The big blogospheric news is the start-up of the Dutch Climate Dialogue site, which is already being discussed variously elsewhere. Well-intentioned it may be, but I'm not really that impressed by what I've seen so far. Far from being a meaningful dialogue, we seem to have the stereotypical exhibition of a Gish Gallop from Judith Curry, who is obviously relishing her role as an "expert" almost as much as she did being a heretic. Not that she has actually published anything relating to the recent decline (which cannot be reasonably explained, to any substantial degree, by the modes of decadal variability that are usually touted as most relevant). But that doesn't stop her risible "I know nothing, so let's call it 50:50" schtick which I'm way past bored with. I did try to get her to justify herself, but she did the usual duck and weave, and the segregation of plebs from "experts" (together with my second comment being unaccountably held up in moderation for some time) means that there is no possibility of a real discussion. The other experts could arguably do more to hold her to account, but that's not what they signed up for, and I don't really blame them for not bothering.
I certainly see nothing to make me regret my decision to decline their invitation to take one of the "expert" positions in the next topic of climate sensitivity. This was planned to coincide with the big AGU meeting in San Francisco, which I'll be attending, and I hope I'll have more fun things to do there than to struggle with their over-stressed internet connection to subject myself to more of the same old same old. The people invited on the sceptic side (according to the email I was sent) for that discussion are not relevant to the scientific debate, other than as an occasional minor annoyance, and their previous publications on the topic have been debunked in some detail. Of course, it bears repeating that most scientists are generally more interested in doing science, than in debating with "sceptics" or assorted commenters of whatever stripe. Whereas, on the denial side, debate is a valid goal in itself. So the existence of the site is already a win for them.