People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
When a journalist thinks for herself about climate change, insults & fabrications follow.
Anonymous allegations are republished by an allegedly respectable website.
IPBES provides no CVs for most members of its influential panel.
Once again, the ‘world’s leading scientists’ provide cover for UN machinations.
Concern about global warming is dead last amongst 16 priorities.
Scientists score lower than chimpanzees when quizzed about basic, state-of-the-world facts.
Scores of scientific minds. So much tomfoolery.
No matter how undemocratic, impoverished, sparsely-populated, or terrorism-promoting a nation might be, a sentence written by scientists will not survive if that nation objects.
On what planet is it OK for politically-determined definitions to supersede those written by actual scientists?
The IPCC publishes the citizenship and gender of its authors – but says nothing about their scientific expertise.
The latest IPCC report was a setup – a cynical ploy to produce alarmist media headlines that succeeded beautifully.
November 2000 and December 2009 were both supposed to be our last, best chance to save the planet from climate disaster. This week, the media is once again spreading this message.
If climate research is like other research, half of the IPCC’s 6,000 academic citations are dubious.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is essentially a law unto itself, an entrenched culture with no meaningful oversight mechanisms.
The BBC is a huge bureaucracy. The geniuses running it have declared another bureaucracy – the UN’s IPCC – a font of scientific truth. How pathetic.
The media’s climate frenzy was sparked by a scientist who’s research was still unpublished.
Scientific debate can’t accomplish its purpose if we pretend there is no debate.
IPCC scientists routinely evaluate their own work. What could possibly go wrong?
History’s most momentous climate decision was based on research so preliminary it wasn’t published in a scientific journal until seven months later.
Some news outlets still haven’t reported on the 3-year-old sexual harassment allegations against prominent climate official, Rajendra Pachauri.
When governments manipulate the news, most journalists fall into line.
Scientists aren’t in charge of interpreting climate research. They’re cogs in a political machine.
The US government says it’s a violation of scientific integrity for political officials to alter scientific findings. But political revision is central to how IPCC reports get produced.
An organization representing medical researchers believes unpublished work is too shaky to be included in grant applications, yet the world’s most important climate body has long relied on such research.
The former head of the world’s most important climate body has been charged with a long list of sex offences.
IPCC official Chris Field claims the latest IPCC report set the stage for a Paris climate deal. An e-mail he sent colleagues three days ago is pure politics.
A US Senate committee hears that climate science is so intolerant and close-minded, the integrity and reputation of science itself is threatened.
Strip away the pseudoscience and you’ll find one thing: politics. People attempting, via international treaties, to constrain human lives. For the sake of Mother Gaia.
The man now in charge at the IPCC belongs to a privileged, protected, secretive entity headed by the UN’s former top climate official.
For 15 years, we’ve been scolded and cajoled. As the December climate summit approaches, global warming rhetoric has grown seriously threadbare.
The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?
People who once worked at Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI aren’t surprised by the sexual allegations leveled against him.
The former IPCC chairman says he’s the victim of a conspiracy. But conspiracies can’t be exposed if journalists are silenced.
A Belgian activist scientist seeking leadership of the UN climate panel flies to Pakistan – and is fawned over by the media.
The Guardian newspaper once again wrongly calls Rajendra Pachauri a Nobel laureate. For good measure, it publishes a photo of him looking pious – while neglecting to mention the serious sexual offenses for which he is being investigated.
A man who used to joke that he lived “at 30,000 feet” is well and truly grounded. This week two courts denied the former IPCC chairman permission to leave the country.
A lawyer for Rajendra Pachauri says that preventing the former IPCC chairman from delivering a speech at a trade show in Greece will damage India’s image and harm Pachauri’s reputation.
Libraries define intellectual freedom as the public’s right to examine all points-of-view. These climate scientists are trying to stifle alternative perspectives. Part 2 of 3.
Climate science is a world in which people who donate money to museums are targeted and ostracized. Yet creeps who write about urinating on women get a free pass. Part 1 of 3.
A passage in his 2010 novel makes it clear the former IPCC chairman understands that it’s wrong for an older male boss to hit on a young woman new to his organization.
In the wake of sexual misconduct allegations, Rajendra Pachauri’s semi-autobiographical novel is being taken out of circulation. What possessed him to publish it under his own name while still chairman of the IPCC?
New Delhi police say the former IPCC chairman is violating his bail conditions by hampering their investigation and influencing witnesses.
Men who try to get women into bed via premature, extravagant professions of love aren’t uncommon. But only bosses who view female employees as their personal harem try this within days of a woman joining an organization.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele became an IPCC official in 2002. Two years later he got into bed with Greenpeace. Part 2 of 2.
The second-in-command at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wants a promotion, but has no intention of addressing critics’ concerns. Part 1 of 2.
The Indian media is examining the wider implications of Rajendra Pachauri’s resignation while Western journalists pretend not to see the sex scandal.
TERI women have summoned the courage to speak up about the nature of their workplace. Will TERI’s men step forward and do their part?
