How about a "balanced approach" to energy and climate policy?

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/15/the-climate-and-energy-state-of-the-unio

In his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama warned that Americans must take steps now to cut "our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet." To justify these efforts, he appealed to the "overwhelming judgment of science," pointing chiefly to recent weather extremes in the United States as evidence for the urgency of action. Skeptics "can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence," Obama announced, but the president clearly does not. "Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods—all are now more frequent and more intense."

Is he right? Let's take a closer look at those trends the president cites. After that, we can assess the he wants to implement as a response.

(The article goes on to provide study after study showing Obama mis-stated numerous claims about the environment in his state of the union speech)

 

The links to peer reviewed studies are within the article. I saw a similar article on RCP a few days ago.

 

In the 1930s, there was even less rain and warmer temperatures, more drought, etc.

 

You talk about rain and snow over a 10 year period as if it's meaningful or has anything to do with anything beyond plain old weather patterns. As the 1930s example shows.

I think the point about "balanced approach" is to mock Obama who's talk is "balanced approach" but his actions are severe and punishing to the economy and country.

 

jlprk, if you think that there's "disagreement" over modeling for the climate warming and effects (which is "based on science"), then how do you think that anyone's going to come close to agreeing on models based on economic projection? I mean, one side will say it will be revenue-neutral and one will say it will cost eleventy-nine trillion dollars.

You've seen the effects of 4+ years of "fiscal policy debate" in our legislative branch. We still haven't passed a budget in 4 years. When someone wants to cut 1% of the deficit, we're told we're headed for a "fiscal cliff" and people act accordingly. What's different with "climate change"? (Serious question: is it now back to "climate warming")?

 

Brian makes a great point about fiscal cliff and people acting accordingly. Fear! Alarm! People act!

Now you know why the AGW scam artists are being called alarmists.

 

Bush didn't nix it. The senate has to ratify treaties and voted 100-0 against approving it. During Clinton's presidency.

The rewriting history thing is getting old.