Given the IPCC’s history of repeated and frequent mistakes, it’s perfectly clear that they are a political organization, not a scientific one.
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.
You can be forgiven for not noticing that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its Fifth Assessment Report late last month. The report landed[...]
As part of the media tour for Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, two scientists from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), stopped by the studios of U-T TV in San Diego.
Rush points out that so-called “skeptics” (aka “scientists” adhereing to the scientific method) have a wealth of observed data and research to dispute the “policital science” claim that human activity is having a disastrous effect on the Earth’s climate.
Ten days ago the EPA issued its proposed rule for the implementation of regulations of carbon dioxide on utilities’ coal-fired power plants. There is no reason for costly government-imposed limits on such emissions, as the global warming they were supposed to cause has been absent for 15 years.
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.
The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small.