Carbon Tax needs a sunset clause

Sunset Clause for the C-Tax?

Letter to the Editor

Watts Up With That?

30 July 2011

Australians must insist that the monstrous carbon dioxide tax legislation has a sunset clause which is triggered by global cooling.

This whole tax extravaganza is based on the foolish notion that man’s production of life-sustaining carbon dioxide controls global temperature and we need a C-Tax to stop it.

However no one has produced evidence that carbon dioxide exclusively controls the climate. What’s more, carbon dioxide production is rising strongly but world temperature has been stable for the last 13 years. Right now sea surface temperatures are falling sharply.

“Climate” is generally defined as an average of 30 years of weather. Therefore the C-Tax should be scrapped immediately the global temperature falls below the 30 year average temperature, indicating the start of global cooling.

As the sun has gone quiet, and Queensland has just had its coldest autumn for at least 60 years, this looks likely to happen soon.

Viv Forbes

Rosewood    Qld   Australia

forbes@carbon-sense.com

 

Sunset Clause for the C-Tax?

 

 

Australians must insist that the monstrous carbon dioxide tax legislation has a sunset clause which is triggered by global cooling.

 

This whole tax extravaganza is based on the foolish notion that man’s production of life-sustaining carbon dioxide controls global temperature and we need a C-Tax to stop it.

 

However no one has produced evidence that carbon dioxide controls the climate. What’s more, carbon dioxide production is rising strongly but world temperature has been stable for the last 13 years. Right now sea surface temperatures are falling sharply.

 

“Climate” is generally defined as an average of 30 years of weather. Therefore the C-Tax should be scrapped immediately the global temperature falls below the 30 year average temperature, indicating the start of global cooling.

 

As the sun has gone quiet, and Queensland has just had its coldest autumn for at least 60 years, this looks likely to happen soon.

 

(150 words)

 

 

Viv Forbes

Rosewood    Qld   Australia

forbes@carbon-sense.com

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
DaveF

Trouble is, Viv Forbes, they aren’t listening; not in Australia, not in Britan, not in Europe and not in California.They’ve got too much invested in AGW to let it go.

SasjaL

“Australians must insist that the monstrous carbon dioxide tax legislation has a sunset clause which is triggered by global cooling.”
To accept this is as accepting that humans are solely responsible for climate change – FAIL!

H.R.

Never happen.
The operative word is TAX. Anything included with that word is window dressing. How many taxes (any government, anywhere) have ever been repealed? A very precious few.
A “carbon” tax is brilliant. If it’s warming then the tax is to limit CO2 to “save the planet.” If it starts cooling, then it’s needed to remove carbon particulates that are shading the earth and so again the pols can “save the planet.”
It’s like kissing babies at the campaign stops. What pol in their right mind wants to be seen as being against “saving the planet?” What pol worthy of her/his ambitions would ever eliminate a tax?
The best the proles can hope for is a meteor strike on their capitol while the government is in session or some crumbs of tax relief as the pols twiddle the tax dial back when the proles scream too loudly. (/rant)
Give it a go, Viv Forbes. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain. We’re pulling for ya’.

chris y

In 2007, Prof. Ross McKitrick proposed the T3 tax, as follows-
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/t3-taxstate-contingent-policy.html
“Recently I came up with a policy proposal that reconciles my doubts about the seriousness of the global warming problem with the worries of those who don’t sahre my doubts: calibrate a carbon tax to the average temperature of the region of the atmosphere predicted by climatologists to be most sensitive to CO2. I call it the ‘T3’ tax (for Temperatures in the Tropical Troposphere) and I think the proposal could, in principle, make everyone happy, except the most extreme alarmists or those whose stance on global warming is merely a pretext for some other agenda.”
The *problem* the CACA’s have with this solution is that it is tied to an observation, rather than a cultish belief. As Ross says in the last sentence above, the UNEP and enviro groups have another agenda in mind.

The Carbon Tax has a sunset clause. No CO2 emissions = No Carbon Tax.
100% renewable energy spells the end for the Carbon Tax.
Let’s get on with.
The faster we get to the goal of 100% renewable energy, the quicker we see the end of the carbon tax.

Chuck Nolan

Colin, there’s no way you could be that ignorant.
Have you read nothing from climategate or harry_read_me?
The folks at WUWT have lots of info about climate and CO2. I recommend you enlighten yourself, at least some.
I doubt a carbon tax in US or Australia will reduce global CO2 or the temperature.

