February U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 16.3 F COOLER in 100 years « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt

So the “warming trend” 2000-2012 for February is exactly - 1.63 F degrees a decade.  That is a - 16.3 F COOLER in 100 years. That’s what I call “warming”!

Noticing the “accelerated warming” trend??

Snow brings chaos to Belgium and northern France « Where’s my Global Warming Dude? By Global Freeze

- Bishop Hill blog - Questioning the scientists

The idea that journalists should not be responsible for what they write is extraordinary, so Yong's comments are welcome. Unfortunately many science and almost all environment journalists do not see this as being part of their job. They see themselves as part of a movement and their job is not to question anything said by "the scientists".

Among all the reviews of Michael Mann's book published in recent weeks, can anyone recall one that challenged anything he said?

The true, tragic cost of British wind power [printer-friendly] • The Register

You could save the planet for a fraction of the price

Clams do fine in acid water | Musings from the Chiefio

Never mind that CO2 was several THOUSAND PPM when shellfish evolved. Never mind the megaTONS of metal nodules and carbonates on the ocean bottom that will cause it to stay mildly alkaline against stronger acid insults than CO2. Never mind the tanks of the aquarium hobby where folks do CO2 enrichment to make things grow better, including shell fish… No, all of that is to be ignored in favor of a groundless panic that even a tiny bit less alkaline conditions, and Clams are going to be history…

Nine ways scientists can help improve science journalism | Dr Chris Chambers and colleagues | Science | guardian.co.uk

1. Watch what you release
In the balance between carefully reporting science and courting interest, we believe many press releases push the latter too far. We can help journalists by stating limitations and highlighting danger points in interpretation where an untrained eye might confuse correlation with causation, or absolute and relative risks.

Doing so requires us to place public understanding of science above our own vanity and pressure to achieve impact.