Roger Scruton discusses why the environmental movement fits well under the umbrella of conservatism through his new book,  How to Think Seriously About the Planet.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently rebuffed environmentalists in their bid to get the judiciary to intervene in the global-warming controversy by invoking the old common law of nuisance, as though global warming could be solved through an injunction.

‘A prolonged and solemn farce,” Churchill’s description of 1930s disarmament talks, applies even more accurately to the annual round of UN climate talks, which just wrapped up their 17th year of world-saving negotiations in Durban, South Africa, with another 11th-hour “breakthrough” that amounts only to agreeing to meet again next year and repeat the farce.

While it’s sometimes hard to distinguish the crackpot from the consequential, many sober scientists believe that even far-out schemes are worth exploring, considering the alternatives.

Not long ago, environmental groups were heralding natural gas as a “bridge fuel to a more climate-friendly energy supply.” Today, New York “progressives” are leading the charge to demonize it as a “bridge to nowhere” — producing “water contamination, air pollution, global warming and fractured communities.” Why the flip-flop?

Global warming and greenhouse gases are affecting the earth's climate, but it is also part of a historical trend.

The role of cosmic radiation in cloud formation could be very significant, but the climate establishment has ignored it as a factor in climate change-until now.

Methane is a Jekyll-and-Hyde chemical. When combusted in the form of natural gas it releases energy, accounting for one-fifth of worldwide consumption. But it's controversial.