I’d pay to see the reaction

Making profit should not now be the primary goal of a business: being net-zero carbon should be

I should add that I have already written to Mark Carney on this issue.

It’s that Pooteresque mixture of idiocy and self-importance……

The actual task – as Stern and others have pointed out – is how to make it profitable to be less carbon emitting. ‘Cuz us humans tend to do more of things that are profitable.

27 thoughts on “I’d pay to see the reaction”

  1. ‘I should add that I have already written to Mark Carney on this issue.’

    You know, I am not absolutely convinced that the whole thing isn’t an elaborate wind-up, a la say Henry Root.

  2. Tim

    We should not want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

    We are near absolute minimums for the history of the world. We are at one third of the optimum for vegetable life and until the 20th C were heading towards 159/175ppm which would kill vegetable life without which we go poufff!

    There is ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 (and therefore man’s emissions of same) controls the temperature or the climate.

    There is plenty of historical evidence to indicate that it is not true. We have rubbish computer models predicting rising temperatures, more extreme weather, the disappearance of polar ice, etc. None of which are currently happening.

    With the eruption of XR on the scene it is time to get down to the nitty-gritty. These dumb asses depend on the rest of us accepting there is a problem with CO2 for them to get impressionable dick-h*ads on their side to drive our economy into the ground while the Chinese and the Indians install 10 times more coal-power than our entire all sources ‘leccie’ generating system.

    Time to stop working out the number of angels that can dance etc… This debate contributes to the success of the hypocritical (‘cos of course they are) crazies.

    Please, the regular and growing evidence of temperature numbers fraud, historical evidence of lower temperatures now than in the 1930’s, historical warm periods without industrial activity, the long-term (10,000 year) heating/cooling cycles, the current figures which show EVERY prediction about climate alarm to be wrong… and all that without going into the underlying political causes from the 70’s which would sound like conspiracy theories except that they are out in the open, ought to be enough

    I am no longer interested in shooting the Ely man down on this subject. That he is all the things you and others call him is irrelevant, he (well not really as he is an irrelevance) but all the others need to be defeated on the fundamentals, not on something which is now unimportant.

  3. Interested, I also was reminded of Root.

    You can imagine the Potato to his friends, “I am in correspondence with Mark Carney…”.

  4. m’Lud: You can imagine the Potato to his friends

    Is there, on reflection, anything about the above that which you would wish to revise?

  5. I did think about it before commenting, Mr B, but I reckon he’ll have one or two. Of course, they have to be replaced every few months…

  6. Spud’s acquaintances can be catagorised as;

    1 – unnamed people he has talks with who agree with everything he says and constantly ask his opinion on topics he then writes a blog about and

    2 – named people he has fallen out with.

  7. Bilbaoboy is exactly right, above. There is no proof that industrial release of CO2 is the dominant cause of scary weather patterns (the only proof requiring study of a human-free Earth twin) and there are many other explanations for climate trends.

    The assertion that “being net-zero carbon [that is, doing what I tell it to] should be the primary goal of a business” is ludicrous. But compare the blather emitted by the Business Roundtable, and signed by a hundred titans of American industry, subordinating profit (and thus measurement) to stated needs of other “stakeholders.”

  8. Dennis Topaz McGonagall

    Making profit should not now be the primary goal of a business: being net-zero carbon should be

    Just when you think Murphy cannot get more ridiculous than he already is, he comes up with a gem like the above…

  9. Slightly OT but I’d like to see the replay to this from HMQ that fanboy 1 (PSR) posted in the “queen must quit’ thread on TRUK:

    ‘Liz’s consent is purchased by ensuring that only her subjects suffer and not her or her kin. Life for them goes on untouched, certain to keep them in the life to which they have become accustomed.

    I pointed this out to her in a recent letter.’

  10. You’re right. I just looked.

    He actually did.

