What does consensus mean in science?       Global warming, fanatics & freedom       Future generations: climate victims or high-tech geniuses?       Let's lighten up       4 reasons to think twice                       About this website      Blog      Contact the creator of this website     HOME - back to the front page



Quotes of the Week (click text for source)

The Delinquent Teenager is...one of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in recent years.

Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist  (week 43) 

Activist documentarians, by and large, shoot films that are calculated to enforce a point of view. Journalists, if they’re doing their job right, are skeptics who are always supposed to question the behavior, motives and validity of their subjects, including that of well-meaning documentarians who might overreach in the service of what they believe to be a good cause.

Michael Cieply  (weeks 37-42) [backup link]

Conflating peer review with scientific soundness impoverishes our appreciation of the scientific process. Peer review should be one criterion that people use in assessing the strength of any given piece of research – nothing more, nothing less.

Michael Levi  (weeks 30-36) [backup link]

One should get the science right but it is not journalism if you reflect only one side of an argument, no matter how strong, or how much of a consensus there may be. It might be unpopular to say, and may be alien to some scientists, but journalism in a democracy in a free society is more precious than science.

David Whitehouse  (weeks 27-29) 

The head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence. The head of the IRS cannot be a tax cheat. The most visible leader of the world’s green movement cannot live a life of conspicuous consumption, spewing far more carbon into the atmosphere than almost all of those he castigates for their wasteful ways. Mr. Top Green can’t also be a carbon pig.

Walter Russell Mead  (week 26) 

There [were] only 13 years from 1975 to the formation of the IPCC in 1988 when both CO2 emissions and global temperature both increased at more or less compatible rates. When 95 years demonstrate no correlation and only 13 years demonstrate correlation no honest scientist would take this as a sign that there is a scientifically viable relationship worthy of the draconian measures of the Kyoto Accord.

Norm Kalmanovitch  (week 25) 

...the matter of how many climate scientists can dance in agreement on the head of a pin is irrelevant to any argument about climate science. Since Galileo, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum has been well established...

Aynsley Kellow  (week 24) 

It is no more meaningful to try humanity for crimes against nature than it is to try nature for crimes against humanity – disease, flood, famine and so on.

Ben Pile  (week 23) [backup link]

...the scientists who described the alleged impact in a hallowed U.S. scientific journal refuse to consider the critics’ evidence — insisting they are correct, even though no one can replicate their work: the hallmark of credibility in the scientific world.

Rex Dalton  (weeks 21 & 22) [backup link]

For two decades greens have arrogated to themselves the authority of science and wrapped themselves in the arrogant certainty of self-righteous contempt for those who oppose them. They have equated skepticism about their incoherent and contradictory policy proposals with hatred of science...

Walter Russell Mead  (week 20) 

If the people do not want a particular thing done, even if the intelligentsia consider it desirable or even imperative, that is not a difficulty. That is democracy.

Thomas Sowell  (week 19)  page 163

Watching [Canada's Liberal Party] address the issue of climate change in this [national] election is like watching children running through the house with scissors. They’re careless, they’re reckless and they don’t understand it’s all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.

Lorrie Goldstein  (weeks 17 & 18)  [backup link]

Life on Earth constantly evolved and conformed to changing weather patterns. Deserts have come and gone, forests have disappeared then returned. Seas have risen and fallen. To imagine that humans can control weather - or fix it to a setting prescribed by man - is possibly the ultimate ego-trip.

John Izzard  (week 16) 

[V]arious authors take the established official [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process of inquiry and assessment as given, trustworthy and professionally watertight...In their analysis, and in the conclusions they draw for policy, there is no trace, hint, vestige or glimmer of awareness that that process could be seriously flawed, in ways that put many of its results in question.

David Henderson  (weeks 14 & 15) page 18

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, is bolstering its long-standing campaign to block the construction of power plants across the country, assembling a team of 100 full-time employees to focus on the issue in 45 states.

Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post  (week 13) backup link

[O]ne need not be a skeptic of global warming to be a skeptic of [the Environmental Protection Agency's] regulatory agenda. Case in point is EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson who warned about how complex and costly greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act would be. Of course, that was in 2009 and 2010 when the administration was trying to pass through Congress cap and trade legislation. It is only now that cap and trade is dead that the Administrator has changed her tune and emphasizes how reasonable and workable these rules will be.

