Only one person has been held accountable. To this day, Greenpeace refuses to identify the full list of culprits.
Greenpeace tells a court that everyone knows its campaigns are based on opinions & interpretations rather than hard facts.
Greenpeace thinks people who spread ‘misinformation’ have no right to be heard. Yet, suddenly, it’s waving the free speech flag.
Why did Kumi Naidoo leave Greenpeace’s top job before a replacement was found? The Guardian prints clichés and asks no hard questions.
Greenpeace canvassers say their workplace is no compassionate, supportive utopia.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele became an IPCC official in 2002. Two years later he got into bed with Greenpeace. Part 2 of 2.
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.’
Greenpeace activists have no respect for what others hold sacred – whether it’s Peru’s Nazca lines or a Roman Catholic cross in Canada.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
Greenpeace isn’t anti-establishment anymore. Now it’s just another arm of the authoritarian, UN green machine.
Greenpeace makes a show of rejecting government and corporate money. But it’s close pals with the WWF – which gets enormous funding from exactly those sources.
An Energy Minister who boasts that his decision is supported by Greenpeace is an Energy Minister spectacularly out-of-touch with ordinary voters.
Does a responsible organization make videos in which children call adults enemies?
An urgent public health crisis exists. An effective, humanitarian response is available. But rather than pitching in and helping to save lives, Greenpeace is attacking the aid workers.
Greenpeace says 95% certainty is the same as 100% certainty. Tell that to people who die on the operating table.
Greenpeace says we should deprive ourselves and harm our communities.
Greenpeace envisions a new system of global governance – in which unaccountable UN bureaucrats gain “real powers.”
Greenpeace thinks President Obama should destroy lives now. Because of an ill-defined, generalized risk of climate change sometime in the future.
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.
Greenpeace has seen the light. Years after it became the norm in climate science to hoard & hide data, Greenpeace is now complaining about such behaviour.
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.
Regarding James Hansen’s (tax-payer funded) salary, David Suzuki’s despair, and Ross Gelbspan’s professional activism.
The mere presence of environmental activists undermines the integrity of scientific endeavours. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long embraced Greenpeace personnel.
Environmental activist organizations are all grown up now. We need to adjust our thinking accordingly.
Greenpeace spends its time trashing corporations. Yet it solicits donations in the form of corporate stocks. Any kind of corporate stocks, apparently.
Greenpeace recently dismissed the Canadian Senate as a 19th century institution. But it aggressively promotes wind power – a 12th century technology. While it accuses the Senate of being undemocratic, Greenpeace itself scored only 42% when evaluated from an accountability perspective.
A Greenpeace spokesperson suggests that the only people concerned about the video in which kids are executed for insufficient eco enthusiasm are those with ulterior motives – “climate skeptics and think tanks funded by corporations.”
It is frequently alleged that climate skeptics are being funded by big oil – and that their views should therefore not be trusted. In fact, green groups have received far more funding from oil interests. Really.
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
While our ‘thought leaders’ worried about the elderly in the year 2050, a virus that would kill hundreds of thousands of elderly people this year was spreading like wildfire.
Like colonialists of old, affluent green activists impose their will on poor people in impoverished countries who have no means of defending themselves.
An influential report aimed at business leaders re-labelled an implausible, far-fetched scenario as ‘our current path.’
Transforming the world’s energy system is a vast undertaking. Of colossal proportions.
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.’
Once again, the ‘world’s leading scientists’ provide cover for UN machinations.
Don’t you listen to the street preacher. He ain’t nothing but a false teacher.
Everyone’s standard of living drops as daily necessities become more costly.
Spending scarce resources on a separate collection system for material no one wants isn’t sensible.
The covers of news magazines such as Time and The Economist used to tell the truth.
Causing real harm with no realistic chance of improving the world makes no sense.
Politicians & 10-year-olds think banning drinking straws in rich nations will address improper garbage disposal in poor ones.
The Sierra Club is swimming in money from affluent individuals, wealthy foundations, and blue chip companies. This is not a grassroots organization.
For well-funded green groups (and a growing list of governments), lawyers are weapons and courtrooms are a political battleground.
Since relaunching this blog on January first, I’ve published 38 new posts – including one in Swedish. Please help me continue.
It is immoral to deny needy people access to fossil fuels because experts have made dire predictions about the future.
How does encouraging scientists to criticize government policy enhance scientific integrity?
I’m on screen for a few seconds in a documentary film that will be shown in movie theatres across the US on May 2nd.
No matter what voters say in the upcoming US election, a coalition of Attorneys General intends to push for ‘even more aggressive’ climate action.
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.
Activists have predicted environmental catastrophe for decades. In addition to a poor track record, they share similar arguments, language, and metaphors.
Government official urges television weather presenters to use loaded language to help the climate cause. When one writes a critical book instead, he’s suspended from his job at a government-owned station.
The new IPCC chairman is an economist who, ironically, began his career with oil giant Exxon.
Climate activists have redefined the venerable concept of free speech. According to them, it means the polar opposite of what John Stuart Mill famously wrote about.