DirkH

Colin says:
July 30, 2011 at 8:39 am
“The Carbon Tax has a sunset clause. No CO2 emissions = No Carbon Tax.
100% renewable energy spells the end for the Carbon Tax.
Let’s get on with.”
You try that out in Australia first.

Mike

Fine. When global temps return to pre-industrial revolution levels and glaciers and ice caps around the world return to previous levels, then we drop the carbon tax.

Colin @ July 30, 2011 at 8:39 am
Set the goal. Develop the plan. Develop the “buy-in”. Find the funding. Go for it.
However, to accomplish anything of potential value, every nation on the globe must participate, so developing the “buy-in” may take some time, if the prior 16 COPs are any indication. Then, when you have the global “buy-in”, all you need to do is find the ~$150 trillion (US) which would have to be invested in new, zero carbon emissions facilities and equipment to achieve a global zero carbon society.
Also, don’t forget that they’ll be coming for your cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, etc. since the UN FAO says they are responsible for ~18% of global annual GHG emissions. And, I hope you won’t react poorly to legumes as a replacement for meat protein in your diet. Can’t have you producing uncontrolled methane emissions.
Finally, they will be around to discuss population control with you and your family. They estimate that ~1 billion global population is sustainable, though they haven’t said much yet about how we get there from here.
Who’s “they”? Why, the new global government. (Soon you’ll learn to love “Big Brother”. Oops, make that “Big Sibling”. How non-PC of me!)

Dr. Dave

I suspect this carbon tax may doom the ALP. Isn’t it opposed by something like 80% of the populace? If you can’t scare up a call for a new election you might be stuck until 2013 when the ALP will be voted into obscurity. After over two decades of intensive and expensive study there exists no empiric evidence that mankind’s emissions of CO2 will cause significant (and certainly not detrimental) global warming. These tax and cap & trade schemes are little more than examples of greedy governments pandering for tax revenue, crony capitalism and wealth redistribution. You tax, cap and trade all you want. The bottom line is it will not change the Earth’s climate tomorrow, 10 years from now, 50 years from now or even 100 years from now.

Ask them: What is the color of CO2?, believe me!…they will say it is black!

Jeff Wood

Mike wants a return to the Little Ice Age, but why stop there? If we try hard enough, we might be able to bring on a full Glaciation.
Or, just maybe, global temperatures have little or nothing to do with us.

jaypan

“The faster we get to the goal of 100% renewable energy, the quicker we see the end of the carbon tax.”
Even better. End of all taxes, because a dead economy does not pay taxes.

Bloke down the pub

I seem to recall that in the UK, income tax was introduced as a short term measure to pay for the Napoleonic wars. Now I know most Brits still dislike the French, but it’s safe to say we’re no longer at war with them. Strangely enough, income tax keeps plodding on.

jazznick

Never mind the tax, it’s the politicians who need the sunset clause !
When they are all proved wrong on climate they are all barred from future public service !

In Canada, income tax was introduced in WWI to pay the costs of that war and was to have ended when the war did. Strangely, the war ended but income tax did not. I cannot remember the reason provincial sales taxes were added but the GST came in to take off the manufacturers sales tax so that products would be less expensive. Didn’t see that happen either. Now we have the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), a combination of GST and provincial sales tax on everything you pay for, clothing, products, electricity, telephone, internet, heating fuel, gasoline, any prepared food product, etc. Bottom line is no government repeals taxes, they only increase them.

Mike Spilligan

Colin @ 8:39: I suggest we “go for it” after you’ve perfected that perpetual motion machine that you’re no doubt working on.

Mike says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:54 am Fine. When global temps return to pre-industrial revolution levels and glaciers and ice caps around the world return to previous levels, then we drop the carbon tax.
Mike. Who are ‘we’
Douglas

Bob Diaz

It’s impossible to see anyone in power wanting to give up a great source of income for their use. In this case, the facts don’t matter, as long as the tax money rolls in.

David, UK

@ Colin: YOU go 100% renewable, and see how long you last. You utter [snip].

Paul Deacon

It would not work, given that the custodians of the temperature data are arch-Warmists.

