Carbon taxes at the gas pump are just the beginning. Oxford University researchers think we should pay carbon taxes on food.
For eight years, this environmental leader has called for the imprisonment of those who disagree. Why is he still welcome in polite society?
IPCC official Chris Field claims the latest IPCC report set the stage for a Paris climate deal. An e-mail he sent colleagues three days ago is pure politics.
A polar explorer is falsely described as a climate scientist in a news story; his activist connections aren’t reported.
20 American academics think unorthodox climate views should be subjected to an organized crime investigation.
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.
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.
Libraries define intellectual freedom as the public’s right to examine all points-of-view. These climate scientists are trying to stifle alternative perspectives. Part 2 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.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele became an IPCC official in 2002. Two years later he got into bed with Greenpeace. Part 2 of 2.
The second-in-command at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wants a promotion, but has no intention of addressing critics’ concerns. Part 1 of 2.
Tasked with assessing the achievements of others, a jury that includes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri heaps honour on one of its own.
Taking fossil fuel money is immoral. Says a science communicator who wore Shell logos to work.
Described as a “professor of climate science,” Chris Rapley has no teaching duties. Described as a “climate scientist,” he has spent decades in administrative roles.
The world’s most important climate body dedicates its new document to a rude, intolerant, highly politicized climate crusader.
Why has the president of the world’s oldest science body issued a statement about Scotland’s independence vote? Why go near that thoroughly political question with a 10-foot pole?
Rather than persuading us with reason and logic, the World Meteorological Organization has recruited TV weather presenters to deliver pretend weather reports from the year 2050.
Asking a group of climate scientists to comment on policy measures (as opposed to scientific questions) leads to some disturbing answers.
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.
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.
An IPCC document produced for its meeting in Yokohama uses emphatically activist language. What happened to the scientific body delivering a scientific report based on scientific research?
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
A fake Nobel keynote speaker played an embarrassingly minor role in the IPCC.
A press release issued this week falsely describes economist Woodrow Clark as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
A climatologist urges her community to stop defending Michael Mann.
Chris Field – the head of the UN climate panel’s Working Group 2 – thinks the world “is staring down the barrel of climate change.”
The distress call, the icebreakers, and the other scientific research.
UN climate panel leaders don’t behave in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
Like those sad souls who walk around with military medals they themselves didn’t earn on their chests, a forestry professor continues to bask in undeserved glory.
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
It may not be wise to judge a book by its cover, but it’s entirely appropriate to judge an organization by its leader.
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.
Rajendra Pachauri holds only one PhD – not two, as his official IPCC bio claims.
The US head of the WWF, when invited to choose a film to “help guide the way we think about the future,” selected the intellectually vapid Avatar.
Some people really do care more about “Mother Nature” than human beings.
Once again, people described as “leading scientists” turn out to be economists, UN officials, and those with links to activist organizations.
A new book appears to be a rehash of 40-year-old environmental scaremongering endorsed by that era’s men of science.
A new essay in the peer-reviewed literature searches for the secret formula by which to manipulate public opinion.
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
When the word “radical” is used four times in two sentences, something is amiss.
According to Canada’s most prominent environmentalist, the mining of gold, silver, copper and other minerals poses an unacceptable risk to the planet’s atmosphere.
Scientists who step into the political arena deserve to be challenged. This isn’t an attack on science – it’s an exploration of competing political perspectives.
The language being used in 1970, the year Earth Day was born, hasn’t changed much: Crisis. Catastrophe. Endangered. Extinction.
Don’t believe everything you read – especially about the supposed link between global warming and natural disasters.
Junkets abroad, handsomely-paid positions at home – no wonder government employees love the environment.
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?
People who believe there’s an urgent problem behave accordingly. Climatologist Michael Mann plays games.
Climate crusaders urge us to Think of the children! But that can be used by anyone to advance any argument under the sun.
Earth Hour: 60 minutes of self delusion brought to you by IKEA.
The Sierra Club blogger who wrongly predicted that this winter would be “less wintery” & snowy than last now says Arctic sea ice won’t “survive this summer.”
Drama queen scientists have been around for at least 89 years.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
David Suzuki’s idea of a “truly sustainable future” is one in which freedom of the press doesn’t exist.
According to a new UN report, your meat consumption is killing the planet.
Why don’t polar bear activists recognize a success story when they see one?
Are climate change ‘facts’ so hard to come by that a not-yet-finalized draft report is considered evidence?
Is a new academic network just a cover for climate activists?
