I see that the Doha conference has left Australia out by itself as the only country with an economy wide carbon tax.

Thank you, Poirot - at last !

I 'cherry-picked' this sentence:

"The global mean temperature averaged over land and ocean surfaces warmed by 0.76°C ± 0.19°C between the first 50 years of the instrumental record (1850–1899) and the last 5 years (2001–2005) (Chapter 3; with a linear warming trend of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C over the last 100 years (1906–2005)."

So ...... global warming has been at a steady constant rate since 1850 ? About 0.74-0.76 degrees (plus or minus) per century, since 1850 ? An exponential of one, more or less ? No increasing rate ?

And after taking all other factors onto account, short and long cycles, sun-spot, volcanoes, etc., etc., the urban heat island effect on measuring stations, the simmple fact that all economies are producing far more heat/energy than a century ago anyway (and it's got to go somewhere), what component of that 0.74 degrees/century rise is due to greenhouse gases, including CO2 ? 99 % ? 90 % ? 50 % ?

It's all so complicated :(

But keep smiling :)

Cheers,

Joe

Tony Lavis,

(It's great that Loudmouth has a helper)

Loudmouth doesn't wish to understand because he isn't a skeptic - he's a denialist.

(Not to mention his conspiracy theory)

When he says "It's so complicated", he's being sarcastic.

Joe thinks it's simple.

There have been numerous occasions on this site where climate scientists have broken it down for him - explained in layman's terms the state of play...and, Loudmouth, replied to them in the same way he does to me.

That's why the scientists don't take part anymore. It's a waste of their day - and they're right

Tush, tush , how unreasonable of you guys to expect Poirot to be able to provide you with an executive summary of the case for AGW – or, even short answers to your queries.

Heck, granny told her when she was but knee high that the West was responsible for all the woes of the world and AGW has been the most spruikable bit of evidence in support of that she’s seen –well, leastways, since the great Green Revolution Conspiracy!

SPQR,

Nice of you to drop in again - (it must be getting crowded in the change rooms)

I'm a bit disappointed though....Loudmouth and Tony Lavis have perfected the art of inserting a sarcastic and disingenuous "Cheers" as a parting shot at the conclusion of their posts.

I'm sure such a mechanism would also assist you in attaining their heights of blog-artistry....something to think about for the future perhaps?

Poirot,
<<I'm a bit disappointed though....Loudmouth and Tony Lavis have perfected the art of inserting a sarcastic and disingenuous "Cheers" as a parting shot at the conclusion of their posts.>>

From the skewed thinking evident in some of your posts I judged you had already had more than your recommended daily allowance of cheers. Far be it for me to encourage you to over indulge.