Guess who?

I have to admit I do not think this attack happened either by chance or without co-ordination in some way.

In addition, I very much doubt that all the names used to post comment are unrelated: apart from making the obvious point that all are likely to be false I rather suspect there may be multiple identities for a single person involved.

Apparently my writing about his mistakes here is “coordination” now.

So, just for the avoidance of doubt Snippa. I have not told anyone to go comment on your blog. I never do in fact. I have also not coordinated anything. All I have done is indulge in a little free speech by reading, then considering and commenting upon, your proposal.

As I’m now about to do again:

Then SCA suggests that a business must have a plan for becoming net carbon neutral, including on Scope 3.

Scope 3 emissions belong to those using the product, not those making it. This is a fundamental error here.

After then it is claimed that there is double counting by including Scope 3. And yes, there could be if a product does, after sale pass through multiple further business hands before reaching an end consumer. But this entirely misses the point of SCA.

No, we’re talking about your assumption within SCA. The end consumer is the one travelling, cooking, consuming and thus emitting. And it’s consumer behaviour we desire to change too. This is all made entirely plain in the Stern Review and other such basic documents.

That double counting would matter if SCA was a macroeconomic measure. But it is not. It is a microeconomic measure. What it is seeking to appraise is what an entity’s contribution to global heating might be.

It’s still double counting and it still matters.

And if it is in a supply chain that delivers global heating it is playing a part in that process.

Jeebus, you’re not even understanding your own point. The supply chain is Scopes 1 and 2. Scope 3 is not the supply chain, it’s consumption.

Then it is claimed by critics that SCA prices this carbon that has been measured. Quite specifically sustainable cost accounting does not do that. It prices the cost of eliminating the carbon.

Which is another mistake being made. The cost of eliminating the emissions isn’t the important thing. The damage the emissions – their cost – do is.

It does not require the creation of an artificial market in carbon, thankfully. That’s not least because that market is not going to exist at any price that might be required at any foreseeable time in the future.

Trying to do economics without considering prices is, well, it’s rampantly stupid actually. And to claim that carbon is going to have no price at all is insane. It might even be a high price but there is going to be one.

Simply glorious:

As a consequence I propose that a precautionary principle must apply: only proven technology can be included in a plan to be net carbon neutral.

The world must become carbon neutral, today, with extant and proven technologies only. Entirely missing the point of Stern, Nordhaus et al, that the task is to develop the technologies which allow industrial society without climate change.

I am well aware that those who do not like sustainable cost accounting will wish to continue to take issue with it, and I m entirely happy about that: if I did not believe in constructive debate I would not have facilitated comments on this blog for as long as I have. But, those who raise repetitive, and continually inappropriate questions on the subject, not least because they make false claims as to what SCA is about, will simply be referred to this blog post. And those who are here to troll can expect to be banned.

And anyone who continues to point out Snippa’s errors will be banned. Got that?

31 comments on “Guess who?

  1. There is no bloody general precautionary principle. And if there were nobody could adopt it because adopting something new would violate that general precautionary principle. Dolt!

  2. Fuckwits everywhere would be ashamed to be associated with the fuckwit that is the Potato formerly known as Professor.

  3. Quite so, deariemie, anyone advocating the precautionary principle is screaming “I’m a grade A, unscientific dickhead”.

  4. “The cost of eliminating the emissions isn’t the important thing. The damage the emissions – their cost – do is.”

    It is fucking breathtaking Tim. One could possibly have a stab at costing the elimination of emissions. Although with the technology to do far from mature – or currently only at the theory or looking for a theory stage – a pretty wild stab. But the cost of the damage of the emissions? FFS! This isn’t known within several orders of magnitude. Or even whether it’s a plus or minus number. This is fantasy economics.

  5. So now we can add persecution complex to his existing messiah complex and the Dunning-Kruger effect. I’m sure there’s plenty more in there that I’ve missed.

  6. Ok, being topical, there must be no vaccine for Coronavirus-2019 until after at least 25 years of testing, to ensure that it is proven technology. And it mustn’t be tested on humans until it has been proven to work on humans.

  7. I know that Spud has long been blocking email addresses and I think he then moved on to blocking IP addresses.

    So anyone wanting to challenge his views or simply pull his leg couldn’t do it.*

    Interesting his comment on ‘new email addresses’ contacting him as to hear his own puff, he gets 100s of thousands of readers so you’d expect new people to be emailing all the time and yet it’s usually the same tired old small band of sycophants with;

    Sycophant “I agree with everything to say”

    Spud “agreed”

    exchanges.

    *unless they use one of the simple and freely available IP disguising apps.

  8. “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” – Einstein

    It doesn’t take an army to refute Murphy.

  9. You two have fun arguing about angels and pinheads and let the rest of us know what authoritarian, re-distributive ponzi scheme y’all settle on post-contretemps.

  10. Andrew C

    Wrt IP address, going from a mobile phone should do it. All the phone companies operate Carrier Grade NAT (on IPv4), hence you’ll often be shifting IP address (according to location), and also sharing whatever IP you are on with masses of others, making any sort of blocking quite problematic!

    If he does block by IP, with a bit of concerted effort he could in time be manipulated into blocking rather a lot of mobile phone companies’ IP addresses (including perhaps various of his sycophants)…

  11. @AndrewC: thanks for the link to the piece about the leader of Der echte Sozialismus. There’s a bit that mentions something I’ve always thought true – which demonstrates that, for all his utterly repellent evil, he had shown more intelligence than other varieties of socialists in at least one regard:-

    “The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.”