23 years ago, David Suzuki declared science “fundamentally flawed.” These days he delivers speeches to naturopath conventions.
If the IPCC had done the sensible thing and banned activist publications, would the institute run by its chairman still be receiving activist cash?
Last week, a sustainability summit organized by the chairman of the IPCC was held in India. The World Wildlife Fund provided funding.
A Quebec school refuses to say whether David Suzuki’s student bodyguards spent time alone with him.
If climate change is as straightforward a scientific concept as gravity, why does the IPCC continue to produce multi-thousand-page reports?
In a speech to students, David Suzuki condemned society’s fixation with money. So why did he charge their school more for a day’s work than many Canadians earn in a year?
When David Suzuki visited a school in Quebec, why was he assigned attractive, female, student bodyguards?
Andrew Weaver: climate modeler, Green Party deputy leader, Greenpeace promoter.
A majority of the 13 senior scientists responsible for a US government report are also associated with activist groups. (Eight of them have an IPCC connection.)
The German government’s chief climate advisor is the furthest thing from an objective, dispassionate scientist. He thinks using fossil fuels amounts to “a lifestyle of mass destruction” – and that the UN should be put in charge of trillions of dollars.
IPCC officials are telling Working Group 2 authors about scientific papers that haven’t been written yet. These papers will appear in a special edition of a journal guest-edited by an activist scientist.
Scientists often claim to know what the future holds. In such a milieu, some people will want revenge when science gets it wrong.
A lead author of the IPCC’s ‘hard science’ section is a Green Party candidate and deputy leader.
I spoke in Calgary last week, was interviewed on television three times, and attracted some great newspaper coverage.
The head of research at a prominent UK climate facility believes that those of us who use refrigerators and drive cars will need to be coerced into altering our lifestyles.
I’ll be speaking in Calgary on Wed., October 17th at the Friends of Science annual luncheon. The scientific method needs all the friends – and defenders – we can muster.
A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.
Concerned about climate change, coral reef experts say they can predict the future with startling precision.
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.
Ideas being promoted by ‘climate scientists’ look increasingly scary.
The author of a 2007 book on climate change failed to mention his own IPCC involvement while pointing to that body as an authority. This is called an undisclosed conflict-of-interest.
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?
Would a scientifically rigorous organization have the owner of a PR firm as its chairman?
For half a century green activists have insisted that their historical moment – and a particular generation – are the planet’s last hope.
My book is discussed in the Canadian Senate – and the David Suzuki Foundation behaves like a rabid dog.
Nine papers are being distributed by an upcoming save-the-world conference. They’re explicitly intended to influence the behaviour of world leaders at the Rio summit in June. But the claim that they represent the latest scientific thinking is a gross distortion.
Everyone thinks ground zero for climate change effects is somewhere different. Most of these claims, therefore, must be wrong.
The head of what is supposed to be a neutral scientific body saw no impropriety recently in accepting an award that applauds his environmental activism.
If it’s OK for scientists to lie to advance the fight against climate change what other bad behaviour is acceptable?
Eleven years ago Peter Gleick was declaring that the debate is over. Now he says other people are preventing it from taking place.
Iowa scientists have signed a letter about climate change. News reports don’t mention their activist leanings.
Peter Gleick issues a statement about the Heartland documents.
A Dutch professor has examined a draft of the upcoming IPCC report. He says it has been written by people who assume things that haven’t yet been proven, are selective about what material they consider, and reach decisions by a show of hands.
In recent years the world’s oldest science academy has been taken for a joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned – in the name of fighting climate change.
Is it any wonder that young climate scientists behave badly? Their elders set the example – by hurling insults at dissenters.
For the head of the IPCC, sustainable is just another word for a global anti-poverty campaign. Which means that organizations such as his own TERI institute, in poor countries such as India, receive lots of funding.
Why are the editors of leading medical journals trying to suppress climate free speech? Since this isn’t their area of expertise how dare they harass those with a different point-of-view?
A powerful lobby group supplied their meeting space, helped with their travel documents & subsidized their meals. Top IPCC scientists went along for the ride.
A collection of NGO brats, self-important rich folks, and UN bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to be the voice of future generations.
According to the head of what is supposed to be a neutral scientific body, young people need to be mobilized to become major agents of change. Does it really need to be said that science is no longer science if those with activist agendas are in charge?
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.
Most chapters in Working Group 1 of the 2007 Climate Bible contained at least one scientist who is affiliated with professional climate lobbyists. In one instance, four of the lead authors were tainted in this manner.
