Your Grace occasionally receives complaints about abusive email arising from your posts. I suggest that when you get such a complaint, you ask for the source IP address of the email and check it against the IP addresses of those who comment here. If there is a correspondence, then you can investigate further, e.g., ask to see the text of the email and exercise your own judgment as to whether it is "fairly unpleasant" or not. In the absence of a correspondence, there's really nothing worth reporting (cf. Nurse on allegedly abusive FOIA requests).

[BH adds: Only works for fixed IP addresses]

Interesting memo from the White House on science and climate collaboration with the UK
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/27/interesting-memo-from-the-white-house-on-science-and-climate-collaboration-with-the-uk/#more-40624

They endorsed the announcement of UK
co-funding of the National Science Foundation’s Partnerships for
International Research and Education program in the area of
Sustainable Materials for Energy, agreeing that sustainability should
be a key consideration when making choices among competing energy
technology options.

Does this mean the death of wind power?

At last, a genuine reason to use the cry "trebles all round".

The link below is more useful than the MSM reports of this bombshell, because, at the bottom of the page, there is a button to help a mentally challanged connoisseur find a UK shop where he/she can purchase whisky! Who would have thought that Tesco is listed - every little helps:-

http://www.scotchmaltwhisky.co.uk/scotchwhiskyrenewableenergy.htm

So, a 7,200kW generator ..."– enough to power 9,000 homes - ...."

Right, that 800 watts per home, oh wait minute, is that enough?

Let us see if wind electricity is more useful than whisky waste electricity.

"Thanet Offshore Wind Farm

Vattenfall acquired the Thanet Offshore Wind Farm project in November 2008. Construction was completed September 2010. There are 100 Vestas V90 wind turbines that have a total capacity of 300 MW. This is sufficient to supply more than 200,000 homes per year with clean energy."
See: http://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/thanet-offshore-wind-farm.htm

So, 300,00 kW of generation for more than 200,000 homes, blimey, at least 1,500 watts per home!

Which is right, or are they both wrong?

You would think that this is something trading standards or the advertising standards agency or even MPs would take on board, surely we do not want the voters to be mislead about "renewables", do we?

Oh, wait a minute.

http://www.cobdencentre.org/2011/05/a-long-way-from-reaching-our-peak/

Brilliant article by Sean Corrigan.

A must read in my opinion.

lapogus

It would be interesting to put on an exhibition of countryside paintings by the old masters that have been touched up to include windmills, solar farms and pylons. It would certainly catch the attention of the MSM and general public. Maybe someone has some contacts in the art world?

Excellent piece against windmills by Simon Jenkins in Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/26/bravo-for-the-nimbys-wind-power

I can't recall ever seeing Lee Klinger comment here. But he's clearly read the book: "I refuse to stand by and allow the Hockey Stick graph to be presented at a major scientific meeting without mention of its errors" [this is the final post in an interesting sequence of three].

The (US) EPA's Administrator Lisa Jackson confirms that fracking does not contaminate ground water:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/video-epa-administrator-confirms-no-fracking-water-contamination/

Missing link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8535741/Barack-Obama-snubs-British-scientists-by-refusing-to-receive-Royal-Society-medal.html

Barack Obama snubs British scientists by refusing to receive Royal Society medal
Barack Obama has snubbed Britain’s most eminent scientists by refusing to attend a Royal Society banquet in his honour at which he was to be awarded with a prestigious medal.

*The King Charles II medal is awarded in “exceptional circumstances” to heads of state who have “made an outstanding contribution to furthering scientific research in their country”.