The Guardian announced what it modestly described as "The Ultimate Climate Change FAQ". We should be so lucky.
The Economist meanwhile was struck by a sudden burst of realism, in an article calling for adaptation to be taken much more seriously than it is now.
Oxfam seem to have an extraordinarily foolish approach to the climate change issue. See how many fallacies and errors you can spot in their latest blog post. Then give your money to someone else.
Prospect magazine seems to think that climate scientists might be going to open a new front in the climate wars...by being honest about uncertainty:
Too often the relationship between scientists and the public is built on a convenient lie. The public wants certainty; scientists pretend to deliver. The debates of the past year have cruelly exposed that lie.
UEA are getting upset with Delingpole, threatening him with a trip to the Press Complaints Commission if he keeps expressing "inaccurate and vituperative views". Dellers doesn't sound very scared.
Talking of innaccuracy, UEA have written to the House of Commons SciTech Committee again. Their latest contribution could best be described as "splitting hairs".
Louise Gray reprints the Met Office press release which says that global warming has slowed because of pollution. Said pollution is supposed to have come from increased energy use in Asia. Now this looks odd to me, because increased energy use in Asia was surely factored into the IPCC models...? And we have surely had less growth than expected, not more?
The Met Office were also evidence at this Climate Question Time for city types, reported by Andy Russell. La Papa is quoted is saying "Low climate sensitivities (below 2°C) look unrealistic from latest model runs." I would have thought high sensitivities look unreleastic, based on reality since the last IPCC forecasts predictions projections.