- Bishop Hill blog - Review of ‘What counts as good evidence for policy?’ 

While Pielke’s clear about scientists and institutions claiming trust based on claims to authority, or simply by position in the institutional firmament, when it comes to climate policy he seems to be virtually divorced from the evidence:

The science is plenty good enough to justify action. Where the failure lies is with people like us, policy wonks who have not been creative enough to come up with policy solutions that meet broad common interest ...’

Twitter / Revkin: Was Friday off-record White ...

Was Friday off-record White House mtg first step in Obama "national conversation" on climate? @jbrodernyt @thecaucus http://nyti.ms/XYoZmQ

Energy and Climate on the White House Agenda - NYTimes.com

The attendees were asked not to discuss the specifics of the conversation.

It’s coal, stupid | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

A scientific paper published last year by Canadian climate scientists Andrew Weaver [also a Green party candidate; but don't worry, because like all scientists, he probably checks his ideology at the door and is, like, super-objective when doing sciencey-type stuff] and Neil Swart concluded that when it comes to anthropogenic climate change, the global use of coal is a far greater threat than oil, including Canada’s oil sands.