Tough crowd at the Telegraph

Want to see someone almost as thick as Geoffrey Lean? Try Tim Worstall http://t.co/S6WSjoED

Still, at least it\’s only almost.

14 thoughts on “Tough crowd at the Telegraph”

  1. Good article Tim. But you seem to have overestimated the intelligence of the Daily Telegraph reading public.

    Which is not to say that you’ve done anything very difficult.

  2. Bloody hell, “almost as deluded”?

    Over a period of many months I have asked twenty or so climate scientists and institutions, including Chris Huhne

    Huhne’s a climate scientist? I thought he did PPE before embarking on mendacity as a career.

    Oh, okay, the last … The commentator might have accidentally stumbled on a reasonable point.

  3. Chris Huhne is not only an institution in himself, but god willing will be in an institution at Her Majesty’s pleasure for an appreciable length of time.
    Good article, Tim, especially as you’ve wound up the swivel-eyed loons.

  4. “Almost”? Even if you tried really really hard to pretend to be as stupid as fatty lean I bet you wouldn’t succeed.

  5. The natural consequence of disagreeing with the screaming ideologues on both sides. This is why we can’t have a sensible political discourse – taking a reasonable position between two extremes just means you get howled at twice as much. Good article though Tim, hopefully it convinces at least a few.

  6. I don’t think you explained “revenue-neutral” very well there Tim. Perhaps 10% rather than 5% of the commentators would have understood the article if you did :p

  7. The argument that doing something reduces uncertainty is plain silly. Despite all the doom and gloom, it is probable that a certain amount of warming will be benign for the vast majority of people (as the history of the planet has demonstrated). Furthermore, as we don’t know the net effects of feedbacks or the extent to which natural processes override anthropogenic ones (the current plateau in temperatures suggests significantly), we cannot be sure that doing something is better than not doing something. Either way, uncertainty will not be reduced.

    As you’ve pointed out before, Tim, companies don’t pay taxes. A carbon tax will be paid for by consumers, shareholders and employees. Rebating to households may be designed to mitigate that but revenue neutral does not mean that there are not winners and losers. The carbon dioxide tax that is coming into effect next month in Australia is more of a wealth redistribution scheme than a tax designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, taking from those disinclined to vote Labor and overcompensating those who are.

  8. Methinks the problem, as so often, is the headline “Yes, climate change is a problem…”, which for Telegraph readers would put you firmly in the Geoffrey Lean/Louise Gray camp. If it had been more accurately rendered “Yes, climate uncertainty is a problem…” there might not have been the problem from those in the Delingpole/Christopher Booker camp.

    Contrary to Paul B’s comment, a lot of Telegraph blog readers are intelligent enough to be well up on the latest on climate research: they know about the work of McIntyre/McKitrick, they definitely know the guilty men in Climategate (since Delingpole had a minor part in its exposure), they know about WUWT, Bishop Hill, the GWPF etc and the nefarious activities of FoE, Greenpeace, WWF, George Moonbat, James Hanson and, oh yes, I almost forgot, of a certain William M Connelley, too… http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/comment-by-alex-harvey-climate-change.html?spref=tw

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *