RealClearPolitics - Debra Saunders - The Winter of Global Warming

Like the Wicked Witch of Oz, the global-warming machine is melting into a wretched puddle. Tuesday, The New York Times jumped in to save the day. An editorial reminded readers that, despite "isolated errors and exaggerations," the IPCC report did win a Nobel Prize. Columnist Tom Friedman suggested that calling "global warming" by a different name, "global weirding," would change the debate. Friedman apparently believes that people who don't agree with him are so stupid that a new name will distract them from any ideas or facts on an issue.

The alarmists also have taken to scolding skeptics who have pointed to this year's record snowfalls as dimwits who do not know the difference between weather and climate. This is choice -- after all the years during which the global-warming believers pointed to every warm season, low-snowfall report and storm as proof that the "tipping point" was near.

Did the UN’s climate change panel get anything right? | Washington Examiner

The only thing that Dr. Pachauri or anybody else can be absolutely certain of now is which shelf to file the IPCC report: under Science Fiction.

Ecopolity » Climate Change [Scam] 2010: In search of a realistic agenda

Are we are moving backwards on climate change policy? The energy law in the US seems farther away today than at year end. IPCC seems to be at bay. Deniers seem to be having their heyday. The social movement seems to be too quiet. Support to the Copenhagen Accord has been at the best lukewarm. The countries pledges fall short of the 2oC target, they point to a 3.5oC scenario.Are we really losing ground? Or are we prisoners of a short-term view based on appearance only? Are we dealing with real trends or just bumps on the road ahead?

There is no serious regress on climate change politics...we’ve got to keep struggling to get enough support to trigger the needed political change. We don’t have time to spare.
...
There is a well financed and well orchestrated political campaign by climate deniers and fossil lobbies to discredit the IPCC and climate science. The IPCC has made some important mistakes that must be adequately addressed. It is, perhaps, time for a formal “peer review” of IPCC’s present format and procedures. It surely needs change. If IPCC could move to a new stage of its institutional life, generating more transparent, error-free scientific assessments at shorter intervals and with less political interference, that could very much help the search for a global climate change policy framework. Finally, it also has a leadership problem. A new chair could bring fresh ideas; perhaps more scientific authority; and work to better balance science and politics. The present IPCC chair won’t likely recover from the loss of confidence and legitimacy.

Global Warming and Foggy Predictions (Wizbang)

From the comments at Gateway Pundit:

A theory is supposed to serve as an explanation of known facts and as a way to make predictions. It seems that just about every weather phenomenon that's worth noting at all was somehow the result of AGW, and at the same time AGW keeps making predictions that aren't coming true. It's because of this that the climate-science community has come to look like an order of priests threatening the populace with dire warnings of how the gods are going to start punishing them all if they don't start living right, or how the gods will send a dragon to eat the sun if the people don't work harder.

Niche Modeling - David Stockwell - editorial

When Steve McIntyre started his blog 5 years ago, and I did around the same time, I sent him a email saying to the effect that he would change the way science is done. He called the FOI’s and journal processes of peer review, comments etc ‘quasi-litigation’. I agree, and acknowledge that scientists should use the available processes more. It is a natural extension of the search for truth.