Coyote Blog » Blog Archive » More From the Science-Based Administration

At least the article is marginally honest – its starts with the true reason for the [ethanol] mandate – improving the bottom line of favored businesses, not energy or environmental policy. Chu seems to be joining Krugman as another Nobel prize winner turned political hack. In the past I have had Chu’s supposed gravitas thrown at me in climate debates — I think this should settle just how Chu makes choices between what science tells him vs. what politcal pressures are demanding.

What's with the warm weather? | Weather - MassLive.com

Is it Global Warming? I don't think so, just a huge ridge in the jet allowing for all the warmth, that is usually found across the south,to spread north.

Global warming: Demonising the center

Construction of an imaginary 'denialist machine' allows them to claim that the public actually supports their solutions, and when confronted with polls that demonstrate this is not so, to give them the chance to say the public would support them if they weren't being bamboozled by the 'climate denialist machine.'

Their tactics border on the despicable.

High Sticking: The Flaws of the IPCC and the Hockey Stick Model | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

An article written last year by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong and scientist Willie Soon write that scientists in many respects are being paid to make, at best, guesses or projections of how climate change actually works and what temperatures will be like in the future. They say, “The models employed by James Hansen and the IPCC are not based on scientific forecasting principles. There is no empirical evidence that they provide long-term forecasts that are as accurate as forecasting that global average temperatures won’t change. Hansen’s, and the IPCC’s, forecasts, and the recommendations based on them, should be ignored.”