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.
11 presentations – based on private, agenda-driven research – were delivered to the world’s largest gathering of climate scientists.
A preposterous climate yarn has taken center stage.
People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
A gang of 14 scientists attack a lone scientist in an academic journal. Erica Goode justifies & amplifies the assault in the Times.
20-year IPCC veteran Richard Tol says that entity is politicized and biased. Ecologist Daniel Botkin says there’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ it’s also wrong about species extinction risks.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
Is it any wonder that young climate scientists behave badly? Their elders set the example – by hurling insults at dissenters.
A powerful lobby group supplied their meeting space, helped with their travel documents & subsidized their meals. Top IPCC scientists went along for the ride.
At the end of 2011 Treehugger.com continues to portray IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri as a saint.
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.
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?
A news account suggests Michael Oppenheimer is a class act. Rather than calling climate skeptics “deniers” he admits they might be smart people.
According to the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 2007 climate bible “was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006.” So how could a paper that wasn’t accepted for publication in a scientific journal until May 2008 (29 months later) be cited multiple times?