It’s absurd to say scientists are only now speaking up. Reuters publishes egregious climate propaganda.
There’s no guarantee scientific research is credible or accurate just because it has been peer-reviewed. Why is Facebook promoting this lie?
In the climate world, the line between real and fake is strangely murky.
The media’s climate frenzy was sparked by a scientist who’s research was still unpublished.
Rich countries that try to meet their Paris commitments will spend huge amounts of money replacing cheap, higher-emissions energy sources with expensive, lower-emissions sources. This will harm the poor and do nothing for the climate.
Activists have predicted environmental catastrophe for decades. In addition to a poor track record, they share similar arguments, language, and metaphors.
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.
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.
It isn’t your imagination. You’ve been hearing that the world is “running out of time” for years.
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
Press releases e-mailed to this blog tell a strange tale.
Scientists who step into the political arena deserve to be challenged. This isn’t an attack on science – it’s an exploration of competing political perspectives.
Climate crusaders urge us to Think of the children! But that can be used by anyone to advance any argument under the sun.
Earth Hour: 60 minutes of self delusion brought to you by IKEA.
Andrew Weaver: climate modeler, Green Party deputy leader, Greenpeace promoter.
Liberty. Freedom. These ideas inspire risk-taking and self-sacrifice. But the green movement offers the exact opposite.
Canada’s National Post newspaper is running an excerpt of my book this weekend. It may be the only newspaper on the planet employing three climate skeptic journalists.
Regarding James Hansen’s (tax-payer funded) salary, David Suzuki’s despair, and Ross Gelbspan’s professional activism.
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of what is supposed to be a respectable science body, has – with deliberation and forethought – publicly linked that body to left-wing political analysis and activism.
Those seemingly nice people brimming with such concern for the planet are actually profoundly intolerant.
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?
Activist scientist James Hansen is entitled to his personal political views. But he should not be citing his employer in order to advance them.
NASA’s website parroted the climate bible’s inaccurate prediction regarding the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Rather than independently confirming this prediction by collecting its own evidence, the agency simply accepted the IPCC report as authoritative.
Since the 1970s, some scientists have embraced social & political activism. The public needs to be aware, therefore, that not every pronouncement made by a “scientist” is neutral or disinterested.
Aerospace pioneer Burt Rutan is fully equipped to assess the charts and graphs that supposedly demonstrate global warming. His conclusion? The data is dodgy & the numbers have been manipulated.
Burt Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first privately-funded craft to enter space & return. Having examined the arguments supporting the global warming hypothesis, this exceptional engineer is less than impressed.
He says the Earth’s climate has always changed & always will. He also accuses the IPCC of weighting one group of data 390 times more than another in order to transform falling temperatures into rising ones.
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?
If one were looking for reasons to dismiss global warming skepticism, these 13 pages of text provide ample fodder.