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.
An opinion piece in Scientific America alleges that, over the long term, a great deal of scientific research turns out not to be true. Independent replication of research findings is apparently far less common than we think.
Climate activists have long argued that scientific research that has been peer-reviewed is reliable, trustworthy & true.
A flooded-out farmer is fighting for his economic survival. Rather than assisting him, environmental bureaucrats are contributing to his nightmare.
A prominent UK civil servant has issued a plea for climate sanity that is less-than-kind to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
People who think we should live in harmony with nature usually forget to mention poisonous plants.
Amazon.com says e-books have begun out-selling hardcover and paperback books combined. Climate titles that don’t have an e-book edition are now at a serious disadvantage.
Rather than championing logic and reason, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences now stages political theatre. Humanity is accused, tried, and convicted in a “court case” in which the verdict was determined in advance.
Last year a committee investigating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told it to pull up its socks and follow its own rules. This week, the IPCC decided to jettison an important rule instead.
When British delegates attempt to censor speakers at a Russian Academy of Science climate change event that’s a clue that science has left the building.
A new 1,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report appears to ignore both nuclear power and shale gas – even though both these energy sources emit far less CO2 than does coal. This suggests the IPCC’s top priority isn’t emissions reduction after all.
The IPCC has released a 26-page summary of a new report 3 weeks ahead of the 1,000-page full document. This is an example of how the IPCC manipulates media coverage. Journalists can’t compare the summary to the real thing.
Written by a senior Australian scientist, The Climate Caper explores some of the reasons why official IPCC science has become so pervasive. For one thing, it’s affiliated with huge government agencies employing large numbers of civil servant scientists.
When a cycling group told its members they were going to hear from a Nobel laureate, it didn’t explain that climate modeler Philip Duffy’s contribution to a decade-old IPCC report was limited – and tainted by conflict-of-interest.
Each IPCC report includes a chapter that evaluates climate models. Is this written by disinterested parties who take a cold, hard look at the strengths & weaknesses of these analytical tools? Nope. It’s authored by people whose livelihoods depend on climate models.
Perhaps the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn’t regard activist scientists as damaged goods because neither the National Academy of Sciences nor the American Association for the Advancement of Science does, either.
When people in affluent counties embrace new technologies we’re helping to make the entire world a better place. Really.
Having just spent 17 hours without electricity, I’m feeling especially keen on a stable energy supply.
Jennifer Morgan was recently recruited to help prepare the upcoming edition of the climate bible. Rather than being one of the world’s finest scientific minds she is a professional activist – as in chief climate change spokesperson for the World Wildlife Fund.
One of the most senior authors for the upcoming climate bible has spent the past 17 years cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
New Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines declare that blogs “are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports.” Yet these same guidelines say nothing about advocacy literature published by groups such as Greenpeace.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has taken the time to write down some rules of the road. But it has never hired any traffic cops.
A year ago a group of volunteers from 12 countries struck a blow for truth-in-advertising. Our audit revealed that 1 in 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report references are to non-peer-reviewed literature. For years we’ve been told the climate bible relies exclusively on peer-reviewed research.
In 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme published a map suggesting there’d be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. When a writer called attention to this failed prediction recently, the map disappeared.
Portugal’s economy is a mess. Might that have something to with its enthusiastic embrace of expensive, inefficient renewable energy?
Regarding James Hansen’s (tax-payer funded) salary, David Suzuki’s despair, and Ross Gelbspan’s professional activism.
Climate skeptic pages on Facebook were recently targeted. Our content was alleged to be ‘abusive’ and the ability of readers to share it was temporarily blocked.
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of what is supposed to be a respectable science body, has – with deliberation and forethought – publicly linked that body to left-wing political analysis and activism.
Before the IPCC was even founded, the Worldwatch Institute had already declared that global warming was caused by fossil fuels. Surely that makes the IPCC chairman’s decision to fraternize with this activist organization a bit awkward.
Rajendra Pachauri does not display the aloof, dispassionate demeanour traditionally evoked by the term “scientist.” Instead, he repeatedly lends the good name of the scientific body he chairs to activist endeavours.
