CO2Science has one of the largest collections of sound science material on the Web.
CFACT science and policy advisor H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute reports that the EPA (and other federal agencies) skew the real cost-benefit numbers in promoting massive regulations. One example: While the Obama Clean Power Plan might have saved 21,000 lives (as the EPA claimed), the rules would also also resulted in from 102,500 to 164,000 early deaths. The HONEST Act hopes to correct these discrepancies.
One of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) longest and most successful air pollution standards is based on a taxpayer-funded study plagued by “data fabrication and falsification,” according to a veteran toxicologist.
Can the global warming campaign keep scaring us if their predictions never come true?
Given the pressures, it is impressive that teachers want to teach the entire climate debate.
West Virginia University professor James E. Smith argues that, without a basic understanding of the scientific process that has been so successful and useful in getting us to this point in our collective histories, we can hardly expect to see a better future if similar men and women are not at the helm. Maybe a little less pandering and a lot more proper decision-making based on scientific facts will make the governance process more attractive to professionals for whom a future legacy of successful advancements is a valued outcome – and thus better for our future.
Global warming is based on global statistics that have little credibility.
Archaeologists make discoveries, present their evidence, engage in discussions and debates that can continue for years, and try to defend their conclusions. Paying attention climate campaigners?
CFACT Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen demonstrates how the inappropriate, politicized fixation on so-called "climate science" is not even science since it is an opinion demanding a positive conclusion and how this is both teaching bad research habits but also starving much-needed research that can yield valuable results.
1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions. Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon [...]
As COP 21 went into extra innings in Le Bourget, France, scientists assembled from around the world in Essen, Germany to present the hard facts that reveal just how wrong the UN is about global warming.
Why ignore the best available world temperature data? Because it does not show any warming. That's where science ends and propaganda begins.
Looking to add some protein into your diet? Some scientists in India may be able to help you out with that!
Ninety page report from U.S. Senate compares the results of scientific observation to the over-the-top claims of warming campaigners from President Obama on down. Download the full report.
The next time a warming campaigner shrilly throws the sanctity of "peer review" in your face, don't mince words. Tell them straight. Peer review is dead.