Climate Talking Head Apparently Not Advocating Burning Down the House - Forbes

I may be misreading this, but Mr. Zwick’s post seems to acknowledge that there are costs to being wrong in either direction.  If so, this is a welcome departure from the silly “precautionary principle” which catastrophists used as a backstop to debate – ie, if I start losing the debate, I can claim that even if there is only a small chance I am right, then we still should do what I advocate because the worst case scenario is so bad.  The precautionary principle was always based on the implicit assumption that there was nothing equally bad that might happen if, say, we stopped fossil fuel consumption “just in case.”

President Obama Edits Out Climate Change From His Earth Day 2012 Proclamation | ThinkProgress

An Example Of The Misstatement of Fact On Climate Change | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is NOT the main [dominant] culprit affecting changes in climate.  It is just one of a diverse set of human and natural climate forcings.

Choice magazine (government lap-dog) “likes” monopolies and propaganda. Oops. « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

For an example of modern government propaganda, wait til you see this: Your Carbon Price (No really, go spend 30 seconds there to try to guess what this production would have cost.)

I’ve never seen a website so slickly designed, so smooth to the point of oozing graphic designer dollars with every rollover. As I watched it, I was seeing our national productivity being buried under Gucci-layers-of-gloss-red-tape. It kept asking me private questions “your name” etc as if the spelling of “Jane”, “Joe” or “John” makes any difference to my carbon footprint  (my name is Noneof Yourbusiness). Bring out the sick-bag as Dellers would say.

Twitter / @ChrisMooney_: what about the scientists ...

what about the scientists who deny the science of why we deny science when dealing with science deniers? #sciencedenial #denialconf