Invited to deliver a lecture in memory of a talented and successful feminist judge, Rajendra Pachauri didn’t think her half of humanity was worth mentioning.
Why is a man accused of egregious sexual harassment still the chancellor of a university? Why is he still on a UNESCO panel when that entity says gender equality is a global priority?
Electronic messages cited in a Delhi police report tell the story of a spirited young woman who effectively lost her job because she wouldn’t let her boss grope her.
In his home country, the former chairman of the IPCC is being called ‘Dr. Lecherous.’ A female journalist says she was ‘repulsed’ by the vain, pompous Pachauri she once met in person.
A court has barred the former IPCC chairman from his workplace and forbidden travel abroad without permission. A conference at Harvard University has withdrawn his guest speaker invitation.
Is the former chairman of the IPCC genuinely ill – or is this a ‘strategic move’ on the part of his legal team to forestall his arrest?
The resignation letter of the IPCC chairman is a two-page love letter to himself – in which he openly admits that saving the planet is his ‘religion’. The world’s most important climate body has not been led by a dispassionate scientist.
Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI institute appears to be a workplace in which female employees are habitually invited to spend private time with the boss.
Additional women are stepping forward with tales of inappropriate behaviour on the part of Rajendra Pachauri, who has chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 2002.
Texts and emails allegedly sent by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri tell a disturbing tale. Months after a female subordinate objected repeatedly and strenuously to his sexual advances, the head of a UN body continued to physically and electronically stalk her.
An Indian court has ruled against Rajendra Pachauri and in favour of press freedom. The IPCC chairman sought to prevent the media from reporting on a police investigation concerning allegations of sexual misconduct.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri is being investigated under four sections of the Indian Penal Code. Maximum prison sentences of two, three, and seven years apply.
According to a police complaint, one of the biggest names in climate science grabbed, touched, and forcibly kissed a female subordinate in the workplace.
Tasked with assessing the achievements of others, a jury that includes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri heaps honour on one of its own.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is threatening us with hellfire and damnation. But its conclusions are suspect. Rather than investigating all possible causes of climate change, it’s in the business of pointing a finger at humanity.
The world’s most important climate body dedicates its new document to a rude, intolerant, highly politicized climate crusader.
20-year IPCC veteran Richard Tol says that entity is politicized and biased. Ecologist Daniel Botkin says there’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ it’s also wrong about species extinction risks.
Help annotate the new IPCC report so that it’s more user friendly – and more informative about its authors and source material.
The New York Times publishes pablum about the IPCC.
The IPCC acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. It has a long history of recruiting activist personnel, and is led by a man prone to exaggeration.
Greenpeace isn’t anti-establishment anymore. Now it’s just another arm of the authoritarian, UN green machine.
In Berlin this week, environmental activists were allowed to attend a four-day meeting that journalists were denied access to. This is normal IPCC procedure.
I’ll be in Germany and Scotland this month, giving speeches about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This Thursday, I’ll be addressing the International Conference on Climate and Energy, which … Continue reading
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the marine biologist who led the IPCC’s Ocean chapter, is a full-blown environmental activist. He recently wrote a politicized foreword to a WWF brochure, and has a long history of employment with both the WWF and Greenpeace.
In one chapter alone, IPCC personnel relied on unpublished studies 21 times to make their case.
An IPCC document produced for its meeting in Yokohama uses emphatically activist language. What happened to the scientific body delivering a scientific report based on scientific research?
Manipulation of a Summary document makes the UN’s climate panel look like an overly-protective, hysterical mother.
How does the new climate report compare to the last one? Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pulled up its socks?
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.
A research paper doesn’t talk about increased crop damage by insects. But as occurred in the Himalayan glacier incident, the erroneous claim remains in the about-to-be released report.
The upcoming Working Group 2 report wasn’t thoroughly scrutinized by hundreds of external reviewers. Those people saw only early versions of the report. Unpublished research findings were still being incorporated months later.
At the United Nations, science doesn’t speak for itself. It’s hammered out during secret, all-nighter negotiating sessions.
The UN’s climate panel claims to be a ‘scientific body.’ But it’s actually in the business of writing reports that rely on thousands of judgment calls. It’s time to stop pretending that fallible human judgment is ‘science.’
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
A fake Nobel keynote speaker played an embarrassingly minor role in the IPCC.
A press release issued this week falsely describes economist Woodrow Clark as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Chris Field – the head of the UN climate panel’s Working Group 2 – thinks the world “is staring down the barrel of climate change.”
15 months ago, it was a sin to declare out loud that the global temperature was no longer rising. Today, the IPCC, the UK Met office, and mainstream researchers are all admitting the obvious.
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.
Why doesn’t the World Wildlife Fund argue for its vision based solely on that vision’s merits?
My first thoughts about the climate change debate were written five years ago today.
At the heart of the climate change movement is the belief that we will be punished for our sins.
Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”
I’ve been invited to give oral evidence to a UK parliamentary committee – and have been offered a research fellowship at a think tank.
