No matter what voters say in the upcoming US election, a coalition of Attorneys General intends to push for ‘even more aggressive’ climate action.
Why aren’t we celebrating last week’s Paris climate deal? Where’s the joy and the gratitude – the dancing in the streets and the fireworks?
Activists have predicted environmental catastrophe for decades. In addition to a poor track record, they share similar arguments, language, and metaphors.
20 American academics think unorthodox climate views should be subjected to an organized crime investigation.
Al Gore has been threatening us with environmental apocalypse for more than a quarter-century. Why should we believe him this time?
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.
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.
Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
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.
If carbon dioxide is pollution, every human being is a perpetual pollution factory. Every toddler in their sandbox generates CO2 every minute of every day.
Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
What happens when you slice half a pie into 9,000 pieces? You get a few crumbs of pastry.
Much of what we hear about climate change has been carefully crafted by PR firms and ad agencies.
Where’s the scholarly press release highlighting Al Gore’s “longstanding ties to tobacco companies?” Where’s the study announcing that WWF’s tobacco ties extend back to the 1960s?
Are climate change ‘facts’ so hard to come by that a not-yet-finalized draft report is considered evidence?
For some people, environmentalism has become a religion. With its own hellfire-and-brimstone preachers.
Climate change is, indeed, a moral issue. Because the green plan for fighting it amounts to a war against the poor.
I’ll be participating in the WattsUpWithThat answer to Al Gore’s 24-hour web project this week. Additionally, I’ll be talking to a university class tomorrow and addressing a climate skeptics’ conference in Munich on December 1st.
Before there was Al Gore, there was George Mitchell. Politicians have been casting themselves as environmental crusaders, saving the planet, for two decades.
A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.
Liberty. Freedom. These ideas inspire risk-taking and self-sacrifice. But the green movement offers the exact opposite.
Since the 1970s UN officials have tried to frighten us. Repeatedly, their predictions have failed. Repeatedly, their time frames have been preposterously inaccurate.
A climate debate that includes Al Gore’s climate ideas – but not Bob Carter’s – is no debate at all.
The vibrant, international climate skeptic community owes its existence to the Internet. We must defend it.
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.
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.
A 3-minute spoof video on environmental public service announcements. No matter where you stand on global warming, this should make you chuckle.
Why is Al Gore linking greenhouse gas emissions to natural disasters when experts in that field say no such link exists?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Al Gore said global warming caused Hurricane Katrina and that hurricanes were going to get worse. This gave insurance companies an excuse to increase premiums by tens of billions. How embarrassing that US hurricane damage has since fallen to less than half the historical average.
Perhaps those who lost their properties because they could no longer afford to insure them will forgive & forget.
Hostage-taker James Lee’s views about the planet being better off without humans are chillingly similar to those expressed by The Ecologist magazine in its debut editorial.
Images from the press conference prior to a 700-participant climate skeptics’ conference in Chicago (May 2010).
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly declared that the climate bible relies solely on peer-reviewed source material. This claim is false. Rajendra Pachauri should resign.
Al Gore’s family raised tobacco for years. He boasted about his involvement with this crop on the election campaign trail, and accepted donations from big tobacco. With supreme hypocrisy he now attempts to discredit climate skeptics by connecting them rhetorically to this unpopular industry.
Al Gore has a bad habit. He tries to smear people with whom he disagrees – rather than refuting their arguments. It takes supreme chutzpah for a man with a family history of tobacco farming to use this rhetorical tactic.
The media call Al Gore an “eco prophet” and the “thinking man’s thinking man.” So why did Gore repeatedly tell Slate magazine that “the most recent [climategate e-mail] is more than 10 years old” when, in fact, it was less than a month old?
Is climate change the most pressing problem facing humanity? When a Canadian audience was given the chance to witness a live debate, fewer people thought so afterward than prior.
Roy Spencer is a bona fide climate scientist who disagrees with the dangerous global warming hypothesis. I review his book Climate Confusion – and also discuss Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature.
A 2-minute video about why it’s not OK for one party in a discussion to unilaterally declare that “the debate is over.” Full text provided.
The Age of Stupid is a fictional film about the future. It says current humans are too dumb & self-absorbed to pay attention to the threat of global warming. I propose a different scenario: What shall I say to my grandchildren when they ask me why I did nothing as every facet of daily life became assessed, inspected & regulated by eco bureaucrats? What shall I say when they ask me why I allowed personal liberties to slip away?
We wouldn’t convict someone of a crime without hearing their side of the story. Yet we’ve listened only to the prosecution side of the global warming argument. Full text provided.
My Cousin Vinny isn’t just a great comic film. It does a stellar job of demonstrating the danger of listening to only one point-of-view, of jumping to conclusions before all sides have been heard.
It seems not to have crossed Al Gore’s mind that some of us consider his arguments flawed, his data suspect & his rhetoric overwrought. Instead, he prefers to believe that human neo cortexes are too primitive – that we’re biologically incapable of grasping his apocalyptic message.
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?
Skeptical climate scientists are often accused of being motivated by financial gain. So why does Al Gore charge $175,000 to deliver a speech? If global warming is really a planetary emergency, why won’t he deliver the same talk for $50,000?
If one were looking for reasons to dismiss global warming skepticism, these 13 pages of text provide ample fodder.