The world’s most important climate body dedicates its new document to a rude, intolerant, highly politicized climate crusader.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
When did “Question Authority” stop being applicable?
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
According to 1960s radicals, the environmental movement has been funded and orchestrated by fossil fuel interests.
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
If ‘constant growth’ is bad, why does the David Suzuki Foundation keep getting bigger and bigger?
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.
How are green groups different from yesterday’s colonial powers? Their global agenda is paramount, their lack of empathy for ordinary people breathtaking.
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.
Iowa scientists have signed a letter about climate change. News reports don’t mention their activist leanings.
Is it any wonder that young climate scientists behave badly? Their elders set the example – by hurling insults at dissenters.
A powerful lobby group supplied their meeting space, helped with their travel documents & subsidized their meals. Top IPCC scientists went along for the ride.
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.
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?
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.
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.
A news account suggests Michael Oppenheimer is a class act. Rather than calling climate skeptics “deniers” he admits they might be smart people.
A Greenpeace spokesperson suggests that the only people concerned about the video in which kids are executed for insufficient eco enthusiasm are those with ulterior motives – “climate skeptics and think tanks funded by corporations.”
The relationship between Greenpeace and the IPCC is so close that not only are the activist group’s documents cited by the climate bible, the IPCC chairman has written a forward for a Greenpeace publication. Meanwhile, a senior Greenpeace official (whose entire career has been devoted to political activism), has served as an IPCC “scientific expert reviewer.”
Two professors (who believe human-caused global warming is a problem) argue that the Kyoto Protocol was doomed to fail & that pushing for more policies of this sort wastes precious time.
A pragmatic analysis that reveals common ground between moderate climate activists & moderate climate skeptics.