Ed Whitfield  (week 12) backup link

It seems to me that the time has come that one of our top scientific organisations should scrutinise, under the microscope, the work of the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in a critical and realistical way...

Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of Germany  (week 11)

The propensity to blame skeptics and fossil fuel companies for the serial political failures of the environmental movement should be understood as a tribal defense of the collective green ego, not the logical conclusion of a dispassionate analysis.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger  (week 10)

Taxpayers will soon be spending several hundred thousand dollars on rooftop solar at Parliament House in Canberra [Australia] to save just $9500 a year in electricity costs.

Siobhain Ryan  (week 9)

No self-respecting journalist in a democratic country would allow his or her stories to be submitted to 'review by governments,' nor would readers in a free society willingly buy a newspaper whose stories were subject to 'review by governments' — that's something we'd expect in a dictatorship. Yet, this is precisely what climate scientists agree to when they contribute to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].

Paul MacRae, author of False Alarm: Global Warming - Facts Versus Fears  (week 8)

Most of the people who run cleantech companies are sales people, not engineers. Something seems to have gone quite wrong with cleantech.

Peter Thiel  (week 6)

Many films are made about scientific controversies, featuring strong personalities, outlining their thesis, allowing critics to give their perspective. Such a film could be made in a matter of days, with a fraction of the carbon budget…But Murray, the film-maker, prefers cheap shots and expense accounts that take him across the globe. Instead of giving us Monckton’s own account of his argument, he has created a snide character assassination, taking advantage of unguarded moments, and moments from the fringes of Australian and US politics. Murray...does it for a transparent purpose: to maintain the perception of the debate as one divided into scientists on the one side, and foolish ‘deniers’ on the other.

Pen Pile  (week 5)

Greenpeace had no trouble with confrontation - hell, we'd made it an art form - but we had difficulty cooperating and making compromises. We were great at telling people what they should stop doing, but almost useless at helping people figure out what they should be doing instead.

Patrick Moore, author of Confessions of a Greepeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist  (weeks 3 &4)

Who said this global warming business was politically driven? All they're demanding is control of reproduction and the economy.

Haunting the Library blog  (weeks 1 & 2, 2011)

An issue of concern is how and why Michael Mann ended up as a lead author for the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 report], when he had just received his Ph.D. in 1998. In the selection of lead authors, it is critical that publications by a lead author play a minor role in the particular chapter that the author is leading. Otherwise, the assessment will be biased by the lead author's own strong opinions related to his/her own papers.

Anonymous comment to the InterAcademy Council - regarding its 2010 investigation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (weeks 51 & 52)

...in many countries politicians have found that Energy Policy is an irresistible sand-pit in which to play. Talking about Energy and CO2 reduction allows them to project all sorts of appealing political characteristics; clean, caring, modern, technically-savvy, far-sighted, broad-minded; and all this could be achieved without any real consequences, no matter how bonkers the policy. So far, politicians have had the luxury of sounding good by setting targets which are so far out in time that whether they are sensible or achievable or not, nobody can possibly know.

Rupert Soames  (week 50)

...what is passed off as climate science is a fig leaf. It hides our politicians' shame: an embarrassment of bad faith, bad politics, and bad science.

Ben Pile  (week 49)

These [Copenhagen climate summit attendees] actually seemed to believe that experts and politicians have supernatural powers to predict the future and control the climate. They believed that experts know how fast temperatures will rise by when, and what the consequences will be, and that we know what to do about it…Copenhagen was not a political breakdown. It was an intellectual breakdown…

Margaret Wente  (week 48)

What exactly would cutting emissions by 40 per cent entail? The latest figures from Environment Canada show the government could send the country back to using the horse and buggy and still not satisfy the greenhouse gas reduction targets in the climate change bill axed by the Senate. In fact, eliminating all the cars, trucks, bulldozers, railways and airlines in the country wouldn't get even halfway to meeting the requirements in the bill...

Greg Weston  (week 47)

The 10:10 team didn't just target active [climate skeptics], they attacked people who just shrugged; who had other things to do; who weren't 100% on the crusade…[they] assumed that in cinemas most people would get the same base 'thrill' as they did…10:10 were reaching out to the mass population and saying in nice sickly sweet tones: "agree with us or we'll trick you, kill you, and kill your kids too". They thought it was funny.

