- Bishop Hill blog - Tom Chivers on 28gate

But this is the problem, Tom, don't you see? Sceptics are not allowed to talk about climate sensitivity on the BBC because the science is all "settled". The seminar attendees told the corporation so. The amount of science that is settled is piffling - temperatures went up a bit at the end of the last century, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that's pretty much it. Everything else is up in the air. Which is why the BBC policy is so iniquitous.

The suggestion, implicit in Tom's defence of the seminar, is that the seminar was actually a balanced group for guiding the BBC's editorial policy. This is, of course, completely absurd. If he really can't see that then I think he has a serious credibility problem. But he does raise one interesting question. Who should have been at the seminar?

Quark Soup by David Appell: Moral Logic vs Scientific Accuracy

And these people who are working on the issue -- they are not abandoning truth along the way, or even stretching it. [Hey David: Can you name a couple of prominent warmists who, in your opinion, have never "stretched the truth" about the alleged dangers of trace amounts of CO2?]

To Fight Climate Change, Frack | Power Line

Unlike me, Bjorn Lomborg more or less believes in anthropogenic climate change. Nevertheless, in Foreign Policy, he points out that the purported anti-global warming efforts of the last 20 years have been a complete failure

A Carbon Tax Would Have Prevented Sandy | Real Science

Hurricanes are afraid of taxes, and run away from them.
...
They should claim the 1900 Galveston Hurricane while they are at it.

And the 1780 hurricane