Where's My Global Warming?

I read this piece in Slate today (hat tip: Drudge) on how there is no perfect temperature anywhere in the world and all this climate change hysteria is out of control. Here are the money quotes as far as this little dirt farmer from NGA is concerned:

The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

[snip]

Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

[snip]

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate. (emphasis mine)

The bio at the end of piece states the MIT professor who wrote the article has never taken funding from corporate energy sources and has only been funded by the US government. I wonder how fast that revenue stream will dry up with a Democrat-controlled White House in place. I hope the guy has a fall back plan.

My personal complaint on global warming/climate change is this: these same people (meteorologists and Al Gore) trying to scare me and my legislators into changing my lifestyle cannot even provide me an accurate weather forecast for this upcoming weekend. Not one of these experts could warn me two weeks ago that the last four days of severely cold weather was coming. Not one of them did, anyway, and two weeks ago, I might have been able to do something to protect my blueberry crop. A water spraying apparatus or something. But when I get the heads-up two days in advance, my options are much more limited: prayer and bed sheets.

And yet, because their computer models show a precipitous rise in overall planet temps in the next 100 years, I need to stop buying refined petroleum for my car and install solar panels, no matter the cost to me.

I'm not buying it. The actions recommended have nothing to do with controlling climate change and everything to do with power grabbing.