Climate Progress » Blog Archive » [Alarmist] Toles on global warming projections

There he goes again — making that [fraudulent] link between global warming and extreme weather that the climate deniers hate...

How Does He Do This With A Straight Face? | Coyote Blog

Since ethanol is the largest example of Congress’s past attempts to set “rational climate policy,” what in the hell gives Drum confidence things are going to be any different in the future? It is yet another example of technocratic planners arguing that the failure is not top-down planning, just the particular individuals doing the planning. If only my guys did the planning, things would be different. Right.

Besides, it was a Democratic Congress that passed the last round of ethanol subsidy increases and a Democratic Congress that is upping them again. So it is Drum’s guys doing the planning, and they are making a hash out of it, as all planners do.

For the record, I don’t want my guys in DC doing the planning. I want 300 million people making their own damn choices. When did this ever stop being a liberal value?

A Helpful Primer on the Politics of a Carbon Tax | Coyote Blog

Basically, their argument here is that they don’t like the fact that the success of a carbon tax relies on the unmanaged, bottom up responses to higher prices by 300 million Americans acting in their own best interests and finding their own individual solutions to carbon reduction. The authors instead prefer a few people in Washington, heavily influenced by a number of special interest lobbyists, setting policy and picking winners. “Complementary measures” is shorthand for government picking of winners and subsidizing of … whatever the hell Congress chooses to subsidize. It is a great way to wrap pork in a nifty new green wrapper.

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? - A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio

...the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science.