Never mind the Climategate whitewash – what about our new £50 billion annual climate bill? – Telegraph Blogs

The new figure our glorious Coalition intends to squander – every single year for the next 40 years – is £50 billion, all in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

We learned this horror in questions posed in the Lords earlier this week by Lord Lawson of Blaby in response to something called the Green Investment Bank Commission on “Unlocking investment to deliver Britain’s low carbon future” – aka the Wigley Report.

Heat wave in New York and several other eastern US states - Telegraph

Stephanie Smith of Greenpoint, Brooklyn relaxes in the East River State Park [I see no sign that she's suffering from kidney stones]

How Unusual the Triple Digit Heat in the Big Apple

Last winter, Joe Romm and others in the alarmist media angrily argued that the long time or all time record cold and snows in many locations around the Northern Hemisphere was “weather and not climate” and should be ignored. They especially took exception to the cooling might be a sign of things to come. In his typical duplicitous fashion, he on his latest Climate Progress posts is claiming this northeast heat is proof of global warming and signs of things to come. He was joined in this comment by Dr Tom Peterson, the environmental extremist at NCDC who is largely responsible for engineering and justification of the manipulation of NOAA data to enhance apparent warming. Attempts to contact Hansen and Schmidt at NASA GISS for comment were unsuccessful (busy taking language courses in Arabic?).

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: The Muir Russell Review

It is not the job of the IPCC authors to serve as selective arbiters of the peer reviewed literature and judge which peer reviewed science they agree with and disagree with. This only invites extra-scientific considerations into the assessment process and a cherrypicking of the literature, rather than a considered assessment. The job of the IPCC should be exactly as it says it is -- to produce a comprehensive, balanced and complete review of the relevant literature. If the IPCC finds itself in a situation where its author team reflects a perspective represented by only a subset of the literature, then the IPCC has a problem.