Forced use of biofuels could hit food production, EU warned | Environment | The Guardian

Plans to make European motorists use more biofuels could take an area the size of Ireland out of food production by 2020 and accelerate climate change, a study has found.

Clinton - U.S. to Weigh 'Different Approaches' to Curbing Greenhouse Gases - NYTimes.com

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that the White House would look at "some different approaches" to limiting greenhouse gas emissions that could gain traction with Congress in the wake of lawmakers' failure to pass cap-and-trade climate legislation.
...
Clinton did not elaborate on the alternative carbon pricing strategies that could attract fresh support on Capitol Hill, saying only: "We're going to explore everything, because the Obama administration continues to believe that [climate change] is a serious problem."

Do Americans think global warming is manmade? - Capital Weather Gang

Considering all of the results together, what seems to be evident is that of Americans who believe the globe is actually warming, about half believe it is mostly manmade - per the Yale and Gallup polls. But, as about 20-30 percent of Americans don't believe warming is happening at all (depending on the survey), it seems well less than half - probably between 35 and 40 percent per the Pew Research and Angus-Reid poll - believe warming is both occurring and mostly manmade.

Dan Gardner: Climate change. The biggest (yawn), threat (yawn) we face… zzzzz | Full Comment | National Post

In the midterm elections last week, control of the House of Representatives passed to the sort of Republicans who hear “Commie plot” instead of “climate change.” The odds of the U.S. doing something serious are now close to zero.

And then, with exquisite timing, environment minister Jim Prentice — whose biggest accomplishment was renting some pandas from China — quit the government. His replacement is John Baird. Except this time, the job will only be part-time for Baird, which demonstrates exactly how important it is to Stephen Harper.

Only In It For The Gold: Judith Curry: Born Beyond the Shark?

Admittedly, she is very highly published. I know a couple of her students and think highly of them. On the other hand, to be honest no paper of hers has ever come across my radar in anything I've investigated. (As a dilettante, I don't contribute much to the primary literature myself, but I do read a whole lot of stuff.) I mean, could this be the stuff of some subtle neurological decay, where a formerly competent scientist starts making no more sense than the peanut gallery? After all, dedicated naysayers are still highly intelligent and scientifically competent by comparison to the lay public (that's the whole problem) even though they are actually quite ignorant and confused about the actual science. So a decline to that level of functionality would not be obvious, and if a person already had tenure, it would ordinarily go uncommented upon.

Or alternatively, is the peer review system so shabby that a person of modest intellectual accomplishments, one who, despite years of connection to the scientific community, numerous publications and promotion to a position of responsibility, is capable of such vapid, illogical, pointlessly contentious writing.