Shale gas 'worse than coal' for climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13053040

Simon Singh has switched off all comments on his blog - he could not reconcile himself to appearing either unintelligent, dishonourable, or having to disavow manmade climate change. So he seems to have withdrawn from climate debate altogether. I placed a comment at the end of this thread:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/4/3/singhs-response-to-nelson.html

One to watch:

Vestas Wind Systems To Contest US Class Action Lawsuit

Interesting paper being cited by Judith Curry: Solomon, Amy, and Coauthors, 2011: Distinguishing the Roles of Natural and Anthropogenically Forced Decadal Climate Variability. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 92, 141–156. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS2962.1

Part of Judith's conclusion is as follows:

The authors of this paper are members of the climate establishment, in terms of being involved with the WCRP CLIVAR Programme and also the IPCC. This paper arguably provides more fodder for skepticism of the AR4 conclusions than anything that I have seen from the climate establishment (the authors may not realize this). The issues surrounding natural internal decadal scale variability are a huge challenge for separating out natural from forced climate change. The same issues and challenges raised for future projections remain also for the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century. Sorting this out is the key challenge. No more unequivocals or very likelys in the AR5, please.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/04/07/separating-natural-and-anthropogenically-forced-decadal-climate-variability/

Nitrogen pollution 'costs EU up to £280bn a year'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13025304

Great article by David Evans

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

A lovely short history of climate science.

AJC

The sharp, temporary drop in MSL between 1997 - 1998 was associated with the 'super' El Nino of that year.

This excursion seems to be the only factor permitting the calculation of a trend in SLR of >4mm/yr for most islands in the SEAFRAME study. This would appear to be a misrepresentation.

Please see the original comment on the previous page (at 07 April 6:03pm) and Fig1 and Fig 4 in the 2009 SEAFRAME report on Tuvalu:

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60033/IDO60033.2009.pdf

Of course you are right to suggest that the geoid affects relative sea levels, but I don't think it is implicated here. For example, you must ask: what changed the geoid to cause change in MSL in the area of the study?

One wonders if some of the sinking/growing in Tuvalu and elsewhere could be explained by gravitational shifts affecting the local sealevel?

Goce satellite views Earth's gravity in high definition
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8767763.stm

As someone who has been the subject of a complaint to the PCC I can say that the bar for a complaint to be upheld is fairly high.
And that is for regular news reports. The standard needed to criticise a comment or a blog is likely to be higher still. The fact that UEA chose to go down this route says a lot about their mindset and the response from the PCC and the detail of the ruling should give them considerable pause for thought.
The emails do bear the interpretation which Delingpole (and several hundred thousand other people) put on them.
Only the insiders genuinely believe that the "independent" inquiries were genuinely independent.
Whatever may be the belief system around UEA, the body charged with keeping a watch on the probity of the communications media does not accept the view that the university staff are above criticism and particularly (and significantly) does not take the view that because they say something is so that (a) it necessarily is so; (b) that those who disagree may not say so publicly: and (c) that even if it is so, freedom of speech allows for all manner of people to dispute it even if they are writing total rubbish.
This judgement could have far-reaching consequences.

Press Complaints Council support Delingpole over UEA

From the PCC ruling (if the UEA had any sense then had better shut-up now)

Through its correspondence the newspaper had provided some evidence in support of the statements under dispute, and the columnist had included some of this evidence in the second blog post under discussion. In relation to the columnist’s description of Professor Jones as “FOI-breaching, email-deleting”, the newspaper had provided extracts from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”, and another email in which he had written “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”.

With respect to the columnist’s assertion that Professor Jones was “scientific method-abusing”, the newspaper had provided an extract from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”. In view of this, the Commission considered that there were some grounds for the columnist’s opinion – which readers would recognise was subjective – on these points.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/