Chris F

Eve Stevens, actually Harper reduced the GST in two steps from 7% to 6 to 5%.
I think there should be a sunset clause on all global warming legislation and have said this for years.

Richard S Courtney

Colin:
At July 30, 2011 at 8:39 am you say;
“The faster we get to the goal of 100% renewable energy, the quicker we see the end of the carbon tax.”
100% renewable energy? Do you believe in faeries, too?
Richard

Jim

White collar carbon taxes is the ultimate wet dream of bankers. Forcefully selling us the air we breathe by using Government directives is the stuff that financial dreams are made off. It’s called “money for nothing” and there is bugger all we can do about it. This is the scam that we all know is a scam, but we still have to pay for.
We now pay for the air we breathe, or to be more exact the air we breathe out. Gillard is a complete and utter liar that betrayed the Australian people.

Rosco

Lets tell everyone the truth and give them a choice:-
1. No change in current circumstances – uncertain temperature changes.
2. Renewable energy – energy bills unaffordable, no more air conditioning, uncertainty in supply, huge amounts of humanitarian aid diverted, uncertain temperature changes anyway.
Hmmm – sounds like a no brainer.

Steve from Rockwood

Colin says:
July 30, 2011 at 8:39 am
The Carbon Tax has a sunset clause. No CO2 emissions = No Carbon Tax.
100% renewable energy spells the end for the Carbon Tax.
Let’s get on with.
The faster we get to the goal of 100% renewable energy, the quicker we see the end of the carbon tax.
========================================================================
In other news a large herd of lemmings jumped off a cliff while a nearby group of humans held their collective breaths – no doubt looking forward to a zero CO2 emissions world.
In Canada we won’t even need a Carbon sunrise subsidy.

Graeme No.3

For comments on taxes and Governments see C. Northcote Parkinson’s THE LAW AND THE PROFITS, published in 1959 but surely due for a reprint. In it he predicted rising expenditure, taxes, debt and increased crime and bureaucratic regulation (if the latter is a separate category).
In another of his books (1962) he predicted the collapse of communism, the breakup of the USSR, and the rise of militant islam.
I leave it up to you to decide how well his predictions stand up, and how likely it is that the IPCC predictions will come about.
As for our less than beloved Prime Minister time will also tell. The legislation has yet to be introduced into parliament, let alone passed. And she has a majority of one.
(Dr. Dave – please note that ONLY 72% of the population are against her in the latest poll)

Steve from Rockwood

Eve Stevens says:
July 30, 2011 at 11:14 am
In Canada, income tax was introduced in WWI…
============================================
Add to all those taxes the hidden taxes such as the cost of water delivery and disposal, the 18% increase in our provincial electricity bill to support the job creating green industry (kind of ironic – isn’t that the color of our money), the handling/delivery charges for natural gas, the air conditioning tax on cars.

Glenys

Why would a government willingly agree to lay aside one of the best tax rorts ever dreamed of?
If Australians try to push for a sunset clause, they’re tacitly agreeing that the government is right to introduce the carbon dioxide tax in the first place – even though they never sought any electoral mandate to do so.
.

Gary Hladik

Sunset clause? No problemo. The clause can simply scrap the tax three seconds after it’s passed. Greenies win (“Yay, we passed the tax!”), the people win (“Yay, the tax ended), and Gillard wins (“See, I kept my promise–both of them!”).
Silly, yes, but no sillier than proposing the tax in the first place.

KenB

Taxing the air we breath so that social engineers can dictate our lives?, send off billions so the UN can be even more wasteful?, what idiot thought up that scheme? Yep, the same economists that think if you throw government money at “green” energy, IT will all fall at your feet, rain green jobs, employ more bean counters, save the world. Its a TAX, our money feeding the looney bin left whichever way you cut it, they will spend it, and then want to borrow more when those schemes fail. All it will achieve is finish off what is left of a wonderful country!

