Roger Harrabin has written another piece on the cabinet reshuffle, this time managing to leaven the criticisms of the usual suspects with a few mentions of those who are pleased with the appointments of Owen Paterson and John Hayes.
Harrabin's analysis of a quote from Hayes was rather interesting:
"We face a major challenge to keep the lights on in the most cost-effective way. In achieving this, we must not be over-reliant on any one technology, but build a balanced low-carbon mix and make the best use of Britain's domestic energy resources and skilled workforce."
However, this could be interpreted as an ambiguous statement that could lead to a large increase in gas use.
Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science.
This seems to me to be a fairly appalling conflation of two separate issues: the scientific and economic sides of the AGW question. Science may be able to tell us if man is having an effect on the global climate, but it is economists who can tell us the best way to react, or indeed if we should react at all.
It's a bit of a worry that Roger Harrabin doesn't seem to have grasped this.