Joanne Nova  (week 46)

In 1984, acid rain was the environmental scare of the day. As the science correspondent of The Economist, I wrote: 'Forests are beginning to die at a catastrophic rate...' Experts told me all Germany’s conifers would be gone by 1990 and the Federal Ministry of the Interior predicted all forests would be gone by 2002. Bunk. Acid rain (though a real phenomenon) did not kill forests. It did not even damage them. Scientists eventually admitted that forests thrived in Germany, Scandinavia and North America during the 1980s and 1990s, despite acid rain. I was a gullible idiot not to question the conventional wisdom I was being fed by those with vested interests in alarm.

Matt Ridley  (week 45)

...California has already set an example on the world stage, and has the toughest pollution restrictions in the USA. But, the greens here don’t know when to stop. For them, environmental legislation is like an addiction. They can’t seem to get enough...

Anthony Watts  (week 44)

It is extremely rare for 95 US senators to be right about anything; it is not, unfortunately, rare for environmentalists to come up with grotesquely bad policy ideas. Worse, it is routine for the media to give those grotesquely dumb ideas uncritical support. For twenty years, the mainstream media has...largely repeated green propaganda as straight news.

Walter Russell Mead  (week 43)

Environmentalism is now big business and big politics.

Jennifer Marohasy  (week 42)

In 1972, Sir John Maddox, editor of the British journal Nature, noted that though it had once been usual to see maniacs wearing sandwich boards that proclaimed the imminent end of the Earth, they had been replaced by a growing number of frenzied activists and politicized scientists making precisely the same claim. In the years since then, liberalism has seen recurring waves of such end-of-days hysteria…In each case, liberals have argued that the threat of catastrophe can be averted only through drastic actions in which the ordinary political mechanisms of democracy are suspended and power is turned over to a body of experts…

Fred Siegel  (week 41)

It is one of the distinguishing features of the scientific debate over climate change that those who contest the prevailing orthodoxy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often called 'sceptics', and this is meant to be a perjorative term. Scepticism, however, has long been central to the scientific endeavour.

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen & Aynsley Kellow  (week 40)

What I find almost inexplicable...is how the scientific doomsayers get away over and over again with making predictions that are fabulously, ridiculously - and demonstrably - incorrect, without the slightest repercussions upon their credibility or careers. Predictions of impending doom are published based on absurd methodologies and threadbare evidence of a kind that in the normal course of scientific affairs would be sufficient to ruin careers ten times over, and the authors walk away from them without a scratch.

Stephen Budiansky  (week 39)

...green campaigners demand that we should have a conscience about what we’re doing to the planet – but they don’t seem to have much in the way of a conscience when it comes to scaring adults or manipulating children.

Rob Lyons  (week 38)

That just isn't science. It's literature. If somebody can't reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?

Graham Stringer, Member of Parliament (Great Britain)  (week 37)

To show people Science, you have to tell them the truth, about what you know and how you know it. To get people to take political action, though, you have to lie. You can call it "honing the message" and "communicating effectively" and "not letting the other side define the story." Whatever. If you tell me your energy policy will create secure and prosperous jobs, you're lying. Not about the policy, but about your ability to predict the future. If you say science has proven that you're right, you're lying. Not about the issue at hand, but about the nature of science.

David Berreby  (week 36)

When it comes to climate change, the environmental movement has gotten itself on the wrong side of doubt. It has become the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats...It knows what is good for us, and its knowledge is backed up by the awesome power and majesty of the peer-review process. The political, cultural, business and scientific establishments stand firmly behind global warming today...They tell us it’s a sin to question the consensus, the sign of bad moral character to doubt.

Walter Russell Mead  (week 35)

I was invited to be a contributing coauthor on the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 1995] chapter on regional climate. Again, I prepared detailed input for the Report, and again all of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system. As a result of this second refusal to include peer reviewed scientific information, I called the IPCC and resigned from any further involvement in this clearly biased assessment process.

Roger Pielke Sr.  (week 34)

This extraordinary set of methodological steps was entirely unknown to statistics or to any other branch of science - it appeared to have been contrived entirely for the purposes of saving the Hockey Stick [temperature graph]...That the statistical foundations on which they had built this paleoclimate castle were a swamp of ad hoc and arbitrary methodological steps was, to the Team, apparently an irrelevance. For political and public consumption, the Hockey Stick still lived, ready to guide political and economic decision-making for years to come.

