I’m aware of two occasions in which the Science Guy has misled the public. But the New York Times says he’s saving us from misinformation.
Many messages emanating from the world of science are entirely bogus.
The US government says its a violation of scientific integrity for political officials to alter scientific findings. But political revision is central to how IPCC reports get produced.
How does encouraging scientists to criticize government policy enhance scientific integrity?
In the dying days of 2016, three serious wind turbine malfunctions occurred in a small corner of Europe.
We humans consistently miss the big picture. The world is improving dramatically, but our brains are addicted to worry and fear.
UK Labour Party veteran says climate policies that hurt the poor must be abandoned.
Carbon taxes at the gas pump are just the beginning. Oxford University researchers think we should pay carbon taxes on food.
Peer review is not ‘the foundation of the scientific process’ as a NASA scientist claims. And climate scientists have no business telling the public where scientific arguments can and cannot be conducted.
A tax that will take an extra $1,250 from the pockets of struggling Canadian families is applauded by corporations.
No matter what voters say in the upcoming US election, a coalition of Attorneys General intends to push for ‘even more aggressive’ climate action.
No one wants to confront scientific fraud. Not managers, not journals, and not lab colleagues. So the system isn’t designed to prevent it.
Since the early 1980s, grave concerns have been raised about the process by which scientific evidence gets produced.
The former head of the world’s most important climate body has been charged with a long list of sex offences.
The WWF may have a friendly panda for a logo, but amongst the poorest of the poor it’s known for something else: violent thugs called ecoguards.
Carbon taxes aren’t merely pointless, they’re regressive. Politicians earn ‘green’ cred by making life worse for the poor.
A shining beacon of how to lead by example, I am fortunate to have crossed paths with him.
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.
Why aren’t we celebrating last week’s Paris climate deal? Where’s the joy and the gratitude – the dancing in the streets and the fireworks?
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.
Rich countries that try to meet their Paris commitments will spend huge amounts of money replacing cheap, higher-emissions energy sources with expensive, lower-emissions sources. This will harm the poor and do nothing for the climate.
A US Senate committee hears that climate science is so intolerant and close-minded, the integrity and reputation of science itself is threatened.
The Paris climate summit is a gigantic photo op – where ineffectual political leaders will pretend to be environmental superheroes.
(includes details of my Dec. 2 talk in Paris)
Millions of children perish each year, but world leaders think a problem that’s unlikely to become worrisome for decades is the world’s most pressing concern.
(photo credit UNICEF: http://tinyurl.com/pekcx2g)
French weatherman Philippe Verdier is a free speech hero, a heretic whose livelihood has been stolen by the intolerant Church of Climate Change.
A polar explorer is falsely described as a climate scientist in a news story; his activist connections aren’t reported.
December’s climate conference is being held on the grounds of Europe’s busiest private jet airport. If we were serious about fighting climate change, wouldn’t private jets have been banned long ago?
What lessons does the environment arm of the United Nations intend to learn from the Chief Justice of Malaysia – whose court has been condemned by Amnesty International?
(includes links to other voices on the proper role of courts in the climate debate)
Why is a Supreme Court judge part of an unsavoury UN advisory panel?
A sitting UK Supreme Court judge took part in a Rio+20 event that said the UN (a political body) should be given more scope & authority.
Organizers of a climate conference co-sponsored by the UK Supreme Court won’t reveal who attended, how much the event cost, or how many participants had their airfare paid by the United Nations.
The institute that published a letter demanding mobster-style investigations of non-mainstream climate views has removed it. But the letter was archived in at least three other places.
A British academic wants an international court to declare climate skeptics wrong, once and for all.
20 American academics think unorthodox climate views should be subjected to an organized crime investigation.
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.
Climate activists are behaving like tyrants. If my four-year-old acted this way, I’d be worried.
Slides and text of my presentation to the World Federation of Scientists, 20 Aug. 2015.
New material won’t be added to this blog until Autumn. You are invited to explore the six-years-worth of content already published here – as well as my two books.
The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?
The former head of the IPCC has long posed as a saviour of the planet. In reality, he’s been a systematic sexual predator – the kind of boss no young woman should have to endure.
People who once worked at Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI aren’t surprised by the sexual allegations leveled against him.
The disgraced former head of the UN smears skeptics while ignoring the dubious motivations of green opportunists.
The Guardian newspaper once again wrongly calls Rajendra Pachauri a Nobel laureate. For good measure, it publishes a photo of him looking pious – while neglecting to mention the serious sexual offenses for which he is being investigated.
A man who used to joke that he lived “at 30,000 feet” is well and truly grounded. This week two courts denied the former IPCC chairman permission to leave the country.
