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.
Supplying electricity to a typical family for 12 hours requires the pedal power of 80 elite cyclists. The same amount of electricity can be purchased from the grid for under $5.
Eminent individuals are urging US educators to encourage a genuine campus debate about fossil fuels.
A free, shortish book defends – and celebrates – oil and coal.
According to 1960s radicals, the environmental movement has been funded and orchestrated by fossil fuel interests.
Why weren’t the profound limitations of the ZENN car the butt of a comedian’s jokes?
The Sierra Club took fossil fuel money. Lots of it. How dare it falsely accuse other people of doing this.
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.
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 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?
When environmentalists organize themselves, fund-raise, and try to spread their message this is considered legitimate democratic activity. Yet the minute climate skeptics do the same we’re accused of being doubt-mongers who manufacture uncertainty in order to mislead the public.
In the world inhabited by this environmental crusader, climate change is “a crisis that’s breaking over our heads at this moment,” ExxonMobil peddles petroleum the way drug dealers peddle heroin, and we “have no choice” but to turn our backs on fossil fuels.
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.”
If much of the world were to snap out of it and realize that global warming has been over-hyped, large companies would lose hundreds of billions.
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.
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.”
Attempts to deal with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill are being hampered by a foolish EPA regulation and other bizarre concerns.
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.
30 years ago Greenpeace rented creaky fishing boats. These days it purchases $22-million custom-built mega-yachts. The shoestring voices in the environmental debate now belong to skeptical bloggers.
Dr. John O’Connor is the hero of a documentary film that alleges a connection between the Alberta tar sands and cancer. But an investigation found many of his statements to be “inaccurate” and “untruthful.”
Oil companies get fined $7,000 per bird for inadvertently harming wildlife. Yet society ignores the predictable massacre of thousands of birds by wind farms. Are we protecting wildlife – or harassing oil companies?
Skeptical climate scientists are often accused of being motivated by financial gain. So why does Al Gore charge $175,000 to deliver a speech? If global warming is really a planetary emergency, why won’t he deliver the same talk for $50,000?