The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a hearing yesterday on the UK's progress on its carbon budgets.
As is normal on these things the politicians took evidence from people who could be expected to tell them what they wanted to hear:
I've started watching and it seems quite interesting so far, in a "we're all going to fry" kind of way.
I enjoyed Aubrey Meyer's asking us to worry about viral attacks on carbon-hungry organisms in the oceans. He's a fun guy.
Myles Allen makes some pretty amazing claims about the temperature standstill:
The assertion that temperatures haven't risen as fast as predicted is simply wrong. There was a range of predictions made and in fact the temperatures of the last decade have been pretty much exactly as was predicted for the decade back in the 1990s...
I guess this is a reference back to this argument.
The issue about what these new data imply for the future. There have been a number of papers published recently which suggest that the highest responses of the current climate models - that's the models right at the extreme top of the range of behaviour we're getting at the moment - look less likely, but the bulk of the models are still within the range of uncertainty consistent with the observations.
If he's saying what I think he's saying then I think this is extremely misleading.
I gather there is some discussion of David Rose's article on climate sensitivity, but I haven't got to that bit yet.