Anyone who still thinks the environmental movement is based on real science or genuine concern for the environment or public health is either a fool or a “useful idiot” for the most extreme elements of the environmental left.
Author: Joe Bast
Leading scientists know that the “prestige” academic journals are biased in favor of flashy and politically correct research findings, even when such findings are frequently contradicted by subsequent research.
The high cost of Obama’s war on coal will soon become apparent, just as it has in Germany and the rest of Europe, and just as the high cost of Obamacare is penetrating the consciousness of the average guy.
USA Today did its readers a grave disservice by running an op-ed full of smears and false statements by two of the fruitier nutcakes of the environmental movement, Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang.
Environmentalists hoped the latest study from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would finally end the increasingly acrimonious debate over the causes and consequences of climate change. It has had the opposite effect.
This essay is based on remarks delivered on September 27 at CPAC-St. Louis. The Heartland Institute addresses a wide range of topics, everything from school reform and health care to[…]
Climate alarmists have no answer to ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ other than appeals to authority (and you trust the United Nations, don’t you?) and personal attacks on the scientists who are brave enough to speak out.
Reading through David Kopel’s book today, I’m struck by how prescient he was a dozen years ago in his forecasts of changing technology, emerging competition, and the deadening influence of antitrust law in this arena of rapid change.
This essay is based on remarks delivered on June 19, 2013 at Heartland’s annual President’s Council Retreat. The Heartland Institute had a breakthrough year in 2012 and by every measure[…]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) apparently has been delivering weekly speeches on global warming (alias “climate change”) to an empty Senate chamber for quite some time. Who knew? His speech on[…]
The editors of “Nature” have to be pro-GMO because so many of the journal’s readers (If not the editorial writers) are real scientists, and science overwhelmingly documents the safety and benefits of GMOs.