UK shouldn’t jump on shale gas “bandwagon” | Energy Live News

Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth Executive Director said: “The Government must halt shale gas drilling to properly assess the risks – including the impact on climate change. With big changes to our electricity system due in the months ahead, Energy Secretary Ed Davey must resist calls to hook the nation on polluting gas that has been the main drive of rising energy bills and instead back a switch to home-grown clean energy.”

Climate Conversation Group » Al Gore to visit NZ

I’m informed that the company does not have many investments in renewable energy and it has just sold out of a big solar energy firm. So at the same time as he is pushing renewable energy, his investment firm is abandoning it.

The New Nostradamus of the North: Peer review is a new version of the old Vatican truth councils

The way climate alarmists use peer review as a stamp of approval is according the Brendan O´Neill reminiscent of the old Vatican Councils, which determined the official Truth

Lewandowsky’s real finding: warmist professors more likely to believe in faked data | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Steve McIntyre checks the data behind Professor Stephan Lewandosky’s bizarre peer-reviewed paper claiming sceptics tend to believe the moon landings were faked. Truth is, turns out what was faked were responses to Lewandowsky’s sloppy survey - and the paper should be withdrawn:

Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky’s paper is a “landmark of junk science” « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

The “smoking-doesn’t-cause-cancer-conspiracy” is a signature of a fake response...The points that are on the top left of the graph are the more outlandish conspiracies, especially the “smoking” point which ranks right at the top. In my opinion this is a signature point. Skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy, but alarmists have been trained to think skeptics do. The high rank there is the “Oreskes Effect”.

After 120,000 comments on this blog, I can’t recall a single skeptic who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, nor do I remember reading a comment on it on any other skeptic blog, nor have I even heard a hint of it in an email. But the two issues are often tied in alarmist propaganda..
Frequently people like Naomi Oreskes claim Fred Singer and others have doubted that smoking causes cancer, something which is an outright misrepresentation (see my point #3 here). Singer wrote about the statistical failures of the passive smoking case, which is scientifically entirely different from the well documented link between smoking and cancer. Given that this dishonest material is circulated widely on alarmist blogs, it’s likely that all 11 of those responding “yes” to that conspiracy question are the fakers, dutifully ticking off the boxes they have been trained to tick.