Liberty. Freedom. These ideas inspire risk-taking and self-sacrifice. But the green movement offers the exact opposite.
The IPCC has abandoned science in favour of affirmative action.
Affordable, reliable energy – a big reason most children now make it to adulthood.
According to the head of the United Nations, only one vision of the future is acceptable.
Reserve your spot on my four-city speaking tour – or purchase the brand new Australian edition of my book.
A group that’s supposed to be saving animals thinks the global economy must be transformed.
A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
Green activists accuse the government of waging a “war on nature and democracy.” But there’s nothing democratic about claiming to speak for future generations.
The current United Nations response to environmental concerns is doing more harm than good.
Ideas being promoted by ‘climate scientists’ look increasingly scary.
A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations.
The next IPCC report will include a chapter that discusses gender inequality, marginalized populations, and traditional knowledge. So much for providing “rigorous…scientific information.”
The author of a 2007 book on climate change failed to mention his own IPCC involvement while pointing to that body as an authority. This is called an undisclosed conflict-of-interest.
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.
UPDATE: Perth info now available. I’ll be speaking in four Australian cities between July 6th and 15th.
Companies that cozy up to the WWF in order to enhance their public image may find that the plan backfires.
My reputation has been harmed by an odious ad campaign that equates climate concern with terrorists.
It’s no longer easy to locate the splattergate video on YouTube.
Any group that’s wining and dining the Secretary of Defense – who just happens to be the former director of the CIA – is no grassroots operation.
Since the 1970s UN officials have tried to frighten us. Repeatedly, their predictions have failed. Repeatedly, their time frames have been preposterously inaccurate.
Why does the climate debate elicit so much partisan sneering from the media?
The World Wildlife Fund thinks its corporate logo should be plastered on children’s flesh.
How are green groups different from yesterday’s colonial powers? Their global agenda is paramount, their lack of empathy for ordinary people breathtaking.
Would a scientifically rigorous organization have the owner of a PR firm as its chairman?
The World Wildlife Fund is using ordinary Mexicans as pawns in a geopolitical chess game.
For half a century green activists have insisted that their historical moment – and a particular generation – are the planet’s last hope.
The World Wildlife Fund’s first corporate sponsor was Shell oil – which continued to fund it for the next four decades.
Will a load-of-nonsense IPCC press release be corrected?
British taxpayers spent £165,937 in recent years on climate change projects here in Canada.
Newspapers used to think their job was to help keep wealthy and powerful institutions honest. Now they climb into bed with them.
Mexico is crippled by corruption, violence, and poverty. But the World Wildlife Fund wants it to show leadership on climate change.
Earth Hour isn’t a volunteer, grassroots operation. The World Wildlife Fund pays its US and Canadian CEOs so handsomely they are part of the economic elite – the top 1% of income earners.
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.
My book is discussed in the Canadian Senate – and the David Suzuki Foundation behaves like a rabid dog.
Nine papers are being distributed by an upcoming save-the-world conference. They’re explicitly intended to influence the behaviour of world leaders at the Rio summit in June. But the claim that they represent the latest scientific thinking is a gross distortion.
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.
Write an essay that pokes holes in a green myth, submit it by June 30th, and you could be $13,000 US dollars richer.
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.
If it’s OK for scientists to lie to advance the fight against climate change what other bad behaviour is acceptable?
Eleven years ago Peter Gleick was declaring that the debate is over. Now he says other people are preventing it from taking place.
Iowa scientists have signed a letter about climate change. News reports don’t mention their activist leanings.
Peter Gleick issues a statement about the Heartland documents.
The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?
A Dutch professor has examined a draft of the upcoming IPCC report. He says it has been written by people who assume things that haven’t yet been proven, are selective about what material they consider, and reach decisions by a show of hands.
In recent years the world’s oldest science academy has been taken for a joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned – in the name of fighting climate change.
Is it any wonder that young climate scientists behave badly? Their elders set the example – by hurling insults at dissenters.
A climate debate that includes Al Gore’s climate ideas – but not Bob Carter’s – is no debate at all.
Many jurisdictions frown on advertising that is aimed at children. But UNESCO says nursery schools should teach kids about sustainable development.
The IPCC is supposed to be “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” How can it be OK for its chairman to lobby for one policy in particular?
For the head of the IPCC, sustainable is just another word for a global anti-poverty campaign. Which means that organizations such as his own TERI institute, in poor countries such as India, receive lots of funding.
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?
A report by the Auditor General of a Canadian province highlights the dark side of green energy.
