Author Archives: energyprbe

(February 13, 2009) The spirited debate over the validity of the fabled hockey-stick graph on climate change continues. Continue reading →

(February 11, 2009) In recent weeks, a swell of Blogosphere interest has followed Michael Mann’s response to Lawrence Solomon’s National Post column, “Climate change’s Antarctic ruffle,” which critiques a study Mr. Mann had helped to author. In print form, a round-up of letters sparked by the Solomon-Mann commentaries was printed by the National Post on February 11: Continue reading →

(February 7, 2009) As proven by the firey exchange below, the debate over climate change couldn’t be further from settled. Continue reading →

(February 2, 2009) The New American has joined as a cosponsor of the Second International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute of Chicago. It will be held March 8-10 at the Marriott Marquis in New York City. While the mainstream media continues to parrot the claim of Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC that “the science is
settled” regarding global warming, the expected 1,000 attendees from across the globe are living, visual proof that such a claim is merely an excuse to avoid debate. Continue reading →

(January 28, 2009) James Hansen of NASA’s GISS has been the single-most influential scientist in the world in promoting the view that global warming represents a catastrophic risk to the planet. His former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John S. Theon, now publicly disagrees with Hansen’s work. Continue reading →

(January 20, 2009) Americans will have two messages for Barack Obama at his inauguration today: We love you but don’t blame us for climate change. Continue reading →

(January 15, 2009) How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think we’ve seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There’s no question whatsoever. It’s utterly wrong. Continue reading →