Andrew Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion, p. 342.  (weeks 30-33) If ordering The Hockey Stick Illusion from Canada, this source is quick & dependable

...since many scientists are alarmed at the dire [global warming] scenarios, my colleagues are beginning to talk about whether it is O.K. to exaggerate and push forecasts that are not currently provable if the only way to get societies to act is to frighten people. I think it is not O.K. It is a short-term view, and even if it works, it will inevitably debase science and scientists...Thirty years from now, we will probably not be interested in today’s specific computer forecasts, but we may have lost our faith in science, a deeper and, to me, a more important problem.

Daniel Botkin, American biologist  (week 29)

The panellists criticize the Climategate scientists for being defensive and unhelpful, for withholding data, for providing misleading information, for hiding behind claims of peer review science, for having been "blinded ... to the possibility of merit" in the claims of their critics, for needlessly exacerbating antagonism among the parties through their behaviour, and even for breaking the law. The conduct of the Climategate scientists, the panellists decided, not only brought them and their university into disrepute, but it also harmed the cause of science.

Lawrence Solomon  (week 28), Muir Russell report (160-page PDF here)

My role in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] Fourth Assessment of 2007 was limited to that of a Contributing Author. This means I submitted recommendations that were dealt with by the lead authors who tended to disagree with my published findings. Thus, their views carried the day in the report. In this process, the final report really boils down to the opinions of those selected as Lead Authors...

John Christy (page 2 of 17-page PDF)  (weeks 26 & 27)

...this issue is not ambiguous. The studies are not equivocal. There is no signal of rising temperatures in the disaster record. Period. Maybe there will be in the future, but there wasn't in 2006, when the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] deadline for publication occurred and there is not now...Why the IPCC has chosen to take a stand on this issue - to defend the indefensible - is beyond me. If you truly believe that science is self-correcting and truth wins in the end, then the IPCC has staked out a position that it cannot win on in the long term, no matter how much spin is applied in the short term.

Roger Peilke Jr.  (week 25)

...my cross examination has...revealed that on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment reports] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements. The bulk of this paper proceeds by cataloguing, and illustrating with concrete climate science examples, the various rhetorical techniques employed by the IPCC and other climate change scientist/advocates in an attempt to bolster their position, and to minimize or ignore conflicting scientific evidence.

Jason Scott Johnston (page 9 of 82-page PDF)  (weeks 23 & 24)

...many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]'s prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC’s powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as “voodoo science.” Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as “anti-Enlightenment” and engaging in “witch hunts.”

Stefan Theil  (week 22)

The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is the United Nations body that in 1995 allowed a single activist scientist, Ben Santer, to rewrite parts of the key Chapter 8...of its Second Assessment Report in alarmist terms, changing a previous wording that had been agreed among the other scientific authors. The rewriting was undertaken in order to make the chapter agree with a politically contrived statement in the influential Summary for Policymakers, to whit 'the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on on global climate.' This statement being the opposite of the conclusion drawn in the original Chapter 8 text, it was obvious from that point onward that IPCC pronouncements needed to be subjected to independent critical analysis.

Robert M. Carter, Australian geologist, Climate: the Counter Consenus, pages 25-26  (week 21)

Mr Gore presented a nifty animation, a band of little mosquitoes fluttering their way up the slopes of a snow-capped mountain, and he repeated the old line: Nairobi used to be ‘above the mosquito line, the limit at which mosquitoes can survive, but now…’ Those little mosquitoes kept climbing. The truth?... From the start [in 1899, Nairobi] was plagued with malaria, so much so that a few years later doctors tried to have the whole town moved to a healthier place…These details are not science. They require no study. They are history. But for activists, they are an inconvenient truth…As scientists, we have repeatedly challenged them in the scientific press, at meetings and in news articles, and we have been ignored.

Paul Reiter  (weeks 19 & 20)

...when believers wonder why support is declining for global warming policies, this is one of the reasons. Your leaders have cried wolf once too often. Part of this whole email scandal revolves around a Team of scientists finding more and more clever ways to keep crying wolf, changing the temperature numbers to make earlier temperatures look lower and recent temperatures look higher, so the change would look more dramatic. Wolf! They acted in a way that harmed public policy, you the public and worst of all, the trust we place in science.

Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller, Climategate: the CRUtape Letters, p.184  (week 18)

If the [Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change]'s only job was to collect data, there might not be a problem. But [it] also offers an interpretation of the data...If it is to be taken seriously as an adjudicative body, it must be set up as one. That is, it must act as an impartial judge, not as the lead prosecutor in the case of The People v. Carbon Dioxide. The fact that the [IPCC] has set itself up as the prosecutor of one side in an uncertain debate means it should not be adjudicating this issue, any more than a prosecuting attorney could simultaneously sit on the bench.

Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick, Taken By Storm, page 331  (week 17)

The skeptics believe that the models are deeply flawed, and that the effect [of a warming world] is inconsequential compared to other problems of humanity, like poverty and sanitary drinking water. That the earth is warming is not in significant dispute. That a crisis exists, and should take priority, is in dispute. In the drive to a mass movement, an important and vocal constituency was left out. That oversight has had big consequences...Scientifically literate climate skeptics cannot be ordered to believe.

Tom Jones, letter-to-the-editor (sorry, this link now appears to be dead)  (week 16)

In the aftermath of Climategate a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public. The public seems to believe that climatology is beset with cliquish gatekeeping, wagon-circling, biased peer-review, faulty data and statistical incompetence. In response to these perceptions, some scientists are casting around, in op-eds and weblogs, for ideas on how to hit back at their critics. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point.

Ross McKitrick (page 16 of 17-page PDF)  (weeks 14 & 15)

The real value of the Harrabin/Jones [BBC] interview is the fact that straight questions received straight answers, for the first time in recent memory. Professor Jones, as co-inventor of the modern climate change hypothesis, principal archivist of global temperature records...and former CRU director, is the most authoritative source imaginable. He received written notice of the questions from a long-sympathetic interviewer, and his responses were pre-vetted by his lawyers and by the University of East Anglia media office...The controversy continues. But with the imprimatur of Phil Jones to the key fact that recent warming is not unusual, the debate will never be the same. The two sides are edging closer to a common set of facts; and it surely cannot be too much longer before common conclusions are drawn from those facts.

Barry Brill  (weeks 12 & 13), Phil Jones BBC interview here

If science is being relegated to a pagan festival it [is] because scientists are behaving tribally, worshiping a hypothesis, and sacrificing standards on the altar called “good intentions”...If we are supposed to believe the word of “trusted wizards” without seeing them do their experiments in the full light of day, what is the difference between modern climate science and magic?

Joanne Nova  (weeks 10 & 11)

Scientists of integrity reveal...all of their data and all their methods. They don't need Freedom of Information Act requests to get this out of them.

Nigel Lawson  (week 9)

This phase of the climate change movement was immature, unrealistic and naive. It was poorly organized and foolishly led. It adopted an unrealistic and unreachable political goal, and sought to stampede world opinion through misleading and exaggerated statements.

Walter Russell Mead  (week 8)

Gold-standard scientific reporting from the IPCC , and indeed the value of scientific inquiry itself, is now under sustained assault from a motley assortment of cranks, ideologues and special interest voices intent on stopping the transition to a clean energy economy...The most zealous deniers, a subculture of outlandish paranoid conspiracy theorists, claim to speak for independent thinking when in truth they're the shock troops for a choking and insidious form of censorship, blotting out the truth with the ideology and interests of the world's most powerful Big Carbon corporates.

Joss Garman, Greenpeace climate campaigner  (week 7)

I think we have to find a way where people who don't have vested interests in the result assess the science again. And I don't see how that can happen under the auspices of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. They seem to be corrupt from top to bottom. The whole process seems to be developed in order to refute sceptics, rather than get to the truth...I think they've got to tear it down and start again.

Andrew Montford  (week 6)

Every time I have questioned our politicians about global warming they have fallen back on the mantra that "2,500 scientists can't be wrong", referring to the vast numbers supposedly behind the IPCC consensus. But it is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.

Andrew Neil  (week 5)

When 20 per cent of earth scientists are anthropogenic [global warming] contrarians and a majority of oil geologists agree with them, it is easy to find skeptics. They do not, however, deserve to be called deniers. Some of them are Nobel Prize winners and they deserve to be heard.

