George laddie, seriously……

We cannot rely on market forces and corporate goodwill to defend us from catastrophe. We should vote for parties – in this case Green or Labour – that allow us to make collective decisions about our common interests, leading to democratic intervention. No one has the right to choose whether or not to destroy our lives.

You’re trying to change how people act. The only effective way, the only way that works with us humans, is to change the incentives people face within markets.

Sure, I disagree with most to near all of the analysis that we face a significant problem in the first place. But the least you can do is get the underlying basics right. We simply don’t have any other method, other than market forces suitably adjusted, to get things done. Get anything done that is.

Change prices and we’d be done. Don’t change them and we never will be.

27 thoughts on “George laddie, seriously……”

  1. Marxist bullshit from an eco-freak condemned out of his own evil gob.

    “No one has the right to choose whether or not to destroy our lives.”–socialism has taken about 150 million lives so far.

    Moonbat should be handed over to the gypsies he hates and fears for disposal.

  2. You’re trying to change how people act. The only effective way, the only way that works with us humans, is…

    Compulsion, if you’re a socialist.

  3. There is no problem, and no solution is required. Certainly not a carbon tax, which will, like all other sin taxes, make the state a pimp.

  4. No one has the right to choose whether or not to destroy our lives.

    But he wants us to vote for the most interventionist, controlling parties (out of a bad bunch).

    Personally, I’ll vote for anyone who promises to punch Moonbat in the throat.

  5. Certainly not a carbon tax, which will, like all other sin taxes, make the state a pimp.

    Out of interest, a poll. Do you think a carbon tax would be used by government as an excuse to raise the overall tax take?

  6. Of course it will, BIS.

    “No one has the right to choose whether or not to destroy our lives.”

    Surely this implies no one has the right to choose not to destroy our lives. Even if you believe in Thunbergery, no one can compel us to act on it

  7. Interested that Tim disagrees with the climate change science – would love to be pointed at some non-batty internet source to back this up. Also, if climate change is a non-issue, what is the real motive for all of the flapping going on?

  8. Spect–Read Agenda 21. The globo elite plan a “sustainable ” world where 6 out of 7 now living die and 300 mil of said “elite” are served by 1 thou mil techno-peasants still left alive. Techno-feudalism. They find Marxist scum useful idiots to bring on chaos/ruin/war after which the globos step in with their proffer of “safe” serfdom to the survivors. The ecofreaks are the vanguard of leftist evil. And taking our cars is the first point of attack.

  9. I agree Tim “democratic control ” is often fraudulent and the provision of some minor amount of some obscure constitutional powers is not something any sane person would swap for actual money
    ..oh dear … isn`t that exactly what you are you fellow National Socialists have been shoving down our throats ?

    Yup … one pooch royally screed then

  10. But don’t George and his mates demand that we destroy our lives? I’ve no experience and probably even less ability at subsistence farming, even if the bits of my 1/2 acre that don’t have buildings on would be enough to support us.

    And, obviously I reject being ruled over by a Brahmin class of Monbiots and Huttons (even with their long track records of consistency and success) indulging in all then privileges they demand are denied to us peons. At least St Greta eats (at the expense of the actual environment) the gruel she insists will be our only sustenance in her blessed Utopia.

  11. On this occasion, I have to agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Ecks. “Climate Change” is a complete and utter scam — just another excuse from the Usual Suspects for raising your taxes and limiting your freedom.

    No-one has ever presented a scientific hypothesis for Anthropogenic Climate Change; there is no scientific basis whatsoever. There was a hypothesis for Anthropogenic Global Warming — but the observed lack of global warming over the last decade or so while atmospheric CO2 has gone up means that real scientists have rejected that hypothesis.

    If you genuinely want to learn more about the “Climate Change” scam, Spectacled, a good place to start is the Australian book “Climate Change: The Facts”, edited by Alan Moran (2015). Broad scope, and very readable.

  12. @Spectacled

    Tim himself isn’t sceptical of the climate science, which he is regularly harranged about in the comments. For what Tim’s point is, see the Stern Review especially and to some extent the economic projections in the IPCC reports.

  13. What’s been disastrous is accepting the so called climate science, in the first place and arguing how to deal with the non-existent results. Once that ground’s conceded there’s no line to mount a defence on. The “problem”will always be bigger than any solution to it you care to offer.

  14. @Gavin Longmuirv

    AOC’s puppet master admitted in an interview* it wasn’t about AGW, ACS, Green it was more tax and more control

    * WaPo, WaTi maybe

  15. Anyone my age knows that Britain ios warmer than it was 60 or 70 years ago. I reckon that most of this is due to changes in how much energy is received from the sun but it is undeniable that burning billions of tons or coal and oil will have made some contribution.
    We cannot do anything about sunspots etc – we can do something about burning oil and coal – so those who are worried about global warming should tell China to cut down on burning coal instead of building more coal-fired power stations. China isn’t going to listen unless we make it clear that we are serious by reducing our own CO2 emissions.

  16. @John77 – however an important fact is that co2 emissions lag behind temperature changes. Historical data shows co2 emissions rising AFTER rises in average temperature and falling AFTER falls in average temperature.

  17. @ moqifen
    I don’t have to believe in “CO2 forcing”: burning coal is bad for everyone – especially the coalminers.
    CO2 absorption/release by/from oceans could account for the changes that you report.

  18. ‘This week we discovered that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached record levels, just as they need to be plummeting in order to avoid climate catastrophe.’

    Patently false. He knows nothing of science. The earth’s atmosphere contains about 0.04% carbon dioxide. It contains up to 4.00% water vapor. The main greenhouse gas (sic) in the atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is merely a trace gas. Trivial. Irrelevant.

    Additionally, a warmer earth is a BETTER earth. ‘Climate catastrophe’ is stoopid.

  19. ‘We simply don’t have any other method, other than market forces suitably adjusted, to get things done.’

    You completely miss the point, Timmer. His objective is to GET RID OF THE MARKET.

  20. “Interested that Tim disagrees with the climate change science”

    You prove your ignorance by calling it science.

    You must be new here; Tim does not disagree with climaty changy science. Just how to deal with it.

  21. john77 November 28, 2019 at 12:04 am

    Anyone my age knows that Britain ios warmer than it was 60 or 70 years ago

    My mum, aunts & uncles disagree

    Try “I think” next time

  22. @ Pcar
    I know even if you do not.
    You could look at British (not American which are distorted by local heat sources) records of temperatures or ask them whether they still get chilblains or notice the snow cover or try skating on the village pond or wonder why we get fish that formerly only swam in the Mediterranean or near Portugal. In 1966 we had so much snow on the ground that I couldn’t go for a run in the second half of April. When our boys were young we bought a cheap toboggan because I use to enjoy tobogganing when I was a child – it’s sitting in the shed virtually unused and I cannot remember off-hand the last winter when we could have used it if wanted to do so (bit too late now).

  23. @john77 “I think, not I know”

    You can’t remember later than 1966 deep snow?

    1979,80,81 ..95*,96..2003, 04..10 & 11 to name a few

    2010 was >4ft in UK 56N – below 0c all of today

    Chilblains? most don’t as in CH homes. Me? Yep, on right fingers most winters

    Portugal and further south Fish? They’ve normal eg Espada. However now being reported to support agenda.

    * 1995 Easter: we rolled choc eggs in the snow; so unusual wee took photos and sang “I’m dreaming of a white Easter” – it’s known as Weather

Leave a Reply

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