The world is on course to experience “severe and pervasive” negative impacts from climate change unless it takes rapid action to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, a major UN report is expected to warn on Sunday.

Yes, we know, can we haz a carbon tax plze?

Sigh. They keep telling us this, we’re all to be boiled, and then they just will not listen to the next set of experts, the economists, about what to do next. It’s a carbon tax. It doesn’t mean economic disaster: the UK already has one of about the right size (even if not quite properly distributed). The UK is also wasting vast amounts on all of the regulatory and legislative tinkering that it’s doing: which is why we want to have a carbon tax instead of legislative and regulatory tinkering.

Just fucking get on with it would you?

28 thoughts on “Yawn”

  1. They should of added.
    ….as soon as the climate tally’s with our computer models and shows any sign of man made warming.

  2. If it’s like AR5, the politicised report will bear little relation to the scientific analysis. Surely we have enough unnecessary taxes that redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich without adding another? There are1.3 billion souls in the world who don’t even have an electric light. Making those people’s lives less nasty, brutish and short should take precedence over slavish devotion to a debunked politicised pseudo -scientific theory, don’t you think?

  3. You left out the warfare that they say will ensue as we all head for that higher ground.

    This is obviously less harsh than the warfare that would ensue as a result of Mr Pashwari and his mates becoming billionaires at the expense of several billion people.

  4. Tim, before you shill for moah tax ‘cos we’re all going to die by broiling/drowning, please find some real world evidence, not using computer modelling or “adjusted” data. Historically warmth is good for humankind but cold kills.

  5. Justin – me and all.

    If teachers wheren’t so shit their’d be less grammer mistakes on the internet. Its time the NUT towed the line.

  6. Tim,

    Let’s pretend you are right; about both the science and the calculation of how much tax is needed:

    Yes, we know, can we haz a carbon tax plze

    It’s a carbon tax … the UK already has one of about the right size (even if not quite properly distributed).

    which is why we want to have a carbon tax

    Make your mind up.

  7. What everyone else said.

    The biggest effing yawn is people who bleat on about accepting the science but then not being arsed to educate themselves about what real world observations are telling us about the magnitude of the threat posed by AGW (i.e. bugger all), yet still calling for a carbon tax which will achieve sweet FA except make successful people poorer.

  8. Except that the entire thing is a swindle and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Anyone advocating such a tax can swivel.

  9. DocBud>

    What everyone seems to miss is that the scientific consensus, as represented by the IPCC reports, is that the alarming claims aren’t credible, and the claims that are credible aren’t alarming.

  10. ‘“If strong action is not well underway by 2020, the chance of avoiding dangerous climate change will be very small, if indeed possible at all,” he said.’

    They told us 10 years ago that we must act immediately or else! So, if strong action is not underway in 2020, they’ll give us ’til 2030.

  11. Carbon Tax? A Carbon Tax? You actually WANT a carbon tax?? Go to your room and sit in the corner. Do not come out until I call you and furthermore, consider yourself in receipt of one scathing reprimand!

  12. Given that the lights are about to go out all over Europe and our industrial society, energy starved and mismanaged, is on the verge of collapse, a carbon tax seems somewhat redundant… not least because there will be no ’emissions’ to tax.

    Meanwhile Mr Tim please explain this, and I add your usual proviso that for the sake of argument let us accept the Climate Doom, we do know that the temperature recording mechanisms… which include land based instruments, atmospheric balloons, remote satellite sensing, and the Argo array of buoys measuring ocean temperatures are not detecting the ‘Human signature’ of the Global Warming that the Climate Prophets tell us IS happening.

    Therefore the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record is not suitable to measure ‘real’ changes in climate heat content because lots of heat has gone missing and is not being measured – so it is alleged.

    Long preamble, so now the question.

    How will we monitor the effects of a ‘carbon’ (you mean carbon dioxide) tax? If the Official Global Temp Record is not measuring what is going on, how will we know if the tax is too high, too low or just right?

    Is it really advisable to carry out an action when there is no reliable way to monitor its effect?

  13. Yes, but we must think of the children. And the grandchildren, and the great grandchildren. Especially those who grow up in impoverished areas of the world.

    Do we want to bequeath to them an industrial world where everyone has access to power and, concomitantly, to clean water, main drainage, heat, light, shelter, medical treatment and, of course, the wealth and therefore the ability to adapt to whatever climate change occurs?

    Or do we want to leave them an energy poor, (and thus poor in wealth terms), post-industrial society, that leaves them unable to thus adapt?

    Of course the originators of the whole global warming scam want to drastically reduce the human population so my first proposal is anathema. We should not forget that.

  14. Why doesn’t Worstall defend his statement?

    Considering the opposition clearly defined in this thread’s comments, I’m expecting the learned Worstall to explain why the commentators are wrong.

    Yet, time after time, Worstall doesn’t give a shit.

  15. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN IPCC, opened the Copenhagen summit by acknowledging the “seeming hopelessness of addressing climate change” but imploring policymakers to “avoid being overcome” by it.
    Time for another Fuehrer bunker satire.

  16. Arnald

    “Why doesn’t Worstall defend his statement?”

    I guess because he doesn’t think anything he says would make the slightest difference to the views of the commenters on this thread on this issue.

  17. bloke (not) in spain

    “Why doesn’t Worstall defend his statement?”
    Well, Arnald, working within the parameters of the IPCC carbon/ACC paradigm he doesn’t have anything to defend. A carbon tax would provide the solution & if you have a carbon tax,& thus a solution, you don’t need to go looking for other solutions.
    And looking back over the comments, there doesn’t seem to be anyone challenging him on that assertion.
    Except me, of course. Because I’ve expressed before my doubts about where the incidence of Pigou taxes come to rest.

  18. So Much for Subtlety

    Arnald – “Why doesn’t Worstall defend his statement? Considering the opposition clearly defined in this thread’s comments, I’m expecting the learned Worstall to explain why the commentators are wrong.”

    I remember the good old days. When I was virtually the only climate skeptic around here. Good times. But you are, as usual, missing the point Arnald. TW knows that most of his readers disagree with him on climate issues. Notice what he does not do – he does not ban, he does not delete, he does not call people names. He is grown up about it.

    “Yet, time after time, Worstall doesn’t give a shit.”

    I am not sure that is true. Rather he is a genuine liberal and does not p!ss his little man pants if someone disagrees with him.

  19. And, given that you accept that overuse of carbon fuels is a “bad” (and overuse of any economically important resource is) then a “carbon tax” is, exempting b(n)is’s disagreement re Pigou, a sensible thing.

    Then we can argue about the level of that tax. Accepting the current “art” amongst the propagandists, it is significantly less that the UK currently levels in fuel taxes.

    Hurrah. Tax cuts for everyone 😉

  20. Arnald,

    What BiS said.

    I can’t recall Tim saying he actually believed himself in climate science? Above his pay grade and all that?

    Ie, he plays the “OK, if Santa Claus did exist, then he would need some shit fast reindeer…” game.

    Most comments above are simply telling him that, as Santa Claus doesn’t in fact exist, he might be wasting his time thinking about advanced reindeer propulsion.

  21. Because it’s nothing to do with carbon, or global warming, or economic common sense – it’s about power over other people, as it always is.

    The last thing they want to hear is that we’ve already taken the action that’s needed: it would mean they have no reason to boss us all around and take our stuff.

    Of course, they’d soon find a new reason (Ebola, anyone?) but that would mean work and a certain amount of back-tracking; gorbal worming has been for them the gift that keeps on giving, and they’re going to milk it for as long as they possibly can.

Leave a Reply

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