Catching up with In It For the Gold

Well, Goggle reader is a great tool, but it sure has a way of shaming you when you let your daily reading slip...especially for a couple of weeks. Of course I subscribe to many other blogs and feeds. but Michael Tobis' In It for the Gold is not one I like to just "mark all as read" when I get behind. Consequently, I am now looking at almost 30 unread entries!!

So what has he been up to...?

His latest article notes that Al Gore has responded, (or rather a spokesperson) to that British judge's critique of An Inconvenient Truth on the Washington Post's blog. Since he gives a big hat tip to Eli Rabbet's take, I will read Eli's post and not mention his other articles on this topic.

Cansas rejects a new coal-fired electric plant, citing CO2 pollution. He has an endorsement of Al Gore's statements on winning the Nobel, some nice graphics of potential sea level rise impacts for Texas (from Global Warming Art), he calls some attention to a new "expert" survey designed to obfuscate the issues, he points us to a nice graphic from NASA on this year's remarkable sea ice retreat record...and a few other tidbits in there.

Here is a very good description of what scientific consensus is and how it developes that Michael has retrieved from a commenter on another thread. A very nice bit of well referenced work by John Mashey, worth bookmarking and referring to in the future.

Still working back in time, next is another great graphic showing the strikingly over-optimistic model projections of sea ice loss in the Arctic vs reality: here (from the Oildrum, a really top notch site), a nice long essay on some of the subtleties of scientific consensus, a mention of one-way bike rentals starting in Montreal, other stuff..., a warning not to major in studying sea ice because it may be gone soon, some discussion of economic commentary on climate change issues by Nordhaus and Shellenberger, a note about some happy indications that permafrost feedbacks may not be as bad as feared, some news about Michael blogging at an additional venue, though we are assured it will not affect our In It for the Gold readings.

Continuing, we have some news about a military report on climate change geo-political impacts (in short, Al Gore got to them too, they are "alarmists"), an article on the problem of whom to trust, the white lab coat no longer being a reliable proxy for integrity (was it ever?), Tobis catches CO2 Science spending their money on Google Ads, notes a new paper showing that increased CO2 will cause increased run-off via decreased plant water uptake.

Moving forward (forward back in time that is) a bit quicker now, there is an article defending the need for continued climate modeling, regardless of wether the bottom line "we are in danger" message is already clear or not, an analysis of psuedoscience from Ars Technica, some commentary on decreasing US gov't climate science budgets, and finally a familiar post "Taking Lomborg Seriously", I read that already!

As always, MT posts alot of good stuff, hopefully some of my own readers will make up for my slacking off in that direction!