Los Alamitos school board has voted unanimously for different perspectives on global warming to be taught in schools:

Los Al board passes global warming rule

Cue much foaming at the mouth among warmists in relation to the (flawed) analogy with the creationism/evolution dispute.

Dr Roy Spencer posted a calculation suggesting that the temperature rise due to a doubling CO2 is only 1 to 1.3 K (depending upon the method of calculation). http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/weak-warming-of-the-oceans-1955-2010-implies-low-climate-sensitivity/

The BBC are running a Risk Test:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/labuk/experiments/risk/

You have to register to do it but I found it much better than expected and well worth doing (although as always you could nitpick various points I'm sure).

Amongst the questions you have to rate the risk of real life events, driving, hang-gliding etc. You also have a test of your own numeracy via various probability questions. The answers are at the end to see how well you did.

But slipped in is a question to simply rate your perceived relative threat of various things ...one of which is Climate Change!

So I was thinking......there is some very useful info contained in the results of this test. We have some empirical evidence about the numeracy and risk assessment skills of the participants, but also their perceived rating of the risk of Climate Change.

I would be very interested to know where the high scorers rate CC, versus the low scorers.

I am always bugged by the "Smartest Man in The Room" syndrome exhibited by AGW proponents when it is patently not true. Well here we could have some evidence.

Give it a go and see what you think.

Roger Harrabin has an update on the Guardian wishful thinking of last week. Still rather ominious.

Cameron intervenes to settle row over emissions targets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13409404

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/un_climate_chief_congress_failure_on_emissions_is_brake_on_world_action_expects_turnaround/2011/05/12/AFf05H1G_story.html?tid=obnetwork

"Without emissions reductions, the U.N. network of climate scientists projects global average temperatures might rise as much as 6.4 degrees C (11.5 F) in this century. An authoritative scientific assessment issued May 3 forecast sea levels rising by 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, as oceans expand from heat and from runoff of melted land ice."

Bangs head on wall.......

BIG. Nigel Calder's blog is alive again with positive news on actual and imminent publication of experimental vindication of the Svensmark Cosmic Particle Cloud Theory.

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/briefly-some-news/

and

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation/

The Graun seems to be the only paper reporting the supposedly historic agreement on climate change, thrashed out by the Cabinet. Are they jumping the gun?

Meanwhile, other papers are reporting this story about Huhne:

Huhne's damning phonecall: Cabinet Minister's attempt to silence claims he 'tried to dodge speeding points'

Chris Huhne apparently only consults with green groups- otherwise presumably he would realise what a disaster these proposals will be for the UK economy- making fatuous gestures towards solutions for a probably non- existent problem. Goodbye to the country I thought I knew.

Perhaps someone could suggest to Huhne that he has weekly lobby meetings with respected sceptics as well as the Greens, in order to supply him with some balance. He is definitely unbalanced at the moment.

Historic climate change deal with legal powers agreed by Cabinet

Chris Huhne will announce a long-term programme that will put Britain at the forefront of the battle against climate change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/14/historic-climate-change-deal-agreed-chris-huhne

The RSPB, Christian Aid, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Oxfam, the Wildlife Trusts, Butterfly Conservation, Plantlife, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Woodland Trust.

Apparently the above organisations all believe that they should be advising the government on the economy.

"Most critically we urge you to set out the case that a green economy is central to the future prosperity of the UK and not a cost to be endlessly debated and watered down, as if it were a luxury. As a first step in doing this, and to create clarity for investors and citizens about the UK’s direction, we would urge you to accept the key recommendations of the CCC’s fourth carbon budget report."

I assume that they feel the need to advise the government on economic matters because they are also all experts in CO2 and its impacts on climate systems.

I seem to remember a time when the RSPB just looked after birds. Good to know that they don't allow themselves to be confined within such narrow margins any more. Let's hope they continue to expand their horizons. Perhaps they might advise us on what song to pick for Eurovision next year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13398311