And a fairly barmy one from the BBC as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10917611

Unfounded climate change alarmism at The Telegraph today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7937269/Pakistan-floods-Climate-change-experts-say-global-warming-could-be-the-cause.html

Even the quotes from the scientists don't say that AGW is the casue..they go as far as 'consistent with', which is not the same thing at all.

But Louise, (bless) or her sub editor, decided to gild the lily quite a lot in their headline.

Do you have a category for totally unfounded crap?

I'm not going to delve much into the detail recorded by http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591 et al, but..

The abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/07/26/1001222107.abstract says

Higher minimum temperature reduced yield, whereas higher maximum temperature raised it; radiation impact varied by growth phase.

The reporting is spin upon spin

Interesting comments on a so-so article on sea rise - wfm is particularly worth exercising brain cells on.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3305

Perhaps some good news or at least a hint of realism coming in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10900798

Chris Huhme on the Today program starting to U turn about future energy plans. It will be available as a podcast later.