The standard definition of a hoax is a deliberate deception that is intended to fool a lot of people.
A lot of teachers want to question climate change alarmism and they need good material to help them do it.
The predicted deluge of journal articles touting 1.5 degrees of global warming as the new UN target has begun.
That a lot of people need and would happily buy larger, stronger and more powerful vehicles is simply not allowed under the Cafe scheme.
Don't confuse speculative conclusions drawn about climate science with the science itself.
A major new study says that the cost to meet the UN Paris Agreement's target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C is a whopping three times the cost to limit it to 2 degrees. That is a huge cost for a very small difference.
The question is what difference does this tiny difference make as far as future global impacts go?
Watching climate change alarmists fretting about widespread skepticism of their dogma can be amusing if you look at it right.
EPA is what is called an "independent agency, Pruitt can, and may well, go ahead with the Red Team exercise.
Do the fundamental assumptions about CO2 in the climate models hold up?
Two years ago the big scientific news was that increasing CO2 levels were increasing plant productivity around the world. CO2 is the global food supply so this is good news indeed.
Climate change research needs to be refocused and the climate models reconfigured, in order to correctly match observations. That is how science is supposed to work.
he standard argument takes the following form: "We can get the model to do X, using human causes, but not without them, so human causes must be the cause of X."
Popular Science magazine has a new "news" video and transcript out that truly qualifies as what is now called climate fiction or cli-fi for short.
There are a lot of wacky schemes around for forcing people to stop using carbon-based energy, even though fire is still the basis for human civilization.