“This warming [of 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit this century] is as certain as death and taxes.” (Professor Andrew Dessler, below)

Andrew Dessler is one of the leading climate scientists/alarmists of his generation. And he is a master at presenting his case, not unlike a highly skilled lawyer. He knows the answers–and counter-arguments are just noise.

His textbook, Introduction to Modern Climate Change (2nd edition: 2016), does not seriously engage a range of opinions in its 250 pages. A review of the text/index confirms that many key controversies and open questions are either downplayed or absent, thereby creating–in his world–settled alarmist science.

I will later write an in-depth review of this textbook, which not only covers physical science but also related issues in political economy, energy economics, and history.…

If Texas A&M scientists calculated that an asteroid was heading our way, we would likely head for the hills with a lot of pills. But when this university’s climatology department warns of dangerous man-induced global warming and calls for government action (think new taxes and regulation), roll your eyes and watch the wallet. [But] we live in a postmodern world where emotion and desire substitute for humility and scholarship. 

 – Robert Bradley, “Political Scientists: Gerald North and Andrew Dessler Double Down on Climate Alarmism,” October 11, 2013.

Andrew Dessler is an alarmist/activist climate scientist. He is very certain of his positions on the hard science questions (what Judith Curry warns is really an uncertainty monster). Dessler also veers outside of his expertise to confidently assess the prospects for (government) forced energy transformation away from fossil fuels, the area of political economy. …

“Depletionists believe that once a production peak is reached, there can be no recovery. This is simply not true when the history of oil production in many regions is examined.”

“Such is the state of Greenpeace ‘scholarship’ where it seems that the Peak Oil choir, out of songs, needs anything to sing. I’ll let you know when this dead horse tries to run again.”

Incredibly, in these days of an oil glut, Greenpeace published a piece by its co-founder Rex Weyler titled Will Peak Oil Save Earth’s Climate? “Given the slow pace of climate action,” he states, “some ecologists have wondered if peak oil production might arrive in time to forestall runaway global heating.”

Others have worried that peak oil and gas would mean higher coal usage and thus more carbon emissions, a question for another day.…

“In cities, piping exhaust steam to closely packed buildings can make sense. But trying to impose CHP in typical American suburbs where there are no industrial uses, or to where buildings are widely spaced, is irrational.”

“Combined Heat and Power has become a political football in the service of government energy planning to cut CO2 emissions. CHP can be used effectively in specific applications where it can be justified economically, but it shouldn’t be forced on Americans by government edict.”

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is dragged out periodically by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists who want to replace central-station electricity with distributed power from wind and solar. Power Magazine recently highlighted this movement in the section, “Global Developments Giving CHP a Much Needed Boost,” with two articles devoted to CHP installations.…