Interesting link Graham, thanks. This legal perspective does not seem to oppose the concept of AGW per se; rather it appears to set out the basis for (possible) legal challenges against legislators. Given that litigation hold notices have been lodged in the US against the EPA, perhaps this sets out the case that will need to be answered by the EPA “if” any new legislation is actually tabled. It might also be the basis for challenging the decisions already taken by the EPA.

It is disappointing and curious that not a single “warmer” is willing to respond on OLO to the key issues of overstated science by the IPCC? Surely there must be one warmer that will go in to bat for the cause?

It may be it’s a case of watch this space in the US courts, which is where I’ve long suspected the “main game” will be.

Hi Spindoc, I was a bit surprised there hasn't been more discussion, but took it as a sign that AGW is disappearing as a significant public issue.

Meh, what's to discuss? It's all been done before.

Hey, I can write a research paper and include whatever references I want that appear to make my point too. But it won't be a serious review, it'll just be a piece of fluff. Lets see if anything comes of it, I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

You guys can discuss it if you want, but it appears you aren't really interested anymore either.

Boaz, what happened to my polite request?

"Yes, I've downloaded [AGENDA 21]. Which part are you having difficulties with, Boaz?<<

Introducing a sub-topic with such capital-lettered fanfare requires a little more by way of explanation, surely?

As far as I can tell, it is a thoroughly innocuous document, hence my plea for guidance.

GY

>> I was a bit surprised there hasn't been more discussion, but took it as a sign that AGW is disappearing as a significant public issue. <<

So that means we can all return to business as usual?

What a major relief for BP.

;P

Thanks Graham, Yes the silence is deafening however, I’m still not convinced that AGW is disappearing as a significant public issue, particularly in Europe. The unfolding of the AGW phenomena is however, fascinating. While ever the MSM and commentariat continue to censor the hundreds of contrary scientific opinions, this phenomena seems destined to continue to maintain a strangle hold on the true believers.

Only this week we read in an article by Bjorn Lomborg that the EU Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, is calling for even deeper cuts in emissions and is supported by UK PM David Cameron? At the same time Europe is facing economic uncertainty, huge debts, high energy costs, decreasing production capacity and low energy security due to costly and inefficient renewables. When this volatile mix hits the reality of “austerity programs” something is going to give.

When the scientific establishment that gave us AGW begins to acknowledge we have been sold a fizzer, one has to wonder what it takes to say, OK, we were had.

“The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider”

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0qxjA9y00

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.