Carbon tax increases

[Jovial Monk]

A study set up to falsify AGW theory. . .finds the earth IS warming and mankind the MAIN cause:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... wanted=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To give the sceptic his due, he DID change his mind in the face of new evidence!

[IQS.RLOW]

Mueller has been discredited

The temperature collection sites and data has been exposed as unreliable and the weighting was averaged up

Half the supposed global warming in the US doesn't exist

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/p ... more-68286

Lying climate scientist said warming was 0.309 deg C
Actual= 0.155 deg C

[Jovial Monk]

Got a link to a real climate site?

[IQS.RLOW]

That all you got eh?

[Jovial Monk]

So you got no real site to support your statement? Not surprised.

[IQS.RLOW]

Real site, real study and peer reviewed

[Jovial Monk]

Crank site.

Wattsupwiththat.com Site Info
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwi ... ththat.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is one of the top 50000 sites in the world and is in the Climate Change Skeptics category.

[IQS.RLOW]

I got nothing and can't refute a scientific study.

[Mattus]

Real site, real study and peer reviewed

Was it actually peer reviewed? Looks like a "pre-release" which means t hasn't actually been accepted through peer review yet. Have I got this right or was it actually published somewhere?

Discussing a controversial finding in the lay media without peer review is considered pretty repugnant behaviors in the science field, and isn't actually protected by academic freedom.

[IQS.RLOW]

It's a pre publication draft and it is a rebuttal to Muellers public whoring of himself

Unlike the shonky 'peer review' undertaken by climate boffins who have like minded friends do their reviewing, Watts has no issue with his work being reviewed by anyone