s professional activism.
Rajendra Pachauri does not display the aloof, dispassionate demeanour traditionally evoked by the term “scientist.” Instead, he repeatedly lends the good name of the scientific body he chairs to activist endeavours.
Actions speak louder the words. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims to be impartial and evenhanded – but that’s not how it behaves.
A small group of IPCC insiders filled as many as seven different roles each during the writing of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
President Obama’s science advisor says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change bases its conclusions on source material that has been vetted in excruciating detail. According to IPCC insiders, this is bunk.
At the age of 25, Richard Klein became an IPCC lead author. He held a Masters degree, and had spent a year working for Greenpeace.
A recent medical graduate with no relevant publications was a lead author of the IPCC’s first health chapter. That report was supposed to have been written by the world’s top experts.
Entire passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report were lifted from a 1993 book authored by Anthony McMichael – the IPCC person in charge of the health chapter.
In June the IPCC put Alistair Woodward in charge of the climate bible’s health chapter. He thinks doctors should “educate and encourage” their patients in “climate change action.”
The relationship between Greenpeace and the IPCC is so close that not only are the activist group’s documents cited by the climate bible, the IPCC chairman has written a forward for a Greenpeace publication. Meanwhile, a senior Greenpeace official (whose entire career has been devoted to political activism), has served as an IPCC “scientific expert reviewer.”
Click any slide to enlarge. Internet links often expire, so backup links are provided. https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2007/02/09/Ellen-Goodman-Global-warning/stories/200702090178 https://web.archive.org/web/20201118184134/https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Screenshot_2020-10-14-Ellen-Goodman-2007-column.png http://www.fao.org/forestry/17186-0f435ae3673878c5ce4cd4b6ebe27cdff.pdf https://www.webcitation.org/640HdgvAx https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt<br> https://web.archive.org/web/20110513193300/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130317062650/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/everyday-externalities/ my commentary: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/03/15/paul-krugmans-old-time-climate-religion/ https://web.archive.org/web/20181127023647/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/climate-change-denial-republican.html my commentary: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2019/01/02/climate-skeptics-the-despised-minority/ https://web.archive.org/web/20091111235724/http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6305 … Continue reading
An influential report aimed at business leaders re-labelled an implausible, far-fetched scenario as ‘our current path.’
People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
When a journalist thinks for herself about climate change, insults & fabrications follow.
Allegations that mining threatens wildlife rely on activist ‘evidence.’
Since relaunching this blog on January first, I’ve published 38 new posts – including one in Swedish. Please help me continue.
How does encouraging scientists to criticize government policy enhance scientific integrity?
Nothing we do to protect the environment will ever be good enough. Like the Nazgûl in The Lord of the Rings, green lobbyists are relentless.
Many of the scientists who signed an open letter against museums taking money from special interests are themselves linked to special interests. Part 3 of 3.
Climate science is a world in which people who donate money to museums are targeted and ostracized. Yet creeps who write about urinating on women get a free pass. Part 1 of 3.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
Musician Bob Geldoff says climate change is going to wipe us out. By 2030.
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
My new book takes a close look at Rajendra Pachauri, the man in charge of the UN entity that will release a new climate report later this month. It’s available as a paperback, a Kindle e-book, or an instantly downloadable PDF.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
Emergency! Catastrophe! Earth is turning into an unprecedented hellhole – according to an Oxford professor and Microsoft official.
What lessons will the rest of the world learn from Germany’s renewable energy disaster?
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
Press releases e-mailed to this blog tell a strange tale.
Climate skeptics don’t hire advertising agencies to help them manage their brand. Green groups do. So tell me again which side is lavishly funded?
Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
Is a new academic network just a cover for climate activists?
If the IPCC had done the sensible thing and banned activist publications, would the institute run by its chairman still be receiving activist cash?
If climate change is as straightforward a scientific concept as gravity, why does the IPCC continue to produce multi-thousand-page reports?
Andrew Weaver: climate modeler, Green Party deputy leader, Greenpeace promoter.
The full text of an interview I recently gave to FoxNews – and a link to the story.
Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.
Liberty. Freedom. These ideas inspire risk-taking and self-sacrifice. But the green movement offers the exact opposite.
A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
The World Wildlife Fund is using ordinary Mexicans as pawns in a geopolitical chess game.
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.
How many more reports highlighting the IPCC’s flaws will it take before politicians draw the obvious conclusions? How many additional scandals must surface before political leaders realize that this body doesn’t deserve their trust?
There is now a small army of experts, activists, and bureaucrats whose economic lives depend on there being a climate crisis. Without such a crisis their jobs, their travel to exotic places, and their moments in the media spotlight would all disappear.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to be a neutral and impartial body. But its chairman is encouraging business students to be green activists.
At the end of 2011 Treehugger.com continues to portray IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri as a saint.
Canada’s National Post newspaper is running an excerpt of my book this weekend. It may be the only newspaper on the planet employing three climate skeptic journalists.
In a single IPCC chapter we find an author affiliated the WWF, another with Greenpeace, and a third with the Environmental Defense Fund. Sure, this is a scientific document.
How does calling me stupid and equating me with a Holocaust denier advance the debate? Is the fate of the planet really at stake – or are we just playacting in a sandbox?
Who knew that green groups – and those with business interests in renewable energy – have access to such obscene amounts of money?
When did it become acceptable to pen violent fantasies about people with whom you disagree? When did it become OK to talk – luridly and out loud – about their death?
Perhaps the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn’t regard activist scientists as damaged goods because neither the National Academy of Sciences nor the American Association for the Advancement of Science does, either.
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.
Before the IPCC was even founded, the Worldwatch Institute had already declared that global warming was caused by fossil fuels. Surely that makes the IPCC chairman’s decision to fraternize with this activist organization a bit awkward.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is dysfunctional and unaccountable. That Rajendra Pachauri remains as its chairman – despite widespread calls for his resignation – is proof of this.
How often does the media imply that IPCC Peace Prize winners are scientific Nobel laureates?
Should AGW proponents acknowledge critics? Or should they avert their eyes and block their ears?
The five blog posts I’m proudest to have written in 2010.
An ethics professor thinks corporations that challenge climate dogma should be charged with a new kind of crime against humanity.
Strangely, he’s unconcerned that a representative of the violent & unsavoury Sudanese government fills one of the IPCC’s four most prominent positions.
As the author of two books about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I am well placed to evaluate its 2013-2014 Assessment Report (aka AR5 – which stands for … Continue reading
If the IPCC can’t be trusted to describe its own report accurately, why should we believe anything else it says?
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly declared that the climate bible relies solely on peer-reviewed source material. This claim is false. Rajendra Pachauri should resign.
Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the latest version of the climate bible – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed. 21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning report had so few peer-reviewed references they earned an F on our report card.
The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly told the world the climate bible relies solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. He is wrong.
30 years ago Greenpeace rented creaky fishing boats. These days it purchases $22-million custom-built mega-yachts. The shoestring voices in the environmental debate now belong to skeptical bloggers.
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.
If the climate bible includes significant mistakes, if it uses newspaper & magazine articles to make its case, if it relies on literature generated by activist organizations – then it is rather a different animal from the uber-respectable paragon of virtue so many journalists have described. Bamboozled by the PR machine that is the IPCC, they’ve passed along bad information to the public.
The climate bible cites numerous documents written by the World Wildlife Fund to back up its arguments. But this document is supposed to be a rigorous, wholly scientific assessment.