King of Cool

Let us face some facts:
The latest News Poll on an Australian Carbon Tax showed that it had gained some momentum since the tax payer funded advertising campaign began rising 6% to 36% of voters. Opposition to the tax fell from 59% to 53%.
This still leaves support for a carbon tax well behind its opposition. However the promotion of a carbon tax by the government will be relentless with the support of the sympathetic media such as the ABC and a continuous string of high profile speakers such as Tony Blair. They will also point to every extreme weather event that occurs around the world as justification to introduce a tax that will “tackle climate change”.
Tony Abbott has done a sterling job so far in pointing out the lunacy of a tax that cannot change the climate one iota well past our generation’s lifetime but can only damage an economy when a stronger economy is better equipped to produce a better environment. Also the most telling factor of all is that Julia Gillard told the electorate 5 days before the election that there would be no carbon tax under any government she led. At least half of them therefore believe that she was only able to form government by deceit and her government is therefore illegitimate.
No matter how she tries to get around this fact, this will be continuously thrown back at her right up until election day and the voting public will not be allowed to forget it.
The problem Tony Abbott faces is the fact that many see his ‘Direct Action Plan’ as weak and he faces the dilemma that if he believes in human made climate change he has to fully explain why his plan is better than the carbon tax. He may face some difficulty in doing this. But at the moment he is walking the tightrope of gaining the support of both believers in AGW (but not a carbon tax) and sceptics. The question is whether he can maintain this situation until election day which is more than two years away. The Government has time, much of the media and tax payer’s money to provide sweeteners on its side to turn public opinion.
I believe it is going to be a fascinating and a very close race and not the least of factors will be the world’s weather in the next two years. Sceptics in Australia better start praying for more snow, no natural disasters, no major heat waves and smooth meteorological sailing until voting day.

Bob in Castlemaine

The Socialist/Green government won’t scrap their CO2 tax no matter what. But in the longer term total tax revenues from general income tax and the CO2 tax will diminish as Australia’s manufacturing, agricultural and resources industries move off shore. Presumably that’s what the Green zealots want – to see is this country depopulated and taken back 60,000 years to the time before any human initiated CO2 emissions.
Why, we could become the world’s first genuine “climate refugees” as we follow our industry to China. But then I guess that would be just swapping one totalitarian regime for another.

Dale

The carbon tax shouldn’t be allowed to get off the ground at all……. let alone a sunset.

John Tee

I take it most people on this site have been lead to believe that thousands of scientists around the world have come up with this gigantic hoax so that governments around the world can get more tax. Working in all manner of different institutes, often in universities, in dozens of countries, they have consistently come up with this coordinated stream of wrong science over the past 30 years plus.
Am I even half way right?

