Interesting article on Reference Frame

Czech IPCC Members are demanding that Pachauri resign or be resigned, amongst other things

Dung, you there?

"Will somebody attempt to debate with me that the case against AGW is NOT totally proven?"

If I've understood this correctly, your saying that you don't think there is any case for man-made global warming? I'd disagree with that, on the basis that man has an effect. Now, how big that effect is, is an unknown; my feeling from what I've read is that it's small enough to make no difference, or to put it another way, the signal generated by AGW is most likely lost in the noise of climate change. Putting it the other way around, the case for AGW is proven (radiative physics) the case for significant AGW is a long way from being proven to the point of it being unlikely ever to be (IMNSHO).
Hows that for openers :)

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1617-royal-society-bows-to-climate-change-sceptics.html

He He He He, now the tide is turning let's see how the politicos deal with this!

Roger H? You still here? Shouldn't you be off writing short snappy headlines along the lines of:

'Ooh looky here! Arctic ice growing ever so swiftly, swifter than ever known in recorded history (well 1982 anyway) heaven's at this rate we'll be up to our oxters in frozen polar bears, pass the matches it's gone a bit chilly'

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

Bish, the following has just been posted on JD's DT blog, anything from your contacts?

"JD and contributors to the thread will recall that, having for years assumed a role as principal lickspittle to the AGW scam community, the Royal Society was forced some months ago to announce that it was having to re-evaluate its position. It did so under pressure from a cadre of 43 of its own Fellows, who were finally no longer willing to tolerate blatant misrepresentation/
corruption of climate change science.

It may be of interest to know that the resutant report is today embargoed, but is reported to be ready for publication tomorrow, 30 Sept. Of course, I have not seen this report, but word has it that it will be conspicuously at variance with the "best scientific evidence", to quote its President, which was supposedly contained in the RS's previous website posting.

Thought people might like to know.

RW "

How to write a science article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

Nature takes its course:

'Dear Professor Pielke,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write to Nature, upon request. And for the revisions you’ve made, again at our request.

We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page.

We will however continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders, as appropriate.

We apologise for having taken up your time in this way.

Sincerely,'

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/invited-letter-now-rejected-by-nature-magazine/[

Klimazwiebel is doing a 'climate sceptics'. survey.
It takes about 10 minutes to fill in, deadline is 11 Oct.

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/09/rob-maris-skeptics-survey-launched.html

Fancy trying to out perform the UKMET?

The weather project

By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Analyst

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9029000/9029232.stm

So BBC News is trying to bring you the answer to the question "who can we trust?".

We are launching a Weather Test where we'll study the predictions of a number of people using different forecasting methods and we'll attempt to conclude which is most accurate.
To help us we've formed a steering group including Paul Hardaker, who runs the Royal Meteorological Society; Martin Dougherty, director of the Royal Statistical Society; and a member of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Other partners on the Weather Test steering group are the Willis Research Network of insurers, who take an obvious interest in weather matters; and Philip Eden, an independent weather historian. The group is completed by myself and my colleague Dominic Groves, Assistant Editor of the Today programme, who will manage the project within the BBC.

When methodology has been agreed, the comparison of forecasts will be done by the University of Leeds.

We want this to be an open project, so we're inviting members of the public to a public meeting in London on Tuesday 12 October, where we'll discuss our plans so far.

If you're interested in taking part, please get in touch using the form at the bottom of the page.

The Royal Society is not involved in the project, but one of their fellows Professor Tim Palmer, incoming president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has agreed to scrutinise the methodology.

This is What Global Warming looks like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG41xDxrzI8

slick propaganda