Governments fund solar capacity in countries that receive little sun and install wind turbines in nations that get little wind. $100 billion has been squandered while green activists applauded.
A bona fide climate scientist tells US Senators we have no idea whether human-caused global warming will be a serious problem. The media doesn’t report it.
If the public is to be represented at climate negotiations by someone other than their own government, it has a right to elect and dismiss those representatives.
Activist media events are a shockingly institutionalized part of UN climate negotiations.
Environmentalists think Australian states can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. They want them overruled by bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
Why are female leaders rarer than rubies in green organizations?
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
Persecuted for decades? Poor? Green groups will still kick you when you’re down.
Liberty. Freedom. These ideas inspire risk-taking and self-sacrifice. But the green movement offers the exact opposite.
It’s no longer easy to locate the splattergate video on YouTube.
A collection of NGO brats, self-important rich folks, and UN bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to be the voice of future generations.
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.
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.”
Greenpeace thinks climate skeptics should be silent because a “scientific consensus” has established that dangerous climate change is real. Yet Greenpeace’s active opposition to genetically modified foods flies in the face of another scientific consensus – the one that says such products are safe.
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.