"New study links ozone hole to climate change all the way to the equator"

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-columbia-links-ozone-hole-climate.html

(tilts head, places one finder behind ear for emphasis) Is that the sweet sound of chiseling, I hear?

Click on the Google Disney-fied logo today, replete with polar bears and penguins and it takes you straight through to a list of Earth Day sites.

Bing - here I come....

BBD:

As I said a few days ago, the idea that we can "provide leadership" on Climate Change is as absurd as it's embarrassing. Here's a quotation from an article by Oliver Letwin (Cabinet Office minister):

… this is an issue of moral leadership – we absolutely have to establish moral leadership on the issue of climate change ... Those of us who made the case at Copenhagen for a carbon cap now have a moral obligation to show that we are true to our word by delivering green changes in our own countries. Doing so will send a signal to more reluctant countries that we are serious, and will help build the conditions necessary to reach a global agreement to act.

Hmm ... a "signal" from the UK will really make China and India (etc, etc.) think again. Perhaps he sees it as the White Man's Burden.

Spot the difference between AGW and this guy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preacher-warns-end-of-the-world-is-nigh-21-may-around-6pm-to-be-precise-2254139.html

I can't see any.

quote Critics point out that this isn't the first time Mr Camping has predicted the second coming. On 6 September 1994, hundreds of his listeners gathered at an auditorium in Alameda looking forward to Christ's return.

"At that time there was a lot of the Bible I had not really researched very carefully," he said last week. "But now, we've had the chance to do just an enormous amount of additional study and God has given us outstanding proofs that it really is going to happen."

The Climate Change Act has got to go.

To cynical eyes, Luciana Berger, MP, seems to have an agenda:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/19/climate-change-act-green-coalition

Thanks to Green Sand for posting this one up.

The binding targets ensure that departments set out a clear roadmap for carbon reduction, and this in turn gives businesses the certainty they need to invest.

Which businesses, and in what are they investing?

Ah, some clarity:

Why hasn't he already made a public statement in support of the act and given the low-carbon sector the reassurance it needs?

Windmills and solar panels. And subsidies.

Meanwhile, the UK's nonsensical unilateral posturing on emissions (CCA) is ignored around the globe.

'Moral leadership' is worthless if nobody else cares.

Turning Tide: I hadn't seen that comment by Huhne. But he would say that, wouldn't he?

(I wouldn't necessarily place too much credance on what a junior partner to the coalition says to an environmental organ in the immediate run-up to local elections. Ask the students.)

Just thought I'd mention -

I watched some of the last in the series "Filthy Cities" last night. It's been quite an interesting series of programs looking at how cities started to deal with sewage in the 19th century. Presented by the young Mr Snow.

All was going well, until the last couple of minutes:

"Only now are we coming to terms with the vast amounts of unseen filth our modern cities create. Many of the technological solutions that transformed New York city in the 19th century produced waste that has blighted the 21st. Every 15 minutes New York produces enough greenhouse gases to fill the entire Empire State building. That's 58 million tonnes a year, or seven tonnes per person per year. And of course those gases can not be confined to the city that created them. Now it's a truly global problem."

Apparently CO2 is "unseen filth".

@matthu

(Buff)Huhne is insisting that the Climate Change Act isn't under threat:

Huhne insists Climate Change Act is not up for debate

Greens angry that UK Government apparently prepared to review the unilateral Climate Change Act

What can we do to help the process along?

Also GWPF discusses it here

"Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account” By Ross McKittrick discussed on Pielke Snr's site.

McKittrick says:

The public has lost confidence in the ability of the major institutions of climatology, including the IPCC and the leading journals, to deal impartially with the evidence.

... I have yet to see a case in which an institution or a segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warming issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.