A Belgian activist scientist seeking leadership of the UN climate panel flies to Pakistan – and is fawned over by the media.
The American Geophysical Union is led by a climate evangelist with zero climate science credentials. When the American Physical Society produced its latest climate statement, it failed to consult members with the most relevant expertise.
In the words of Australian commentator Joanne Nova, ‘the opposite of skeptical is gullible.’ Journalists are supposed to be skeptical – of everyone and everything. Those who don’t approach the … Continue reading
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.
French philosopher Pascal Bruckner says fundamentalist eco activists are steering society in a scary direction.
Governments fund solar capacity in countries that receive little sun and install wind turbines in nations that get little wind. $100 billion has been squandered while green activists applauded.
A chief scientist, a statesman, and an heir to a throne all say climate disaster is imminent. But their schedules don’t agree.
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.
I’ll be in Germany and Scotland this month, giving speeches about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This Thursday, I’ll be addressing the International Conference on Climate and Energy, which … Continue reading
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.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
Rockstar’s rhetoric about Canada’s oil sands is intemperate, offensive, and ill-informed.
Rather than bringing pine logs to the poor, 21st-century energy policies do the exact opposite. More children now shiver in the cold.
When did “Question Authority” stop being applicable?
If the public is to be represented at climate negotiations by someone other than their own government, it has a right to elect and dismiss those representatives.
The WWF utilized UN press conference facilities yesterday. It’s doing so again today.
Activist media events are a shockingly institutionalized part of UN climate negotiations.
If the UN were serious about a new climate treaty, it would turf the activists. They are a distraction no one needs.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
What do Greenpeace and the Natural History Museum have in common? They both employ people with impaired reading comprehension skills.
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.
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.
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.
Any country in which a woman finds herself sentenced to 16 months after reporting a rape is barbaric and deserves to be shunned. Instead, the WWF is burnishing the image of this oppressive regime.
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.
It’s 2009 all over again – when people got hysterical prior to the last-chance-to-save-ourselves Copenhagen climate summit.
Environmentalists think Australian states can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. They want them overruled by bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
Emergency! Catastrophe! Earth is turning into an unprecedented hellhole – according to an Oxford professor and Microsoft official.
Politicians, having blindly parroted environmentalist rhetoric about green jobs, look increasingly foolish.
It isn’t your imagination. You’ve been hearing that the world is “running out of time” for years.
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.
Why are female leaders rarer than rubies in green organizations?
Based on a press release and a brochure, the media says hunters are “gasping for life” in the Arctic.
According to 1960s radicals, the environmental movement has been funded and orchestrated by fossil fuel interests.
The language being used in 1970, the year Earth Day was born, hasn’t changed much: Crisis. Catastrophe. Endangered. Extinction.
Much of what we hear about climate change has been carefully crafted by PR firms and ad agencies.
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
If ‘constant growth’ is bad, why does the David Suzuki Foundation keep getting bigger and bigger?
The behaviour of green NGOs in the developing word resembles foreign adventurism: arrogant, reckless, and exploitative.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
The Sierra Club is “outraged” by a Keystone pipeline report. This is as newsworthy as saying the Pope is Catholic.
An oil pipeline is described as a “carbon bomb” that will impact the “children of all species forever.”
As a writer, I think it’s important to pay attention to the language and the imagery being used in the climate debate. Today I’m launching a new, regular feature on this blog – The Drama Queen Files.
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?
Persecuted for decades? Poor? Green groups will still kick you when you’re down.
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.
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.
The World Wildlife Fund is deploying anti-poaching surveillance drones in countries with spotty human rights records and non-existent oversight mechanisms.
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.
A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations.
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?
It’s no longer easy to locate the splattergate video on YouTube.
Why does the climate debate elicit so much partisan sneering from the media?
The World Wildlife Fund is using ordinary Mexicans as pawns in a geopolitical chess game.
For half a century green activists have insisted that their historical moment – and a particular generation – are the planet’s last hope.
The World Wildlife Fund’s first corporate sponsor was Shell oil – which continued to fund it for the next four decades.
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.
The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?
Why do journalists never doubt green groups?
The vibrant, international climate skeptic community owes its existence to the Internet. We must defend it.
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?
A collection of NGO brats, self-important rich folks, and UN bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to be the voice of future generations.
The blogosphere is putting professional journalists to shame with its investigations into, and analysis of, groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
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.
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.
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.
Media coverage of climate change has a great deal in common with how the press covered the Y2K scare. There’s little evidence that news outlets learned much from that embarrassing episode.
The list of people who’ve accepted $150,000 from an advocacy organization is a long one. There are lots of PhDs here, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with full-blown political activists.
Where, on the CV of a person employed by Greenpeace for the past 17 years, does it say distinguished scientist?
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?
When activists hoodwink the media – and questionable environmental scare stories are the result – why don’t we care?
Who knew that green groups – and those with business interests in renewable energy – have access to such obscene amounts of money?
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.
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?
Amazon.com says e-books have begun out-selling hardcover and paperback books combined. Climate titles that don’t have an e-book edition are now at a serious disadvantage.
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.