This may be a bit parochial. But as I am about to go off on holiday, and the 12-month milestone of my little blog approaches on my return, I am hoping to get a better idea of what interest there is in climate in schools that intersects with my materials and readership:
http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/04/climate-lessons-pausing-for-break.html

Any comments would be welcome.

I suggest that this article by Liam Halligan in today's Sunday Telegraph ("The BRIC countries’ Hainan summit could make the G20 redundant") is both interesting in itself and relevant to whether the UK's attempt to cut emissions is likely to make the remotest difference - apart, that is, from destroying our economy. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) plus other fast-developing economies, such as South Africa, are increasingly gaining economic and political power and influence. They are beginning to set the agenda and patently have no real interest in the West's obsession with climate change and no intention of cutting emissions (viz. their torpedoing of the Copenhagen Conference) - hardly surprising as fossil fuels are the driving force of their economies, inter alia lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. The idea that we can "provide leadership" on this issue is as absurd as it is embarrassing. Here's a quotation from an article by Oliver Letwin (Cabinet Office minister):

… this is an issue of moral leadership – we absolutely have to establish moral leadership on the issue of climate change ... Those of us who made the case at Copenhagen for a carbon cap now have a moral obligation to show that we are true to our word by delivering green changes in our own countries. Doing so will send a signal to more reluctant countries that we are serious, and will help build the conditions necessary to reach a global agreement to act.

Hmm ... perhaps he sees it as the White Man's Burden.

The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) today published an Information Note on the performance of the UK renewables sector in 2010 based on analysis of new DECC and Ofgem data (see www.ref.org.uk). The work shows that the 2010 target for renewable electricity has been missed by a large margin, and confirms longstanding doubts as to the feasibility of this target, and the still more ambitious target for 2020.

http://www.ref.org.uk/press-releases/230-2010-renewables-target-missed-by-large-margin

Lets see if this makes the rounds of Whitehall or even the BBC.

Anthony Watts has come up with another great idea, a feature called Climate FAILS which is intended to be a crowd-sourced record of AGW claims that have not materialized such as Hansen's prediction the the East Side fo Manhattan would be under water by 2000 or the UN's 50,000,000 climate refugees. See wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/16/new-permanent-feature-the-climate-fail-files-help-needed

In the unlikely event that anyone here actually wants a copy .. But note the cover. And the title. And the comments. It is tempting to say that one couldn't give it away -- but that is refuted by the fact that there are 42 seeders as I write this.

New frontiers in climate litigation. Note that you'll have to pay money, or assume the identity of a googlebot, if you want to read Hayward's WSJ link.

Seems ok now, fingers crossed :)

Site formatting: I have experienced similar problems recently, which resolved themselves afterI cleared my cache (Tools > internet settings > delete ... )

Is there something odd about the site formatting? The section 'a few links I've stumbled across' is just a long list of odd text and the general items are now appearing shiftedn to the right. Anyone else having problems?

Lord Beaverbrook --
Thanks for the reference to Carlin's paper. I'm only about a third of the way through -- it's a forty-page paper! -- but already it's shown me some new aspects. Plus the references are great, such as this gem from Lindzen:

Indirect estimates, based on response to volcanos,
suggest sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling
of CO2, which is well within the range of natural variability.
This is not to suggest that such change cannot be detected;
rather, it is a statement that the anticipated change is well
within the range of what the earth regularly deals with. It is
further noted that the common assertion that even small
changes in mean temperature can lead to major changes in
climate distribution is ill-founded and, likely, wrong.