Your Grace,
Is there enough meat in the Guardian story re: Lomborg's new book, being hailed as a turnaround by MAJOR skeptic at the Huffington Post?

I must be extremely bored or I wouldn't be adding this absolutely stupid, wrong, alarmist - call it what you may - link from the Washington Post.

Is it silly season? Or is this some lame attempt to divert from the IAC report?

The article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083003947.html?hpid=artslot

Increased carbon in atmosphere may explain bumper crop of poison ivy

Are there any plans to release the HSI in Kindle format or are there previously voiced objections?

In the last week I have written to Chris Huhne and to Prof Bob Watson accusing Watson of being a liar when he stated at the Guardian Debate that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere "it must warm".
At that same debate Watson said that he could not imagine a better system to advise on climate change than the IPCC. This weekend in the Telegraph he accuses the IPCC of atrocious handling of its mistakes. All that is now required is for him to admit (nudge nudge wink wink) that maybe they were not all mistakes :)

Please have a look at Private Eye 1269, page 9, "THE GREEN STUFF".
I can't capture it from the site - but it is an astonishing account of the proposals for a "Green Investment Bank". When I first read it I thought it was a spoof - it is too ridiculous for words. The amount of money involved in this venture is staggering - and it's all coming from the UK taxpayer. Maybe those in the UK would like to comment - I'm staying here in Australia.

Bish: It's August 30th and your report is due out by the end of August. Is it timed to come aout tomorrow, i.e. after the IAC review of the IPCC?

Stephan Lewandoski is surveying attitudes to climate science at

http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HKMKNF_991e2415

As someone who in my time has worked with professional survey companies and Government statistics bureaux, the survey is moderately flawed - e.g. asking two-parter questions with a single answer, failing to define a few terms such as 'climate scientist', failing to account for perfectly plausible answers - e.g. does HIV cause AIDS? Correct answer is probably that HIV is a necessary but not sufficent condition (even that is wrong - some people have AIDS but no HIV, many people have HIV but not AIDS - with or without treatment).

Overall he is getting your ( American style ) political beliefs, then a bit of science - very badly worded and designed to turn honest answers into climate propaganda - and then a bit of lifestyle stuff.

With the science questions, the less you know the better, because Thinking Scientists™ look at the deeper questions, so they are as likely to answer 'wrongly' as any non-scientist

Ahoy Lad

I can see recruitment for the submarine service falling off sharply if this goes ahead. ^.^

I know there are some really off the wall ideas for generating energy, but this is surely taking the p*ss :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11023725

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 ... ?