The editors of Foreign Policy magazine inhabit a fairy tale world of planet-saving superheroes and wicked climate deniers.
UN climate panel leaders don’t behave in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes itself as a “scientific body.” Where in its multi-year, multi-thousand-page bureaucratic report-writing process is science actually practiced?
According to Ban Ki-moon, the latest IPCC report vaporized climate skepticism.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
I’ll be making a written submission to a UK parliamentary committee examining the latest IPCC report
My work is being discussed in prominent newspapers and magazines – in Germany as well as the US.
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
The latest document the IPCC doesn’t want you to see.
Kirsty Duncan no longer describes herself as a “Nobel Peace Prize laureate” on her Facebook page. But she’s still being falsely advertised in that manner on the Celebrity Speakers website.
As the gap between its models and reality has grown, the IPCC has become more adamant that its conclusions are correct – rather than more cautious.
What happens to people who claim to be Peace Prize winners even though they aren’t? They get a job at the White House.
Michael Mann’s boss at Penn State University – Dean William Easterling – falsely claims to be a Nobel laureate on his CV.
What do Greenpeace and the Natural History Museum have in common? They both employ people with impaired reading comprehension skills.
Cigarette packages come with warning labels. So should IPCC reports.
Greenpeace says 95% certainty is the same as 100% certainty. Tell that to people who die on the operating table.
According to the agenda of an upcoming conference, three Nobel laureates will be participating. But only one of them is genuine.
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.
A news clipping from 1995 – concerning an earlier IPCC report – was hilariously wrong.
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
On the basis of a politically-massaged summary and a stack of press advisories, the media has blasted IPCC talking points around the world.
I’ve been interviewed regarding the UN climate panel’s recent announcement. In my view, its future is bleak.
Pachauri’s 2010 work of fiction and the credibility of the IPCC’s 2013-2014 climate report are now inextricably linked.
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.
There are many reasons to distrust the UN’s climate panel. Let’s start with political meddling and authors linked to green lobby groups.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
It may not be wise to judge a book by its cover, but it’s entirely appropriate to judge an organization by its leader.
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
With attention focused on the IPCC’s imminent Working Group 1 report, a prestigious science journal has published a misleadingly-headlined profile of Working Group 3 co-chair, Ottmar Edenhofer.
Multiple UN entities falsely describe the chairman of the IPCC as a Nobel prize winner.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical of everything and everyone.
The day after the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, the Office of the Prime Minister of Norway made false declarations about the head of the IPCC.
The Guardian‘s environment correspondent couldn’t be more one-sided if she herself were on the IPCC’s payroll.
Why has Yale University promulgated the fiction that the chairman of the IPCC is a Nobel laureate?
Why does the New York Academy of Sciences falsely call the chairman of the IPCC a Nobel laureate?
My new book takes a close look at Rajendra Pachauri, the man in charge of the UN entity that will release a new climate report later this month. It’s available as a paperback, a Kindle e-book, or an instantly downloadable PDF.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
The head of the IPCC has written a novel in which the central character is infatuated with pseudoscience and in which UFO enthusiast Shirley MacLaine is presented as credible. The final installment of the Nobel Laureate Summer Reading series.
Girl spurns boy, marries someone else, and is anally raped on her honeymoon. Girl comes crawling back to boy, begging for forgiveness, and pleading for one more chance.
There’s nothing wrong with writing a sex-saturated novel. But IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this book is “all about spirituality.”
Between the ages of four and six, our hero is judged to be the smartest, gets “revenge against the whole world,” and is preferred by the girls.
Tidbit #1 from Rajendra Pachauri’s 2010 novel. HSBC, the huge multinational bank, has linked its brand to this strange, stilted prose.
A Simon Fraser University economist declared, on his blog in May, “I have never spoken or written of myself as a Nobel laureate.” After I unearthed written testimony to the contrary, he quietly rewrote the post, removing that denial.
An organization headed by a senior IPCC official (Working Group 3 Vice-Chair, Carlo Carraro) has ranked TERI, an organization headed by the IPCC’s chairman, first in the world.
Once again, people described as “leading scientists” turn out to be economists, UN officials, and those with links to activist organizations.
A UN press release falsely describes those attending an IPCC meeting as “climate scientists,” In fact, these people are policy wonks, economists, political scientists, and UN advisors.
A UN survey of public priorities reveals some disturbing assumptions.
What lessons will the rest of the world learn from Germany’s renewable energy disaster?
If the IPCC was a scientific body, the science section of its upcoming report would be summarized by scientists and that would be the end of the matter. Instead, the science summary will be the battleground at a 4-day political gathering.
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
An economist who insists he’s never described himself as a Nobel laureate did, indeed, do so. In written testimony.
Press releases, event posters, news stories & speakers’ bureaus have all falsely described economist Mark Jaccard as a Nobel winner. He says it isn’t his fault.
Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
Canadian greens say lake-destroying research is all about science – but how do we know for sure?