GET READY Brisbane !- they are about to- TURN UP THE HEAT.. Geo-Engineering Gone Too Far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zT1S5uwlzs

Australian Cloud Seeding at its Worst-est
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Z0d0QXmhU

CHEMICAL CLOUDS sprayed above Brisbane- PART 2 -WARNING F words again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhr6L6VbnFI
Australian Politician tells Truth&Exposes Agenda 21,Club of Rome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo5n4zeEetg

Pilots, Doctors and Scientists Tell the Truth About Chemtrails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTaejpg18g


I see Chemtrails all the time, and also strange aircraft at night and more stuff on this that you would not believe.

Warning F Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55bYHZYG4A0

Chemtrails also contain Lithium to further dumb down people in addition to aluminium which causes Autism and neuro developed disorders

Peter Beattie Talks Chemtrails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sW0KSzGQvA

HAARP - Chemtrails - How They are Change You - Bioengineering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5y1WorkLJw

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/globalwarming13sep06.shtml
Global Warming
A Colossal Hoax Designed to Further Enrich NWO 'Globalists'
“The IPCC review process is totally flawed. … The scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol is grossly inadequate.”
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, director emeritus of the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands in 2005
"The Fourth Report of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] might just as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ..".
- Marcel Leroux (from What is Wrong with the IPCC? by Hans Labohm)
Cont on site

Dear Peter Lang,

You write;

“It's not my analysis or my input data. It's the default inputs for DICE-2013R, the most widely cited and used IAM for analysing cost-benefit of GHG mitigation policies, carbon pricing, SCC, etc.”

If that is truly the case then this request should be pretty easy for you. Can you please show me where this graph has been replicated in a peer reviewed paper? We can go from there.

BTW I have read the links my friend which is why I am taking you to task.

You are not taking me to task. You are trolling. You'ver made a number of assertions in various comments which demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about, but are gullible and a denier of the relevant facts.

The results are usually plotted as cumulative, as is explained in the post (why didn't you mention that? Readon is you are trolling). I plotted them as per period. (same data, just replotted, plus 1/2 Copenhagen (Optimistic) Particpation Rate. Reason for this explained in Part 1: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/

The DICE analyses have been widely published and discussed. Clearly you don't realise that. Here's the DICE-2013R Manual. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_103113r2.pdf You can search for the analyses that are based on it.

Most of these types of studies show the results as cumulative plots. The reason they sum their projected discounted climate damage costs and abatement costs for 300 years is to make it look like there is a benefit in implementing the advocated abatement policies. . Many assumptions are involved and the main ones are biased to make the damage costs seem high. However, any projection of costs and benefits beyond a decade is unreliable, out to a century is ridiculous, and three century ... well only alarmists would accept such analyses as justification for expensive mitigation policies.

No point me writing any more, because trolls like yourself, just don't want to know. Deniers deny the relevant facts.

Dear Peter Lang,

So no peer reviewed papers then.

Lol.

A timely exit my friend.

Steel Redox,

What a pathetic excuse you use to exit. You haven't any flawr in any of the most important items 6 to 9. You haven't found any flaw in these:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

You haven't pointed out any flaws or any significant issues in the assumptions or the default inputs to the model. You haven't found any error in the DICE Model which is what produced the chart. Apparently you not even aware what it is, or how long it has been the leading IAM used for the IPCC reports, the US and other countries estimates of SCC, costs and benefits of mitigation policies and optimal carbon prices.

Let's face it - you know nothing about the subject. So, your excuse that the plot I produced showing the DICE discounted net costs-benefits per period to 2100, instread of cumulative to 2300, is really pathetic. Typi9cal of a troll.

If you can't show significant errors in points 6 to 9 of my list, you have failed to make your case. I'd point you to "10 si8gns of intellectual dishonesty"
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Dear Peter Lang,

Whoa there young fella. Who said I'm the one exiting? This is what you wrote just a single post before;

“No point me writing any more, because trolls like yourself, just don't want to know.”

If that wasn't an exit what was it?

Perhaps it was just an excuse so you could yet again post links to your blog entry on http://catallaxyfiles.com .

Yes we all know how the internet works my friend, the more links from other sites the higher up the rankings you go. But at some point it becomes a little unseemly. We are there now.

Look I get that there is a clique of older geologists who have a particularly hard time with the notion of human induced climate change. It goes against what they have been taught and their world view.

Professor Ian Plimer is a case in point. He has repeatedly lambasted those who accept the science of AGW. His latest article here; http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17274 railed against environmental protection regulations. What he didn't tell us was that he is a director of Lakes Oil, a company who was seeking to frack their way across significant areas of Western Victoria.

So when you talk about honesty I'm hoping you include yourself. Do you have any commercial interests in any energy or mining companies? If you do would you mind spelling them out for the audience here.