ENERGY: Clean energy summit lacks big names this year - Business - ReviewJournal.com

Tuesday will bring the third annual installment of the summit, a creation of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. And when the curtain rises on the event at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, it will show considerably less star power than 2009's version, which featured former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, among others.
...
"People have learned more about the consequences of clean-energy solutions," Spencer said. "The American public wants clean, affordable, abundant sources of energy, but we've been told we need wind, solar and other sources the government chooses for us. As we started to take on some of those policies, it became clear that clean energy was going to increase the cost of energy for everyday Americans, for the benefit of a few who are participating in politically correct activities. Clean energy is fine in theory, until you get to understanding what is involved."

Thanks to that dose of reality, the "sheen" has worn off the whole green-energy push, Spencer said. Throw in a struggling economy and revelations earlier this year of questionable research tactics among some global-warming scientists, and people "are just sort of fed up with it," Spencer added.

What Color Is Your Hypocrisy? | Amy Alkon on MND

It's a diverse group, the global high priests of being green. You'll so often find them jetting -- yes, jetting -- around the world, on private jets, to preach about how saintly it is to save energy by CFL-lighting your house so it looks like a mental ward.

The latest in preacher of green to get caught talking green while guzzling black gold is Jesse Jackson.

ABC The Drum Unleashed - Clive Hamilton - Balance-bias battle of climate science coverage

While uncertainties remain and the evidence will evolve, the level of consensus on the main tenets of climate science is unusually high.
...
The fact that climate denialists, invariably linked to right-wing think tanks with an axe to grind, have succeeded in their explicit and widely-known strategy of confusing the public by casting doubt on the science should not be a reason for providing greater coverage to anti-scientific opinions.
...
Rather than being rebuked by Maurice Newman for 'group-think', those in the organisation who understand how science works should be invited to explain to senior managers like Kim Dalton and Mark Scott that when the hard evidence [like what, specifically?] is overwhelming, insisting on 'balance' can only contribute to public ignorance.