Green groups are not David with a slingshot. They are Goliath. Please support the scrutiny & skepticism I bring to environmental issues.
Powerful people construct amazingly inaccurate narratives about their own lives.
In the climate world, the line between real and fake is strangely murky.
The media’s climate frenzy was sparked by a scientist who’s research was still unpublished.
Doing the math on doing the laundry.
A friend has long complained that her energy efficient, front-load washing machine takes forever.
Species come and species go. Humanity’s role is smaller than most of us imagine.
Causing real harm with no realistic chance of improving the world makes no sense.
Polluted waterways are one more reason not to litter. Rather than making this point, greens are demonizing plastic.
Politicians & 10-year-olds think banning drinking straws in rich nations will address improper garbage disposal in poor ones.
People with 8 kids should be told they “surely would not behave that way today.” Those considering a third should be accused of self-indulgence.
If it had been within his power to take the steps he insisted were necessary, the human rights abuses would have been horrendous.
Saving the world = demonizing alternative visions
Paul Ehrlich advocated the use of US helicopters so that Indian peasants could be kidnapped & forcibly sterilized.
Threats of famine, dead children, bombs, nuclear war, and oblivion.
Another idea, supposedly confirmed by science, turns out to have little scientific foundation.
Why Scott Adams thinks we have a moral obligation to praise others.
The Dilbert cartoonist remembers what it was like to be a young person from a small town, with few role models and fewer connections.
Peer-reviewed studies, published six months apart, produce wildly different estimates.
We regularly urge young people to think outside the box. Hughes is doing just that.
‘Healthy’ is now being defined in radically different ways, by different interest groups.
In the low-carb universe, vegetables are served with lots of butter, mayonnaise, and hollandaise.
In person, David Suzuki is reportedly foul-mouthed and rude.
On June 7th, the University of Alberta will lionize someone who rejects freedom of thought.
For the past 30 years, carbon-footprint-warrior David Suzuki has considered Australia his second home.
He decries over-population, but fathers 5 kids. He’s against economic growth, but his once-tiny foundation now has offices in 3 cities.
Emotionally attached to ideas, some of us have little interest in how they perform in the real world.
Naive compassion for some people endangers the safety of others.
Full-fledged racism is being practiced by the very institutions that claim to abhor it.
Scientific debate can’t accomplish its purpose if we pretend there is no debate.
The celebrated ability of science to self-correct is accompanied by some major caveats.
There are structural reasons for the low quality of much scientific research.
We need to lose our naivete. Many scientific findings are neither crisp nor clear.
A gang of 14 scientists attack a lone scientist in an academic journal. Erica Goode justifies & amplifies the assault in the Times.
When you give money to the Sierra Club, you’re doing three bad things.
The Sierra Club is a lawsuit factory. Responding to its legal assaults wastes mountains of public money.
The Sierra Club is swimming in money from affluent individuals, wealthy foundations, and blue chip companies. This is not a grassroots organization.
For well-funded green groups (and a growing list of governments), lawyers are weapons and courtrooms are a political battleground.
Fruit may be natural, but its sugar content has increased due to selective breeding.
Since relaunching this blog on January first, I’ve published 38 new posts – including one in Swedish. Please help me continue.
If fat were the villain we’ve been told it is, I should have gained 40 pounds.
Some discoveries are easy to measure and easy to verify. But much of science is about groping in the dark.
People who exercise regularly still gain weight.
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 more 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 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 8 European countries.
After the high-carbohydrate Food Pyramid was introduced, diabetes shot through the roof.
Politicians will pass laws – and regulators will issue bans – long before there’s strong evidence of harm.
Some news outlets still haven’t reported on the 3-year-old sexual harassment allegations against prominent climate official, Rajendra Pachauri.
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.
Whether it’s climate science or medical science, a fake crisis leads to bad decisions that harm real people.
Climate science and medical science have things in common. Including suspect behaviour on the part of the United Nations.
When someone’s won a Nobel Prize, who cares how long they served in Cabinet?
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.
Many messages emanating from the world of science are entirely bogus.
Australia’s chief scientist falls for a fake news story, compares President Trump to Joseph Stalin.
The US government says it’s 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?
After promising the most transparent government in history, President Obama sharply curtailed press access, aggressively prosecuted leaks, and spied on journalists.
An organization representing medical researchers believes unpublished work is too shaky to be included in grant applications, yet the world’s most important climate body has long relied on such research.
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.
Preparing a 20th anniversary edition of my first book helped me realize that environmentalism and feminism both began as reasonable social movements. But then they turned intolerant and extremist.
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.
Some inhabitants of the Ivory Tower are using peer review – a process that helps scholarly journals decide what to print – as a shield to hide behind. Delegitimizing public input about publicly-funded science is arrogant and counterproductive.
A report I wrote for the Global Warming Policy Foundation was released today. It explains that peer-reviewed research is as likely to be wrong as right. Basing public policy on findings that haven’t yet been reproduced is nuts.
A tax that will take an extra $1,250 from the pockets of struggling Canadian families is applauded by corporations.
Only 40% of Obama’s electric cars are on the road. None meet the 150-mile-per gallon standard he promised.
Academics insist that peer-reviewed research is sound and that everything else is inferior. But scholarly journals are actually littered with muck.
I’m on screen for a few seconds in a documentary film that will be shown in movie theatres across the US on May 2nd.
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.
For eight years, this environmental leader has called for the imprisonment of those who disagree. Why is he still welcome in polite society?
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 did Kumi Naidoo leave Greenpeace’s top job before a replacement was found? The Guardian prints clichés and asks no hard questions.
Fire is about more than burns. Water is about more than floods. We’re so obsessed with carbon dioxide’s risks, we’ve become blind to its benefits.
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 many things, including a cultural spectacle wrapped in lightweight media fluff.
Activists have predicted environmental catastrophe for decades. In addition to a poor track record, they share similar arguments, language, and metaphors.
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)
Strip away the pseudoscience and you’ll find one thing: politics. People attempting, via international treaties, to constrain human lives. For the sake of Mother Gaia.
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?
The man now in charge at the IPCC belongs to a privileged, protected, secretive entity headed by the UN’s former top climate official.
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.
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.
For 15 years, we’ve been scolded and cajoled. As the December climate summit approaches, global warming rhetoric has grown seriously threadbare.
Greenpeace canvassers say their workplace is no compassionate, supportive utopia.
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.
It is not the business of today’s politicians to decide which energy sources will be used 85 years from now.
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 former IPCC chairman says he’s the victim of a conspiracy. But conspiracies can’t be exposed if journalists are silenced.
Government forecasters are apparently from a different planet. They think warm, sunny weather is cause for alarm.
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.