Well I never, a completely meaningless answer from Amazon re the recategorising of GW books. No further comment allowed from me apparently

"Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.

At Amazon.co.uk, we passionately believe in freedom of expression and providing our customers with the broadest possible selection.

The Amazon Bestsellers calculation is based on Amazon.co.uk sales and is updated hourly to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.co.uk.

While the Amazon Bestsellers list is a good indicator of how well a product is selling overall, it doesn't always indicate how well an item is selling among other similar items. Category and subcategory bestseller lists were created to highlight an item's rank in the categories or subcategories where it really stands out. We choose a few of the most popular subcategories in which the item has a high ranking in relation to other items in that subcategory, and showcase the item's rank on the product page. As with the main Amazon Bestsellers list, these category rankings are based on Amazon.co.uk sales and are updated hourly.

We value all feedback from our customers, and I thank you again for taking the time to send us your comments. Although we won't be able to comment further on this topic, we hope you'll allow us to continue to serve you. I hope this information is helpful.

Thank you for your interest in Amazon.co.uk.

Stephen Lourdes
Executive Customer Relations
Amazon.co.uk
http://www.amazon.co.uk

Bish, would you like me to copy and paste the Willie Soon opinion piece from yesterdays South China Morning Post. I’m not sure how we stand as its behind a pay wall (4500 words ish snip me if you wish)

Willie Soon
Sep 17, 2010

Hot air
Is carbon dioxide really the monster driving climate change? If not, maybe we should prepare for a colder world.

In my 20-plus years of studying carbon dioxide and global warming, I have found that hypothetical scares often come before any realities or factual presentations. Horror stories about rising seas inundating land, cities and wildlife, super typhoons and hurricanes, and epic "mega droughts" lasting a decade or longer are all promoted as devastating results of global warming caused by the rising levels of carbon dioxide, according to reports and scientists associated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But will any of these scary scenarios about the carbon dioxide monster prove true for Hong Kong?

My recent seminar at the University of Hong Kong's Department of Earth Sciences offered this simple answer: No. Objective science informs us that the so-called "consensus viewpoints" offered by the IPCC - about man-made carbon dioxide being the dominant factor in climate change - is primarily a political conclusion, and not likely a scientifically accurate one..........

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=694fe125a8a1b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Hong+Kong&s=News

Re-branding Alert!

Global Warming > Climate Change > Climate Disruption

Bit like Windscale > Sellafield

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

Grasping at straws?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/16/britain-leadership-climate-change?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Ed Millionpound leads the Labour party into the wastelands of insignificance.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I found this article pretty amazing,

Deutsche Bank Debunks Skeptics with a Report -- and a $5 Billion Climate Portfolio

The whole article seems to said without any irony or even reference to any thought about possible bias involved. Readers here will know how this reporting compares to the reporting of oil companies that commision climate research. The article uncritically shows a financial organisation commisioning scientists to help change government policy towards alarmist positions.

The report, titled Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments, was commissioned by the bank and written by scientists at Columbia University’s Earth Institute.

Deutsche Bank is one of the most deeply invested financial institutions in the world in climate change, with more than $5 billion being managed in climate-related funds.

I think it would be worthwhile having a thread to discuss the following:

Denier
Sceptic
Alarmist
Warmist

I dont mind being called a denier because I sure as hell do deny that I am warming the planet. I dont mind being called a sceptic because I sure am sceptical about the claims that I AM warming the planet.
The opposition sure as hell are alarming public and governments alike and they sure think we are warming the planet.

So why do we all object to these names?

"Dung you are a bloody denier!" "Sure am, whats next?"

There are more than two sides to this argument and of all people Louise Gray highlighted another one today.
When I have wasted my time writing and emailing to Ed Milliband, Chris Huhne, David Cameron et al I keep trying to point out that the planet IS going to get a lot hotter or a lot colder. The one thing it is NOT going to do is stay in this interglacial for much longer.

Regardless of who is right in the argument between deniers and alarmists our climate is going to change and no scientist really has a clue as to which direction climate will take.

If the earth returns to its "normal" climate which is about 10 degrees C warmer than today then here in the UK we may just not need to go to Southern France for holidays and sweat a bit more.
If we return to ice age then we are in big trouble.

All the money we are spending on trying to halt climate change should be spent on planning how to cope with climate change.
Do wind farms work at minus 20?
Do Solar panels work under ten feet of ice?
I think this is the third side of the argument that is ignored.

Ross, (Sep 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM) I watched the University Challenge last night (recorded) and had to rewind to check he really had said that, and then pause to stop laughing before watching the program.

This ties in nicely with Graham Stringer's comment that what was going on at CRU was literature and not science.

Reading the bio you linked to, it's clear he has nothing whatsoever to do with "Climate Change" - he is studying energy conservation issues (a laudable aim) but probably had to lie to get funding.

Bish, just a note to say well done to you or your moderator for closing down the "Quickfire Bob" fiasco.

It should not have to happen, commonsense should prevail. It is easily recognisable to anybody visiting that you consistently demonstrate that discourseh is possible without resort to abuse. Therefore as contributors we should be prepared to maintain the standards you set, why else get involved with Bishop Hill?

Please keep up the good work, eventually science and commonsense will prevail

I apologize for this. I just wanted to see if one of the contestants on University Challenge last night was doing 2 PHDs (Poetry and Climate Change) or just the one. Seems he has a nice bio on the university website.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/ustinov.gcr/gcr/committee/post.php?id=24

Looks like 1 combined PHD ????????

Nice to see Creative Writing is yet again connected with Climate Change.