Calgary Herald editorial (previously available, but now behind a paywall)  (week 4)

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report...admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the [World Wildlife Fund] report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said.

Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings  (week 3)

The Y2K catastrophe was promoted with increasing shrillness toward century’s end: headlines proclaimed a “computer time bomb” or “a date with disaster.” Vanity Fair’s January 1999 article “The Y2K Nightmare” caught the sensationalist tone, claiming that “folly, greed and denial” had “muffled two decades of warnings from technology experts.”

Denis Dutton  (week 2)

The grubby, petty dishonesty disclosed by the [Climategate] emails, the apparent willingness to let the world's policies be determined by a political, rather than scientific, agenda, the ambition to be not just the top, but the only view on display - I've seen these things all my adult life in offices in different countries, in marketers, product managers, CEOs and CFOs, and all manner of consultants...It's silly of me, I suppose, to ever have thought science was different, that scientists weren't as human as the rest of us.

Thomas Fuller  (week 1, 2010)

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known...He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling...All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles...more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand... over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.

Lawrence Solomon  (week 52)

...the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory.

Declan McCullagh  (week 51)

The role of environmental groups at these events extends far beyond a few demonstrations. They work very closely with the 130 developing countries that are members of the so-called Group of 77, advising them on their negotiating positions and even providing personal assistants to help with paperwork and errands.

Ben Webster  (week 50) (page 2 backup link here)

...all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Wall Street Journal editorial  (week 49)

If Pielke was right, and recent work is moving more towards his long-held position, then mitigation and adaptation to global warming could have begun a decade ago, could have had a material impact, could have been designed to have positive side effects on the people living in the areas affected, and all for a tiny fraction of the money being called for by the Big Gun approach to CO2 that demands that we make drastic changes to our economies, tax structures and even legal systems.

Thomas Fuller  (week 48)

As [Australian Prime Minister Rudd] can confirm by contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case never endorsed the IPCC's report. Rather...the great majority...were merely reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst of all, far from endorsing the IPCC's conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the IPCC sections that they read...

Lawrence Solomon  (week 47)

I do very much worry for the soul of science...And I can’t see any feedbacks into the system right now that would encourage communities of scientists to be more circumspect in their claims about what the future will look like.

Dan Sarewitz (this Nov. 2009 article was previously available; now it's behind a paywall)  (week 46)

As with the WHO’s claim that 150,000 people are killed by the effects of climate change, each and every single one of these deaths would have been avoided had there been the level of development in those regions as there is in the West. It cannot be argued, therefore, that climate change is responsible for those deaths. Poverty was responsible for them.

Ben Pile and Stewart Blackman  (week 45)

Some proponents in this debate seem to me to be saying that if there is any risk at all of human caused global warming, any at all...then any price at all is worth paying.

James Allen  (week 44)

In other areas of science, theories change when contradicted by data, and opposing scientists are not denigrated as “deniers” or demonized by smear websites run by PR agencies. Climate “science” has become corrupt and politicized.

David Evans  (week 43)

...you start with the uncertainties of long-range weather forecasting, add to these the uncertainties of long-range economic forecasting, plus the uncertainties of long-range population forecasting, feed them all into a powerful computer and supposedly arrive at a sound basis for serious...long term policy decisions.

Nigel Lawson  (week 42)

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade...I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias...Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year.

Ross McKitrick  (week 41)

The outlook for the climate over the 21st Century is highly uncertain. There is a word in the English language to express high uncertainty. That word is “ignorance”. And ignorance is not a basis for responsible government action.

Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong  (week 40)

When it comes to climate change, the only acceptable debate, it seems, is how we can encourage ordinary people to do less, consume less and fly less...This reveals something profound about environmentalism: it is not really a campaign to find solutions to the practical problem of climate change, but rather has become a semi-religious, almost medieval demonisation of human behaviour as dirty and destructive.

Brendan O'Neill  (week 39)

Global Warming is the mania of our times. While there is good scientific evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing from the burning of fossil fuels...it is purely speculation that this will cause a climate catastrophe.

Walter Starck  (week 38)

Decisions with huge financial implications are normally subject to intense scrutiny and an examination of vested interests. Do our politicians really want to...cast economically marginal people into energy poverty on the basis of reports from an unaudited organization with obvious self interests? Well yes, apparently. And the cheerleading media think it’s pretty cool too.

