he hereby rejects the Nobel committee

A skeptical climate scientist, John R. Christy, awarded the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore, dissents, in a WSJ op-ed, from the new conventional “wisdom”—and fails to make the news:

I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time. …

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.

Read it. Christy isn’t saying there isn’t climate change. He, like Bjorn Lomborg, is saying that we should first of all address those matters that we can fix:

The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit “global warming.”

This makes sense to me, and it’s also the way I act as a Decider/manager in my own life. It’s practical, pragmatic, and effective to do what you can do today rather than sell some pipe dream about tomorrow.