ATH Resources shares plummet after coal price warning - 268996

ATH Resources shares plunged by more than 47% after it warned that weakening coal prices and the cost of buying carbon credits would have a material adverse impact on its trading performance.

The company points out that international coal prices have fallen by some 21% since the beginning of the calendar year and by over 28% since the beginning of the group's financial year.

Take little steps on climate change, says polar adventurer | Eco-Business.com

He has also found that relating his experiences in the North and South Poles is a useful way to show listeners how the effects of climate change are already beginning to devestate parts of the globe.

For example, he once had to scare off a polar bear who, hungry and grumpy after a long hibernation, eventually lumbered off in search of a seal. [Did CO2 really cause that incident?] The pack ice where the seals congregate are drifting south, and polar bears have to swim increasingly longer and more dangerous distances to find their main food source.

Richard Muller: Yep, Still Skeptical | KQED's Climate Watch

CM: And solar thermal, these, as opposed to photovoltaic panels that you put on your roof and elsewhere. These big arrays in the desert that use mirrors to concentrate the solar energy to heat up something. No?

RM: It’s been working in California, in Spain, elsewhere. Only where it’s been heavily subsidized. It will not work in China where we really need solar. The reason is, it’s basically bricks and mortar. And where as the price of solar cells is dropping, the price of big, large-scale construction is not. I do not expect it to get cheap enough to be used without subsidies.

Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? | Climate Etc.

Much of the climate community continues to view AGW skeptics as anti-science, fossil fuel funded troglodytes (Mike Mann’s book is a prime example of this view).    As typified by Chris Mooney, many of the social scientists and journalists have come around to the view of AGW skepticism as “motivated reasoning”,  which is not really connected to corporate interests, and acknowledges that many skeptics are well educated and knowledgable about AGW science.  Well this is a step in the right direction: away from the idea that AGW skepticism is driven by corporations.  Some social scientists seem to be moving in the right direction.  Akter et al. refreshingly acknowledge the multi-dimensional nature of AGW skepticism.   But none of the academics seem to acknowledge reasoned skepticism (such as described by Geoff Chambers) by knowledgeable and well educated people as having an actual scientific basis; as such, they are “missing the point.”