stefanthedenier

As long as the Sceptics keep repeating that: 5BC, 98 was warmer… shouldn’t blame the Warmist. Because the Warmist concocted all the misleading data – Sceptics use it as factual. Heat in the atmosphere is not acumulative. Reason: when part of the atmosphere warms up – air expands up; where is minus -90C. Intercepts extra coldness in 3,5 seconds – in a jiffy that extra coldness falls some other place to make it colder, to balance /counteract. Finding that in the past some part of the planet was colder or warmer; then declaring that the WHOLE planet was warmer, is same as saying: ”planet is warmer at lunch time by 9 degrees than before sunrise…?!” Alarmist cannot take the sceptics seriously. The Laws of physics and Mitich formula say precisly: EH=AE=ECI (Extra Heat=Atmosphere Expands=Extra Coldness Intercepts) If you believe in those laws of physics that they don’t only work sometymes, should know the answers on those questions = you know more than all the shonky climatologist: Q: Why oxygen +nitrogen expand more when warmed by 6C, than when warmed by 3C? Q2: if they are warmed by 30minutes, why they don’t start shrinking after 10minutes? Q3: why they don’t stay expanded after they are cooled to previous temperature? Those answers and 1000more are in my book and on my website http://www.stefanmitich.com.au
Atmosphere is not same as human body, same temperature in every part. monitoring for IPCC on 6000 places is a jocke. Needs temperature taken on 60 billion places /every few minutes; to know the temperature overall even for last year. Without it, cannot be compared one year’s temperature to other. Who is monitoring the temperature on every cubic kilometre above the oceans? Doesn’t that flactuation count? What was the temperature 234m. above East Anglia university on 4 /7 last year? What about 234km NE of Fiji 234m altitude, on the same date?
If temperature goes up in Europe /USA by 8C, in Oceania goes down by 0,8C; because Oceania is 10 times larger than Europe /USA . Why is not 10 times more monitoring places over Oceania than in Europe /USA? Oxygen +nitrogen control the temperature in the atmosphere, by expanding /shrinking; not the climatologist. CO2 does absorb more heat than O+N, but that is only during the day. At night CO2 absorbs more coldness than O+N; THOSE TWO FACTORS CANCEL EACH OTHER. That’s why CO2 is used to make dry ice. Unless you believe that is suny 24hours on every square metre on the planet = flat earth believer. Second factor was used for their Nuclear Winter for year 2000” Before you even defrosted from their nuclear winter, they got stuck into the first factor, for global warming. When they realized that is no global warming – as a fig leaf; to cover their shame, they changed to Climate Change…? Only the most ignorant Warmist and most of the active Sceptics still believe in the phony GLOBAL warming…
Climate never stopped changing for billion years, climate can change for betther and for worse. Water changes climate, not CO2. It is esential for climate to keep changing and keep the genes from becoming junk genes in everything living. I.e. use it or lose it. If the genes for adoptation become junk genes = will be the end of evyrithing. Human can change the climate for better, by saving more stormwater on the land (dams) Is it better climate around Kyoto city, Stuthgart, where is 10 times more CO2 than inland Australia /Sahara? Get real proofs on my website, or stop criticasing the Warmist. Withour real proofs, they will not admit that they have being wrong on everything; because lots of billions have being squandered. Reason they are pushing with carbon tax; so that in couple of years, when everybody realises that is no GLOBAL warming – they will state that they prevented it, with your money. From then on, you obay them, or Gulag. Because of the bias media; nobody will notice that: when they predicted on Kyoto conference warming of 5-6 degrees by 2060, China was producing same amount of CO2 as Australia, now = to 14 Australias and growing. Indian population grows by 23 million every year ++++ Please logon my website, inform everybody to do it; can be the end of the propaganda in few months. But real proofs first. No more: solar /galactic influences… leave those influences for horoscope people. Learn about the briliant self adjusting mechanism O+N are doing. To be same warmth in the planet’s atmosphere every hour of every day and every year. Law of physics and my formulas, boys! prof. Plimer and his loyal /fanatic suporters deserve a medal from All Gore and from Tim Flannery… Dump the sily antiques, or declare that you don’t believe in the laws of physics. Lots of phony GLOBAL warming in the past will not prove that is no warming in 100y. Saying that will get warmer by 0,5degrees, only litlebit; is same as saying that man can get pregnant, but only litle bit…? Grow up and join ”the Resistance”

F. Ross


Colin says:
July 30, 2011 at 8:39 am
The Carbon Tax has a sunset clause. No CO2 emissions = No Carbon Tax.
100% renewable energy spells the end for the Carbon Tax.
Let’s get on with.
The faster we get to the goal of 100% renewable energy, the quicker we see the end of the carbon tax.

I sincerely hope you are in sarc mode. If not, then is everyone supposed to stop breathing? I’m sure many greens would prefer that outcome, but the rest of us do not.
No CO2=
No more beer or wine.
No more cement.
No more carbonated drinks.
No more yeast risen bread.
No more welding using CO2 as a shielding gas.
No more dry ice for storage and transportation of all manner of goods.
…and the list goes on and on.
Think about it a little before making such an inane statement as yours.

Dan in California

John Tee says:July 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm
I take it most people on this site have been lead to believe that thousands of scientists around the world have come up with this gigantic hoax
————————————————————————
John: Assuming you can think for yourself but do not have the information, here’s a partial list of reasons for you.
First, the original “thousands of scientists” was shown to be a cherry-picked number less than 100.
Second, the CRU emails show CLEAR examples of blackballing scientists who disagree, fabrication of data, and successful attacks on skeptical magazine editors.
Third, the computer models are not correctly predicting the climate.
Fourth, the government employee scientists who created the computer models are not allowing independent verification of those models.
Fifth, water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, but they’re not trying to ban that because it’s obviously silly and stupid.
Sixth, there are plenty of scientists who are calling baloney on this whole process.
Seventh, the temperature data are being manipulated (e.g. the lower temperature mountain readings are being dropped off the tabulations).
Eighth, the physical phenomenon of CO2 causing IR entrapment is demonstrably nearly saturated.
Ninth, The computer models rely on an ASSUMPTION that H2O has a positive feedback effect on the process, and any engineer can tell you that would have blown up billions of years ago.
Tenth, the vaunted IPCC changed their temperature history documents to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period which had greater temperature rise.
I’m getting tired of typing.

