You are here
Whether it's climate science or medical science, a fake crisis leads to bad decisions that harm real people.
Climate science and medical science have things in common. Including suspect behaviour on the part of the United Nations.
When someone's won a Nobel Prize, who cares how long they served in Cabinet?
A headline on a news story falsely claims that '9 countries outspend the US on science.' In fact, America spends more than all nine combined.
I’m aware of two occasions in which the Science Guy has misled the public. But the New York Times says he's saving us from misinformation.
Many messages emanating from the world of science are entirely bogus.
Australia's chief scientist falls for a fake news story, compares President Trump to Joseph Stalin.
The US government says its a violation of scientific integrity for political officials to alter scientific findings. But political revision is central to how IPCC reports get produced.
How does encouraging scientists to criticize government policy enhance scientific integrity?
After promising the most transparent government in history, President Obama sharply curtailed press access, aggressively prosecuted leaks, and spied on journalists.
An organization representing medical researchers believes unpublished work is too shaky to be included in grant applications, yet the world's most important climate body has long relied on such research.
In the dying days of 2016, three serious wind turbine malfunctions occurred in a small corner of Europe.
We humans consistently miss the big picture. The world is improving dramatically, but our brains are addicted to worry and fear.
The fairy tale about Nobel laureate climate experts demonstrates that just because you hear it on the BBC or read it in The New York Times doesn't mean it's true.
Preparing a 20th anniversary edition of my first book helped me realize that environmentalism and feminism both began as reasonable social movements. But then they turned intolerant and extremist.
UK Labour Party veteran says climate policies that hurt the poor must be abandoned.
Carbon taxes at the gas pump are just the beginning. Oxford University researchers think we should pay carbon taxes on food.
Peer review is not 'the foundation of the scientific process' as a NASA scientist claims. And climate scientists have no business telling the public where scientific arguments can and cannot be conducted.
A report I wrote for the Global Warming Policy Foundation was released today. It explains that peer-reviewed research is as likely to be wrong as right. Basing public policy on findings that haven't yet been reproduced is nuts.
A tax that will take an extra $1,250 from the pockets of struggling Canadian families is applauded by corporations.
Only 40% of Obama's electric cars are on the road. None meet the 150-mile-per gallon standard he promised.
Academics insist that peer-reviewed research is sound and that everything else is inferior. But scholarly journals are actually littered with muck.
I'm on screen for a few seconds in a documentary film that will be shown in movie theatres across the US on May 2nd.
No matter what voters say in the upcoming US election, a coalition of Attorneys General intends to push for 'even more aggressive' climate action.
No one wants to confront scientific fraud. Not managers, not journals, and not lab colleagues. So the system isn't designed to prevent it.
Since the early 1980s, grave concerns have been raised about the process by which scientific evidence gets produced.
The former head of the world's most important climate body has been charged with a long list of sex offences.
The WWF may have a friendly panda for a logo, but amongst the poorest of the poor it's known for something else: violent thugs called ecoguards.
For eight years, this environmental leader has called for the imprisonment of those who disagree. Why is he still welcome in polite society?
Carbon taxes aren't merely pointless, they're regressive. Politicians earn 'green' cred by making life worse for the poor.
A shining beacon of how to lead by example, I am fortunate to have crossed paths with him.
Nothing we do to protect the environment will ever be good enough. Like the Nazgûl in The Lord of the Rings, green lobbyists are relentless.
Why did Kumi Naidoo leave Greenpeace's top job before a replacement was found? The Guardian prints clichés and asks no hard questions.
Fire is about more than burns. Water is about more than floods. We're so obsessed with carbon dioxide's risks, we've become blind to its benefits.
Why aren't we celebrating last week's Paris climate deal? Where's the joy and the gratitude - the dancing in the streets and the fireworks?
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.
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.
A US Senate committee hears that climate science is so intolerant and close-minded, the integrity and reputation of science itself is threatened.
The Paris climate summit is many things, including a cultural spectacle wrapped in lightweight media fluff.
Activists have predicted environmental catastrophe for decades. In addition to a poor track record, they share similar arguments, language, and metaphors.
The Paris climate summit is a gigantic photo op - where ineffectual political leaders will pretend to be environmental superheroes.
(includes details of my Dec. 2 talk in Paris)
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.
Millions of children perish each year, but world leaders think a problem that's unlikely to become worrisome for decades is the world's most pressing concern.
(photo credit UNICEF: http://tinyurl.com/pekcx2g)
French weatherman Philippe Verdier is a free speech hero, a heretic whose livelihood has been stolen by the intolerant Church of Climate Change.
A polar explorer is falsely described as a climate scientist in a news story; his activist connections aren't reported.
December's climate conference is being held on the grounds of Europe's busiest private jet airport. If we were serious about fighting climate change, wouldn't private jets have been banned long ago?
The man now in charge at the IPCC belongs to a privileged, protected, secretive entity headed by the UN's former top climate official.
Government official urges television weather presenters to use loaded language to help the climate cause. When one writes a critical book instead, he's suspended from his job at a government-owned station.
The new IPCC chairman is an economist who, ironically, began his career with oil giant Exxon.
What lessons does the environment arm of the United Nations intend to learn from the Chief Justice of Malaysia - whose court has been condemned by Amnesty International?
(includes links to other voices on the proper role of courts in the climate debate)