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.
Why doesn’t the World Wildlife Fund argue for its vision based solely on that vision’s merits?
Don’t believe everything you read – especially about the supposed link between global warming and natural disasters.
Are climate change ‘facts’ so hard to come by that a not-yet-finalized draft report is considered evidence?
A majority of the 13 senior scientists responsible for a US government report are also associated with activist groups. (Eight of them have an IPCC connection.)
A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.
It’s no longer easy to locate the splattergate video on YouTube.
Will a load-of-nonsense IPCC press release be corrected?
Why is Al Gore linking greenhouse gas emissions to natural disasters when experts in that field say no such link exists?
When British delegates attempt to censor speakers at a Russian Academy of Science climate change event that’s a clue that science has left the building.
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.
In the world inhabited by this environmental crusader, climate change is “a crisis that’s breaking over our heads at this moment,” ExxonMobil peddles petroleum the way drug dealers peddle heroin, and we “have no choice” but to turn our backs on fossil fuels.
Al Gore said global warming caused Hurricane Katrina and that hurricanes were going to get worse. This gave insurance companies an excuse to increase premiums by tens of billions. How embarrassing that US hurricane damage has since fallen to less than half the historical average.
Perhaps those who lost their properties because they could no longer afford to insure them will forgive & forget.
Economist Richard Tol has written a series of blog posts regarding, among other concerns, the IPCC’s apparent use of non-peer-reviewed literature to neutralize peer-reviewed research findings.
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.
A moderate and pragmatic voice in the climate debate, Roger Pielke Jr. argues in this book, The Honest Broker, that scientists deserve this label when they present a variety of options to the public – rather than advocating a single course of action.