A powerful lobby group supplied their meeting space, helped with their travel documents & subsidized their meals. Top IPCC scientists went along for the ride.
Why do journalists never doubt green groups?
The vibrant, international climate skeptic community owes its existence to the Internet. We must defend it.
How many more reports highlighting the IPCC’s flaws will it take before politicians draw the obvious conclusions? How many additional scandals must surface before political leaders realize that this body doesn’t deserve their trust?
It’s official. The Delinquent Teen is being translated into German and will be for sale in German bookstores later this year.
A collection of NGO brats, self-important rich folks, and UN bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to be the voice of future generations.
First our leaders said ‘no’ to Kyoto. Then they stood up to green bullies.
When I describe the surreal world of climate science to people who are strangers to that world I know it sounds fantastical. But there are strong parallels with the recently destroyed economies of Iceland, Greece, and Ireland.
Links to two recent interviews with yours truly. One was conducted via e-mail and the other is a 40-minute audio interview.
Back in 2007 IPCC chairman Pachauri made a prediction regarding the year 2012.
UN bureaucrats say climate change is a planetary emergency and that time is running out. So when US senators unanimously rejected the Kyoto Protocol where was Plan B?
When I spoke in Munich last month I had the good fortune to be in town just as the annual Christmas market kicked off. Here are a few of my photos.
According to the head of what is supposed to be a neutral scientific body, young people need to be mobilized to become major agents of change. Does it really need to be said that science is no longer science if those with activist agendas are in charge?
When six police officers visit your home for three hours, confiscate your computers, and mess with your phone line it’s little comfort to be told you aren’t a suspect.
According to a selection of links assembled by blogger Tom Nelson a long list of locales will be hit hardest by climate change.
How funny would it have been had IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said that gays should be given a one-way ticket to outer space?
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.
Reviews of my book continue to appear in Switzerland, South Africa, the UK, and the US.
There is now a small army of experts, activists, and bureaucrats whose economic lives depend on there being a climate crisis. Without such a crisis their jobs, their travel to exotic places, and their moments in the media spotlight would all disappear.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to be a neutral and impartial body. But its chairman is encouraging business students to be green activists.
The IPCC has, so far, ignored my book. But perhaps I’m having an impact nevertheless.
Newly released e-mails shed light on internal IPCC politics.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has systematically misled us regarding the quality and kind of material his organization consults.
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.”
Many IPCC authors were chosen for reasons other than impressive scholarly track records.
At the end of 2011 Treehugger.com continues to portray IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri as a saint.
A person who “played no role whatsoever” in an IPCC chapter nevertheless signed a statement that claimed otherwise.
Two thirds of Australians opposed the carbon tax that has just been passed, but Al Gore says this legislation is a victory for the Australian people.
Delinquent teenagers never take responsibility for their own actions. After they’ve set fire to the the neighbour’s sofa they insist the real issue is that the cops got the time slightly wrong.
I trusted the IPCC’s website when it listed the lead authors of one of its chapters. If that list is wrong am I the party who hasn’t been careful?
Some book reviews, an excerpt in The Huffington Post, and an invitation to speak at a climate change conference in Munich.
Most chapters in Working Group 1 of the 2007 Climate Bible contained at least one scientist who is affiliated with professional climate lobbyists. In one instance, four of the lead authors were tainted in this manner.
22 years ago the UN said we had only 10 years to take global warming action. Otherwise, entire nations would drown due to rising sea levels by the year 2000.
My book is now available as a paperback. Thank you for your patience.
I’ve not commented on Peter Gleick’s one-star review of my book on Amazon.com prior to this interview.
The paperback edition of The Delinquent Teenager will make its debut within the next 48 hours.
The World Wildlife Fund says the charge that scientists linked to its organization have infiltrated the IPCC is ‘ludicrous.’ I suppose it’s a total coincidence that more than 2/3rds of the IPCC report’s chapters included at least one WWF-affiliated individual.
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.
The Delinquent Teenager has been reviewed in the Tuscon Citizen.
Thanks so much for the purchases, the reviews, and the growing momentum! See a sample of the PDF edition here.
Please consider leaving a review of my book on the Amazon store websites. These reviews really do matter.
Digital editions of my book can now be purchased from Amazon.com, as well as Amazon outlets in the UK, Germany, and France. An instantly-downloadable PDF edition is also available.
40 people belonged to the IPCC’s 2007 ‘core writing team.’ 11 of them have documented links to either the World Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace.
The scientists on this list either played some role in the 2007 Climate Bible or are helping to write the next one expected to be completed in 2013. In many cases, they’re doing dual duty.
