I don't know, I don't remember seeing the publication named.
It may be there somewhere.
They may not want to name it yet, to avoid any pressure like what was
displayed in the "Climategate" emails.

Thanks Bazz, a few here are aware of 'that paper' doing the rounds. Big news in the 'anti-global warming blogosphere' as you have noticed.

Poirot points out that Watts went AWOL to scramble a piece in retaliation to the BEST release ... an even bigger hit in MSM.

Seems the so called 'sceptics' are really peed-off ... nothing like a 'sceptic' scorned.

Mr wiggles (BM),

Every post eventually, wanders off into obscure territory, where I see you are comfortable, but I generally lose interest. I also see that you are a self appointed expert on AGW, happily bandying around the nice round 2C target for global warming.

While I am comfortable with concept of CO2 raising the atmospheric temperature since reading the first paper on it in 1979, I also know that the contributions of the accelerators, (such as losing the Greenland ice sheet) and the decelerators (such as CO2 absorption by the oceans) are far from fully understood, making accurate predictions difficult, and the consequences even more so.

So Mr Wiggles, perhaps you could use your vast knowledge to estimate the contribution to reducing AGW of Australia's carbon tax?

Mr Wiggles

Pure obfuscation SM.

The carbon tax is to transition the economy away from fossil fuels - this will take time.

It won't happen over night and the coal industry won't be shut down like Abbott the Liar says.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143163

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143235

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143235

Bonmot, I have seen reference to BEST but do not know what it is.
Can you enlighten me ?

I think you are being a bit precious about Watts et al as the
positioning of wx stations has been under discussion for some time.

As far as I can discern they are arguing that warming may be less than
others insist. I know that the earth has been warming for more than
300 years so there is no surprise there.

Having some years back been in the instrument & measuring business I
know how dodgey things can get for all unexpected reasons.
I can see that the factors they claim are affecting the accuracy of
the wx stations are quite reasonable and indeed very likely to cause
significant errors.
What does surprise me is that errors they claim are not larger.

Dear Mr wiggles,

If the carbon tax is supposed to transition the economy, it is failing miserably. Below $40/t tax on CO2, brown coal generation is still the cheapest, followed by black coal then gas, and a long way behind are the renewable power sources.

The result of the carbon tax is that very little investment is occurring in generation, with capacity increasing at about 1% p.a. and demand increasing at about 4%. Basic economics / supply / demand dictates that the sellers will soon be in the position to ramp up prices. So the direct increase on electricity price increases is likely to be only a portion of the total price increases caused by the carbon tax.

This and other flawed assumptions in the modelling (such as our competitors having a carbon tax by 2015) presented by Gillard the liar, Combet the liar, and Swan the liar, only partially represent the cost to consumers and small business that we are likely to see.