Wednesday, January 09, 2013

A Closer Look at a Shift in Britain's Near-Term Global Warming Forecast -
Quite a few professional climate skeptics have been crowing in the last few days about a 20-percent downward shift in the short-term forecast for global temperature (through 2017) from Britain’s weather and climate agency, best know as the Met Office.
In sum, there will come a time in this decade when the robustness of current thinking on the forces shaping climate will be reinforced or eroded.
It's a rule: Skeptics are "professionals" who are always "crowing" and "seizing" on stuff; warmists are never professionals and are always "tackling" stuff.

N.Y. Gov. Cuomo lays out a plan to fight climate change, increase clean energy | Grist
Cuomo’s plan has four components:

$1 billion matching fund to “spur the green economy.” Details on this to come, presumably, though initial comments suggest it will be used in part to encourage adoption of green energy use.
Extend the state’s NY-Sun solar jobs program. Cuomo aims to add $150 million a year to a program that encourages solar panel installations to spur job growth.
Build an electric-car charging network. [As we all know, there's no more surefire way to prevent hurricanes than to build an electric-car charging network.]
Create a new state cabinet-level position on energy.

1 comment:

Brad Keyes said...

"Skeptics are "professionals" who are always "crowing" and "seizing" on stuff; warmists are never professionals and are always "tackling" stuff."

So, you admit it.

Do you also concede the well-known fact that skeptics are disproportionately vocal, and therefore shout and yelp their conspiracy theories ("Scam! Scam!", they bark)—whereas warmists write thoughtfully yet humanely, warning: "Well-funded and well-orchestrated campaign of disinformation! Well-funded and well-orchestrated campaign of disinformation!"

Do you concede that the skeptics are getting desperate, while the warmists are increasingly of the mind that there is little hope left for our species?

Do you concede that skeptics compulsively grasp at hacked emails (which they invariably take out of context), whereas warmists point time and time again to leaked communiques (which they quote)?