CARBON TAX-It's Started!

[konstantin]

DutchRoll

We seem to be talking at cross purposes to an extent?

Judith Curry - have heard her referred to rather condescendingly by some, to be sure. Mostly names one would associate with the warmista side, from memory. Not forgetting she is perceived as a traitor to the cause - which is a pity because her site is as close as I have been able to find to something even approaching neutral ground.
Lucia`s is another blogsite which verges on middle ground, although some would dispute that.
If you can come up with another suggestion for a site which does not rabidly proselytise either side of the argument I am genuinely all ears...we all know where to go for a pro or anti "fix".

Peer Review - perhaps I was a little too sarcastic in my allusion to the standard line of the pro brigade about something having to be peer reviewed and published preferably in certain journals - but when it suits the cause then never mind that particular little requirement ...especially if there may be tight timeframes involved???

This article I found quite interesting

Three myths about scientific peer review | Michael Nielsen

the last para or two might put my tongue-in-cheek remarks into perspective?

BEST - some people are not happy with the results because they possibly disagree with the methodologies used?
Elsewhere and previously, windshear proxy data vs actual temps and suchlike...area extrapolation of temps...debate over UHI correction techniques...it just goes on...

Global Warming is Real - okay...
The world has warmed by anywhere between half and one degree C in approximately the last century.
The debate I have seen is to do with the veracity of particular records, the way they are interpreted/presented, the means by which there can be a definitive anthropogenic component identified, and the degree of the component itself.
That was my point.

As far as modelling projections are concerned it is an even bigger can of wriggly things - and the "consensus" crutch is becoming a rather tiresome motherhood catchphrase indeed. Seems to be as commonly used as "carbon" and "pollution" for the benefit of the 6 o`clock news LCD. And there appears to be rather a lot of "consensus" disputation out there...

Layer that over with considerations of it being "to advantage" for organisations, individuals, corporations, departments and governments to continue to milk the whole concept for all it`s worth...pragmatically the overall picture makes for an interesting construct indeed. The Chinese r23 rort readily comes to mind.

All I know is that there has been little significant warming trend, if any, over the last decade or so - which flies in the face of the previous adamant "we are pumping CO2, and look, temps are increasing". So QED.
Except that lately we are pumping even more CO2, but the temps, hmmm...which is where the "but just you wait" argument starts coming in real handy. Pardon my cynicism...

But let`s say you are right...given political and economic world realities I have mentioned in previous posts (and dealing with the thread title itself!) ;
- What to do about it?
- What will Australia`s tokenistic approach achieve in the absence of a whole-of-world emissions actual mitigation process?
[NB - shuffling CERs around the world is not mitigation...except maybe on paper]

Tiring of all this, just quietly - rest assured DR, not a snide reference to this particular exchange!


Might chill out and amuse myself with Climategate II for a while though...that may recharge the batteries...

"What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably"

Gotta love it...hang on, I thought the science was settled?
Jools keeps saying it is...