A headline on a news story falsely claims that ‘9 countries outspend the US on science.’ In fact, America spends more than all nine combined.
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.
Australia’s chief scientist falls for a fake news story, compares President Trump to Joseph Stalin.
How does encouraging scientists to criticize government policy enhance scientific integrity?
After promising the most transparent government in history, President Obama sharply curtailed press access, aggressively prosecuted leaks, and spied on journalists.
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.
The fairy tale about Nobel laureate climate experts demonstrates that just because you hear it on the BBC or read it in The New York Times doesn’t mean it’s true.
A shining beacon of how to lead by example, I am fortunate to have crossed paths with him.
Why did Kumi Naidoo leave Greenpeace’s top job before a replacement was found? The Guardian prints clichés and asks no hard questions.
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 many things, including a cultural spectacle wrapped in lightweight media fluff.
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)
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.
Government official urges television weather presenters to use loaded language to help the climate cause. When one writes a critical book instead, he’s suspended from his job at a government-owned station.
The new IPCC chairman is an economist who, ironically, began his career with oil giant Exxon.
For 15 years, we’ve been scolded and cajoled. As the December climate summit approaches, global warming rhetoric has grown seriously threadbare.
It is not the business of today’s politicians to decide which energy sources will be used 85 years from now.
The disgraced former head of the UN smears skeptics while ignoring the dubious motivations of green opportunists.
A Belgian activist scientist seeking leadership of the UN climate panel flies to Pakistan – and is fawned over by the media.
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 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.
The climate scare rests on predictions produced by mathematical modeling. Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s finest scientific minds, says prediction isn’t what those models do – and that the climate conversation is ignoring important facts.
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?
In his home country, the former chairman of the IPCC is being called ‘Dr. Lecherous.’ A female journalist says she was ‘repulsed’ by the vain, pompous Pachauri she once met in person.
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.
The amount by which the global temperature record has allegedly been broken is minuscule. Two one-hundredths of one degree isn’t what the public imagines when reporters talk about surging temperatures.
The climate crisis is the latest in a long line of predictions about how bad things are going to be in the future. Let’s remember that while scary headlines sell newspapers, journalists have a terrible track record.
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.
The BBC – one of the world’s most venerable news brands – has substantially altered the direction and meaning of a news story without advising its audience that it has done so. This is straight out of Orwell’s 1984.
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?
Asking a group of climate scientists to comment on policy measures (as opposed to scientific questions) leads to some disturbing answers.
Help annotate the new IPCC report so that it’s more user friendly – and more informative about its authors and source material.
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.
The UN’s climate panel claims to be a ‘scientific body.’ But it’s actually in the business of writing reports that rely on thousands of judgment calls. It’s time to stop pretending that fallible human judgment is ‘science.’
A bona fide climate scientist tells US Senators we have no idea whether human-caused global warming will be a serious problem. The media doesn’t report it.
The distress call, the icebreakers, and the other scientific research.
The editors of Foreign Policy magazine inhabit a fairy tale world of planet-saving superheroes and wicked climate deniers.
If the public is to be represented at climate negotiations by someone other than their own government, it has a right to elect and dismiss those representatives.
Activist media events are a shockingly institutionalized part of UN climate negotiations.
My work is being discussed in prominent newspapers and magazines – in Germany as well as the US.
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
What do Greenpeace and the Natural History Museum have in common? They both employ people with impaired reading comprehension skills.
Cigarette packages come with warning labels. So should IPCC reports.
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.
A news clipping from 1995 – concerning an earlier IPCC report – was hilariously wrong.
On the basis of a politically-massaged summary and a stack of press advisories, the media has blasted IPCC talking points around the world.
Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical of everything and everyone.
The day after the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, the Office of the Prime Minister of Norway made false declarations about the head of the IPCC.
The Guardian‘s environment correspondent couldn’t be more one-sided if she herself were on the IPCC’s payroll.
Why has Yale University promulgated the fiction that the chairman of the IPCC is a Nobel laureate?
What journalism has now come to: calling industries you don’t like outlaws, rogues, and evaders of ‘climate justice.’
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.
A UN press release falsely describes those attending an IPCC meeting as “climate scientists,” In fact, these people are policy wonks, economists, political scientists, and UN advisors.
