science

The real concern is the precedent of Courts making climate policy, so this decision is worth looking at. Turns out the Court’s version of the science is amazingly bad.

Even if we hew to politicized science on Covid and climate, can’t we do real science on food?

On a hot day in June 1988 James Hansen told a congressional committee that he was “99 percent sure” that the global warming signal had arrived.

The President of the United States publicly lays out his 100-day plan for “defeating” the coronavirus, including whether the government will decide whether things are safe enough for people to have 4th of July gatherings of friends and family.

Environmentalists falsely claim weed-prevention chemical threatens 1,800 threatened species

American science education is transitioning and not in a good way.

Thanks to the miracle of online commenting the discussion of science, especially related to policy, is now a major popular pastime.

The issue centers on a benchmark estimate of the impact of increasing CO2 on global temperature

While peer review has its good side, there are several ways that it greatly impedes progress, and the bad greatly outweighs the good.

National Academies of Science should speak out against climate alarmism, not support it. The integrity of science is at stake.

Anecdotal evidence combined with scientific theories based on solar/sunspot counts present a strong case that it might be time for a paradigm shift concerning the factors that influence climate on earth.

There seems to be an inclination among policy-makers that adherence to evidence-based policy-making is a luxury we can only afford when not in a crisis.

More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change, diagnosed with Asperger’s — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.