A UN official delivers a speech. An account of that speech is written up to look like a news story. It gets published on a website funded by the UN. Casual readers are unlikely to appreciate that this is 100% spin.
A lawyer for Rajendra Pachauri says that preventing the former IPCC chairman from delivering a speech at a trade show in Greece will damage India’s image and harm Pachauri’s reputation.
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.
A passage in his 2010 novel makes it clear the former IPCC chairman understands that it’s wrong for an older male boss to hit on a young woman new to his organization.
New Delhi police say the former IPCC chairman is violating his bail conditions by hampering their investigation and influencing witnesses.
Men who try to get women into bed via premature, extravagant professions of love aren’t uncommon. But only bosses who view female employees as their personal harem try this within days of a woman joining an organization.
The Indian media is examining the wider implications of Rajendra Pachauri’s resignation while Western journalists pretend not to see the sex scandal.
TERI women have summoned the courage to speak up about the nature of their workplace. Will TERI’s men step forward and do their part?
Invited to deliver a lecture in memory of a talented and successful feminist judge, Rajendra Pachauri didn’t think her half of humanity was worth mentioning.
Why is a man accused of egregious sexual harassment still the chancellor of a university? Why is he still on a UNESCO panel when that entity says gender equality is a global priority?
Electronic messages cited in a Delhi police report tell the story of a spirited young woman who effectively lost her job because she wouldn’t let her boss grope her.
The resignation letter of the IPCC chairman is a two-page love letter to himself – in which he openly admits that saving the planet is his ‘religion’. The world’s most important climate body has not been led by a dispassionate scientist.
Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI institute appears to be a workplace in which female employees are habitually invited to spend private time with the boss.
Additional women are stepping forward with tales of inappropriate behaviour on the part of Rajendra Pachauri, who has chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 2002.
Texts and emails allegedly sent by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri tell a disturbing tale. Months after a female subordinate objected repeatedly and strenuously to his sexual advances, the head of a UN body continued to physically and electronically stalk her.
An Indian court has ruled against Rajendra Pachauri and in favour of press freedom. The IPCC chairman sought to prevent the media from reporting on a police investigation concerning allegations of sexual misconduct.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri is being investigated under four sections of the Indian Penal Code. Maximum prison sentences of two, three, and seven years apply.
According to a police complaint, one of the biggest names in climate science grabbed, touched, and forcibly kissed a female subordinate in the workplace.
A health care system in crisis. A $300 billion debt. Yet this government is worried about climate change.
French philosopher Pascal Bruckner says fundamentalist eco activists are steering society in a scary direction.
People who employ the word ‘denier’ in a climate context are silencing normal, healthy debate.
Tasked with assessing the achievements of others, a jury that includes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri heaps honour on one of its own.
Ordinary citizens have been force-fed a diet of dubious climate claims. Is it a surprise that some people now equate climate skepticism with murder?
More people routinely die from excess cold than from heat waves. While we spend trillions attempting to avert a slightly warmer world decades hence, seniors who can’t afford to adequately heat their homes are perishing.
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.’
Unlike most journalists, Matt Ridley has done PhD-level work in the sciences. He has served as science editor for the Economist. One would think his views on the climate debate deserve a fair hearing. Instead, he is pilloried by climate extremists.
Greenpeace activists have no respect for what others hold sacred – whether it’s Peru’s Nazca lines or a Roman Catholic cross in Canada.
The dirty little secret behind every pie-in-the-sky climate measure is that when emissions disappear, so do jobs, economic opportunities, and human well-being.
The world’s most important climate body dedicates its new document to a rude, intolerant, highly politicized climate crusader.
A scathing critique of anti-human environmentalism, by a prominent French philosopher, is now an affordable e-book.
Recent articles about the Middle East and climate change published in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal demonstrate that even medicine is being contaminated by politics. This is dangerous and unprofessional.
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?
The European Environment Foundation doesn’t make it easy to analyze the names of the 160 individuals who signed last week’s climate declaration. Part 4 of 4
Five years ago, we were told that the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit was the last chance to save civilization. As the 2015 Paris summit approaches, the same sort of fear mongering is ramping up. Part 3 of 4
Green energy lobbyists pretending to be eco prize winners have signed a climate change declaration. Its real purpose is to secure more green energy funding. Part 2 of 4
A full-page advertisement in the New York Times falsely claims that 160 signatories to a climate declaration are all “environmental prize winners.” Part 1 of 4
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.
We’re told that fewer butterflies is something to be alarmed about – and to blame humanity for. But change is normal and natural.