A new book appears to be a rehash of 40-year-old environmental scaremongering endorsed by that era’s men of science.
Activists & journalists insist that Canada’s climate policies have destroyed our international good name. But survey results released yesterday indicate – for the 3rd consecutive year – that we have “the world’s best reputation.”
If carbon dioxide is pollution, every human being is a perpetual pollution factory. Every toddler in their sandbox generates CO2 every minute of every day.
News stories citing and quoting a single individual (a self-described non-climate-scientist) make declarations about climate change and atomic weapons.
What lessons will the rest of the world learn from Germany’s renewable energy disaster?
Eminent individuals are urging US educators to encourage a genuine campus debate about fossil fuels.
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
If a government minister thinks the media is paying too much attention to something, look closer.
Based on a press release and a brochure, the media says hunters are “gasping for life” in the Arctic.
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.
Why weren’t the profound limitations of the ZENN car the butt of a comedian’s jokes?
What happens when you slice half a pie into 9,000 pieces? You get a few crumbs of pastry.
Canadian economist Mark Jaccard is falsely described as a Nobel laureate in the headline of a press release – and then on the front page of a newspaper.
Don’t believe everything you read – especially about the supposed link between global warming and natural disasters.
Most polar bear info is filtered through an activist lens. Here are some alternative views.
A Nobel laureate says people who question climate dogma deserve to be “punished in the afterlife.”
Canadian students are so jazzed about Earth Hour they need to be bribed to do volunteer work.
Windmills and solar panels sound wonderful. Except that the UK wind isn’t blowing and the German sun isn’t shining.
David Suzuki’s idea of a “truly sustainable future” is one in which freedom of the press doesn’t exist.
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
Persecuted for decades? Poor? Green groups will still kick you when you’re down.
The Sierra Club took fossil fuel money. Lots of it. How dare it falsely accuse other people of doing this.
The full text of an interview I recently gave to FoxNews – and a link to the story.
According to the editors of a prestigious magazine, Obama should pull a fast one. Even though he barely mentioned climate change on the campaign trail, they think it should now be his foremost concern.
When science departs from the scary-story script, journalists are the first to dismiss its importance.
I spoke in Calgary last week, was interviewed on television three times, and attracted some great newspaper coverage.
The key message of today’s environmentalists is: Accept our worldview, submit to our solutions – or else. This is, let us be blunt, a death threat. It is the voice of an extortionist.
How plans to run an entire Australian town on solar energy failed miserably.
Forget every media claim you’ve ever read about the IPCC being a “gold standard” organization. It now admits it’s just an ordinary UN organization following ordinary UN rules.
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.
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?
The World Wildlife Fund is supposed to be saving endangered species. Instead, it’s writing reports about equality.
It’s no longer easy to locate the splattergate video on YouTube.
Why does the climate debate elicit so much partisan sneering from the media?
Newspapers used to think their job was to help keep wealthy and powerful institutions honest. Now they climb into bed with them.
When you dim your lights for Earth Hour, you’re protesting in a manner approved by multinational corporations. You’re allowing banks and insurance companies to tell you how to spend your Saturday night.
Earth Hour was brought into this world by corporations. Fairfax Media Limited – whose newspapers, magazines, and radio stations are supposed to report impartially on environmental issues – owns one-third of this annual green event.
Everyone thinks ground zero for climate change effects is somewhere different. Most of these claims, therefore, must be wrong.
People who want to save the planet are fond of more laws and more red tape. They talk of silencing their opponents and sending people to prison.
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.
Five years before Rajendra Pachauri became chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a judge ruled that he had “sworn to false affidavits” – and that a non-profit organization was “not safe” in his hands.
Iowa scientists have signed a letter about climate change. News reports don’t mention their activist leanings.
A climate debate that includes Al Gore’s climate ideas – but not Bob Carter’s – is no debate at all.
If you were hosting a sustainability conference that criticized energy-intensive lifestyles and over-consumption, would you do it at a five-star hotel?
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?
Why do journalists never doubt green groups?
The vibrant, international climate skeptic community owes its existence to the Internet. We must defend it.
According to a selection of links assembled by blogger Tom Nelson a long list of locales will be hit hardest by climate change.
