Philip Munday’s work falls to pieces whenever someone tries to verify it.
A new UN report relies on discredited research – and on academics who conceal vital information.
We teach children that a summary should accurately reflect a longer document. But things are topsy-turvy in the land of the IPCC.
Once again, the ‘world’s leading scientists’ provide cover for UN machinations.
No matter how undemocratic, impoverished, sparsely-populated, or terrorism-promoting a nation might be, a sentence written by scientists will not survive if that nation objects.
On what planet is it OK for politically-determined definitions to supersede those written by actual scientists?
The IPCC publishes the citizenship and gender of its authors – but says nothing about their scientific expertise.
The latest IPCC report was a setup – a cynical ploy to produce alarmist media headlines that succeeded beautifully.
If climate research is like other research, half of the IPCC’s 6,000 academic citations are dubious.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is essentially a law unto itself, an entrenched culture with no meaningful oversight mechanisms.
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
IPCC insiders say many of those who shared in the 2007 Peace Prize lack appropriate scientific credentials. They were selected because they are of the right gender or come from the right country.
We have no hard evidence of a crisis. Only expert opinion and best estimates.
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
Journalists spent years falsely calling the IPCC chairman a Nobel laureate and the world’s ‘top climate scientist.’
Ecology professor’s political opinions published repeatedly in scientific journals.
Most of the Alliance of World Scientists 23,000 members DID NOT sign the climate emergency petition. But professional journalists didn’t notice.
It’s absurd to say scientists are only now speaking up. Reuters publishes egregious climate propaganda.
There’s no guarantee scientific research is credible or accurate just because it has been peer-reviewed. Why is Facebook promoting this lie?
Media outlets are supposed to be more reliable than your brother-in-law, but that seems less true every day.
Google pampers the already pampered at $20 million climate extravaganza.
Rabid dog climate enforcers will destroy you without conscience or regret.
When a journalist thinks for herself about climate change, insults & fabrications follow.
IPBES provides no CVs for most members of its influential panel.
Allegations that mining threatens wildlife rely on activist ‘evidence.’
Nations have been demoted; on the top level of the org chart we now find the Borg.
A report outlines a dystopian future in which EU citizens find themselves outnumbered 7 to 1 by recent arrivals. This is cultural genocide.
Your moral & financial support has been a blessing.
If you’re a UN bureaucrat, recent weeks have been full of disappointment.
Scientists score lower than chimpanzees when quizzed about basic, state-of-the-world facts.
Scores of scientific minds. So much tomfoolery.
November 2000 and December 2009 were both supposed to be our last, best chance to save the planet from climate disaster. This week, the media is once again spreading this message.
The most smug, most self-indulgent, least curious journalists in history.
The BBC is a huge bureaucracy. The geniuses running it have declared another bureaucracy – the UN’s IPCC – a font of scientific truth. How pathetic.
In the climate world, the line between real and fake is strangely murky.
The media’s climate frenzy was sparked by a scientist who’s research was still unpublished.
Scientific debate can’t accomplish its purpose if we pretend there is no debate.
Since relaunching this blog on January first, I’ve published 38 new posts – including one in Swedish. Please help me continue.
Some discoveries are easy to measure and easy to verify. But much of science is about groping in the dark.
IPCC scientists routinely evaluate their own work. What could possibly go wrong?
History’s most momentous climate decision was based on research so preliminary it wasn’t published in a scientific journal until seven months later.
People who once worked at Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI aren’t surprised by the sexual allegations leveled against him.
If climate change science is so convincing, why did Timothy Wirth schedule James Hansen’s historic 1988 testimony during the hottest time of the year? And why did he sneak into the hearing room the night before & open the windows so there’d be no air conditioning?