For the record 
1. "Fossil fuels are subsidised cos energy is taxed at 5% VAT"
well I just checked, there is a massive list of things on reduced or no VAT lots if eco stuff, medical & as well as subsidised food, childrens clothes, we have subsidised caravans & aircraft repair. from <a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/rates/goods-services.htm">HRMC</a>
2. This "temperature hiatus doesn't matter cos it's the whole energy of the climate system that CO2 increases". Yes I agree with them. But it's a typical example of why popular climate science isn't proper science; they are content to oversimplify and see the world in black/white instead of full colour when temperature trend was going with their dogma. When in fact a one directional temperature trend is an indication of the state of the system rather than absolute precision, as yes at any time varying amounts of climate energy is held in the form of winds & ocean currents & maybe some other stuff like storms & clouds.
3. Tidal friction ? I'm not sure that in that oversimplification of the climate system they are including all of the energy inputs of the climate system rather than just sun & CO2 effect, recently I heard there can be large friction in water tides on other planets due to gravity from nearby moons etc. And then when I think about it there must be other inputs like radiation decay energy and magma and earthquake energy.

Re The creaming of the Guardian Brulle $1bn story, provide simple proof that alarmist websites are the wrong side. There is a word for when you won't fess up properly to your mistakes... what is it ? ...oh yes DENIAL
- Are in the right place here on BH ? We could go in every detail of climate science BUT Stories like the Brulle $1bn story provides a good test. If Anthony or Andrew make a mistake we quickly point it out and they issue a correction straight away. 
- When I googled that story it was easy to sort the pseudo science alarmist sites from proper science ones. Useful suspects masquerating as pro-science and proper skepticsm like DoubtfulNews *, phys.org & other usual suspects in their confirmation bias way churned the article and their fanboys laid into skeptics. Now they won't print any proper corrections. So if they are underhand, and don't care about facts in such SMALL stories how can we trust them on the BIG climate story ?
Yes I am in the right place here in skepticland. If I were to engage trolls here I woukd ask them how they feel about disingenuity.
* (pro freespeech ? now their page says "commenting here is a privilege no a right", my simple comment didn't make it thru.)

Why models go wrong : 
Forgot to say Tim Hartford had<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03l3sh9"> a recent prog</a> about the decline of the booming German forestry industry 150 years ago. Why ? cos they had started to rely on maps of the forest rather than reality.. yes basically the prog was about believing models over reality ... also same on recession time plan to save US homeowners from repossesion.