The demise of the IPCC, I hear a nail being hammered into a coffin lid.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/estimated-co2-warming-cut-65

Are these new guidelines pre-empting the report of the BBC Trust enquiry? Can't find any section referring to the subject of [C]AGW....but there is this, under the heading Consensus:

"4.4.19
There are some issues which may seem to be without controversy, appearing to be backed by a broad or even unanimous consensus of opinion. Nevertheless, they may present a significant risk to the BBC's impartiality. In such cases, we should continue to report where the consensus lies and give it due weight. However, even if it may be neither necessary nor appropriate to seek out voices of opposition, our reporting should resist the temptation to use language and tone which appear to accept consensus or received wisdom as fact or self-evident.
(See Section 4 Impartiality: 4.4.29)
We must challenge our own assumptions and experiences and also those which may be commonly held by parts of our audience. BBC output should avoid reinforcing generalisations which lack relevant evidence, especially when applying them to specific circumstances. This might occur in the fields of politics, race, charity, science, technology, medicine or elsewhere. These can present some of the most difficult challenges to asserting that the BBC does not hold its own opinion. Care should be taken to treat areas of apparent consensus with proper rigour. Where necessary, consult Editorial Policy."

Another video in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/11/climate-activism-film-just-do-it

"Emily James on climate direct action film Just Do ItThe 'wilfully optimistic' film-maker Emily James talks about the frustrations of filming direct action and how she hopes to harness the power of the crowd to fund the project"

'Direct action'

Just Do It......

A few connections to Franny and Age of Stupid (10:10)

"When you're filming environmental activists who make dawn raids on airports and attempt to invade power stations, you can't really write up a filming schedule. That was one of the first things film-maker Emily James had to learn in the making of Just Do It, an upcoming documentary about the climate direct action movement in the UK which she is currently in the painful process of raising money to finish.

James says: "I'd get a call, giving me a time and a meet point, and the issue – like, it's a coal action. Sometimes you'd have no idea what time you'd be home again, and with some actions we'd meet the day before and then, for security reasons, nobody would be able to leave again till the action had taken place."

The project came into being after a friend involved in anti-aviation expansion group Plane Stupid asked James, a National Film and Television School-trained film-maker who had been the executive producer on the Age of Stupid climate movie, to come along and film the group blockading part of Stansted airport. James explains Just Do It's genesis: "

I even got a comment in!!!!!!! (see bbcbias)

Here is a link worth remembering..

New BBC editorial guidelines, on impartiality and controversial subjects!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-controversial-subjects/

I wish people such as Climate Rush wouldn't link suffragettes to their own kind of undemocratic direct action - suffragettes surely acted as they did because they had NO ACCESS TO THE BALLOT BOX (apologies for the capitals).

Climate Rush activists storm Daily Express newsroom

One of the group gave a short presentation on the facts of climate change, and they gave Parrott crib notes on refuting arguments by climate sceptics. Parrott explained that what sells papers is the front page, which is the reason for sensational headlines. Here are a couple of examples from the Daily Express: "Climate change lies exposed" and "100 reasons why global warming is natural".

But did he believe the facts of climate change, they asked? He wasn't sure. But he would pass on the leaflets for a Climate Rush meeting next Thursday to his daughters, who are "into that sort of thing", he said.

The "suffragette-inspired women-led eco-activist group", as they are described by Omond, only took direct action after two Press Complaints Commission letters and emails to the editor asking for a meeting had come to nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/11/climate-rush-daily-express

Having got absolutely nowhere with previous letters about CAGW to my MP Ming Campbell, I thought I might get a more considered response to my letter last week about the No Pressure video.

I received this letter this morning, with no answer to any of my questions about government funding of 10;10 propaganda, etc, just this:

"I refer to your email 5th October and note your comments on the video "No Pressure".
Yours sincerely
Menzies Campbell"

I consider that reply is insulting and a waste of a stamp.

The lack of legal minds, and their formal procedures, was a real shame in the recent inquiries into climategate. The courts made an impact with the constraints imposed on the use of Gore's movie in schools in England & Wales. The courts seem to have had an impact in exposing irresponsibilities in the care of temperature records in New Zealand. Now in the USA, it seems they may help at last bring to the light of day whatever it is by way of evidence (as opposed to hand waving) that has convinced people like James Hansen that there are grounds for alarm about CO2:

'According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration's move to curb 'greenhouse gases' using the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn legal challenges from more than 90 companies and trade associations. This could be very interesting since any of these legal challenges conceivably might result in subpoenas issued for infamous warmists such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, forcing them to provide documents and prove their flimsy AGW theory under cross-examination in a court of law. Here's what happened when James Hansen was 'boxed in' on the witness stand once before, dumbfounded when cross-examined and asked to name just one other scientist who agreed with his assertion that sea levels would rise more than 1 meter this century, stating "I could not, instantly." '

See: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/epa-sued-by-over-90-entities-for.html

Sunny Hundal is a sensitive bunny, just posted the comment below over here:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/10/in-praise-of-marina-pepper-domestic-extremist/

It is in response to having two comments deleted (I'm guessing this comment won't last overly long either, Sunny's comment was: "Why do these f*cking climate change denying nutjobs have to pollute every thread?"):

"Deleting and abuse is so much easier than addressing the content of Professor Hal Lewis's letter, Sunny, I guess he's an eminent nutjob.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

We'll keep polluting every blog that promotes those who wish to control our lives in the name of this scam. Mind your business and we'll mind ours."

Folks!!

Its 10:10 day!!!!!

Just in case the excitement has passed you by.

I am really looking forward to the reports of how many kiddie deniers they manage to kill. No foaming blood on the River Mole as yet ..but hey its still early.

In case its me they come to get (a Greenie knows where I live and has even broken bread chez moi) I bid you all a fond farewell. Fight the good fight those who remain.

Seems appopriate that my namesake and possible forefather was also no believer in AGW for he said as he was martyred on their own version of 10:10 burn the heretics day

'We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.'

..no worries about CO2 for him.