Quark Soup by David Appell: Rio: Why No One Cares

what's happened since Rio 1992 is hardly worrisome; here are the numbers for warming since the last Rio Conference 20 years ago. I've put them in Fahrenheit to make them as scary as possible:
...So while the projections all look scary -- and, to be clear for all the Tom Nelsons who will selectively quote from this, I firmly believe that the long-term projections are scary enough, the ones 50 or 100 years out -- what's happening doesn't look scary, so far. (And with the worldwide economic crisis, it's no wonder people's attentions are elsewhere; losing one's job or house is a lot scarier than a couple of degrees of warming.) If we all lived based on scary projections, I wouldn't have had that dish of ice cream last night. But I did. 

David: How can anyone quote anyone else without being "selective"?  Are you suggesting that if I link to one of your blog posts, I have to include your entire posting on my site?
German Press, Greenpeace Lament: “Rio+20 Was Finished Even Before It Started…Deflated, Exhausted Atmosphere”

German Greenpeace activist leader Martin Kaiser lamented: ”The summit was was over before it even started.”

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: MIT economics paper finds climate change will benefit US agriculture

A paper from the MIT Department of Economics finds "climate change will lead to a $1.3 billion (2002$) or 4.0% increase in annual profits" of the US agricultural sector and that "the analysis indicates that the predicted increases in temperature and precipitation will have virtually no effect on yields among the most important crops." The authors state, "Overall, the findings contradict the popular view that climate change will have substantial negative welfare consequences for the US agricultural sector."

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper cross-examines global warming advocacy science and finds rhetorical tricks used to oversell and to hide uncertainty

A highly-recommended paper from the University of Virginia School of Law, Property and Environment Research Center cross-examines in detail the peer-reviewed literature of 'global warming advocacy science' and finds 

"a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change."