Though the new U.S. Climate Change Science Program report concedes numerous climate modeling unknowns, a New York Times editorial misrepresents it as a “striking shift” by the Bush Administration.

Well, you can’t fault the New York Times for trying—that is, trying to move its global warming agenda forward by any means necessary. On August 26, a routine federal report on climate change research was hailed as “a striking shift” of the Bush Administration, and then used as the basis for a masthead editorial August 27 calling for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

In reality, the report, Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 (OCP ) resembles a jillion other climate reports with interminable titles emanating from our Washington agencies. University faculty mailboxes groan with this overload. (Whatever became of the paperless office, we ask?)
(more…)

It’s increasingly difficult to keep a straight face while reading any global warming paper in a major scientific journal. Even by this standard, a recent article on deaths in California and destruction of its wine industry (of course, because of dreaded global warming) is a true belly-slapper.

The fact that it appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is a lot less funny. What on earth is happening to the peer-review process in science, and how are papers this bad getting through that process?
(more…)

A recent news story—itself a disturbing distortion of climate change science—should prompt any critical citizen to ask this: Why do scientists inevitably emphasize scare stories that aren’t warranted by even the most cursory respect for the facts?

Consider coverage of a recent Science article by Princeton’s Steve Pacala. Along with colleague R. Socolow, they argued, plausibly, that emissions of carbon dioxide—the main human greenhouse gas—can be reduced by increased adoption of existing technologies. They fail to mention that people have to want them, and they have to actually work.
(more…)

One particularly favorite recipe for disaster that global warming alarmists concoct goes like this: Assume the status quo, add a pinch of (usually dramatic) climate change, agitate thoroughly, and voila, you’ve whipped up a great calamity—animals go extinct, forests die back, human mortality increases, and so on. Primary among the many problems with this ill-advised technique is the assumption that no adaptations take place.
(more…)

Climate models generally depict global temperatures changes as smooth, nearly linear increases, in accordance with the relatively smooth increase in climate forcing agents. But real world observations show that climate change is not quite that well-behaved.
(more…)