David Evans  (week 37)

Science is broken, and you don’t need to be a scientist to see that. Other industries call their critics “whistleblowers,” but in climate science they’re known as “deniers,” or variously: conspiracy theorists, dinosaurs, oil shills, paid hacks, morons, traitors, inactivists and delayers. This is not science. Bullies need to be exposed.

Joanne Nova  (week 36)

I'm not critical of cap-and-trade. But it has to be used in a targeted and disciplined way, and what has happened is it’s gotten out of control.

Tim Wirth, former US climate-change negotiator  (week 35)

...kids will tell Disney how to invest $1 million in environmental programs.

Disney TV  (week 34)

Examples of expert climate forecasts that turned out to be completely wrong are easy to find, such as...ecologist Kenneth Watt’s prediction in a speech...on Earth Day, April 22, 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong (page 6 of 27-page PDF)  (week 33)

The idea that temperature records might be a state secret seems strange enough, but when the policies of governments across the world are based on that data it becomes odder still that no outsider should be allowed to see it.

Christopher Booker  (week 32)

There is something amiss in climate research.

Marcel Crok (page 3 of 12-page PDF)  (week 31)

Theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in the climate models.

Gerald Dickens, American oceanographer  (week 30)

If the published work on other environmental problems is fraught with as much hyperbole, misinformation, and lack of expertise as I have encountered in the study of soil erosion, then we all have every right to be at least somewhat skeptical.

Stanley W. Trimble, American geography professor (page 20)  (week 29)

What I do think I have is better judgment, maybe because I have lived a bit longer, and maybe because I’ve done other things... if they find any real evidence that global warming is doing harm, I would be impressed. That’s the crucial point: I don’t see the evidence...

Freeman Dyson, American physicist  (week 28)

Anyone who watches BBC News will be left in no doubt that virtually every flood, earthquake, drought or unusual natural occurrence around the world is a direct consequence of global warming...It is very difficult to have a grown-up discussion when a moral crusade, such as the one around climate change, is presented to the public as factual news.

Frank Furedi  (week 27)

Greens often note that the changing global climate will have the greatest impact on the world's poor; they neglect to mention that the poor also have the most to gain from development fueled by cheap fossil fuels like coal. For the poor, the climate is already dangerous... It is their poverty, not rising carbon-dioxide levels, that make them more vulnerable than the rest of us.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger  (week 26)

Both writers of this essay began to be engaged with the issue of climate change in the mid-1980s when the task was to gain any audience at all for the discussion...Today, we find that we are like coachmen on a runaway stage-coach, trying to rein back bolting horses, crying "Whoa! Whoa!" before an accident happens.

Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner (page 12 of a 47-page PDF)  (week 25)

The amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is pretty trivial: As of 2009, there are only 38 or 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules. Yes, we might double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by late in this century…but 2 times a very small number is still a very small number.

Roy Spencer, American meteorologist  (week 24)

How has it come about that public opinion in Western nations is convinced that dangerous human-caused warming is occurring? The answer is that the public have been conditioned by the relentless repetition of alarmist climate messages through the media.

Robert M. Carter, Australian geologist (middle of page 7 of 18-page PDF)   (week 23)

Earth's climate is always changing. It varies from year to year, from decade to decade, and from century to century...The forces affecting Earth's climate are colossal, long-acting, and only poorly understood by science.

Allen Simons & Doug L. Hoffman (page 13, paragraph 2)  (week 22)

Three-fourths of the world's people live in abject poverty, while some sit and fret about the possible end of the world in 100 years. For too many of those others, the world ends tomorrow... Al Gore talks about global warming as our generational mission...why would anyone want to be remembered for having spent $180 billion to do virtually no good a hundred years from now, when less than half that sum could fix virtually all major problems today?

Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center   (week 21)

Science is not a democracy. Controversies are settled by facts, not by votes.

William DiPuccio  (week 20)

To argue that human additions to atmospheric CO2...changes climate requires an abandonment of all we know about history, archaeology, geology, solar physics, chemistry and astronomy.

Ian Plimer, Australian geologist  (week 19)

I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there are a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but...global warming is not one of them.

Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist  (week 18, 2009)