. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Ahem, I have some news for you.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago.
SOURCE: Daily Mail
See, if we had my Very Special Carbon Tax, you’d all be getting a tax refund now.
Instead, we’re still hammered by Nick Smith’s Emissions Trading Scam.
It's the coming ice age that I'm worried about. Nick Smith needs to immediately enact legislation to make Hummers and coal-fired central heating compulsory or we're all doomed!
Oh yeah nah but if you fit a linear trend between mid-2000 and mid 2010 the trend is something like 0.5 degrees in 9 years = 0.056 degrees per year or 5.6 degree per century. See...it's worse than we thought...better get ready to hand over more $$
PC, this is funny but flawed.If you are promoting a serious policy, this isnt it. (What if the earth does start cooling? who pays?)Wouldn't it be better to add No Carbon Tax to your list of policy priorities? - it seems to be working for Tony Abbott.
An invonvenient truth
If Nick Smith's brain were TNT, it would explode with about the equivalent power of an ant's fart. The "carbon tax" is FRAUD - it's that simple.
This graph contains a strong argument against the one in this post.
In all honesty, Peter, I would much rather see you referencing and, if possible, linking to peer-reviewed scientific papers if you're going to make statements about climate change.
@Chris: As you're probably aware, there's a serious problem with that approach that was shown up in the 'Climategate' emails, i.e., that papers disagreeing with the warmist consensus are routinely excluded from publication in peer-reviewed journals, by both fair means and foul. [See here for instance.]At the same time, the guardians of temperature data have been routinely altering the very data on which their empirical evidence of warming resides--adjusting them to to an amount commensurate with the level of warming they themselves claim to have occurred. [See here for example.]Point being that the scientists in charge of the peer review process are far from disinterested observers.
On the topic of "fair means and foul", I'm going to have to drect your attention Here. While I don't condone the behaviour demonstrated in the Climategate emails, I can certainly see the motivation for it. I daresay that such behaviour on the part of If there is any scientific basis to the allegations of falsifying data (as opposed to sensible corrections, outlined in the papers in question, to take into account changes in methodology), then it will make it into the literature. Falsifying data is, after all, one of the cardinal sins in science. Whereas the majority of your sources alleging these things appear to be ultimately drawn from the blog Watts Up With That.I might point out that, if there are scientific papers which haven't passed peer review due to prejudice on the part of climate scientists, it really ought to be possible to find them and draw attention to them. Heck, compiling and publicising these papers would be an excellent way to demonstrate a grand conspiracy and undermine climate science. At least for those sceptics among us who want to make up our minds on the basis of peer-reviewed research.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.(Spam will be removed, unless it's been asked for.)