Actions speak louder the words. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims to be impartial and evenhanded – but that’s not how it behaves.
A slideshow of iPhone images created in response to the devastating earthquake that struck Japan in March 2011.
A UCLA professor who found no link between a certain kind of air pollution and premature death is fighting to keep his job. But the state employee with the fake PhD merely got demoted.
Museums acknowledge that, historically, Mother Nature killed off fish and caused glaciers to retreat. So why do these same institutions imply that similar events in the here-and-now are solely the fault of humans?
In the late 1800s cities were drowning in smelly, dirty, disease-spreading horse manure. The private automobile was a huge step forward, environmentally-speaking.
Australians are outraged by a Prime Minister who, prior to last summer’s election, said there’d be no carbon tax – but is now implementing one. At a recent protest rally, a scientist explained why he thinks the dangerous global warming hypothesis has been proved wrong.
A small group of IPCC insiders filled as many as seven different roles each during the writing of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
As a young woman I embraced feminism because I didn’t want to be bossed around by men. These days it’s greens who want to regulate my behaviour.
A Q&A with Francis Zwiers, Canada’s most senior IPCC official, regarding his recent testimony in Washington, DC.
We’ve been told more than 400 people answered a questionnaire about the IPCC last year. So far, only 232 records have been made public. No one will explain why.
I’ve compiled a database of more than 160 quotes about the IPCC. Here are examples of journalists, government officials, and activists repeating the highly-questionable IPCC marketing message.
Half a century ago, a science journalist discovered that anything less than reverential reporting was interpreted by scientists as hostility. It would seem that climate scientists who label critics ‘anti-science’ come from a long tradition.
How does someone who hasn’t yet earned their doctorate get nominated by their own government for IPCC duty multiple times? How does the IPCC, which claims to be comprised of the world’s top scientists, repeatedly select this person to fill senior roles?
The mere presence of environmental activists undermines the integrity of scientific endeavours. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long embraced Greenpeace personnel.
In 1970s and ’80s some scientists already believed human CO2 emissions would cause global warming. How do we know the IPCC’s 2007 conclusions weren’t preordained?
An expert who testified to Congress this week reached well beyond his own scientific expertise. By advocating a particular response to climate change he brings science into disrepute.
Why did a Canadian expert fly 2,500 miles across three time zones to testify in Washington, DC this week when there are plenty of US experts? And who footed the bill?
13 times as many children die before their first birthday in Rwanda as in Canada or the UK. Most people live below the poverty line, and 3 out of 10 are illiterate. Yet a UN official says Rwanda has demonstrated “leadership” by banning plastic bags.
The person in charge of green energy projects for a group of Los Angeles community colleges wanted to cut down trees and obliterate playing fields so that $1 billion could be spent on alternative energy installations. Power currently costs these colleges less than $8 million a year.
Why is a Vice President of an activist group taking part in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change workshops – and serving as a review editor for the upcoming edition of the climate bible?
Sari Kovats helped write three editions of the climate bible. But the institution where she recently earned her doctorate won’t confirm the date.
Two physics professors – one in America and one in the UK – are condemning the behaviour of prominent climate scientists. They say it’s a violation of scientific honesty and integrity.
Environmental activist organizations are all grown up now. We need to adjust our thinking accordingly.
Nearly half a century after the first Earth Day, the chessboard has changed dramatically. The players with the power, the war chests, and the influence are different now.
When environmentalists organize themselves, fund-raise, and try to spread their message this is considered legitimate democratic activity. Yet the minute climate skeptics do the same we’re accused of being doubt-mongers who manufacture uncertainty in order to mislead the public.
People who look into the future and see only environmental devastation have lost their sense of wonder.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change thinks you and your children should feel chilly in the winter and too hot in the summer. He also thinks it’s his business to decide what amount of meat consumption is healthy and desirable.
In the world inhabited by this environmental crusader, climate change is “a crisis that’s breaking over our heads at this moment,” ExxonMobil peddles petroleum the way drug dealers peddle heroin, and we “have no choice” but to turn our backs on fossil fuels.
An award-winning meteorologist says he’s ashamed of – and embarrassed by – his profession.
