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.
Journalist Margot O’Neill has just completed an Oxford University sabbatical on climate change reporting, but her views aren’t much altered from a year ago – when she accused IPCC critics of embracing conspiracies.
Wind power companies would never be allowed to set up shop in the first place – and could not remain in business – if they were penalized in the same manner as oil companies for the bird deaths they cause.
Invited to speak to journalism students, here are a few ideas I’ll try to communicate: First, large increases in heating bills are the result of green energy policies. Second, these policies are the result of our belief that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful. Third, that belief is the result of reports written by the IPCC. Fourth, much of what we’ve been told about the IPCC and how it works is not true.
New photos of UK blogger and climate skeptic James Delingpole. Taken in Chicago, May 2010.
Journalists said Toronto’s mayoral race was too close to call. In fact, a winner was declared eight minutes after the polls closed. So go ahead, take their word for it when they tell you about global warming.
Please nominate Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick as “Transformational Canadians.” Help a Canadian newspaper understand the enormous contribution these gentlemen have made to the climate debate. Nominations close November 26th.
According to many commentators, conservatives are now ascendant because they have invoked the politics of fear.
So where are the denunciations of the politics of fear employed by greens? They’ve played that hand for years – exploiting & targeting kids in the process.
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.
Canada’s weekly news magazine currently has a cover story declaring that extreme weather is “only going to get worse.”
Remember the 2008 story in the same magazine that said $200 per barrel oil was imminent, that commuters would become petroleum refugees & that the suburbs would shortly turn into ghost towns?
Attempts to deal with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill are being hampered by a foolish EPA regulation and other bizarre concerns.
831 people will help write the next edition of the climate bible. We’re being told their names and countries of residence but not much more. How do we know if they really are the world’s top experts?
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.
The media frequently declares that thousands of scientists all agree that the planet’s slight warming in the late 20th century was due to human activity. In fact, only a few dozen people – working on one particular chapter of a much larger report – had a voice in that discussion.
Journalists go on and on about “fragile” Mother Earth. But the available evidence suggests she can bounce back quickly from oil spills.
British blogger James Delingpole is feisty and irreverent. In person, he exudes a joyful love of life. I took some photos of him in Chicago, June 2010.
Images from the press conference prior to a 700-participant climate skeptics’ conference in Chicago (May 2010).
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.
The climate bible bases its argument on a news article that’s really a press release in disguise.
A historian says that while “other social movements…were frequently ridiculed or dismissed…the mass media accorded considerable respect to the environmental cause” when Earth Day was founded 40 years ago.
The climate bible is the ultimate weapon in the global warming debate. Skeptics are told the experts have spoken and that carbon dioxide is the Great Satan.
Science is about doubt – not certainty. Journalism is supposed to reveal – not conceal. When scientific organizations claim there’s a consensus, they step over the line into political advocacy. When media outlets trumpet said consensus they “disappear” highly-qualified, dissenting scientists.
One day entire books will be written about the mainstream media’s pathetic coverage of the climate change debate.
Experts have often been spectacularly wrong. Believing their predictions – rather than thinking for ourselves – isn’t smart.
How did the Toronto Star manage, within a period of 66 days, to go from telling us our very survival was at stake due to global warming to arguing that, well, fighting pollution is a good idea?
Talk about bringing one’s agenda to the party. A vegetarian green entrepreneur thinks the ad is an example of advertising that “casts environmentalists…as wack-jobs.” Someone else demonstrates his Christian beliefs by calling people with whom he disagrees a long list of names.
If the climate bible includes significant mistakes, if it uses newspaper & magazine articles to make its case, if it relies on literature generated by activist organizations – then it is rather a different animal from the uber-respectable paragon of virtue so many journalists have described. Bamboozled by the PR machine that is the IPCC, they’ve passed along bad information to the public.
Two UK newspapers call for the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC. A third alleges that while he urges others to reduce their carbon footprint, he himself travels to work (one mile from his home) in a chauffeur-driven car rather than walking, cycling, or driving himself in an eco-friendly vehicle.
Scientists have made all sorts of predictions that never panned out. As this 1962 Popular Mechanics issue shows, the media has been hyping these predictions for decades.
A few weeks before the IPCC admitted its Himalayan glacier predictions were dead wrong, Time magazine profiled the glacier expert at the center of the storm. Rather than being hard-nosed & rigorous, the magazine fell for him hook, line & sinker.
Certain ideas resurface again & again throughout human history. One of these is the notion that our world is on the brink of collapse. Revisiting news reports about the Y2K computer bug prior to the turn of the century provides an excellent reminder of how the media hypes all sorts of scare stories.
30+ years ago, we were told humanity faced “global disaster” and “worldwide catastrophe” if we didn’t radically change our lifestyles. That message now gets linked to global warming, but the analysis – and the fear mongering – is much older.
Scientific investigation produces facts. But even when we have full confidence in the accuracy of these facts we must still choose how to respond to them. When activists insist there’s only one possible response they’re attempting to preempt important democratic discussions, to silence our voices, to substitute their own views for those of the community.
Climate change protesters who decline to distance themselves from the capitalism-is-the-problem crowd aren’t really serious. If they were, they’d declare loudly that the merits of various political systems is a separate debate.
The media call Al Gore an “eco prophet” and the “thinking man’s thinking man.” So why did Gore repeatedly tell Slate magazine that “the most recent [climategate e-mail] is more than 10 years old” when, in fact, it was less than a month old?
Bernie Goldberg worked on news shows for 28 years at CBS television. His book has illuminating things to say about purported investigative news programs & other topics. “Scaring the hell out of people makes for good television,” he writes, “even when it makes for shallow journalism.”
Exploring a long list of highly questionable media scare stories, Goldberg reminds us that, in 1987, Oprah Winfrey told her viewers 1 in 5 American heterosexuals would be dead from AIDS within 3 years.
Wild-eyed, apocalyptic predictions about the future are not news.
Aerospace pioneer Burt Rutan is fully equipped to assess the charts and graphs that supposedly demonstrate global warming. His conclusion? The data is dodgy & the numbers have been manipulated.
Burt Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first privately-funded craft to enter space & return. Having examined the arguments supporting the global warming hypothesis, this exceptional engineer is less than impressed.
He says the Earth’s climate has always changed & always will. He also accuses the IPCC of weighting one group of data 390 times more than another in order to transform falling temperatures into rising ones.
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?
I believe in debate. I believe in questions. I believe anyone who wants everyone else to change their lives had better have a persuasive argument.
After a steady diet of climate hysteria, I’ve reached my limit. I consider myself a sensible person who is now speaking up & pushing back.