Simon Singh has posted his response to Fraser Nelson. It's still amazingly thin gruel for a top writer on scientific matters. Is he unaware of the existence of feedbacks? And what about the error bars on that 0.6C warming figure?
Matt Ridley reviews evidence of solar effects on the climate.
Carbon dioxide certainly can affect climate, but so for sure can other things, and in explaining the ups and downs of past climate, before industrialisation, variations in the sun are looking better and better as an explanation. That does not mean the sun causes current climate change, but it certainly suggests that it is at least possible that forcings more powerful than carbon dioxide could be at work.
BBC newsreader Michael Buerk has savaged the corporation in a review of a book by former colleague Peter Sissons.
He accuses the Beeb of being "left-wing", "shallow" and of having "an uncritical love affair with environmentalism".
It's not news is it?
Nature's long-awaited climate change journal has finally launched. It looks as though it's all free in this first issue, so why not take a look?
This article about openness in climate change research was interesting, with several familiar faces interviewed. There is something about the tone of the piece that makes me uncomfortable though - perhaps a slightly promotional feel?
The US Congress has decided to look at climate change again. Here are a few links to stories that journalists and bloggers have found interesting.
Steve McIntyre has taken a pot shot at Kerry Emanuel for being, ahem, less than precise with his evidence on "hide the decline". Chris Mooney describes Emanuel's testimony as "powerful" in an enthusiastic review at Discover magazine.
The New York Times notes Richard Mullers contribution, in which he discussed the preliminary results from the BEST project, which apparently confirm warming. The excitement over the BEST project strikes me as overdone. I certainly don't expect them to disagree wildly with CRU and GISS.
Anthony Watts was less than impressed with Muller, who mentioned some of Anthony's unpublished resuts. Anthony has written to the committee chairman Ralph Hall to put him straight.
Judith Curry has a roundup here, in particular defending Muller against Anthony W's concerns and also pointing to John Christy's insider story of how the Hockey Stick found its way into the Third Assessment Report.
The LA Times interviews Richard Muller about BEST, his new project to measure the Earth's temperature. Santer and Trenberth pop up with a spectacular display of the kind of grubby behaviour normally associated with the worst kind of political spin doctor.
"I am highly skeptical of the hype and claims," said Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium. "The team has some good people but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive. I suspect they have an agenda."
The Koch donation, to many, confirms those suspicions. "Why would a scientist accept funding from an organization with no interest in advancing the science?" asked Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Michael Mann has written to top US newspaper the Payson Roundup defending his honour...
An individual named Terry Putnam did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues...
I always liked the good old days when letters to the editor began "Sir", or perhaps "Dear Sir".
Simon Singh, at the Spectator debate, introduced himself as the least credible of the six speakers. Somewhat comically he then presented the audience with a credibility spectrum of people and institutions representing the alarmist and skeptical sides of the debate.
But if he is not credible, why would we believe what he says?
More cartoons by Josh here
I'm back home now, and I need to set down my thoughts on the Spectator debate. I don't intend to go into too much detail, because I need sleep more than I need to write right now.
I was a bit disappointed overall - none of the presentations managed to combine slick presentation with a strong coherent argument and many of them were not really about the motion at hand: "The global warming concern is over, time for a return to sanity".
Here are some of the things that stuck in my mind. The first was the sense of anger in the auditorium. People were just very, very annoyed about what was going on. There were times when the warmists on the stage looked taken aback by the heat that they were receiving.