"It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted."

"But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected."

So begins Bjorn Lomberg's WSJ piece "The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism/Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data."

The bad science of Obama's use of the "devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms" to scare us about climate change.

How absurd to use obviously bad science to hit us over the head about our failure to react to what you claim is good science!

Why does it have to be so hard to combine science and politics?

"This week saw the announcement of the latest conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus..."

"... a project founded by Bjørn Lomborg in which expert economists write detailed papers every four years and then gather to vote on the answer to a simple question: Imagine you had $75 billion to donate to worthwhile causes. What would you do, and where should we start?"

The consensus...

"Wind power is too costly, inefficient, and won't stop climate change."

Bjørn Lomborg.