Yes, yes, yes, Bazz...yada, yada, yada

Graham Lloyd didn't actually quote Pachauri in that particular piece in the article.

Nevertheless, pointing out that surface air temperatures have plateaued at "record levels" still points to warming. This century has hosted record levels of warming.

However, I know it's easy to trot out that "the IPCC says it hasn't warmed for 15/16/17/whatever years"...cliches are rather useful, aren't they...

http://skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

Oh come on Poirot. That post of Tamino's is a wretched attempt to overcome McKitrick and McIntyre's analysis. Even Marcott has admitted in his FAQ that the later parts of that graph aren't robust. But that's not the point. The paper, from my sketchy layperson's perspective, is fine on the whole and largely unremarkable. What IS remarkable is the unseemly haste with which that uptick was splashed across the world's media. My point is, now that we know that it is not robust, we are unlikely to see retractions, and that's my objection. Joe Blow in the street is never let into just how unsettled the science actually.

Who said it's settled? If I had the time to search I am pretty sure I can find the quote. But it too was once everywhere, parroted by politicians and hangers on like Flannery. I think it may have been an IPCC quote which gives people like yourself that slimey get out of jail card - No scientists ever claimed the science was settled. No, but no scientist ever went out of his or her way to correct it, did they now?

As for the levels of warming, the bottom line is that it has slowed dramatically in the past decade, and it has not been anything like Hansen's scenarios A or B which is what would be expected given the rate of CO2 emissions. And you know very well that the current graphs of IPCC projections that show the low trend since 2000 but a close match prior to that includes hindcasting. The truth is that warming rates have NOT matched projections.

Now isn't all that interesting,
For years people have been saying "The IPCC tells us this & that "
But now, well the that is no, not quite this or that, mumble, mumble.

Oh by the way James Hanson of NASA, does not agree, he says it has only
been unchanged for 15 years !

I think it was Hanson that said even when rising resumes it cannot now
get to the expected 2050 temperature because of the pause.

Surely it is just sensible to put things on hold for a while.

Wow, Graeme M...here was I thinking that we had ourselves a new skeptic who was at least courteous in his representations - but...

"...which gives people like yourself a slimey get out of jail card..."

The bottom line, is that it has plateaued at record levels - just like it did during all the other plateaus in modern times - before it continued its rise.

"...NOT matched predictions."

You reckon?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

Of course, since its now clear that your are a "skeptic" as opposed to a skeptic, I assume you'd prefer Watts-style science (he even includes an April Fool's Day joke (cutting-edge stuff:)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/02/why-the-marcott-et-al-faq-was-published-on-easter-sunday/

Poirot, It has become q2uite clear you are a gravy train rider.

I would like to know how much your income depends on this scam, which became a con, to keep the gravy coming.

Only an absolute fool could be as one eyed as you unless being paid. You are obviously not worth talking to.

Shadow

Information From Wiki:-
Electric power represents about 20% to 40% of the cost of producing aluminium and uses 15±0.5 kilowatt-hours of electricity to produce one kilogram of aluminium.

Quote wiki
Smelters tend to be situated where electric power is both plentiful and inexpensive, such as the United Arab Emirates with excess natural gas supplies and Iceland and Norway with energy generated from renewable sources. The world's largest smelters of alumina are People's Republic of China, Russia, and Quebec and British Columbia in Canada.
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________

Based on the lowest economic price of 10 cents per kilowatt hour (current domestic rate 20 cents+) the cost of power is $1.50 but using the range of 20% to 40% of the total cost, we end up with a price range for production of $7.50 to $3.75. The current world price for aluminium is $2 per kilogram. I would suggest that this is simply not economic, and is the primary reason why the aluminium smelting industry is in this country might wish to sack people. The carbon tax price is irrelevant to this discussion. The only reason this industry has has not gone broke in Australia is due to the massive subsides that it receives. According to the link below we are subsidizing these workers to the tune of $74,000 per worker. It makes far more sense to to find these workers something more economically productive to do.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/10/aluminium-smelting-the-best-bang-for-your-fossil-fuel-subsidy-buck/