G. Karst

Mike says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:54 am
Fine. When global temps return to pre-industrial revolution levels and glaciers and ice caps around the world return to previous levels, then we drop the carbon tax.

Why would any sane, thinking person want to return to glacial conditions (or temperatures) of the past? Haven’t you heard… we have 7 billion people to feed now. I guess some people just hate humanity. GK

Maybe worth noting that Australia as a whole had its coldest autumn since at least 1950 at 1.15C below the 1961-1990 climate normal … http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs33.pdf
The most recent BoM monthly update shows the mean temp for May in the western half of the country was .9C below the normal … http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/wa/mwr-wa-201105.pdf
And it’s worth looking at the temp history of the Western Australia capital city of Perth to ponder how much the poor in particular will appreciate more expensive, CO2-taxed electricity prices, particularly when they need heaters to warm them during the city’s cooling winter nights … http://www.waclimate.net/perth-cold-spells.html

Mike says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:54 am
Fine. When global temps return to pre-industrial revolution levels and glaciers and ice caps around the world return to previous levels, then we drop the carbon tax.

I don’t mean to be rude, but this is probably the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen. Do you expect climate to be static? Do you REALLY want a return to the LIA? Do you REALLY think that we can control the climate? REALLY??

Darren Parker

They tried a wealth redistribution tax last year over here with the Mining & Resources Rent Tax. But because they are inept they were unable to formulate a policy and so they went back to the good old global warming one as soon as Brisbane had it’s floods. Reading Mein Kampf is like reading the policy platform of the Australian Greens. Bob Brown I think is Hitler’s reincarnation.

Julian Braggins

Mike says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:54 am
“Fine. When global temps return to pre-industrial revolution levels and glaciers and ice caps around the world return to previous levels, then we drop the carbon tax. ”
Seriously Mike, download and read “A Chronological Listing of Early
Weather Events” by James A. Marusek, it’s a free 580 page PDF that covers the last 1000years. If you can bear to read it through, you will realise that we have been enjoying the most benign climate in that period.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/
Do you really want to see a return to say, all the major rivers of Europe frozen enough to support armies and road transport across them, famines lasting years that led to widespread cannibalism in Russia and Europe and Middle East and England?The Bosporus blocked more than once with 30 foot icebergs, from the Black Sea freezing over, frosts killing all fruit trees and grape vines over much of France on many occasions, and incidentally freezing wine in casks so that it was distributed by axe ? Just a few of many repeated disasters, but perhaps you would like to walk across the Hudson from Long Island to Staten Island, it would be fun—– for a day.

Patrick Davis

Deloittes in Australia have issued a statement which along the following lines; Carbon taxes will be the white collar crime of the future.

Michael Klein

I can’t agree with this letter to the editor.
To call AGW controversial is one thing, but to call it foolish is another. I think you are all fooling yourselves if you deny there isn’t any credible scientific evidence to back AGW.

tango

if there was a sunset clause in place it would have been triggered weeks ago .if you log onto the sydneys sundaytelegraph you see a photo of tony blair huging julia gillard this week ,he told gillard she was on the right track as far as carbon tax hoax goes what would he know .hanging over the heads of australian is a communists

Bob_FJ

In the lead article; quote:
“Climate” is generally defined as an average of 30 years of weather.
Funny that; when a while ago I enquired at RealClimate what the 30-year average trend centred on 1940 was, (answer ~zero), the post did not emerge from moderation. I then asked my dog Jedda to rephrase the question from a different computer and Email address, and it too disappeared into the ether.
The fact is that the current plateau or slight cooling for over a decade is not sensibly explained in the dogma of the church or in their models.

Bob_FJ

Oh, and I forgot to add that the 1940 plateau looks a bit like what we have now over the last decade or so

Dan in California

My first ten reasons were what came to mind first. Here are two more good reasons to doubt the government sponsored AGW enthusiasts.
Eleventh, the geological record shows no correlation between CO2 level and temperature. Planet Earth has had ice ages during periods of high CO2 and tropical conditions with low CO2.
Twelfth, Science includes skepticism. If skepticism isn’t allowed, it’s not science.

Patrick Davis

“Michael Klein says:
July 30, 2011 at 11:17 pm”
There *IS* no credible science supporting AGW (AGW as in emissions of CO2 from human activity DRIVING climate to change in a bad way for humanity and the planet). Plenty of theory, models etc.