Climate Debate: Government Report Sparks Some More Outrage - Environmental Capital - WSJ

Presidential science advisor John Holdren joined John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress, and Stephen Moore of the WSJ’s editorial board for a lively chat on the Diane Rehm radio show about what to do—or not to do—about global warming, green jobs, brown jobs, and maple sugar.

We won’t spoil it for you by telling you who used the terms “apocalyptic” and “strangling effect,” but it’s worth a listen all the same. The replay is available here.

More From Two Key Western Governors | GlobalWarming.org

Meanwhile Democratic Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (a somewhat reformed alarmist) reiterated his views that the debate about global warming is not settled...

Global warming debate: Climate scientist says he was misrepresented in Obama's Climate Change report

Reaction to yesterday's release of the report on 'Global Climate Change Impacts In The United States' is starting to come in. It isn't pretty, and pretty much validates my call in yesterday's article to include a minority report in this and future documents. Now it appears that the report deliberately misrepresented the work of at least one scientist, and contains serious inaccuracies as well.

In this short series of articles we will address claims of inaccuracy or misrepresentation in turn.

GCCI Report #2: Climate Must Be Dead Stable Without Man | Climate Skeptic

The other underlying assumption in the GCCI report is that without man, climate would be dead stable. Year in and year out, decade after decade, every location would get the same rain it got the year before and the decade before, the same number of storms, the same number of tornadoes, the same start date for Spring, etc.

Now, the authors might object to that and say, “we don’t believe that.” But in fact they must, since in the report, any US climate trend in the last 20 years (more rain, less rain, more storms, fewer storms, more snow, less snow, etc) is all blamed on man. Why else discuss a given trend in climate in a report on man-made climate change except to create the impression that each and every trend in climate is due to man, and can therefore be extrapolated a hundred years in to the future?

GCCI Report #1: Overall Tone | Climate Skeptic

The first thing one needs to recognize about the GCCI report is that it is not a scientific document — it is a 170-page long press release from an advocacy group, with all the detailed, thorough science one might expect in a press release from the Center of Science and Public Interest writing about the threat to mankind from Twinkies. By the admission of the Obama administration, this is a document that has been stripped of its scientific discussion and rewritten by a paid PR firm that specialized in environmental advocacy.
...
If you can’t read the whole report, read the list of disasters on page 12. If I had shown this to you blind, and told you it from from a Paul Ehrlich the-world-will-end-in-a-decade book from the 1970s, you would probably have believed me.

GCCI Report #3: Warming and Feedback | Climate Skeptic

...That’s it - the entire sum text of feedbacks. All positive, no discussion of negative feedbacks, and no discussion of the evidence how we know positive feedbacks outweight negative feedbacks. The first one of the three is particularly disengenuous, since most serious scientists will admit that we don’t even know the sign of the water vapor feedback loop, and there is good evidence the sign is actually negative (due to albedo effects from increased cloud formation).