Why are we not one-tenth as concerned about real children dying needlessly right now as we are about hypothetical future climate change?
Will the American president throw thousands of US coal miners out-of-work in an utterly futile climate change gesture?
Bigotry and intolerance from scientific colleagues lead a Swedish scientist to resign from an advisory role with the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. If exploring alternative climate perspectives is verboten, genuine scientific inquiry has ceased to exist.
The New York Times publishes pablum about the IPCC.
Greenpeace isn’t anti-establishment anymore. Now it’s just another arm of the authoritarian, UN green machine.
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.
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.
In one chapter alone, IPCC personnel relied on unpublished studies 21 times to make their case.
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.
As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.
The upcoming Working Group 2 report wasn’t thoroughly scrutinized by hundreds of external reviewers. Those people saw only early versions of the report. Unpublished research findings were still being incorporated months later.
Ordinary people don’t care about climate change. How many times do they have to say so?
If someone was systematically writing to journals that had published your work, making false allegations against you, would you be concerned?
A UK parliamentary committee. A Canadian journalist. A rat snake.
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.
20 years ago, scientific superstar Carl Sagan urged us to use our brains – to be actively skeptical.
A climatologist urges her community to stop defending Michael Mann.
Ontario energy minister says we should wear sweaters in winter.
In a 23-minute interview, filmed in the UK last month, I talk about activists and the UN’s climate process.
Government-mandated wind project meetings are supposed to be about two-way communication. But no questions from the public are allowed, and the notice period is ridiculously short.
Environmental activists have been declaring that the sky is falling since at least 1948. We aren’t the first generation to care – or to be raised on eco scare stories.
15 months ago, it was a sin to declare out loud that the global temperature was no longer rising. Today, the IPCC, the UK Met office, and mainstream researchers are all admitting the obvious.
Having touched down in London, I’m chuckling over a Charles Krauthammer column titled Stop Jerking Canada Around.
Rockstar’s rhetoric about Canada’s oil sands is intemperate, offensive, and ill-informed.
Why doesn’t the World Wildlife Fund argue for its vision based solely on that vision’s merits?
My first thoughts about the climate change debate were written five years ago today.
At the heart of the climate change movement is the belief that we will be punished for our sins.
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?
In California, low-income car buyers are subsidizing the top 1% who purchase Tesla electric vehicles.
The editors of Foreign Policy magazine inhabit a fairy tale world of planet-saving superheroes and wicked climate deniers.
UN climate panel leaders don’t behave in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes itself as a “scientific body.” Where in its multi-year, multi-thousand-page bureaucratic report-writing process is science actually practiced?
In the National Post today I argue that the extreme anti-coal stance of UN officials and green activists harms both people and the environment.
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.
According to Ban Ki-moon, the latest IPCC report vaporized climate skepticism.
There should be spaces in our communities where climate skeptics can speak freely. A group in Norway is an excellent example.
After frisking us for explosives, the UN repeatedly assures us that we’re good people.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
Kirsty Duncan no longer describes herself as a “Nobel Peace Prize laureate” on her Facebook page. But she’s still being falsely advertised in that manner on the Celebrity Speakers website.
As the gap between its models and reality has grown, the IPCC has become more adamant that its conclusions are correct – rather than more cautious.
People see the world differently. If we’re going to do more than preach to our respective choirs in the climate debate, we need to recognize this.
Does a responsible organization make videos in which children call adults enemies?
Kirsty Duncan’s Facebook page says she’s been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Being 1 of 39 people involved in one chapter (out of 11) of an obscure report is apparently all it takes.
It is improper for a UN official to criticize Australia’s 6-week-old election results.
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.
What happens to people who claim to be Peace Prize winners even though they aren’t? They get a job at the White House.
Michael Mann’s boss at Penn State University – Dean William Easterling – falsely claims to be a Nobel laureate on his CV.
What do Greenpeace and the Natural History Museum have in common? They both employ people with impaired reading comprehension skills.
Greenpeace says 95% certainty is the same as 100% certainty. Tell that to people who die on the operating table.
According to the agenda of an upcoming conference, three Nobel laureates will be participating. But only one of them is genuine.
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.
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
Pachauri’s 2010 work of fiction and the credibility of the IPCC’s 2013-2014 climate report are now inextricably linked.
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.
There are many reasons to distrust the UN’s climate panel. Let’s start with political meddling and authors linked to green lobby groups.
It may not be wise to judge a book by its cover, but it’s entirely appropriate to judge an organization by its leader.
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.
Multiple UN entities falsely describe the chairman of the IPCC as a Nobel prize winner.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical of everything and everyone.