(Reuters) - A sustainable investment fund chaired by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore sold a roughly 20 percent share in carbon offset aggregator Camco International (CAMIN.L) this week, a regulatory filing showed.

The statement, filed late on Tuesday, said Generation Investment Management LLP offloaded all of its 34.5 million shares, representing 19.6 percent of the firm, as of Monday's market close.

Officials at Generation IM could not be immediately reached for comment.

Camco develops clean energy projects in developing countries under the Kyoto Protocol's carbon finance schemes.

The shares were probably sold to Khazanah Nasional, a Malaysian government investment arm that has formed a joint venture with Camco to develop projects in Southeast Asia. [ID:nLDE68Q0CD]

Khazanah on Monday said it would invest 1.86 million pounds ($3 million) for 9.28 million Camco shares.

It also said it would buy a further 19.6 percent stake in the secondary market, giving it a final holding of around 24 percent and making it Camco's biggest shareholder. Camco shares were unchanged at 18 pence at 1205 GMT, up from 14.5p on Friday but well below all-time highs of 97p hit in May 2007

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE68S0Q220100929?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/mergersNews+%28News+/+US+/+Mergers+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Now there's an old English saying about that, now how does it go, something to do with ships, sinking and rats if my memory serves me right.

Demented extremist luvvies have gone too far this time: a film which promotes terrorism and the murder of people, including children (the film begins in a classroom where the charming teacher calmly kills two pupils who refuse to go along with her political demands). Climate alarmism has either damaged the people in and behind this film, or has provided an outlet for their brutishness.

http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2010/10/teacher-alert-eco-blackshirts-promote.html

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