- Bishop Hill blog - The poisonous influence of GuardianEco

Interesting fact 3: on Friday, I linked to Andrew Holding's thoughtful piece in the Guardian on sceptics. Several people, including Judith Curry, noted that the title didn't seem to have the same considered tone as the rest of the article. In the title bar, it reads "Opening up climate science can cut off the denialists" (Denialists appears as sceptics in the article title". The standfirst reads "Equipping the public with the tools and knowledge to understand complex issues like global warming can help them avoid the rhetorical tricks of climate 'skeptics'".

So I emailed Andrew Holding and asked whether these were his work, and of course he said "no". The original title was "The importance of minority viewpoints".

What a poisonous publication the Guardian is.

Cancun Climate Change Summit: Cancun vs Copenhagen - Telegraph

* The total cost of the U.N. climate talks, not including bills for many of the delegates, was about $238 million in 2009 and $82 million in 2010, or $320 million for the past two years combined.

* Cancun conference, 2010: cost about 841 million Mexican pesos ($67.33 million) to the Mexican government.

A skip around the climate maypole

Despite the venue changing from the Baltic to the Horn of Mexico, many fewer delegates and hangers-on will attend than the 45,000 who registered for the 15,000 seats at Copenhagen, which resulted in many having to stand outside in the freezing cold.

This is puzzling, since shortly before Copenhagen, Gordon Brown, berating “flat-earthers” like Dr David Bellamy who have the temerity to blaspheme the holy scriptures of Al Gore, Jim Hansen & co, intimated that there were then only “50 days to save the world”!

A full year later I hear no mention of that and a radically different group will attend this time - no Barack Obama, no Wen Jiabao, no Angela Merkel, or Big Arnie and most interestingly, no “Husky-dog” Cameron and no “President of the Green Capital of the World”, Alex Salmond.