The scientists on this list either played some role in the 2007 Climate Bible or are helping to write the next one expected to be completed in 2013. In many cases, they’re doing dual duty.
All of them have a documented, public relationship with professional lobbyists.
The erroneous Himalayan glacier prediction was based on a WWF report. The IPCC chapter in which that mistake occurred was led by two WWF-affiliated scientists.
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.
Two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters include personnel affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund. Fifteen chapters were led by WWF-affiliated scientists.
Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund recruited 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” to help it heighten the public’s sense of urgency.
The up-and-coming generation of scientific minds appears to assume that humans are a pox on the planet.
Rather than helping to keep climate authorities honest, The Economist magazine now serves up a steady diet of green pap. When sound journalistic judgment leaves the building, I stop renewing my subscription.
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.
An activist group has been funding a particular corner of scientific research to the tune of $1 million a year for more than two decades. Do we really think this hasn’t influenced how those working in that field see the world?
When hundreds of Canadian scientists – and 12 science bodies – joined a World Wildlife Fund ad campaign they undermined their own authority. They became politically-motivated actors in a political discussion.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to stick to the science. But not only do its leaders make political pronouncements – these pronouncements are startlingly unsophisticated.
The scientific community expects us to trust its judgment on the question of whether global warming is the fault of human beings. But its response to the Chris Landsea affair demonstrates that that judgment is impaired.
There’s a link between hurricane expert Chris Landsea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. That link is James J. McCarthy.
When activists hoodwink the media – and questionable environmental scare stories are the result – why don’t we care?
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says responding to climate change is part of a larger goal: transforming the world economy.
40 years ago scientists said radical change was necessary if humanity was to survive. Along the way they endorsed a population prediction that now seems foolish.
An IPCC official thinks that quadrupling gasoline prices could help save the planet. What effect such a policy would have on human beings appears to be irrelevant.
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?
While the rest of us approach challenges with determination, optimism, and faith in ourselves as problem solvers, drama queens see only worst-case scenarios. They exaggerate. They emotionalize.
Rather than championing logic and reason, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences now stages political theatre. Humanity is accused, tried, and convicted in a “court case” in which the verdict was determined in advance.
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.
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.
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of what is supposed to be a respectable science body, has – with deliberation and forethought – publicly linked that body to left-wing political analysis and 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 UCLA professor who found no link between a certain kind of air pollution and premature death is fighting to keep his job. But the state employee with the fake PhD merely got demoted.
Australians are outraged by a Prime Minister who, prior to last summer’s election, said there’d be no carbon tax – but is now implementing one. At a recent protest rally, a scientist explained why he thinks the dangerous global warming hypothesis has been proved wrong.
Half a century ago, a science journalist discovered that anything less than reverential reporting was interpreted by scientists as hostility. It would seem that climate scientists who label critics ‘anti-science’ come from a long tradition.
The mere presence of environmental activists undermines the integrity of scientific endeavours. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long embraced Greenpeace personnel.
In 1970s and ’80s some scientists already believed human CO2 emissions would cause global warming. How do we know the IPCC’s 2007 conclusions weren’t preordained?
An expert who testified to Congress this week reached well beyond his own scientific expertise. By advocating a particular response to climate change he brings science into disrepute.
Why is a Vice President of an activist group taking part in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change workshops – and serving as a review editor for the upcoming edition of the climate bible?
Two physics professors – one in America and one in the UK – are condemning the behaviour of prominent climate scientists. They say it’s a violation of scientific honesty and integrity.
An award-winning meteorologist says he’s ashamed of – and embarrassed by – his profession.
Two activist scientists, both committed to the climate change fight, have starkly different views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One says it’s the most “rigorous scientific process” in which he has been involved. The other says it isn’t good science, but “lowest-common-denominator-science.”
Any government body headed by eco-campaigner Tim Flannery cannot possibly be considered “independent”.
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.
A recently-released collection of candid insider comments confirms many of our worst fears about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
NASA used to be about the right stuff. It used to be about knowledge, human ingenuity, and the triumph of sheer brainpower in the face of unfavourable odds. Now, rather than seeking to inspire kids, NASA tries to frighten them.
A news account suggests Michael Oppenheimer is a class act. Rather than calling climate skeptics “deniers” he admits they might be smart people.
A news story tells us we should believe a report because a “Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist” is associated with it. But the Nobel turns out to be the same Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore – and the report’s findings are highly improbable.