Oh dear, our friendly troll zbd is at it again in the DM with a Christopher Booker article. She's not very popular over there with her scientific "consensus". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2011667/Global-warming-new-ice-age-YOURE-paying-politicians-hysteria.html#comments

Roger Pielke Jr. looks at the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear disaster for the future of nuclear power and comes up with these quotes from deep inside the FT :

Of 570 units planned before Fukushima, only 37 have been axed or put on hold since the crisis, according to Arthur D. Little, a consultancy.

The British nuclear industry is about to enjoy a “renaissance” and the country must become the “number one destination” for investment in new reactors, the energy minister will say on Tuesday.

Charles Hendry will deliver the most enthusiastic ministerial endorsement yet of the nuclear industry’s ambition to build a new generation of power stations.

In his speech to the Nuclear Industry Association, seen by the Financial Times, Mr Hendry will say: “The UK has everything to gain from becoming the number one destination to invest in new nuclear. Nuclear is the cheapest low-carbon source of electricity around, so it can keep bills down and the lights on.”

A dozen new reactors are set to be constructed at eight sites in England and Wales, with the first due to be completed in 2018. The total cost of the programme, the most ambitious in Europe, is forecast to be at least £50bn.

Jeremy Harvey on Bishophill has written a great explanation of the Climate sensitivity controversy that I think is worthy of being published alongside Doug Keenan’s article “How Scientific is Climate Science?” in WSJ (easily found in Google).

I had thought that what the IPCC had done would be considered too esoteric to be explained to the masses and therefore unworthy of much attention but he seems to have achieved the impossible.

Comment no. 66 (this link should take you to p2 starting at comment 41 if I am lucky)

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/7/5/ipcc-on-climate-sensitivity.html?lastPage=true#comment13552977

matthu Angry = Stupid , we can only hope.

They will just be digging a bigger hole ;)

Now we have the complete opposite of IPCC predictions.
Ice age by 2040 according to Nils-Axel Mörner published in Energy and Environment

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Moerner_Science_environm_sea_level_3_11_Paper_534.pdf

matthu: No comments allowed at the Grauniad, otherwise I would tell them I know lots of scientists who get actively involved against the global warming scam.

And I'm grateful for that article from the Energy Saving Trust. Who'd have thought that solar panels only work during the day?

Sorry - that last quote about activism was from The Guardian
The link is correct.

Scientists finally get angry about indifference to climate change.

For decades, scientists have been seen as meek, dispassionate souls. But now, faced with widespread indifference to global warming, a small band of science radicals are getting angry.

Paul Nurse, the new president of the Royal Society, has said he would be happy to see scientists getting fully engaged with politics and involved with activism.

From The Independent

Solar panels that cost up to £16,000 will knock just £70 a year off household bills, which is almost half the original estimate, energy experts have admitted.

Environmental advisers the Energy Saving Trust (EST) has cut its estimate on how much households could save on their electricity bill using solar panels ... This is because solar panels work only during the day, when most people are out.

You couldn't make it up ...

Does Lockwood have a bathroom mirror? How can he bear to look at himself?

"The scientists went on to clarify that their research didn't have any overarching significance into the debate surrounding global warming and climate change. The letters finding instead refer to a naturally occurring weather pattern."

If it gets warm, it's your fault. If it gets cold, it's the sun's fault.