All of them have a documented, public relationship with professional lobbyists.
The erroneous Himalayan glacier prediction was based on a WWF report. The IPCC chapter in which that mistake occurred was led by two WWF-affiliated scientists.
In a single IPCC chapter we find an author affiliated the WWF, another with Greenpeace, and a third with the Environmental Defense Fund. Sure, this is a scientific document.
Two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters include personnel affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund. Fifteen chapters were led by WWF-affiliated scientists.
Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund recruited 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” to help it heighten the public’s sense of urgency.
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.
Al Gore says climate change is a planetary emergency. But he’ll only tell a campus audience about it if the cheque is big enough.
My book-length exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be available soon.
The head of the UN has told the inhabitants of a country still recovering from civil war that the greatest threat to their well-being is climate change.
A year after a damning assessment was released, the IPCC continues to thumb its nose at key recommendations.
According to the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, history is about environmental villains and bizarre motives.
In 2007 the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world was at a defining moment, that the next 2 to 3 years would determine our future. Without a new emissions treaty by 2012, he said, it would be too late.
We’re supposed to trust the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusions because it relies on peer-reviewed scientific literature. But many of the people who run scientific journals also write IPCC reports. This is a circular, incestuous process.
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.
A 3-minute spoof video on environmental public service announcements. No matter where you stand on global warming, this should make you chuckle.
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.
Auditors investigating mismanagement of the 2010 Commonwealth Games say a committee that was supposed to monitor environmental concerns appears to have never met. IPCC chairman Pachauri was a member.
The list of people who’ve accepted $150,000 from an advocacy organization is a long one. There are lots of PhDs here, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with full-blown political activists.
An activist group has been funding a particular corner of scientific research to the tune of $1 million a year for more than two decades. Do we really think this hasn’t influenced how those working in that field see the world?
17 years ago a Greenpeace report titled The Climate Time Bomb tried to frighten us with lurid images and dire predictions that have since failed.
When hundreds of Canadian scientists – and 12 science bodies – joined a World Wildlife Fund ad campaign they undermined their own authority. They became politically-motivated actors in a political discussion.
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?
Greenpeace has seen the light. Years after it became the norm in climate science to hoard & hide data, Greenpeace is now complaining about such behaviour.
Why is Al Gore linking greenhouse gas emissions to natural disasters when experts in that field say no such link exists?
My book has a new title – and will be available in September.
Can you point me to science textbooks, government documents, or websites of reputable organizations where the Michael Mann hockey stick graph appears?
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.
There’s a link between hurricane expert Chris Landsea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. That link is James J. McCarthy.
According to someone with a PhD from Harvard, my skeptical climate change views mean one thing: I’m intent on murdering his grandchildren.
When skeptics argue with Al Gore about the science of climate change do they step right into a trap?
Over the past 16 months Walter Russell Mead, a Democrat, has authored a series of bracing commentaries about what’s wrong with the green movement. Near the top of his list: Al Gore.
When activists hoodwink the media – and questionable environmental scare stories are the result – why don’t we care?
The credibility of the IPCC has long been in tatters. There have been multiple calls for the resignation of its chairman. Rather than addressing this state of affairs, the head of the IPCC thinks corporate entities should change their ways – because we live in a world in which “reputation and public opinion are extremely important.”
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says responding to climate change is part of a larger goal: transforming the world economy.
40 years ago scientists said radical change was necessary if humanity was to survive. Along the way they endorsed a population prediction that now seems foolish.
Who knew that green groups – and those with business interests in renewable energy – have access to such obscene amounts of money?
A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report once again relies on research conducted by Greenpeace. Once again, Greenpeace personnel are serving as IPCC lead authors.
Activists, politicians, and journalists love to play the ‘science says’ game when talking about global warming. But scientific facts are one thing. How best to respond to those facts is a completely different discussion – in which we all deserve a voice.
An IPCC official thinks that quadrupling gasoline prices could help save the planet. What effect such a policy would have on human beings appears to be irrelevant.
You gotta love the UN. The 31-member IPCC bureau includes representatives from undemocratic and unsavoury countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Malaysia, Madagascar and the Maldives. Soon, these countries may be deciding the fate of billions of UN-administered climate change funds.
When did it become acceptable to pen violent fantasies about people with whom you disagree? When did it become OK to talk – luridly and out loud – about their death?
While the rest of us approach challenges with determination, optimism, and faith in ourselves as problem solvers, drama queens see only worst-case scenarios. They exaggerate. They emotionalize.