Its so unbelievably two-faced.

I reckon it takes a lot of negative evidence for people to change direction.

Think of those clever execs in the US car industry, and their long-term strategic direction – bigger is better, right? They plowed right on into the brick wall, before they got the idea into their thick skulls that conditions had changed.

There are heaps of other examples, without even thinking hard about it.

Even extremely clever people are remarkably bad at looking for the implications of changes on the horizon. They are incredibly wedded to what worked for them in the past, and what is working right now.

Anything which is a non-linear, rapid change &/or which has a tipping point, is poorly managed by most people. “Intuition”, past experience, and “evidence-based” decisions all fail us in these circumstances.

But all jokes aside, am I the only one who is horrified that our central banking is anticipating a coal-exports bonanza ahead for Australia? Clearly the authorities do not take seriously the prospect of a carbon-constrained future.

The money would come from carbon taxes. The scheme could be then handled by the tax department, rather than creating a whole new bureaucrasy?

Similarly, they could have a TAX on carbon content of fuels, assessed at point of sale to consumers, also largely handled by the tax department.

Rebates to households could have a similar thrust to the corporate scheme, in the form of Green Rebates for significant household investments in emission reduction.

The scheme is thus both stick and carrot, and based on measurable actions.

The current ETS and CPRS seem to be inefficiently applying the stick, hoping for non-specific “change”, with freebie handouts to households and those companies with clever and well-connected lobbyists.

A bit like Holland (erm, mainly Shell) benefitting enormously from Shell selling large quantities of crude and refined oil?

The proceeds would presumably fund millions of extra sandbags for the dykes, extra millions of tonnes of concrete reinforcement, and extra pumps to pump out the significantly increased area below sea level?

Wot? You mean those mean execs of Shell aren’t planning to put aside a significant amount of their ill-gotten, for helping the Dutch citizens deal with subsequent inundation?!!

Stevens and assistant governor Philip Lowe see the future as a resources boom. Lowe, head of the bank’s economic team, told MPs that in the next five years we will see ”very significant increases in resource exports … very, very high rates of investment which are going to deliver quite high (growth in) coal exports” – and ”very high rates of return” on investments.

The RBA is spelling it out: Australia will benefit enormously from continued growth in global carbon emissions. Australia will (and should?) invest in coal, and it will deliver us very high rates of return.

Shorter version: We profit from climate change.

Just think about it for a minute.

Their focus seems to be on the period from mid-20C on (see their Figure 7.)

Last time I looked we were living and growing our food on the surface of the planet. Why have these guys taken tropospheric temperature, where, I understand, you don’t have decent global data before the satellite record? Before 1980 it depended on a few sites around the world sending up balloons. But I’ve seen no discussion as to why we are talking about tropospheric temperature.

In the real world you have graphs like this, which show real warming in the last half century. From your post Carter says:

The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.

I’ve shown you temperature going up, now here’s a multivariate index of ENSO. There is a change from the mid 1970s, but why are we now in the present decade getting La Nina years that are warmer than all previous El Ninos? But according to your second link that’s supposed to be 80% of the story. It doesn’t make sense.

Major volcanic activity can affect global temperatures, but the effect, which is in any case a cooling one, washes out after a few years. Again a contribution from that quarter to the long term trend doesn’t make sense.

With solar you get this sort of pattern. I can’t see that explaining why your current La Ninas are warmer than your 1980s El Ninos. There must be something else going on, surely. Monckton reckons it’s the clouds, affected by cosmic rays, doesn’t he?

I’m aware that in your second link the authors respond to their critics. But their critics include people who have unquestioned expertise in statistical method, while the authors seemed to rely on the help of some other geezer.

So I’m going with the critics – and common sense.

Finally here’s a graph where the 11-year running mean washes out most of the ENSO and sunspot noise. Then there’s this one where Tamino at Open Mind removed the effect of ENSO and the aerosol effect of volcanoes entirely.

See this recent post (Figures 6 and 7) for the links to the articles.

That’s just what I think. I’m working on a post that will give you links to the experts who common sense tells me have a better grip on the issue than your blokes.

He is one of three scientists who produced this study.

Your query does not make sense to me, and I suspect it is because you have not read my post properly.

I have given the web address of the peer reviewed paper, which may clarify it for you, if you first achieve comprehension of my post, which is much simpler than the study.