It makes sense. As the temp goes up so does the price of CO2.Satellite records are the best since there is evidence of corruption of stats by some of our weather stations.

In the end we confuse the whole subject.
For some it is about politics.
For others about the costs.
I think evidence is warning us it is taking place.
Weather pattens being reported world wide seem to support me.

Hi Luddie,

I think your final comment sums up the situation beautifully.

<< So perhaps the most important thing with respect to climate change is to push for the real democratic independence of government >>.

Any proposal that seeks to bridge the divide between two opposing views has to be the basis for negotiation and of course compromise.

As a skeptic/denier I have no problem with a CO2 tax on an empirical measure of AGW based upon the IPCC’s reference point. If it goes up we pay more, if it goes down the tax stays at the flat rate. If it is flat and no mitigation costs are incurred the money goes to income tax reductions.

This concept also gives effect to a replacement to Kyoto. It establishes a rationale for the tax globally through international competitiveness and undistorted market forces.

It will also as you rightly point out, take politics out of the game and make any response to AGW both democratic and global. So that is the compromise a skeptic/denier like me would be prepared to make.

On the AGW side this would mean accepting empirical science from much broader sources, it would mean that modeling, predictions and forecasts are out, it would mean that all the government funded NGO’s were taken out of the loop, it would put the renewable energy targets out, it would stop the tariff/subsidies gravy train for the wealthy, it would finish of the renewables industries and end the remnants of CO2 emissions trading unless of course, there was further warming.

It means putting your money where your mouth is. More warming, more pay. It’s really about trusting the sources of your science but it does seem to offer a very acceptable compromise.

You are spot on Belly,

<< I think evidence is warning us it is taking place. Weather patterns being reported world wide seem to support me >>.

If your belief is right there will be vast sums of money tipped into your favorite cause, CAGW.

But if you are wrong according to the IPCC’s datum point, you get tax relief.

How about that for a win-win

It is not clear to me how Ross McKitrick's "evidence based approach" is different to current carbon pricing schemes. McKitrick proposes a carbon tax linked to temperature, which is essentially what is legislated to come into effect in Australia and is already in place in Europe. There is a target level of carbon emissions, based on their predicted effect on temperature. Permits are issued to emit that much carbon and then the market decides on the price. McKitrick's proposal to tie the tax directly to atmospheric temperature changes is not feasible, as the time between the emissions and their effect is too long for a market mechanism to work. It seems to me that McKitrick's paper is not really about market mechanisms for combating climate change, but a disguised attack on climate science. As David Henderson writes in the forward to McKitrick's paper, there is a consensus by governments, guided by scientific advice, that climate change is due to human action. McKitrick does not appear to support this consensus, but rather than argue that case directly, has chosen to disguise it as a pricing proposal.

Spindoc have a look at the extremes within the American republican party.
See how those extremes, the stated view and opinions SOME hold about migrants and minority's.
And know it stopped them winning elections and without change always will.
Liberals, those that think climate change is crap, are about to harm your party.
Polls show most of us believe it is time for action.
I understand it is not all Liberals.
But those who currently lead your party, acting against such as J W Howard a party icon, need to see just how big the impact of not offering something far better than Abbotts excuse for a reduction plan.
Or the simple *climate change is crap* slogan.