Er...sorry, SPQR, but Monckton leads the charge for you lot.

He's extolled up and down the "skeptic" blogosphere.

If climate scientists were represented by an upper-crust pixie with delusions of grandeur and a talent for emulating snake-oil salesman, I'd expect a gentle critique from the denialist wings.

Why wouldn't I criticize someone like Monckton - with his degree in classical architecture and his constant stream of pure bunkum, laced with conspiracy.

You guys want to be taken seriously led by a potty viscount -

Strange but true.

Poirot,

<<Er...sorry, SPQR, but Monckton leads the charge for you lot>>
Er, sorry, No.There is no (monolithic) “you lot”.

Monckton is just one of many voices –some more informed than others– saying: “Hey, this doesn’t add up” or “Hey, there is more to this than meets the eye”.

And your propensity to duck and weave whenever someone challenges you on a point --a habit which is quite widespread amongst AGW true believers (qanta is an expert at it)-- only adds to the suspicion.

qanda wrote:"The aim underpinning the carbon tax is to help limit average global warming to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100."

Elsewhere qanda linked to a graph showing temps since 1980 (no cherry-pick there, eh) from the 5 major record centres. On average these showed a rise of around 0.12 deg C per decade ie about 1.2 deg C per decade or around 1 deg C between now and 2100.

so it seems that we have already achieved the aim of limiting "average global warming to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100." without the need for a CO2 tax. Hurrah...next problem please.

warmair wrote: "To the best of my knowledge the carbon tax has been responsible for a reduction of over 8% in CO2 emissions since its introduction."

I would LOVE to see where you got that piece of fiction. Are you sure you're not confusing total emissions with emission intensity?

Hazy, no cherrypick at all, that's when satellites started monitoring temps.

Even Roy Spencer knows this.

qanda,

So what if that's when RSS started. Its not like we can't have a graph where one of the datasets starts half way along the period.

It just so happens that, for most datasets, the 30 yrs trend (ie 1980 -2010) provides the highest temp rise trend. So its rather convenient to use 1979 as the start point if you are interested in perceptions rather than honest investigation.

Satellite data (not just RSS) started to be collected about 30 years ago.

The period and time frame you and your pin-up-spindoc have been ranting on about in that other place:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5643#156673

People of your ilk cherry pick all the time, not understanding real scientists (unlike pretenders and wannabes) need to separate the signal (e.g. AGW) from the noise (e.g. natural variability).

Honest investigations (of global warming)? That's my day job, what is yours?

Look hazy, if you want to keep demonstrating your utter ignorance and complete stupidity about global warming, climate change, whatever ... continue by all means, you are doing a fine job.