Large negative feedback reported with "Global implications" - makes a change:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/29/iceberg_phytoplankton_boost/

@Breath of fresh air

Yeah, I can't believe they're repeating that old claim about the cooling maybe being caused by aerosols when one of their own minor deities, Phil Jones, refuted it in a recent paper.

Pity the FAQ entries aren't commentable!

Guardians neutral NOT FAQ

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/25/global-cooling

Move along nothing to worry about.

After the EU madness flagged by Ross H we have ...

UN report: Cities ignore climate change at their peril
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12881779

Osborne tosses £3bn gift to the green elite

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/28/osbourne_new_green_elite/

Sorry, another BBC link, but this one is great!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12879566

TurningTide

Blank Vellum (well blank something anyway ;) ) accuses you of

'To those padding their own recommends, note this: self praise is faint praise indeed.'

Which is weird, as they so heads in the ground they still think the Science is settled (or robust) they must always have the most recommends even in the CIF Guardian.

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2011/03/special-issue-on-medieval-climate.html

@Breath of fresh air

Te-he. My own comment:

"At least this article acknowledges what the sceptics have been saying all along: AGW is a religion."

has the highest no. of recommends in the thread.

But that must be because of (tick as appropriate):

(a) Multiple self-recommends [even though that seems to be impossible on CiF]
(b) Automated recommends from my Big Oil paymasters
(c) Recommends from all my sock-puppers [because I've got nothing better to do all day but create multiple accounts on CiF, trawl for my own posts and click the Recommend button]
(d) An orchestrated campaign on denialist blogs to solicit recommends for denialist posts on CiF

I mean, it couldn't possibly be because more readers actually agree with me, could it? Because that would spoil a long tradition in the AGW community of ignoring the data when it doesn't match the pre-determined conclusion!

A boring artical thats not worth reading, but a look at the comments is, that is until the thought police start pruning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/26/earth-hour