Skip to content

The Enormous CEO Salaries Behind Earth Hour

March 17, 2018

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Earth Hour was born with a silver spoon in its mouth. Brought into this world by wealthy corporations, one of the reasons it has become “the largest environmental event in history” in less than five years is because of its influential corporate backers.

These include the World Wildlife Fund, Fairfax Media Ltd., Coca-Cola, Ikea, banks, and insurance companies (see here and here).

More evidence that Earth Hour is the product of a multinational corporate machine rather than small-scale, earnest activists may be found by examining how much the World Wildlife Fund pays its CEOs.

Blogger Richard Telofski pointed out last week that Carter Roberts, the CEO of the US branch of the World Wildlife Fund, was paid a total of $455,147 in 2009 – his base salary being $425,000.

By comparison, the President of the United States has a base salary of $400,000 and the US Vice President is…

View original post 446 more words


A conversation with Patrick Moore

March 14, 2018

Watts Up With That?

Originally published for the French “Association des climato-réalistes”, republished here by request of the author

clip_image001Patrick Moore is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, which he helped to found, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, including Greenpeace itself on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for many applications.

Mr. Moore had a conversation with Grégoire Canlorbe, an independent journalist, during his stay in Paris in December 2017 for the climate-realist conference day. The interview was conducted on behalf of the French “Association des climato-réalistes,” the only climate-realist organization in France.

Grégoire Canlorbe: The beliefs and values of…

View original post 9,005 more words

Cook’s 97% Scam Debunked

February 10, 2018


By Paul Homewood


Yesterday, we saw how easily debunked the original “97% of scientists agree” turned out to be.

There therefore had to be a renewed attempt by the warmist establishment to make the claim stick, so step forward John Cook with a much more sophisticated scam.

Jose Duarte, expert in Social Psychology, Scientific Validity, and Research Methods, has actually called the Cook paper “multiply fraudulent”, and, as far as I know, Cook has taken no action to challenge the claim. This, as much as anything else, shows just what a con trick the whole business was. How many scientists, after all, would accept being called fraudulent without taking action?

This was the Abstract:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We…

View original post 585 more words

Were Aerosol Spray Cans Really a Threat?

January 19, 2018

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

SPOTLIGHT: There’s a long history of scientists spreading premature alarm in the media.

BIG PICTURE: Bernie Lewin’s exhaustively researched book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal, describes how the US campaign against spray can CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) began.

In September 1974, a Harvard atmospheric scientist told a New York Times journalist that hairspray and other aerosol products were damaging the Earth’s ozone layer. The front page news story explained that ozone protects the planet “from lethal ultraviolet radiation.”

Readers were only advised in paragraphs 34 and 35 that no one had yet taken “a hard look at the Harvard calculations” since the research was still in the process of being submitted to a scientific journal.

By the time it was officially published four months later, its robustness was beside the point. An anti-CFC movement was already in full swing. Television newscaster Walter Cronkite and others had hyped the findings and a frenzy…

View original post 247 more words

Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Part I – Introduction

January 17, 2018

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Introduction and context for a new Climate Etc. series on sea level rise.

View original post 1,629 more words

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate

January 1, 2018

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Mike Jonas

And what might they be?” – Dr. Leif Svalgaard

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.

In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. This should also answer Leif Svalgaard’s…

View original post 4,744 more words

Nigel Calder reports on “Yet another trick of cosmic rays”

January 1, 2018

Watts Up With That?

Sulphuric Acid

Reblogged from Calder’s Updates

In the climax to the Danes’ experiments, cloud seeds flout the theories

Near to the end of the story that starts with stars exploding in the Galaxy and ends with extra clouds gathering, a small but important paragraph was missing till now. From experiments in Copenhagen reported in 2006 and reconfirmed in 2011 in Aarhus and Geneva (CERN, CLOUD), cosmic rays coming from old supernovas can indeed make molecular clusters a few millionths of a millimetre wide, floating in the air. But can these aerosols really grow nearly a million times in mass to be large enough to become “cloud condensation nuclei” on which water droplets can form – as required by Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic theory of climate change?

Opponents pointed out that theoretical models said No, the growth of additional aerosols would be blocked by a resulting shortage of condensable gases like sulphuric acid in…

View original post 1,297 more words