Climate change good intentions are causing grave harm.
How many birds should we slaughter in the name of saving the planet?
In the dying days of 2016, three serious wind turbine malfunctions occurred in a small corner of Europe.
Only 40% of Obama’s electric cars are on the road. None meet the 150-mile-per gallon standard he promised.
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.
Green energy lobbyists pretending to be eco prize winners have signed a climate change declaration. Its real purpose is to secure more green energy funding. Part 2 of 4
Why are we not one-tenth as concerned about real children dying needlessly right now as we are about hypothetical future climate change?
Rather than bringing pine logs to the poor, 21st-century energy policies do the exact opposite. More children now shiver in the cold.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds sacrifices today’s birds in the name of fighting tomorrow’s climate change. Not only does it provide cover for the wind industry, it cashes its cheques.
Supplying electricity to a typical family for 12 hours requires the pedal power of 80 elite cyclists. The same amount of electricity can be purchased from the grid for under $5.
Politicians, having blindly parroted environmentalist rhetoric about green jobs, look increasingly foolish.
What lessons will the rest of the world learn from Germany’s renewable energy disaster?
According to the vocal minority known as the World Wildlife Fund, governments shouldn’t be placating vocal minorities.
A new essay in the peer-reviewed literature searches for the secret formula by which to manipulate public opinion.
The WWF thinks we should all “live in harmony with nature.” Sounds great – except for the flies, wasps, venomous snakes, storms, and floods.
Speaking of all that clean, green German energy.
Everywhere it has been tried, green energy is costly, unreliable & financially unsustainable over the long term. Here’s a reading list for those still in doubt.
Civilized debate appears to be an endangered species.
Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
Mining the iron ore needed to build wind farms entails ripping mountains and valleys “to shreds.”
We all care about the environment. But now we’re going to foolish extremes. And real people are getting hurt.
Windmills and solar panels sound wonderful. Except that the UK wind isn’t blowing and the German sun isn’t shining.
The only place wind energy is free and easy is in the minds of green activists.
Green energy is expensive energy. In Europe, prices are rising and unintended consequences have followed.
How plans to run an entire Australian town on solar energy failed miserably.
Write an essay that pokes holes in a green myth, submit it by June 30th, and you could be $13,000 US dollars richer.
A report by the Auditor General of a Canadian province highlights the dark side of green energy.
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.
Invited to speak to journalism students, here are a few ideas I’ll try to communicate: First, large increases in heating bills are the result of green energy policies. Second, these policies are the result of our belief that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful. Third, that belief is the result of reports written by the IPCC. Fourth, much of what we’ve been told about the IPCC and how it works is not true.
Oil companies get fined $7,000 per bird for inadvertently harming wildlife. Yet society ignores the predictable massacre of thousands of birds by wind farms. Are we protecting wildlife – or harassing oil companies?
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?