This could be AGW sceptics' anniversary present for climategate: Sarkozy has pulled the plug on France's super ministry of environment:

Great News! Sarkozy Kills French Super Environment Ministry “Medad”

According the the American Geophysical Union, John Christy and Richard Lindzen are not considered to have enough expertise on climate to talk to journalists:

http://europe.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-manufactured-climate-consensus/09830130-409E-4202-A205-55365DC06B76.html

An amusing comment found on the page linked too by Turning Tide below.

"Journalists can try to influence public opinion, and I am glad to see that you Richard are sticking to your guns unlike many others, but what to do about "climate fatigue" and what do the public know anyway? Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is the biggest threat to mankind and democracy is the biggest impediment to saving mankind, democracy must be put on hold until this one is fixed, and perhaps a few more big problems need to be fixed at the same time."

Suspend democracy and do what you want guys! That'll fix it!

@Barry Woods

Black is back - talking about Cancun: Copenhagen or Babel? A climate conundrum

On Conservative Home -

Chris Huhne should worry about warming gran's house, he can't do anything about global warming

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/11/chris-huhne-should-worry-about-warming-grans-house-he-cant-do-anything-about-global-warming.html

An extract - full article above:

"By massive margins, Tory members have long believed that energy prices, not climate change, will be voters' top priority. They have been vindicated. There is going to be no progress on combating climate change for the foreseeable future. The climate change lobby was badly wounded at Copenhagen, late last year. Last week, because of the US mid-terms and the election of a sceptical Republican Congress, the lobby is close to death. Yes, we should continue to do green things that have other benefits (eg energy conservation). Yes, we should invest in clean technologies (but Dalibor Rohac sounds a warning on this). But no, we should not be doing anything that pointlessly hurts energy consumers, handicaps UK manufacturing and which does nothing to stop China, India and other energy-poor countries from increasing the world's carbon footprint.

We need to do what Lord Lawson has long recommended. Get richer so we can afford to adapt. A richer world can then afford to invest in resilence against extreme weather events. In the meantime Chris Huhne should we worried about warming Aunt Mabel's house. He can't do anything about global warming."

And my comments have not been deleted yet!

Paul Hudson (BBC) is allowed to be very sceptical - about the energy gap...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/10/energy-bills-update.shtml

The notion that most of the costs associated with reaching our renewable energy generation targets by 2020 will effectively be met by better insulating our homes and being more energy efficient may take some selling to the general public.

oops,someone called Bishop Hill, got to his coments allready!!

Climategate Anniversary this week...

Here's hoping. for somehing new (a million to one chance - no doubt ;) )

'By massive margins, Tory members have long believed that energy prices, not climate change, will be voters' top priority. They have been vindicated. There is going to be no progress on combating climate change for the foreseeable future. The climate change lobby was badly wounded at Copenhagen, late last year. Last week, because of the US mid-terms and the election of a sceptical Republican Congress, the lobby is close to death. Yes, we should continue to do green things that have other benefits (eg energy conservation). Yes, we should invest in clean technologies (but Dalibor Rohac sounds a warning on this). But no, we should not be doing anything that pointlessly hurts energy consumers, handicaps UK manufacturing and which does nothing to stop China, India and other energy-poor countries from increasing the world's carbon footprint.

We need to do what Lord Lawson has long recommended. Get richer so we can afford to adapt. A richer world can then afford to invest in resilence against extreme weather events. In the meantime Chris Huhne should we worried about warming Aunt Mabel's house. He can't do anything about global warming.'

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/11/chris-huhne-should-worry-about-warming-grans-house-he-cant-do-anything-about-global-warming.html

We are sorry for the period of induced climate naivety due to a technical problem beyond our control. Rest assured that normal politics will be resumed without delay!

climate mystery...

Where's Richard Black (BBC)

No blog for over 2 weeks, and the comments are closed?

Must have flown off somewhere important? look at the date.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/from_the_un_convention_on_7.html

Barry
Oxfam court, what can I say..... am I still on the same planet as some of these people. Jaw on the foor moment when I read that.

From Investors.com, an article looking at the results of that Scientific American poll (ref Judith Curry – ‘Heretic’ ) What happens next, if some investors look to make a quiet exit from all green investments?

The ‘Carbon Crunch’ ?

quote:

“A new consensus is emerging as the unraveling of the global warming tale picks up speed.”

Investor.com: A New Consensus
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553695/201011121850/A-New-Consensus.htm
Posted 06:50 PM ET

Global Warming: Wouldn’t the followers of Scientific American have a pretty good understanding of what’s really going on with the climate? If a reader poll is any indication, they’re skeptical man is heating the planet.

For years we’ve heard that scientists have reached a “consensus” that the earth is warming due to a greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s use of fossil fuels. No use in discussing it further, Al Gore and others have said. It’s happening.

Not every reader of Scientific American magazine is a scientist. But the responses of the 7,000 readers (6,767 as of Friday morning) who’ve taken the magazine’s online poll strongly suggest that claims of a consensus are, at best, an exaggeration.

More than three-fourths (77.7%) say natural processes are causing climate change and almost a third (31.9%) blame solar variation. Only 26.6% believe man is the cause. (The percentages exceed 100 because respondents were allowed to choose more than one cause on this question.)

Whether climate change is man-caused or natural, most respondents don’t believe there’s anything that can be done about it anyway. Nearly seven in 10 (69.2%) agree “we are powerless to stop it.” A mere one in four (25.7%) recommend switching “to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already under way.”

and more, see above link.