    Snigger. I wonder if she keeps his more, ah, historic letters. Future historians may want to know …

  11. Tim
    I completely agree with bilbaoboy.

    Might I suggest starting a bit of research with Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.
    Even for a number-blind Arts graduate like me it was a gripping read – for anyone with a smattering of statistical knowledge it should be especially eye-opening about the fraudulent “science” behind the climate scare.

  12. Making profit should not now be the primary goal of a business: being net-zero carbon should be

    “Fellow workers, We made a massive loss of 10s of millions this year, we’ve no money and we’re going out of business so you’re all going to lose your jobs and possibly houses/marriages as a knock on result of the financial stress imposed. The customer will no longer be able to buy our widgets, which might be vital components in their equipment, so they’re probably going to go bust as well. But we were Carbon neutral! Hurrah! Mission Achieved!”

  13. ”But compare the blather emitted by the Business Roundtable, and signed by a hundred titans of American industry, subordinating profit (and thus measurement) to stated needs of other “stakeholders.”

    From their point of view maybe it’s a handy way to miss growth or efficiency targets, but still claim their bonuses and be seen as ‘effective’

  14. This green nonsense, though, is galloping into the legislative space. My local authority for example has declared a climate emergency which requires all sorts of activities that will undoubtedly be costly.

    In the last month or so, the government sneaked through legislation that outlaws gas boilers in new build housing from 2023.

    Where is the uproar when bullshit like this is getting through on the nod, without any serious scrutiny or publicity? Whether we like it or not, and I do not like it, the Guardian and the enviromaniacs are getting everything their own way.

  15. I looked up ‘goofball’ in the dictionary. They had Murphy’s picture.

    ‘I have already written to Mark Carney on this issue.’

    Uhh, no, it’s not an issue.

  16. @bilbaoboy October 14, 2019 at 11:04 am


    Historical records show global temperature increases preceded higher CO2 levels

    You need to realise and admit a C02 tax is a scam for higher tax and more state control – AOC’s puppet-master* has admitted this

    C02 is 0.04% of atmosphere; annually 97% is created by nature, 3% by humans – human CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of atmosphere

    @’Dave Ward October 14, 2019 at 12:17 pm


    @Diogenes October 14, 2019 at 6:57 pm

    2025: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gas-ban-new-homes-fossil-fuels-government-phillip-hammond-spring-statement-a8821941.html

    I foresee Calor Gas or Oil Tanks in gardens making a comeback

    * Good grief

    AOC is a Labour MP too

  17. Quote: ” Making profit should not now be the primary goal of a business: being net-zero carbon should be”

    That could most easily be achieved by closing the business. Job done, as it were…..

  18. Andrew is one of the few who actually gets my point. Which is always that “If, IF, all that sciencey bit is right then the carbon tax is the answer.”

  19. But Tim, you’re believing the sciencey bit that isn’t right.

    If, IF the Catholic church are right about the afterlife, indulgences are the answer.

  20. @Tim Worstall October 15, 2019 at 6:40 am

    Which “Andrew” post do you refer to?

    Not this one I assume?

    Oh, I see, it’s your imaginary friend telling you you’re correct.

    If, if, if something could be bad: tax/ban it now is your argument.

    Industrial Revolution would not have happened with that mindset – it’s also EU’s precautionary principle: prove it does no harm – which you correctly lambaste

    Wake up Tim

    PS Stop calling it a “Carbon Tax” it’s a “CO2 Tax” – babies are 18% Carbon (vs air 0.04%), tax them?

  21. A problem with the “If” approach is that the freaks bank the narrative. The narrative becomes “if x, then y”, which makes x credible, rather than “stop making up crap about x”.

    You used to do it with “avoidance” with Spud. All I saw that approach doing (generically, not just this blog) was allow Spud freely to advance his lunatic views on the subject, rather than more correctly have them shot down.

  22. What was the question?

    How can we further burden our economy?

    Carbon tax applied. Nothing changes. Other steps taken. Carbon tax remains.

    It’s just a tax. Climate chatter is to get us to accept it.

Leave a Reply

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