How does one distinguish fake research projects from real research projects? It clearly isn't possible in the case of 'climate science'.

Robin, I bet you weren't quite prepared for the crushing put down to your challenge. You said

... I suggest that those who are advocating the need for urgent action should, instead of fussing about presentation, open their minds to the difficult and serious task of persuading the rest of us of the validity of each the following claims:

1. first, that recent warming is not a continuation of natural variation but is somehow anomalous;

2. then that the primary cause of the anomaly is Mankind’s emission of “greenhouse” gases, especially CO2;

3. then that, if the anomaly continues, it will cause serious problems for humanity and the environment;

4. then that the solutions proposed would avert these problems;

5. then that the solutions proposed are cost effective; and

6. then finally that the solutions proposed are politically and globally achievable.

Then (and only then) would be the time to worry about presentation – although I doubt if it would be necessary.

Or not, since all of those have been done.

I presume Jeremy was being sarcastic? oh, wait ...

Have you ever thought about how lucky we are that only kind-hearted helpful souls are involved in the erstwhile cottage industry known as “renewable energy”?

Imagine if a less-than-scrupulous agent got into these green-fields of money, and frolicked in the vast acreage of subsidies, schemes, and easy loans? Where would we be? The public would think the people and the industry were here to save us, the industry could prod levers of government to encourage more subsidies and pro-renewable energy legislation. The “cottage” industry could also pay for and help write reports that the government then used in order to convince the people to put more of their goods and chattels in the public-trough.

Hard to imagine, isn't it? (Jo Nova)

Some of the Bishop's flock might be interested in this. There's a nice cosy little site (http://makewealthhistory.org/) called "Make Wealth History" where lefties share comfortable thoughts about their usual concerns, including sometimes climate change. Few people seem to visit it, its host - Jeremy - is a good, well-meaning enough chap and it jogs along quite happily. Until, that is, on 29th May when Jeremy posted an article ("Credit where credit is due") reluctantly praising the Coalition for its climate policies. Then it was invaded by some nasty rough boys from Climate Change Dispatch - and the comment rate started to soar. Jeremy thought he had lost control and simply banned two of the aliens. But the trouble continued -- most recently with an article praising a PR firm's silly suggestion (the "Sizzle") that what AGW needs is not better science ("that's more robust than ever") but better presentation: “Climate change is no longer a scientist’s problem – it’s now a salesman’s problem”. Well, that developed into a most interesting debate which culminated in a CCD blogger (Amirach) and I putting pressure on poor old Jeremy about his opening "more robust than ever" claim. He found it increasingly difficult to deal with our arguments - so simply closed the thread. Thereby providing yet another case study in the impossibility of dealing plainly and logically with AGW true believers: eventually they simply close their ears: "la la la - I can't hear you." Yet they're happy enough (as happened on this thread) to accuse us of being ignorant anti-science deniers. And it's such people who are determined to ruin our economy and despoil our precious countryside. I'm close to despair.

Some might be interested to have a look. It's all here:

http://makewealthhistory.org/2011/06/17/the-sizzle-selling-climate-change/

And perhaps make a comment - but on another thread of course!

Interesting doc about NGOs and conservation here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3201652

criticising the way big NGOs get in bed with dubious partners. h/t to the Daily Bayonet who pointed out the celeb's favorite carbon negative bottled water may not be, as Dispatches explain. Also curious what will happen to the WWF if the carbon market continues to collapse. Didn't they borrow a lot of money to protect some unthreatened rainforests so they could milk the offsets?

Article on volcanos and CO2 emmissions:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/38998

"Why volcanism isn't the source of increasing carbon dioxide emissions
...In the June 14 (2011) issue of EOS (the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union), Terry Gerlach of the USGS disassembles the "volcanic source of increased carbon dioxide" argument in a paper called "Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide" (v.92, no. 24, p. 201-203). His answer? "The belief that volcano CO2 exceeds anthropogenic CO2 implies either unbelievable volumes of magma production or unbelievable concentrations of magmatic CO2." So, how does he reach this conclusion?"

Part of it may be a bit of a strawman, ie I'm not convinced too many sensible sceptics think volcanoes emit more CO2 than we do. I'm less certain that we know how much CO2 is emitted naturally though. The article seems more about CO2 emissions during eruptions rather than venting normally. As I understand it, there are a lot of vents and not many are routinely monitored for gas output.

Also a question for the geologists. Is there any isotope signature to show volcanic origin? I'm thinking the natural vs fossil isotope ratios showing new vs old CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Would volcanic CO2 show fossil isotopes, or would it show normal CO2?

Guardian reports on Al Gore's deniar fest in Rolling Stone

Climate of Denial
Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jun/23/al-gore-climate-us-politics-protest?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

And I appear to be OFF - pre-moderation..

MEPs have postponed a vote on whether or not Europe should toughen its climate targets and move to a 30 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020.

Environment committee chair Jo Leinen expressed "disappointment" with the delay, saying, "This opens the door for additional lobbying from climate sceptics and interest groups.

"There had already been a lot of lobbying against a 30 per cent reduction and this postponement is not very helpful."

If they can just postpone the vote until after publication of the first CERN CLOUD experimental results, lobbying may get a bit more vociferous... Maybe that's why it wouldn't be very helpful (to the AGW cause).

Re IT problems. I have two printers connected to a network running XP and 7 without difficulty.
I presume you have tried all the options.
1. The software for the printers needs to be installed on the machine they're connected to which needs to be turned on (obviously).
2. In Control Panel 'Printer Sharing' needs to be turned on in 'Properties'. If necessary look for additional drivers (sometimes, but not always, necessary when using different OS).
3. At first use, the slave machine will install what software is necessary to talk to the printer on the master machine.
The printer ought to be listed in 'My Network Places'.
Personally I think 7 is a pain in the backside. It takes three times as long to load and the instructions for setting up a network need a degree in Technical English and then a Masters in Engineering, as far as I can tell.

Hope this is some help though I suspect you've done all this.

[I have!]

U.S. Supreme Court Recommends Reading Freeman Dyson

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/3276-us-supreme-court-recommends-reading-freeman-dyson.html

... the Court quickly distances itself from EPA’s views with an interesting footnote:

“For views opposing EPA’s, see, e.g., Dawidoff, The Civil Heretic, N. Y. Times Magazine 32 (March 29, 2009). The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.”