Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 21 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 20 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace



It looks to be a long time to wait when you know that the scientific knowledge is changing.

The general AR5 timetable
Completion dates (source: Renate Christ, Nov 2009, pdf):
Working Group I: Mid September 2013
Working Group II: Mid March 2014
Working Group III: Early April 2014
Synthesis Report: September 2014

Maybe DECC will be willing to re-assess the science in a years time, hopefully not committing too much to Ministers desires in the mean time.
2012, October 5 – November 30: Expert and Government Review of the Second Order Draft (SOD)

Perhaps one of the familiar scientists involved in AR5 could comment?

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

One possible answer to the question of who uses a dot instead of a comma in thousands [from 5339.txt]:

>The article below was published today in a
>norwegian newspaper saying that todays global
>warming is the worst in the last 1200 years.
>My question is why just the last 1200 years? Why
>don't you take the last 3.600 years?

The Norwegians do.

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

"the actions necessary to protect our planet from significant climate change"

Huhne as Canute, then? Although Canute knew that it wouldn't work, of course...

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P


I know where the 'robust' evidence for CO2 induced warming is. I've been informed by DECC on more than one occasion that it is in the IPCC reports. Unfortunately I have never been told by them exactly where in the IPCC reports it is to be found, despite having asked more than once. They have never mentioned any other source for the evidence.

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Chris Huhne blasts Lord Lawson's climate sceptic thinktank (Guardian, Wed 23 Nov 2011)

Huhne says influential Global Warming Policy Foundation is 'misinformed', 'wrong' and 'perverse' following GWPF report

Huhne's letter is a response to a report sent to him by former chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson, who chairs the GWPF, and Lord Andrew Turnbull, a former head of the civil service and a GWPF trustee. The GWPF report "questions blind faith in climate alarmism" and claims there is "huge controversy about the relative contribution of man-made CO2 versus natural forces".

But Huhne replies: "Let me say straight away that [I] believe that you have been misinformed and that your conclusions are poorly supported by the underlying science evidence." He goes on to say: "It would be perverse to ignore this well attested and thoroughly reviewed body of evidence."

Huhne tells Lawson and Turnbull: "It is not true to say that UK climate change policy relies on a single source of evidence," and that "you wrongly assert that the UK is taking unilateral action" in tackling climate change.

In conclusion, Huhne writes: "The scientific case for action is robust. We would be failing in our duties to pretend otherwise and we must with other countries take the actions necessary to protect our planet from significant climate change."

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics, said: "The GWPF's members are having an increasingly negative impact on the quality of UK public debate and policy-making on climate change, and it is time that they were held to account for their actions." A recent Oxford University study on the reporting of climate scepticism identified Lawson and GWPF director Benny Peiser as "by far" the most quoted climate sceptics in the UK media.

full text at:

If Huhne is so convinced by the 'robust' evidence for CO2 induced warming, perhaps he could explain what it is? I for one would like to see it.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Yes the BBC is showing its bias all over the place. We all know that wind turbines have to be backed up all the time with gas-powered power stations, so you might as well just build the gas-fired power stations and ditch the wind turbines. These professors of energy and climate change have either no shame in lying or are complete ignoramuses.

Nov 23, 2011 at 9:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the Tyndall Centre said: "As the government's committee on climate change make clear, for the UK to meet its binding carbon budgets, electricity needs to be decarbonised by 2030 with domestic heating having moved from high-carbon gas to low-carbon electricity.

"With so little time to meet these commitments, there is no meaningful emissions allowance available for shale gas.

"Moreover, pursuing shale gas electricity risks displacing urgently required investments in genuinely low-carbon energy supply.

Nov 23, 2011 at 8:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

UPDATE 3-UBS analysts predict 70 pct collapse in EU CO2 prices

Nov 23, 2011 at 5:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Fix it or fold it
Special to Financial Post Nov 22, 2011 – 7:07 PM ET
If the IPCC’s flaws can’t be corrected, we should leave
By Ross McKitrick

Terence Corcoran: A new Climategate scandal, familiar cast of characters

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterEric Gisin

Thank you, Dung. I knew lunch would come into it soon.

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>