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.
Described as a “professor of climate science,” Chris Rapley has no teaching duties. Described as a “climate scientist,” he has spent decades in administrative roles.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is threatening us with hellfire and damnation. But its conclusions are suspect. Rather than investigating all possible causes of climate change, it’s in the business of pointing a finger at humanity.
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.
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.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
A chief scientist, a statesman, and an heir to a throne all say climate disaster is imminent. But their schedules don’t agree.
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.
Will the American president throw thousands of US coal miners out-of-work in an utterly futile climate change gesture?
20-year IPCC veteran Richard Tol says that entity is politicized and biased. Ecologist Daniel Botkin says there’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ it’s also wrong about species extinction risks.
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.
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.
The IPCC acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. It has a long history of recruiting activist personnel, and is led by a man prone to exaggeration.
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.
I’ll be in Germany and Scotland this month, giving speeches about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This Thursday, I’ll be addressing the International Conference on Climate and Energy, which … Continue reading
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?
Manipulation of a Summary document makes the UN’s climate panel look like an overly-protective, hysterical mother.
How does the new climate report compare to the last one? Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pulled up its socks?
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.
A research paper doesn’t talk about increased crop damage by insects. But as occurred in the Himalayan glacier incident, the erroneous claim remains in the about-to-be released report.
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.
At the United Nations, science doesn’t speak for itself. It’s hammered out during secret, all-nighter negotiating sessions.
Ordinary people don’t care about climate change. How many times do they have to say so?
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.’
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.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
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.
Chris Field – the head of the UN climate panel’s Working Group 2 – thinks the world “is staring down the barrel of climate change.”
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.
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.
Why doesn’t the World Wildlife Fund argue for its vision based solely on that vision’s merits?
Thank you for your financial and moral support.
My first thoughts about the climate change debate were written five years ago today.
The distress call, the icebreakers, and the other scientific research.
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.
Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”
I’ve been invited to give oral evidence to a UK parliamentary committee – and have been offered a research fellowship at a think tank.
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.
Norway sent eight people to a recent polar bear conference. The WWF sent 10.
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.
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.
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.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
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.
The WWF utilized UN press conference facilities yesterday. It’s doing so again today.
Activist media events are a shockingly institutionalized part of UN climate negotiations.
If the UN were serious about a new climate treaty, it would turf the activists. They are a distraction no one needs.
I’ll be making a written submission to a UK parliamentary committee examining the latest IPCC report
Obama’s imperious behaviour at the 2009 climate summit is a key reason negotiations have failed dismally in recent years.
My work is being discussed in prominent newspapers and magazines – in Germany as well as the US.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
The latest document the IPCC doesn’t want you to see.
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.
An Energy Minister who boasts that his decision is supported by Greenpeace is an Energy Minister spectacularly out-of-touch with ordinary voters.
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.
I’m feeling especially grateful for a recent book review in the Tuscon Citizen – and for the ones left by readers on Amazon.com and it’s related websites.
Cigarette packages come with warning labels. So should IPCC reports.
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.
Musician Bob Geldoff says climate change is going to wipe us out. By 2030.
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.
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
On the basis of a politically-massaged summary and a stack of press advisories, the media has blasted IPCC talking points around the world.
I’ve been interviewed regarding the UN climate panel’s recent announcement. In my view, its future is bleak.
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.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
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.
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?
Why does the New York Academy of Sciences falsely call the chairman of the IPCC a Nobel laureate?
The UN’s Climate Secretariat will get free PR advice so it can inspire politicians to take action. But the UN’s own survey says the public ranks climate change last among 16 priorities.
Nine new videos provide fresh insight into the climate debate. These reasonable voices, representing diverse perspectives, deserve to be heard.
My new book takes a close look at Rajendra Pachauri, the man in charge of the UN entity that will release a new climate report later this month. It’s available as a paperback, a Kindle e-book, or an instantly downloadable PDF.
The (fully-searchable) electronic version of my book, The Delinquent Teenager, will soon cost $7.99 rather than $4.99. This is the only book-length evaluation of the IPCC by an independent journalist. The IPCC will release Part 1 of its new climate assessment in late September.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
The head of the IPCC has written a novel in which the central character is infatuated with pseudoscience and in which UFO enthusiast Shirley MacLaine is presented as credible. The final installment of the Nobel Laureate Summer Reading series.
Girl spurns boy, marries someone else, and is anally raped on her honeymoon. Girl comes crawling back to boy, begging for forgiveness, and pleading for one more chance.
There’s nothing wrong with writing a sex-saturated novel. But IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this book is “all about spirituality.”
Between the ages of four and six, our hero is judged to be the smartest, gets “revenge against the whole world,” and is preferred by the girls.
Tidbit #1 from Rajendra Pachauri’s 2010 novel. HSBC, the huge multinational bank, has linked its brand to this strange, stilted prose.
A Simon Fraser University economist declared, on his blog in May, “I have never spoken or written of myself as a Nobel laureate.” After I unearthed written testimony to the contrary, he quietly rewrote the post, removing that denial.
Any country in which a woman finds herself sentenced to 16 months after reporting a rape is barbaric and deserves to be shunned. Instead, the WWF is burnishing the image of this oppressive regime.
What journalism has now come to: calling industries you don’t like outlaws, rogues, and evaders of ‘climate justice.’
Rajendra Pachauri holds only one PhD – not two, as his official IPCC bio claims.
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.
Back in 1990, the head of the UN said our planet was ailing. Fast forward a quarter of a century, and a Worldwatch Institute press release issued today continues the ‘planet in distress’ meme.
An organization headed by a senior IPCC official (Working Group 3 Vice-Chair, Carlo Carraro) has ranked TERI, an organization headed by the IPCC’s chairman, first in the world.
It’s 2009 all over again – when people got hysterical prior to the last-chance-to-save-ourselves Copenhagen climate summit.
Some people really do care more about “Mother Nature” than human beings.
When the World Wildlife Fund began, it aspired merely to ensure the well-being of particular species of animals. It now imagines that life itself would vanish without it.
Once again, people described as “leading scientists” turn out to be economists, UN officials, and those with links to activist organizations.
Five years after they said they’d get right on it, more than one-quarter of UN organizations have done nothing about their carbon footprint.
Environmentalists think Australian states can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. They want them overruled by bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
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.
Emergency! Catastrophe! Earth is turning into an unprecedented hellhole – according to an Oxford professor and Microsoft official.