NZ Greens weasel out of debate with Monckton (H/T EUReferendum commenter Scrasea)

"On reflection we do not think it is appropriate for our party leader to debate with Lord Monckton on the science of climate change as that sends a message that there is uncertainty regarding the existence and causes of climate change. Our participation in a TV debate on this matter sends a message to viewers that the science is uncertain, and that is a position that we do not wish to convey."

There have been a couple more responses to John Beddington's article on "Preparing for the Future" including this one from Richard North:

"Sir John, you have provided a shining and shameful example of the moral bankruptcy of the scientific establishment by obviously preferring soundbites to sound science."

and this one from Epigenes:

"Do you not feel that you should exercise your independence from government and express the doubt that manifestly exists regarding it? Your report has failed to do this with sufficient emphasis."

http://blogs.bis.gov.uk/blog/2011/07/13/preparing-for-the-future/

BBD,

Even better:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14183409

And maybe one day, if the technology gets embedded into streets and motorways, drivers won't even have to worry about charging at all.
Just hope that it gets tested with two foot of snow on the ground and it is capable of withstanding flood run off.

Then again the talk was of flying cars by 2000 in my youth, perhaps I may get to own one before the toes turn up but I suspect not.

Fellows of the Royal Society aren't supposed to shriek. But that's what one did at a public meeting recently when I leapt onto my hobbyhorse: fraud in science. The establishment don't want to know. An FRS in the audience – a professor of structural biology – practically vaulted across the room in full cry. What got this guy's goat was my suggestion that scientists are no more trustworthy than restaurant managers or athletes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/28/scientific-fraud-regulation

And the author is not even Doug Keenan ... it's Brian Deer (Uk Specialist reporter of the year).

Lord Beaverbrook

WRT charging batteries. First, an obvious logistical nonsense: can you imagine the length of the queues? And how many EVs could be charged at a time? Etc? It's the usual fantasy land stuff from DV and friends.

Fast-change (not charge) is a more practical approach. The idea being that the battery is swapped out for a fully charged unit in 'not much more time than it takes to fill a tank'.

Sounds good, but raises questions. How many cars -per hour- fill up at a motorway services? (I do not know but it will be a large number). So, per day, how many fully-charged battery packs will need to be on site and ready for use? And how many put on charge, presumably also on-site? How much space will all this require?

And so on.

While I fully accept the need to electrify the personal fleet globally, the logistical nitty-gritty has a long way to go before it is sorted out. It's all well and good for short journeys and at-home overnight charging, but beyond that - dysfunctionality is very close at hand.

Richard Betts,

The evidence for a cooling future is also 'less well-known' in the risk advice to governments.

geronimo

Quick answer to your more recent question (I see you have more below, which I'll try to get to later).

The IPCC reports do cover benefits as well as negative impacts, but it was a criticism by the Inter-Acacamies Council that AR4 tended to focus more on the negatives than the positives, especially in the SPM.

So while I don't think you're entirely correct to say "there has never been any part of an IPCC report that focuses on the benefits that would undoubtedley accrue from a warmer world", I do agree with you that these don't always filter through to top-level messages.

For example, it was reported in AR4 that climate change could alleviate water stress in large parts of the world whilst exacerbating it in others (but with water stress itself mainly being driven by population, not climate). However the "good news" part of that appears to be less well-known.

Brownedoff: Re Kevin Trenberth
Yes - There is only one KT that I have ever heard of, and certainly only one major IPCC scientist called KT.

Jul 28, 2011 at 10:51 AM | matthu

Is this the same Kevin Trenberth who is a RE for the following chapter in AR5 WG1:

Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change

see http://tinyurl.com/3wz4cjy

You just have to laugh, don't you?

New electric car charging national network opens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14312565

Faster charging

The national network also addresses another common complaint about electric vehicles - charging time.

Welcome Break's power outlets offer two types of sockets - a three-pin one for 13A current supply and a seven-pin one for a higher 32A supply.

Using the 13A supply can mean waiting around 12 hours and probably spending the night in one of the service area hotels.

Opting for the higher current option will top-up a car in just 20 minutes - and fully charge it in one hour, said Mr Vince.

"In the time it takes you to get a cup of coffee and a sandwich, you can charge your car”
Dale Vince Ecotricity

This is where the network will be by the end of 2011:
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/for-the-road/our-electric-highway

According to Wiki the Nissan Leaf has a range of 73 miles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf

So my summer vacation to Cornwall of 280 miles which currently takes 4.5 hours would take me 8 hours with 4 charging stops in which the missus, three kids and the dog have to be catered for at service stations. Not taking into account the summer holiday traffic which can add an hour or two to the journey time plus additional charge time for the prolonged stay in the car.

All the ingredients for a stress free holiday!