MIT Professor Can’t See Forest For Trees; Confuses Meteorology – Climate – Weather

Recently Kerry Emanuel said, “Why would anybody ask weather forecasters about their opinion on climate? I think it is because there is a hope that I don’t think is justified that ordinary people will confuse weather forecasters with climate scientists.”

Emanuel is a professor of meteorology at MIT with a specialization in atmospheric convection and hurricanes. He is a meteorologist not a climatologist and many weather forecasters are meteorologists. Indeed, his specialty is even more narrow than that required by weather forecasters.

Climate activism: is the trial more important than the protest? | Environment | guardian.co.uk

For the Aberdeen airport defendants, sentencing guidelines dictate they could have received up to five years in jail. In the end they were given only modest fines, but one of those convicted in the case, Dan Glass, says harsher punishments won't dissuade activists from similar actions in the future.

'The more people see the wings of state trying to put us away while scientists support what we're doing, the more we will see civil disobedience in the face of government failure on climate change,' said Glass.

Green religion: a movement with roots in Ann Arbor - AnnArbor.com

Lent, usually a time for Catholics to sacrifice a luxury in their lives, took on the theme of an "energy fast" for the parish. Members were encouraged to replace all or at least one light bulb in their home with a more energy efficient light bulb during Lent. Money saved on members' utility bills was collected and donated to Food Gatherers on Easter.

My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the 'scientists' – Telegraph Blogs

Over the next three hours, Sir Paul and I had a long, friendly, on-camera argument in which he tried to make a distinction between “scepticism” [good] and “denialism” [bad] – an entirely specious distinction, in my book – while I tried to focus on the details of the Climategate emails because it’s only on details that an arts graduate journalist is ever going to win a debate like this with a (feisty, bright, delightful but not a little combative) Nobel genetics laureate.

A trick I noticed Sir Paul trying to perform throughout our debate was to move away from specifics to the general. So, for example, he would keenly assert that “the majority” of the world’s scientists agreed with a thing called a “consensus” on man-made global warming, and whenever I got down to grimy and tedious detail suggestive of the contrary – eg Ben Santer’s outrageous rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers in the Second Assessment Report, which seriously exaggerated the unanimity of scientific opinion on AGW – he’d either politely brush it off as if it were far too involved to be of much interest or he’d airily cite the three whitewash enquiries into Climategate as “proof” that the scientists had done nothing wrong.