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?
Invited to deliver a lecture in memory of a talented and successful feminist judge, Rajendra Pachauri didn’t think her half of humanity was worth mentioning.
Why is a man accused of egregious sexual harassment still the chancellor of a university? Why is he still on a UNESCO panel when that entity says gender equality is a global priority?
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.
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.
A court has barred the former IPCC chairman from his workplace and forbidden travel abroad without permission. A conference at Harvard University has withdrawn his guest speaker invitation.
Is the former chairman of the IPCC genuinely ill – or is this a ‘strategic move’ on the part of his legal team to forestall his arrest?
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.
Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI institute appears to be a workplace in which female employees are habitually invited to spend private time with the boss.
Additional women are stepping forward with tales of inappropriate behaviour on the part of Rajendra Pachauri, who has chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 2002.
Texts and emails allegedly sent by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri tell a disturbing tale. Months after a female subordinate objected repeatedly and strenuously to his sexual advances, the head of a UN body continued to physically and electronically stalk her.
An Indian court has ruled against Rajendra Pachauri and in favour of press freedom. The IPCC chairman sought to prevent the media from reporting on a police investigation concerning allegations of sexual misconduct.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri is being investigated under four sections of the Indian Penal Code. Maximum prison sentences of two, three, and seven years apply.
According to a police complaint, one of the biggest names in climate science grabbed, touched, and forcibly kissed a female subordinate in the workplace.
A health care system in crisis. A $300 billion debt. Yet this government is worried about climate change.
French philosopher Pascal Bruckner says fundamentalist eco activists are steering society in a scary direction.
People who employ the word ‘denier’ in a climate context are silencing normal, healthy debate.
Tasked with assessing the achievements of others, a jury that includes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri heaps honour on one of its own.
Ordinary citizens have been force-fed a diet of dubious climate claims. Is it a surprise that some people now equate climate skepticism with murder?
More people routinely die from excess cold than from heat waves. While we spend trillions attempting to avert a slightly warmer world decades hence, seniors who can’t afford to adequately heat their homes are perishing.
Taking fossil fuel money is immoral. Says a science communicator who wore Shell logos to work.
A Greenpeace activist thinks ‘the world would be a better place’ without a journalist who questions climate orthodoxy. Seventy years after the liberation of Auschwitz, he says we’d ‘solve a great deal of the world’s problems by chopping off everyone’s heads.’
Celebrities are making public pronouncements about the upcoming climate summit in Paris. Just as they did about the Copenhagen summit six years ago.
Governments fund solar capacity in countries that receive little sun and install wind turbines in nations that get little wind. $100 billion has been squandered while green activists applauded.
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 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.
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.