http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

Another thing: Austrlia produces a miniscule amount of global GHGs, China already produces 15%.

Now, note that subsidies are implict taxes to all other producers. Australian subsidies to carbon based fuels are at approixmately 9 bln AUD a year (about 1 % of GDP). It would be foolish taxing this without removing the subsidies, but if the tax was equal to or less than this amount, there would be little point in levying such a tax after the subsidies were removed, because most modelling doesn’t even take the subsidies into account, but only the impact of such a tax.

It would be an interesting case if the authorities were to ‘do the right thing’ and charge him with the relevant offense.

What right do you claim to have over and above the rest of us, that allows you to compel us to wear seat belts. Common sense says we should, the rest should be up to the individual.

Sounds too much like my friend who was in an auto accident while not wearing a seatbelt. It was the odd sort of crash in which his being ejected actually saved his life — contrary to all the data from thousands of accidents which shows that wearing a seatbelt and avoiding ejection is the most effective safety measure to take. On the basis on one exceptional case would you say that wearing a seatbelt is bad?

Different horses for different courses. If you were making a computer model of a chemical reaction that in nature took 2 days to transpire then after 20 years in which there were millions of confirmed successful predictions executed by hundreds of technicians you would say that your software was pretty robust. However one prediction that works out kind of successful does not make a model robust.

Even so it is not unheard of for systems in medicine and in science that have been relied on for decades to be found to contain serious flaws. I have a friend who does medical research and compiles statistics and he is always sharing with me stories of where they found that long standing conventions were seriously flawed. One he related recently was a long standing practice in some hospitals of giving steroids to road accident victims. Apparently it turns out that the practice increases mortality by 15% over the alternative of not giving steroids. Medicine has millions of patients to experiment on and centuries of experience and they still get things seriously wrong. Why should I be convinced in the precision of climatologists who have only one patient to play with, who have been looking at this issue for a much shorter period of time, who are dealing with something that operates over vastly longer timeframes and who must contend with much worse data.

If we were looking at a medical intervention we would not generally accept the baseline case being offered. And if we were going to use coercion to apply the intervention (eg court ordered treatment) we would demand an even greater threshold of evidence.

Regards,
Terje.

It will be good when my other post gets unmoderated, suffice to say that you have been conned on real wage data (benefits, such as insurance have been excluded the proper data set you should see is PRS85006152, published by the US BLS, US macroeconomic policy is patently non lasseiz faire and this reduces real wages, which aren’t actually falling.

Furthermore, a single payer system will only increase downward macroeconomic pressures on real wages.

Svensmark works with CERN. Real Climate are bad mouthing them as well, with little to actually complain about other than – it is an old idea (which no one has thoroughly tested).

See this on the last page for “consensus” (it is only 8 pages long anyway):

http://cloudws.web.cern.ch/cloudws/documents_talks/IACI_conclusions/IACI_conclusions.pdf

There is nothing partisan pointing out that the science in the IPCC isn’t up to date. If every other alternative factor or theory is rejected singularly, of course carbon forcing becomes the dominant model.

This is patently stupid. You cannot test factors singularly in a statistical model to build a joint model. They must be tested jointly then omitted if they are insignificant in the joint model.

Statistical modelling is valid when all possible factors are modelled and you look for nesting and feedback. AGW may just be nested in Svensmark’s astroclimatic model.

If 20% of emissions causing gases are natural, then you may end up with a bad policy by taxing their use as if they were all man made.