On those days when one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry, I choose to laugh. The Daily Bayonet blog contrasts so completely with anything available from the mainstream media one can’t help wondering what the world would be like if this gent were a late-night comic.
Two activist scientists, both committed to the climate change fight, have starkly different views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One says it’s the most “rigorous scientific process” in which he has been involved. The other says it isn’t good science, but “lowest-common-denominator-science.”
A full 13 years before the IPCC was born its first chairman seems to have already decided that fossil fuels affected the climate so adversely their use would need to be curtailed.
If much of the world were to snap out of it and realize that global warming has been over-hyped, large companies would lose hundreds of billions.
Any government body headed by eco-campaigner Tim Flannery cannot possibly be considered “independent”.
Those seemingly nice people brimming with such concern for the planet are actually profoundly intolerant.
The late Michael Crichton drew our attention to the startling lack of rigour in climate science when compared to drug testing.
President Obama’s science advisor says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change bases its conclusions on source material that has been vetted in excruciating detail. According to IPCC insiders, this is bunk.
David Suzuki says the planet is in “far worse shape” today than 50 years ago. But a growing library of exhaustively researched books claim the opposite.
A recently-released collection of candid insider comments confirms many of our worst fears about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
According to insiders, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change selects its authors via a secretive process. Nothing prevents scientists belonging to certain schools-of-thought from dominating the reports that get produced.
NASA used to be about the right stuff. It used to be about knowledge, human ingenuity, and the triumph of sheer brainpower in the face of unfavourable odds. Now, rather than seeking to inspire kids, NASA tries to frighten them.
A comic that contemplates how children might be motivated to take more of an interest during science class.
Governments around the world are convinced CO2 emissions are dangerous. Where did they get that idea? From computer models that even IPCC insiders say are uncertain, unreliable, and unvalidated.
Canadian teachers (who are employees of the state) are attempting to dictate how children’s lunchbox sandwiches get packaged. Intruding so intimately into people’s private lives is not an acceptable way to save the planet.
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
A news account suggests Michael Oppenheimer is a class act. Rather than calling climate skeptics “deniers” he admits they might be smart people.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is dysfunctional and unaccountable. That Rajendra Pachauri remains as its chairman – despite widespread calls for his resignation – is proof of this.
The IPCC documents most likely to be read by outsiders – the Summaries for Policymakers – are not scientific statements at all. Rather, they are the result of a messy, arduous political negotiation that pits scientists against politicians.
According to scientists who’ve helped write its reports, the IPCC is not a scientific body first and foremost. Rather, its primary purpose is to lay the necessary groundwork so that an international climate change treaty can be negotiated.
How often does the media imply that IPCC Peace Prize winners are scientific Nobel laureates?
What do IPCC insiders really think of chairman Rajendra Pachauri?
IPCC insiders say non-peer-reviewed literature is essential and unavoidable when they write one of the world’s most important reports. Yet chairman Pachauri has, for years, insisted only peer-reviewed material gets used. Why haven’t scientific organizations set the record straight?
IPCC insiders say many of those who shared in the 2007 Peace Prize lack appropriate scientific credentials. They were selected because they are of the right gender or come from the right country.
A news story tells us we should believe a report because a “Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist” is associated with it. But the Nobel turns out to be the same Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore – and the report’s findings are highly improbable.
According to some people, only a “climatologist” can be a credible scientific voice in the climate debate. Why do we spend so much time trying to disqualify people – rather than addressing their ideas?
A senior author thinks the IPCC should take a stand by declaring Freedom of Information requests a form of harassment.
Should AGW proponents acknowledge critics? Or should they avert their eyes and block their ears?
Why does the media keep interviewing a meteorologist about droughts & floods instead of those with genuine expertise?
A website called ScienceCentric.com contains more than 400 “articles” written by the World Wildlife Fund. Activist group press releases are not bona fide science news.
Australia’s poets have written about alternating droughts and floods since the early 1900s. Is a preoccupation with alleged global-warming-induced-droughts linked to too little government attention on precautionary flood measures?
