Greenpeace tells a court that everyone knows its campaigns are based on opinions & interpretations rather than hard facts.
Greenpeace thinks people who spread ‘misinformation’ have no right to be heard. Yet, suddenly, it’s waving the free speech flag.
Green groups are perpetual outrage machines.
No thinking person should hold strong climate opinions unless they’ve carefully considered a range of viewpoints.
Changing definitions of ‘normal’ blood pressure means larger numbers of people are coping with drug side effects.
Doctors and nurses rarely follow the rules when collecting important info about our health.
Standard medical practice is often pointless, risky – and a waste of money.
I Sverige dog pressfrihet för 25 år sedan.
[Swedish translation of previous post]
Freedom of the press died in Sweden 25 years ago.
Journalists think their job is to shame ordinary people into silence lest they say something politically incorrect about the scale and pace of European immigration.
If nearly 10 times more immigrants turn up than were predicted by government experts, where’s affordable housing supposed to come from?
Elites make immigration decisions, while the working class lives with the consequences.
While the rest of us are playing hopscotch, he’s battling humanity’s demons.
Mothers have immense power to harm their children.
Taking a fresh look at some fundamental moral ideas.
Learning to be shrill. Apparently, this is now the goal of higher education.
Young people are being systematically taught to disdain free speech. And your tax dollars are paying for it.
University activists now behave like fascists: stifling unpopular perspectives and denying others the opportunity to hear those perspectives firsthand.
To be useful, energy must be reliable.
It is immoral to deny needy people access to fossil fuels because experts have made dire predictions about the future.
Our analysis of fossil fuels needs to be wholistic – not one-sided.
Being an expert in a particular field doesn’t make you smart about the big picture.
Young people are told incessantly that everything they might want to do with their lives harms the planet.
IPCC scientists routinely evaluate their own work. What could possibly go wrong?
History’s most momentous climate decision was based on research so preliminary it wasn’t published in a scientific journal until seven months later.
The American Heart Association didn’t bother to replicate pivotal research before it told the public to change its behaviour. The result was an uncontrolled public health experiment.
When scientists began believing that high fat diets & heart disease went together, this wasn’t true in eight European countries.
After the high-carbohydrate Food Pyramid was introduced, diabetes shot through the roof.
When governments manipulate the news, most journalists fall into line.
Scientists aren’t in charge of interpreting climate research. They’re cogs in a political machine.
The claim that human activity is triggering a climate apocalypse is based on expert opinion and best estimates.
Insisting that ‘climate change is real’ is like insisting that blood is red.
The bees and the butterflies have their own story, their own rhythms.
The natural world isn’t kind or pristine. We need to stop telling children that disturbing it is sinful.
This blog is adopting a new format. Posts will appear every Monday, Wednesday & Friday.
Many messages emanating from the world of science are entirely bogus.
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.
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.
French philosopher Pascal Bruckner says fundamentalist eco activists are steering society in a scary direction.
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.
Scientists worthy of respect recognize that it’s possible for two highly-qualified, honourable people to look at the same data and come to different conclusions.
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.