SPQR,

"Monckton is 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.""

The problem is that Monckton is not only championed as a "guy who knows his science" by skeptics, but that his science is massively flawed.

As in:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

And when he (or "skeptic-thought" in general) is challenged by scientists who explain their challenge by demonstrating where he gets it wrong - what do "skeptics" do? They "deny. They ignore and then they raise conspiracy.

That is how climate "skeptics" deal with scientific veracity - and it's why they're considered denialists.

So "ducking and weaving" is only part of their performance with straight out denialism being the principal dancer in their skeptical ballet.

It's all so well rehearsed. Take their "it hasn't warmed for 15/16/17/20 years" spiel. It makes no difference to them that warming has plateaued at record levels - and that in the long-term trend, warming plateaus at record levels for a number of years before continuing up to the next plateau (each one higher than the one before)...none of that matters at all to "skeptics" because the short-term cherry-pick is their template for argument - and the Monckton's of the movement are hero-worshipped for spouting their ignorance.

Poiret I am fascinated that higher temperatures "Plateu"? Wow when were we advised this would happen? It seems you know everything but only after it has happened. I am still not convinced this is right and will be euphoric when Tony humbly takes the reins of Australia with a quiet thoughtful acceptance speech. Unlike your mate Keating's gloat.

qanda,

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

Well that rather was my point when I mentioned 1979. If you get a calculator you might see that its been roughly 30 yrs since then. So thanks for the info but I beat you to it, old boy.

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

1. Actually that time frame in that other thread was 17 yrs which, again, if you use a calculator, you'll see isn't the same as 30 yrs.
2. I haven't commented on anything spindoc has written here or, from memory, anywhere else. So the pin-up comment is mere childish foot stamping.

"People of your ilk.."
You mean bearded Victorians?

"..cherry pick all the time"
So your response to my suggestion that your time frame might have been just a tad selective it to just say people like me to that too. We used to play that "i know you are" game too, when I was about 6 yrs old.

" real scientists (unlike pretenders and wannabes) need to separate the signal (e.g. AGW) from the noise (e.g. natural variability)."

I'm just fascinated with the way you work. Throwing out these motherhood statements, completely devoid of supportive data or context, but just hoping that it'll make you appear learned and intimidate others. I know it impresses Poirot but I wonder if many others are suckered.
So, pray tell, how does selecting a 30yrs trend instead of a 50 or 100 or 200 yr trend, help 'real' scientists separate signal from noise?

"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"

I've always assumed, given your rather limited understanding of the issue, that your assertions that you are a climate scientist is more pretend than real. But with so many content-free ad hominems you could fit right in with the Hockey Team. Maybe you really are a climate scientist.

mhaze,

Check out the animated graph here for a demonstration of filtering the signal from the noise - it's not rocket science (but it is climate science:)

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

JBowyer,

If Abbott takes the reins, it will have to be a quiet thoughtful acceptance speech. We all know what happens when he gets excited or caught unawares and comments off the cuff - disaster in the shape of foot-in-mouth.

Can't wait to see this mediocre pollie in action on the international stage.

I asked a simple question Q, where does the carbon tax go?

Qanda >> The explanation of "where the carbon tax goes to" is easily found on the internet if you are really interested - it's not that difficult to look it up yourself.<<

I know what Gillard said, some will go into an international “green climate fund and the rest will be given back to workers as tax cuts, household energy efficiency measures, welfare payments and to support jobs and help industry transition.
Pretty airy fairy stuff, I have not seen any of that, ,so tell me what happens to that money…and who controls it, I can’t find that on the net.

What Gillard did not tell us about is the raft of “carbon equivalency” taxes foisted on industries who are not power providers or large carbon emitters. I use an aerosol with a non flammable propellant which cost me $15 a can in Sept 2012.

In Dec 2012 the price went to $35 per can along with a load of sundry products I use. The supplier said that the non flammable propellant went up by $29,000 per ton, and most of the other products were affected by "equivilency taxes",and I pass on that cost to my client who passes it to you.

The price to re gas air conditioners is one third of a new unit and almost everything we purchase has seen a subtle adjustment up in pricing, but it’s not the carbon tax.

Whatever I am paying for I can’t see so tell me about something I can see as a return for the tax impost. Do you know where it really goes or are you taking Gillard’s word that the things she bleated on about is happening, if so tell me.

Perhaps Gillard has pocketed the lot, it wouldn't surprise me.

Mhaze

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

Quoted from the Australian so it must be right.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/emissions-drop-signals-fall-in-carbon-tax-take/story-e6frg6xf-1226559632995

"While the government believes the 8.6 per cent fall in carbon emissions shows its policies are working, it also means it will collect less from the tax than the $4 billion it anticipated this year."