Timmy ElsewhereDecember 22, 2009 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere9 CommentsThe Register. Why we should be thankful that Copenhagen failed. previousPretty good but….nextRicardian Equivalence: or why Keynesianism doesn\’t work 9 thoughts on “Timmy Elsewhere” The Great Simpleton December 22, 2009 at 12:30 pm I was listening to Bjorn Lomborg the other night and he described himself as “not a global warming skeptic, just a policy skeptic”. I thought that phrase summed your position nicely. dearieme December 22, 2009 at 1:53 pm Yes, but why would anyone who is capable of being sceptical about policy choose to be gullible about AGW? Very rum. DocBud December 22, 2009 at 3:20 pm So how do we actually determine the cost of the “pollution”. History tells us a warm planet is a healthy, productive planet. Some scientists say that any human contribution is negligible why others say that the consequences are catastrophic. You may be convinced climate change is happening and humans are causing it, Tim. However, you cannot know that because there is no scientific proof to that effect, and in the absence of such proof, how can you make policy that harms people on the basis that their actions may or may not be harming others? Kay Tie December 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm how can you make policy that harms people on the basis that their actions may or may not be harming others? Taxes are generally levied on economic activity, and putting taxes on CO2e allows taxes elsewhere which are just as illogical (e.g. taxing jobs with NI) to be lowered or abolished. The overall effect on the economy will be neutral. john b December 22, 2009 at 5:37 pm @3, that only makes sense if you shift definitions of proof halfway through the argument. In the sense of “is unequivocally true”, there is no proof of AGW. Or evolution. Or Newtonian mechanics. In the sense of “it is more likely than not to be true, given the evidence that we have”, there is proof of AGW. And evolution (meanwhile, Newtownian mechanics has been disproved in this sense by special relativity and quantum theory). But the first sense is only relevant to philosophers; the second sense is obviously the one on which policy should be based. dearieme December 22, 2009 at 7:31 pm “In the sense of “it is more likely than not to be true, given the evidence that we have”, there is proof of AGW. ” Oh no there ain’t. The evidence is at laugh-out-of-court level. DocBud December 22, 2009 at 10:52 pm You are ignoring the thrust of Tim’s argument which is: “The economists insist that the tax should be what the cost of the pollution is. Not a high enough tax to stop people polluting at all, but rather just the cost of the pollution.” So my point still stands, you have to determine the cost and since there is no evidence for AGW (if you have it, john b, share it with the rest of us) , you cannot even know there is a cost. Kay Tie, If the ‘carbon taxes’ have the supposedly desired effect of reducing carbon emissions, that would reduce the overall tax take, which would just mean governments reintroducing other forms of tax. The effect on the economy will still be neutral in the sense that it will remain overtaxed. DocBud December 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm Incidently, Tim, what is the royal ‘we’ you refer to: “We are trying to change people’s behaviour.” Have you joined the government/EU/UN/Greenpeace/FoE/swampy anti-freedom coalition. Unless you can prove that my behaviour is harmful, my behaviour is none of your or anyone else’s business and I shall continue to live my life how I choose, fully conscious that it has a very high carbon footprint that is frowned upon by the sanctimonious coalition mentioned above. Pogo December 23, 2009 at 12:03 pm Moreover, as the blatant manipulation, be it “adjustments” or downright cherrypicking, let alone the sheer ineptitude of the programmers who’re responsible for the code that does the “analysis” becomes increasingly obvious, can we even state with any authority that the planet is warming or cooling? Once that slight “problemette” is resolved, it might then be feasible to attribute some degree of anthropogenic contribution to the climate. But until then, IM(not so)HO, all bets are off. Oh, and CO2 is not “polution”, it’s plant food! Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.