[This article is adapted from its original version on Barbwire.com.] Last year I was at lunch with an evangelist. After the meal, he handed our waitress a Gospel tract. I wanted to reinforce his compassion, so I told the young lady that her relationship with God was the most important thing in the world. She […]
As the new school year gets underway, here’s some reflection on what may be the current atmosphere of the academic scientific community. Certain campus professors and theoreticians have cast their lofty claims of climate catastrophe out of the comfort of the credulous classroom and faculty lounge and on to the critical community of the wary
Why the skeptics reject ‘human-induced’ climate change Learn More »
This is simply amazing. After all the hype by media, politicians, entertainers, alarmist climate scientists, and even a Nobel Peace Prize-winning former Vice President, only 28% of Americans think climate scientists understand the causes of climate change “very well.” That’s one finding of a Pew Research Study on which Scott Rasmussen reports in his #Number
On global warming, the American public gets it! Learn More »
The U.S. Global Change Research Program is calling for nominations of review editors for the fourth edition of the National Climate Assessment. Qualified scientists, economists, and other experts who aren’t committed to global warming alarmism (a view pushed by past editions, as illustrated by the screen shot of the USGCRP’s NCA web page above—because everybody knows that
Got Some Expertise on Climate Change? Here’s Your Chance to Bring some Balance Learn More »
Huh? Does it even make sense to ask “Why?” if we don’t know “if”? Do bootleggers and Baptists both love Paris? Well, yes—if “Paris” is the Paris climate accord, the “bootleggers” are industrial giants with a lot to gain from policies needed to implement the accord, and the “Baptists” are the environmentalists who support the accord
Why do Bootleggers and Baptists Love Paris? Learn More »
A tourist asks an Irish old-timer, “How do I get to Dublin?” The old-timer responds, “Well, you can’t get there from here.” That’s what came to my mind when I read Michael Kelly’s brief paper “A Challenge for Renewable Energies,” at the Global Warming Policy Forum. The gist: “In recent years the energy sector has accounted
Can We Get There from Here? Learn More »
Pure symbolism. That’s what “We Are Still In” really is. “We Are Still In” is the petulant response of 9 states, 8 Blue (CA, CT, HI, NY, OR, RI, VA, WA) and 1 Red (NC), out of 50, 202 cities and counties (mostly in Blue states) out of 3,144 (cities, counties, and county equivalents),
You’re “Still In”? Too Bad for You. We’re Out Learn More »
The climate alarmist crowd never tires of insisting that anthropogenic additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide—up by 45 percent, from 280 to about 407 parts per million, since before the Industrial Revolution—are driving historically unprecedented and likely-to-become catastrophic global warming, and that they’re exacerbated by increases in atmospheric methane (CH4) driven by the rising temperature, making
Global Temperature and CO2—Which Drives Which? Learn More »
This isn’t science. This isn’t even rational discourse. This is thuggery—typical of communist movements from the French Revolution through the socialist revolutions of the 1840s and the Russian and Chinese revolutions. Not sure? Read the press release from the “Peoples Climate Movement” for yourself: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, May 8, 2017 Contact: Harrison Beck: [email protected] or (617)
Peoples Climate Movement—Not Science, Just Thuggery Learn More »
Scant evidence of expected benefit means Scott Pruitt is right Washington Times, Monday, April 17, 2017 Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared on “Fox & Friends” April 13 and said, “Paris is something we really need to look at closely, because it’s something we need to exit, in my opinion.” Why? “It’s a bad
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement Learn More »