    This is not to deny that plenty of other sorts of socialists were also repulsively evil.

  12. Given Socialism’s appalling record of death and disasters, and the obvious fact that the Climate has changed in the past by far greater amounts without man’s intervention, it is obvious that if any Precautionary Principle is to be applied then it should be against his changes, not in favour.

  13. I think my last pseudonymous post on his blog was about two years ago and it certainly wasn’t under this sobriquet – SCA is his latest hobby horse. There’ll be another one along soon enough as he’ll be scratching around for funding. What the proposal does reveal is his complete unemployability as an accountant. He appears utterly ignorant of even rudimentary accounting principles…

  14. the only conspiracy against the potato and his “ideas” is that of facts and reality. He seems to be getting even more pathetic and whiny than ever.

  15. @dierieme

    I’m currently reading Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’. Written during WWII is analysis of Germany’s (then) recent history is an eye opener.

    Germany had a ‘love in’ for ‘state before the individual’ long before Hitler and it puts into perceptive the cliche that WWI was just similar empires slugging it out. In the late 19th and early 20th century, German intellectuals despised what they saw as British liberalism and individuality. Whatever -ism you want to call it, Germans believed in the state coming before the individual. WWI was just as much a clash of ideologues as was WWII.

    Communism, socialism, fascism. Pretty much the same. State control of the economy and doomed to failure in equally bloody and awful ways.

    Next time someone promotes socialism and tries to counter the litany of failures with “that wasn’t ‘proper’ socialism”, I’m going to suggest they consider whether fascism is a brilliant idea on the basis that Italy and Germany in the 1930s weren’t ‘proper’ fascism.

  16. Next time someone promotes socialism and tries to counter the litany of failures with “that wasn’t ‘proper’ socialism”, I’m going to suggest they consider whether fascism is a brilliant idea on the basis that Italy and Germany in the 1930s weren’t ‘proper’ fascism.

    Fascism is just an offshoot of socialism anyway. Mussolini (senior member of the Socialist International, don’t forget) came to the conclusion that socialism could never work if the corporations weren’t part of the picture; and Nazism expanded on fascism by making the antisemitism overt.

  17. Fascism is just an offshoot of socialism anyway.

    Agreed. But try getting “Boris is the most Fasicsty Fascist ever in the history of Fascism” lefties to admit that.

    “Nazism expanded on fascism by making the antisemitism overt.”

    Guess who wrote this…..

    “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.”

    Was it Hitler in Mein Kampf?

    Nope, it was Karl Marx in his 1844 essay “On the Jewish Question”

  18. “Communism, socialism, fascism. Pretty much the same. State control of the economy and doomed to failure in equally bloody and awful ways.”

    Fascism is strong, autocratic central control of a private economy. Communism differs in that the state owns the economy. Who owns the means of production. That’s the difference.

    Nazism was also distinguished by demonisation of their opposition.

    The inevitable failure – of all – results from the unnatural constraint of human behavior. The control eventually has to been enforced at gunpoint. I thought the U.S. had reached the tipping point when the Feds banned 100w light bulbs, but the people let them get away with it.

    The problem in the West, why the people haven’t risen against our manifestly fascist governments, is decadence. We are too comfortable to risk what we have to fight. Prosperity begets complacency.

    Incrementalism over the last 60 years has led to a million regulations. Washington has 615 agencies deciding how I should live. EVERYTHING I can buy has government content. But I’m not going to resist; I’m too comfortable.

    120 years ago, any federal agent appearing around here would be disappeared.

  19. “Nazism was also distinguished by demonisation of their opposition.”

    Yes, Communism was renowned for giving glowing good references to their opposition.

    “Fascism is strong, autocratic central control of a private economy. Communism differs in that the state owns the economy. Who owns the means of production. That’s the difference.”

    If, as they did, the Nazis fixed the price of everything and told factory owners who they could and couldn’t hire and what they had to produce and couldn’t produce then in reality there’s little difference. If there were a few wealthy (party member) Nazis who owned factories, there were equal numbers of wealthy commissars who oversaw factories while not owning them.

    I’m not saying there weren’t legal differences but the practical effects were the same.

    I do think it belittles those who lived under fascism and communism to suggest that we live under similar conditions. Leftards in both the UK and US are still free to take to the streets and screech that Boris/Trump is a fascist. Having said that I agree that there are too many politicians in both countries who would like similar powers to the Fuhrer.

    And I agree we are too complacent. I liken it to the family company. The first generation works fucking hard to build the wealth, the second generation appreciates and minds it, the third generation all too often takes it for granted and pisses it all away.

    That’s where we are. All the left’s virtue signalling is based on the arrogant assumption that wealth and freedom are divine rights easily won and so ripe for redistribution. I hope I’m not around when it all goes tits up.

  20. @Andrew C

    Germans believed in the state coming before the individual

    Europeans, not Germans. Having watched MEPs speaking in EU Parl this is confirmed
    eg “We will Obey Führer Ursula Von der Leyen”

  21. “I do think it belittles those who lived under fascism and communism to suggest that we live under similar conditions.”

    The Germans and Italians were fine with fascism. Elderly Germans still hate Jews.

    The West’s revulsion with Nazi Germany was over murder, not wage and price controls. Life in the U.S. today is vastly more regulated than life in ’30s Germany.

    I don’t accept degrees of tyranny.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.