I tried to recommend a (sceptical) comment on CiF this morning. not something I usually do, but it seemed to me rather well written. It was at 55 and I was surprised when it didn't seem to have moved to 56 and there was I thinking perhaps I hadn't clicked it properly.

Amazing events are happening at The Graun. For some time I have been viewing CIF, and used to comment until I was put on premoderation, not for anything offensive, but because I suspect that one of the mods took a dislike to what I had to say. These days none of my comments are put up.

However, I still go to CIF to witness the warmists getting their arses kicked into the middle of next week by contributors far more eloquent than me, and I use the recommend button accordingly. On many occasions, I have suspected that there has been shenanigans going on behind the scenes with the recommends. Too many reccs for a sceptical viewpoint - comment deleted, or the recc does'nt register.
Or a warmist comment can suddenly aquire 10 or 20 reccs in as many minutes.

But there has always been one constant, which is that the sceptical recommends on the majority of AGW articles outnumber the recommends on the opposing side.

Until the blog fight kicked off with Mr Monbiot. In an article entitled 'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science. Out of a total of 203 comments, the first comment which includes an ad hom on Monckton has an incredible 237 recommends, and there is barely a comment from a sceptic, at least on page one. I could'nt be bothered to look further as CIF has now lost what little remaining credibility it once had.

Did the editors and moderators of CIF graduate from the Pravda School of Journalism, and study for Doctorates at the University of Pyong Yang?

Jeez!

Bishop Hill,

Is there anything happening in the background as far as updates / assessments of the police investigation of the release of the CRU emails?

John

L'Académie des Sciences has issued a press release after all.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/veil-lifted-on-french-academy-de.html

@ ZedsDeadBed

Just so all the information is spread around....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z00L2uNAFw8

Poor old Moonbat is sounding very down in the mouth over at the Gruniad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure

Only a thoroughly heartless person could fail to be moved by such despondency (snigger).

Monseigneur

The French Académie des Sciences debate on Climate Science is taking place today. Closed sesssion, no communication to the Press. Speakers had to deliver their submissions, in confidence, by the end of August. Inside sources say the aim is to identify what is consensus and what is debateable.

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/09/18/climat-debat-a-huis-clos-a-l-academie-des-sciences_1412854_3244.html

Well I never, a completely meaningless answer from Amazon re the recategorising of GW books. No further comment allowed from me apparently

"Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.

At Amazon.co.uk, we passionately believe in freedom of expression and providing our customers with the broadest possible selection.

The Amazon Bestsellers calculation is based on Amazon.co.uk sales and is updated hourly to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.co.uk.

While the Amazon Bestsellers list is a good indicator of how well a product is selling overall, it doesn't always indicate how well an item is selling among other similar items. Category and subcategory bestseller lists were created to highlight an item's rank in the categories or subcategories where it really stands out. We choose a few of the most popular subcategories in which the item has a high ranking in relation to other items in that subcategory, and showcase the item's rank on the product page. As with the main Amazon Bestsellers list, these category rankings are based on Amazon.co.uk sales and are updated hourly.

We value all feedback from our customers, and I thank you again for taking the time to send us your comments. Although we won't be able to comment further on this topic, we hope you'll allow us to continue to serve you. I hope this information is helpful.

Thank you for your interest in Amazon.co.uk.

Stephen Lourdes
Executive Customer Relations
Amazon.co.uk
http://www.amazon.co.uk

Bish, would you like me to copy and paste the Willie Soon opinion piece from yesterdays South China Morning Post. I’m not sure how we stand as its behind a pay wall (4500 words ish snip me if you wish)

Willie Soon
Sep 17, 2010

Hot air
Is carbon dioxide really the monster driving climate change? If not, maybe we should prepare for a colder world.

In my 20-plus years of studying carbon dioxide and global warming, I have found that hypothetical scares often come before any realities or factual presentations. Horror stories about rising seas inundating land, cities and wildlife, super typhoons and hurricanes, and epic "mega droughts" lasting a decade or longer are all promoted as devastating results of global warming caused by the rising levels of carbon dioxide, according to reports and scientists associated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But will any of these scary scenarios about the carbon dioxide monster prove true for Hong Kong?

My recent seminar at the University of Hong Kong's Department of Earth Sciences offered this simple answer: No. Objective science informs us that the so-called "consensus viewpoints" offered by the IPCC - about man-made carbon dioxide being the dominant factor in climate change - is primarily a political conclusion, and not likely a scientifically accurate one..........

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=694fe125a8a1b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Hong+Kong&s=News