The blogosphere is putting professional journalists to shame with its investigations into, and analysis of, groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
Emotional, over-the-top language doesn’t come from real leaders in a time of real crisis. Rather, it’s a sign that someone’s trying to stampede public opinion.
The UK’s Guardian newspaper has published a fawning article about IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. But the article is pure propaganda. It was written by the Natural Resources Defense Council – a green lobby group that fancies itself “the Earth’s best defense.”
Canada’s National Post newspaper is running an excerpt of my book this weekend. It may be the only newspaper on the planet employing three climate skeptic journalists.
A now-bankrupt solar energy company flushed half a billion dollars of taxpayer money down the toilet – after President Obama said it was a poster child of the new green economy.
A year after a damning assessment was released, the IPCC continues to thumb its nose at key recommendations.
Journalists aren’t telling you that the lead researcher behind the species-are-fleeing-global-warming story has come to questionable conclusions in the past.
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.
Media coverage of climate change has a great deal in common with how the press covered the Y2K scare. There’s little evidence that news outlets learned much from that embarrassing episode.
Where, on the CV of a person employed by Greenpeace for the past 17 years, does it say distinguished scientist?
Skeptical climate scientist Chris de Freitas has been savaged by a journalist who complains that 3,000-page IPCC reports aren’t on his Geography 101 reading list.
How does calling me stupid and equating me with a Holocaust denier advance the debate? Is the fate of the planet really at stake – or are we just playacting in a sandbox?
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.
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.
Regarding James Hansen’s (tax-payer funded) salary, David Suzuki’s despair, and Ross Gelbspan’s professional activism.
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.
I’ve compiled a database of more than 160 quotes about the IPCC. Here are examples of journalists, government officials, and activists repeating the highly-questionable IPCC marketing message.
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 person in charge of green energy projects for a group of Los Angeles community colleges wanted to cut down trees and obliterate playing fields so that $1 billion could be spent on alternative energy installations. Power currently costs these colleges less than $8 million a year.
How often does the media imply that IPCC Peace Prize winners are scientific Nobel laureates?
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.
Why does the media keep interviewing a meteorologist about droughts & floods instead of those with genuine expertise?
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.
Environmental advocacy groups strive to influence government. In 2006 a senior WWF executive simultaneously became chairman of a UK government body. Meet the Defence Ministry’s idea of propriety.
News reports from the 1970s said ocean temperatures were dropping, polar ice was growing, and the coldest temperatures in 200 years were being recorded at the Arctic Circle. We were told be worried. Very worried.
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?
Andrew Revkin has identified a mistake in a UN climate negotiations document. This same “small error” has also appeared in the headlines of two UN press releases.
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.
Dan Kellar is a geography student at the University of Waterloo. He is writing a doctoral thesis under the supervision of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change author and already teaches climate change courses to impressionable undergraduates.
Last week Kellar prevented a journalist from speaking to a campus audience about her new book. He says that because (he thinks) she’s lying free speech doesn’t apply to her.
Al Gore said global warming caused Hurricane Katrina and that hurricanes were going to get worse. This gave insurance companies an excuse to increase premiums by tens of billions. How embarrassing that US hurricane damage has since fallen to less than half the historical average.
Perhaps those who lost their properties because they could no longer afford to insure them will forgive & forget.
An essay by an Australian writer attempts to answer the burning question: what were the environmentalists thinking? What sort of bubble does one need to inhabit to imagine that a video in which children are executed for insufficient carbon-cutting enthusiasm is funny?
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.
As Vice President of PEN International, Margaret Atwood has pledged to oppose “any form of suppression of freedom of expression.”
But she sits on a board directors with a man who says some people have no right to free speech. She has written the foreword to a book by David Suzuki – who thinks politicians should be jailed for their climate change views. She has also encouraged her Twitter followers to visit a web page that says a TV station that hasn’t even begun broadcasting should be stopped.
The campaign against ‘Fox News North’ threatens the intellectual freedom of all Canadians.
What kind of company invites you to be part of a bold new television station and then, a few months later, shrugs and mumbles that it was all a practical joke?
Invited in May to join a new Canadian television station, I was supposed to be a contrarian voice on topics such as global warming and David Suzuki. By October, the broadcaster had lost its nerve.
I’m a bit player in this drama. The bigger picture is that Canadians will continue to be fed the same old pablum.