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.
Should AGW proponents acknowledge critics? Or should they avert their eyes and block their ears?
In early 2009 the Los Angeles Times said hot, dry Australia was a warning to us all – and that things would only get worse. The very next year, dry areas were flooded and snow fell during the summer.
No matter what the concern, drama queen scientists have been pushing the same solution for decades: less consumption, less travel & less freedom. For them, every problem is a crisis that requires radical social change.
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?
A hyperlinked and annotated version of the 2007 climate bible gives us new ways of viewing this document. Produced by two dedicated volunteers, it’s a gift to the public as well as the research community.
Kevin Anderson says additional nuclear power plants are unnecessary because climate change can be easily dealt with. Instead, he wants to establish a costly, intrusive, liberty-restricting bureaucracy to ration your access to energy.
The UK’s Royal Society awarded an Esso Energy medal annually for 25 years. A short time later, when opinions on climate change diverged, the society began painting Esso’s parent company, ExxonMobil, as demon spawn.
Data is collected, recorded, adjusted & interpreted not by disinterested robots but by people. Because highly-educated individuals can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, the degree to which a person’s judgment can be trusted becomes a central concern.
To a large degree the climate change story is a media story. Journalists are supposed to be guard dogs, not lap dogs. Instead, they’ve become arbiters of scientific truth – refusing to report on non-conformist perspectives.
Last of a five-part series.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
If we are not free to disagree, we are not free. Period.
David Suzuki thinks women are capable of saving the world. I agree. But before we support him financially and in other ways, shouldn’t we spend a few minutes looking closely at the kind of world he wants us to fight for?
David Suzuki has been asked a series of softball questions by a mainstream newspaper reporter. My own list of questions begins with:
1. You think there are too many human beings, that our numbers over-burden planet Earth. Why, then, did you yourself father five children?
During the first half of this month, activist-scientist-blogger Joe Romm described other people as anti-science on 16 separate occasions. This is the equivalent of a toddler calling everyone from the babysitter to grandad a poopy head.
When a forensic pathologist testifies at a murder trial he describes bruises, lacerations & bullet holes. He does not decide whether the accused is guilty. Nor does he opine to the media about how such murders might be prevented.
So why do climate scientists think it’s their business to prescribe solutions – rather than telling us about their data and only about their data?
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.”
A naive grad student is the lead author of a controversial paper that purports to assess the credibility of scientists who hold a variety of views on climate change.
The “screaming death spiral” scientist now admits he might have overstated the Arctic ice melt situation.
When the biographies of university-affiliated “researchers” talk about saving the world from climate change, the polling data they produce should be taken with a grain of salt.
American professors are encouraging journalism students to suppress certain kinds of news so that the public won’t be confused by climate skepticism. This turns journalists into arbiters of truth and treats the public like children.
Activist scientist James Hansen is entitled to his personal political views. But he should not be citing his employer in order to advance them.
NASA’s website parroted the climate bible’s inaccurate prediction regarding the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Rather than independently confirming this prediction by collecting its own evidence, the agency simply accepted the IPCC report as authoritative.
Since the 1970s, some scientists have embraced social & political activism. The public needs to be aware, therefore, that not every pronouncement made by a “scientist” is neutral or disinterested.
A moderate and pragmatic voice in the climate debate, Roger Pielke Jr. argues in this book, The Honest Broker, that scientists deserve this label when they present a variety of options to the public – rather than advocating a single course of action.
Activist scientist James Hansen says the “experts agree” that meeting our current energy needs is possible via efficiency measures & carbon-free sources. But lots of experts don’t agree. Does he make a habit of pretending those with contrary opinions don’t exist?