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 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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
An award-winning meteorologist says he’s ashamed of – and embarrassed by – his profession.
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.”
Any government body headed by eco-campaigner Tim Flannery cannot possibly be considered “independent”.
A recently-released collection of candid insider comments confirms many of our worst fears about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
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 news account suggests Michael Oppenheimer is a class act. Rather than calling climate skeptics “deniers” he admits they might be smart people.
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.
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.
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.
Data is collected, recorded, adjusted & interpreted not by disinterested robots but by people. Because highly-educated individuals can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, the degree to which a person’s judgment can be trusted becomes a central concern.
To a large degree the climate change story is a media story. Journalists are supposed to be guard dogs, not lap dogs. Instead, they’ve become arbiters of scientific truth – refusing to report on non-conformist perspectives.
Last of a five-part series.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
David Suzuki thinks women are capable of saving the world. I agree. But before we support him financially and in other ways, shouldn’t we spend a few minutes looking closely at the kind of world he wants us to fight for?
David Suzuki has been asked a series of softball questions by a mainstream newspaper reporter. My own list of questions begins with:
1. You think there are too many human beings, that our numbers over-burden planet Earth. Why, then, did you yourself father five children?
During the first half of this month, activist-scientist-blogger Joe Romm described other people as anti-science on 16 separate occasions. This is the equivalent of a toddler calling everyone from the babysitter to grandad a poopy head.
When a forensic pathologist testifies at a murder trial he describes bruises, lacerations & bullet holes. He does not decide whether the accused is guilty. Nor does he opine to the media about how such murders might be prevented.
So why do climate scientists think it’s their business to prescribe solutions – rather than telling us about their data and only about their data?
A recent medical graduate with no relevant publications was a lead author of the IPCC’s first health chapter. That report was supposed to have been written by the world’s top experts.
Entire passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report were lifted from a 1993 book authored by Anthony McMichael – the IPCC person in charge of the health chapter.
In June the IPCC put Alistair Woodward in charge of the climate bible’s health chapter. He thinks doctors should “educate and encourage” their patients in “climate change action.”
American professors are encouraging journalism students to suppress certain kinds of news so that the public won’t be confused by climate skepticism. This turns journalists into arbiters of truth and treats the public like children.
Activist scientist James Hansen is entitled to his personal political views. But he should not be citing his employer in order to advance them.
NASA’s website parroted the climate bible’s inaccurate prediction regarding the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Rather than independently confirming this prediction by collecting its own evidence, the agency simply accepted the IPCC report as authoritative.
Since the 1970s, some scientists have embraced social & political activism. The public needs to be aware, therefore, that not every pronouncement made by a “scientist” is neutral or disinterested.
Activist scientist James Hansen says the “experts agree” that meeting our current energy needs is possible via efficiency measures & carbon-free sources. But lots of experts don’t agree. Does he make a habit of pretending those with contrary opinions don’t exist?