There is another reason for finding out how much climate change is to blame for various events. "Hundreds of billions of dollars are potentially available [in a UN fund] to help developing countries adapt to climate change," says Allen. Who gets what share of the funds depends on being able to say which regions have suffered most as a result of climate change. For now, at least, that remains an open question.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727754.200-time-to-blame-climate-change-for-extreme-weather.html

I assume this attribution process will be absolutely immune to corruption ... ?

Fascinating and compulsive story here and very relevent to our climate change debates. If oil and natural gas are not about to run out then some of the pressure to move to "clean energy" is removed.
Need one of our inhouse physics doctorates to review this :P

I found this on "GREENIE WATCH" can anyone comment?

The claim that oil is a fossil fuel is another great myth and folly of the age. They are now finding oil at around seven MILES beneath the sea bed -- which is incomparably further down than any known fossil. The abiotic oil theory is not as yet well enough developed to generate useful predictions but that is also true of fossil fuel theory

The Camp for Climate Action (web site) has put out a guide for dealing with the media. Here are some quotes.

… a lot of journalists are not bad people, just weak and cowardly.

Most journalists are convinced that people can’t concentrate for more than a few seconds. This is mainly because they themselves can’t concentrate for more than a few seconds.

Your key messages should be said over and over and over again … The more they get said, the more likely that they might actually lodge themselves into a journalist’s small mind.

Introduce [journalists] to the people who’ll get on well with them, and keep them away from the people who won’t be able to restrain their contempt.

This reminds me of a book that I read: How to Win Friends and Influence People. Not.

Tete Rousse and Wackypedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

In 1892 a GLOF released some 200,000 km^3 (2.6×10^14 cu yd) of water from the lake of the Glacier de Tête Rousse, resulting in the deaths of 200 people in the French town of Saint Gervais. GLOFs have been known to occur in every region of the world where glaciers are located. Continued glacier retreat is expected to create and expand glacial lakes, increasing the danger of future GLOFs.

Well thank goodness the BBC is reporting only that

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11080827

The lake, which is said to contain 65,000 cubic metres (2.3m cubic ft) of water, was discovered last month during routine checks.

Which is about 10^-11 smaller. I guess things are improving in the alps.

P.S. Did William Connolley edit the Wackpedia Article perchance?

Amazon.co.uk today

Return to Almora: 114,060 in sales rank; no reviews

Hockey Stick Illusion: 1,584 in sales rank; 1st in GW books, 55 reviews (52 x 5-star).

With a hat tip to WUWT, here is Walter Russel Mead's review of Patchy's latest piece of fictional excresence. I particularly liked the following comment, "Yet again Walter Russell Mead performs a selfless humanitarian service: reading this clot of codswallop so we don’t have to.

Comment by vanderleun – August 22, 2010 @ 7:05 pm"

blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/08/22/rajendra-pachauri-voodoo-scientist-and-lone-ranger-of-love

I add this link not because I especially expect the Bish to post some form of rebuttal, but more an invitation to readers to play "spot the inaccuracy and/or spot the logical flaw"

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php

This is the worst sort of uninformed video I can imagine. It is pure propaganda and, worse, the readers of Deltiod in the most approve of it.

Items I spotted during my viewing included now redacted headlines (rice yields to fall), scientific inaccuracy (warmer air holds more moisture, rather than the condensation temperature of H2O increases with temperature (independent gases etc etc), and or course the link of Russian warmth and Pakistan rain to climate rather than weather. Finally, the comments about two 'once in 500 years' events in 15 years' showing a complete non-understanding of climate event statistics.

There is of course the entire discussion about CO2 levels to take pieces of.

This video is crap and only serves to make me think I might just be right. It also makes me quite angry that such unintelligent propaganda is being produced and consumed by many.

Apologies to The Bish for originally posting this in the wrong place.
I sent this email to Chris Huhne today and titled it "Prof Bob Watson lied to conceal the truth about CO2"

Not sure where to post this so it goes here: I would welcome comments)

email to Chris Huhne today:

On the 15th of July The Guardian hosted a debate on the Climate gate emails. I was fortunate enough to attend and even more fortunate to be able to ask a question.
At 63 minutes 30 seconds into the Guardian audio record Bob Watson states "You put greenhouse gas into the atmosphere it must warm, the question is when and how much".
At 75 minutes I asked the following question:
"Mr Watson states that if you put CO2 in the atmosphere you get warming, the ice core records show that at the end of each of the interglacials in the current ice age, CO2 rose for up to 2500 years after the hot point of the interglacial and the Earth cooled during the whole of that time. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that CO2 put into the atmosphere causes some warming but often the natural cycles will completely drown what it is doing?"
Mr Watson's answer contained the following:
The physics of the radiation transfer is quite straightforward, it is quite simple physics." ( This area of the science is the LEAST well understood of all the climate science).
He then says:
"even the most ardent sceptics like Dick Lindzen do agree that that the greenhouse effect is real and do agree the temperature will warm, the question is whether it is on the low end like Dick says or whether it is on the higher end like many other scientists (say)"
Prof Watson does not dispute the ice core records of temp v CO2 during the ice age and the change from ice age to interglacial and back again, he simply says it is complicated.
What the ice core records show is that once the hottest point of the interglacial has passed, CO2 continues to rise for as much as 2500 years and the Earth cools for all of that time.
Mr Watson states that because of this increase in CO2 the Earth "must warm".
However not only does the Earth not warm during this period of rising CO2, it continues to cool all the way back to the ice age and the next warming takes place over 100,000 years later.
I suggest that you pass my comments on to Mr Watson and suggest that either he considers a liable action against me or alternatively he explains himself to you.

Colin Brooks
Aug 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterDung

I shall now put on my 'innocent' look and observe that we've seen frequent press releases in latter days trumpeting the issues of climate, all in the 'warm' direction. This is obviously in the way of journalism, there is news so let's report it.

Today we have a spectacular new paper which is the statistical equivalent of North Korea holeing a US carrier below the waterline, and I've been waiting for mention of it on the BBC web site (keeping a close eye on the 'Norfolk' pages) but nothing. Not a thing. I guess Richard Black and his colleagues [CL waves and says 'Hi' coz he knows RB et al read the Bish tho' they'd rather not admit it] feel that they have to wait until RC or other tame 'experts' tell them what the proper answer is before reporting it with all appropriate caveats, corrections, and corrigenda. Fair enough, one might think, so why is that not done with every other press release on climate? For example the one that Anthony Watts obtained a retraction for? There is either journalistic integrity, or there is following the line, you can't have it both ways.

If McShane and Wyner is not all over the environmental pages and featured in the 0810 spot of the Today program by the end of the week, in the same way as political, economic or sports news of the same magnitude would be, then it's very clear that the journalists need to admit that they are just placemen. If they have any knowledge, self respect, or integrity, then this would be big news.

...and yes, that is meant to be a direct challenge to them.