Prince Chuckles leads by example NOT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009054/Prince-Charles-income-taxpayer-rises-18-bucks-recession.html

Prince Charles bucks recession by spending more on staff and travel than last year... as his income from taxpayer rises 18%
Charles's tax bill soars by £900,000 to £4,398,000

Spending on travel up 56% to £1,080,000
Camilla and Charles travel 34,000 miles on official trips

Carbon neutral my arse

THanks Q, survey done together with comments where I questioned whether answers which constantly reinforced the point "High air pollution and carbon output", with regard to not going down the renewables route could be considered an objective survey.

Those resident in Scotland may be interested to know about a survey that is being carried out by Stirling University on Scotland's future energy strategy, see
http://www.electricitysurvey.com/

Sorry if this has gone round before. I have only just seen (and laughed at) this...

http://vimeo.com/17082274

Of interest in the ICO's judgement is the ruling on adverse interest. The Commissioner notes that for an exception under 12(5) to apply, it is necessary to show that the disclosure would have an adverse effect, not merely that it could have. And even if it can be shown that disclosure would have an adverse effect, the information must be disclosed unless in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

I wold imagine this puts a few holes in the argument for keeping IPCC communications secret ...

Breaking news: Today probably marks the closing chapter of the longstanding FOI request for CRUTEM station data. The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathon Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The decision that can only be characterized as a total thrashing of the University of East Anglia.

Climate Audit has the story. They tried a scattergun approach to their defence and each defence was painstakingly dismantled and dispensed with. They have been given 35 days to comply or be charged with contempt of court ... I can imagine Acton and Co. must be choking on their breakfast this morning.

Sorry. Should have been a link there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/27/lord-monckton-university-lecture1

Not much evidence of compromise in this piece by Leo Hickman.

Still spouting the same tired rhetoric. 'Death threats', 'evidence based knowledge' etc.

The original letter objecting to Monckton's speaking (ever again, I assume) is from Natalie Latter of the University of Western Australia. Rather amusingly, one of her objections to Monckton is that he has ,"...zero peer-reviewed publications". As she herself is a political science post grad student her opinion is therefore, according to her own criteria, irrelevant.

I'm sure Leo will be the first to tell Alan Rusbridger that he, Leo and George must speak no more on climate change, as they are not properly qualified.

Glad we've got that cleared up.

Which? investigate the solar panel cowboys.

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/06/solar-panel-firms-give-consumers-poor-advice-says-which--256929/

BBC news at lunch time, power cables on the East of the country are getting too hot due to the heatwave!