Opinions regarding how the IPCC deals with errors are diverse. They can also be provocative. One IPCC official thinks public scrutiny of its reports should be discouraged.
Haunting the Library, a new blog, digs up news clippings that add important historical context to the climate debate.
In early 2009 the Los Angeles Times said hot, dry Australia was a warning to us all – and that things would only get worse. The very next year, dry areas were flooded and snow fell during the summer.
Greenpeace spends its time trashing corporations. Yet it solicits donations in the form of corporate stocks. Any kind of corporate stocks, apparently.
A writer fabricates imaginary Osama bin Laden opinions. Then he fabricates imaginary climate skeptic opinions. The fact that they’re identical, he says, proves that skeptics are morally reprehensible “deniers” who should be ignored.
The donation button on this blog will retire at midnight tomorrow (Monday, January 3rd).
I took some great photos today and it seems to me that nature is unendingly, searingly beautiful. But it should be respected – rather than romanticized.
A web comic that reminds us what’s powerful, noble, and inspiring about the scientific endeavour.
Thank you, dear friends. I have learned much this year.
Environmental advocacy groups strive to influence government. In 2006 a senior WWF executive simultaneously became chairman of a UK government body. Meet the Defence Ministry’s idea of propriety.
The five blog posts I’m proudest to have written in 2010.
Possessing scholarly expertise is one thing. Being able to predict the future is another matter entirely. Future Babble is a book that explores the question of why expert predictions fail – and why we believe them anyway.
Humans are ingenious and creative and resourceful. Whatever challenges the future may hold, we shall overcome.
An amusing, politically-correct holiday greeting from Sweden.
For every green idea that truly makes sense, there’s half a dozen dumb ones. When bureaucrats promote these dumb ideas communities lose their bloodmobiles.
An important collection of documents has entered the public domain. These are the comments 232 individuals submitted to the committee that investigated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this year.
It isn’t your imagination. We were advised that global warming would mean milder winters. The record-breaking cold temperatures & unusual snowfalls in recent years are odds with the claim that global warming is happening faster than predicted.
News reports from the 1970s said ocean temperatures were dropping, polar ice was growing, and the coldest temperatures in 200 years were being recorded at the Arctic Circle. We were told be worried. Very worried.
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a climate bible with integrity.
The InterAcademy Council has been promising since August to release documents associated with an investigation of the IPCC’s policies and procedures. There’s still no sign of them.
No matter what the concern, drama queen scientists have been pushing the same solution for decades: less consumption, less travel & less freedom. For them, every problem is a crisis that requires radical social change.
If climate change science is so convincing, why did Timothy Wirth schedule James Hansen’s historic 1988 testimony during the hottest time of the year? And why did he sneak into the hearing room the night before & open the windows so there’d be no air conditioning?
Ted Turner has fathered five children. But he thinks China’s coercive one-child policies should be exported to other countries. Why aren’t other UN officials scrambling to distance themselves from his remarks?
A hyperlinked and annotated version of the 2007 climate bible gives us new ways of viewing this document. Produced by two dedicated volunteers, it’s a gift to the public as well as the research community.
Environmentalists scold us for not making more extensive use of public transit. But transit systems are run by bureaucrats – whose priorities aren’t necessarily aligned with transit users.
Andrew Revkin has identified a mistake in a UN climate negotiations document. This same “small error” has also appeared in the headlines of two UN press releases.
Please consider supporting this blog and my book-in-progress. Via a PayPal donation button, you can buy me a holiday cocktail, so to speak.
It’s difficult to read Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion book and not conclude that something is terribly amiss – in the world of science, in scientific publishing, and within the bowels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some people argue that energy rationing of the sort imposed during wartime is necessary to save the planet. But World War II rationing made life miserable for ordinary people. It also nourished the black market & organized crime.
Kevin Anderson says additional nuclear power plants are unnecessary because climate change can be easily dealt with. Instead, he wants to establish a costly, intrusive, liberty-restricting bureaucracy to ration your access to energy.
The UK’s Royal Society awarded an Esso Energy medal annually for 25 years. A short time later, when opinions on climate change diverged, the society began painting Esso’s parent company, ExxonMobil, as demon spawn.