Max- what is it about people who are for individual liberty and a small efficient government that makes you so angy? Have you always been prejudiced?
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Rob Starkey
↧
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by hunter
Michael,
You are doing a great job on little encouragment. Why should I change wwhat is working so well?
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Rob Starkey
Max– so now you seem to be shown to be a prejudiced individual who knows little about economics. Social security in the US is little more that a pyrimid scheme and is not self funded.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by hunter
I think the better term for the “CO2 tax” is “tax on living”.
Our governing classes are so far off base that they have deluded themselves into thinking that basically taxing breathing itself is the only thing that can save the day. This makes tax avoidance much more ominous.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by manacker
One can use ad hom attacks on Lord Monckton or question his “gravitas” as a card-carrying climatologist, but what he has said makes absolute sense.
Attack the message if you will – but don’t fall into the illogical trap of attacking the messenger.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Pekka Pirilä
Rob,
I haven’t suggested anything so far in this thread.
Whether introducing a carbon tax will ultimately be good or bad for the U.S. economy depends on the future development. It’s near therm effect would be making energy consuming activities more expensive relative to other activities. If these other activities will be of greater value in the future speeding up the transition is likely to be beneficial for the economy. That’s a very possible future for U.S. but cannot claim that it’s true with certainty.
A very high carbon tax would almost certainly cause damaging distortions to the economy, but a modest one might be a good idea even on purely selfish ground.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by manacker
“A fan of more discourse”
Your ad hom slur of Czech President, Václav Klaus, misses the point.
Apparently you can only attack the messenger, but have nothing worthwhile to comment on his message in the Financial Post:
To sum up my simple message: Empirical data are important; scientific discoveries are important; the disclosure of malpractices in the IPCC and other “bastions” of the global-warming debate are important; but we have to take part in the undergoing ideological battle. The subtitle of my five-year-old book is What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? There is no doubt that it is all about freedom.
Written by a guy that knows first-hand what “endangered freedom” is all about.
If you have issues with his message, state them. The snickering ad hom approach is a waste of words.
Max
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Rob Starkey
Pekka- It near term impact in the US would be to have fewer funds available for spending on other activities and thereby it would have an immediate negative impact on the US economy.
Now if there was some grand invention that allowed for energy to be produced more efficiently than fossil fuels there would be a positive economic impact as activities expanded around that new technology. Unfortunately, there is no such alternative today.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by MarkB
I was disappointed to see the comment on the Cape Wind project. The price for electricity from the Cape Wind project came in at 100% above current generation. The state Attorney General took the bull by the horns, and got them to knock off 5%(!). But then what power provider would pay that much? The state used the desire for the major provider to expand to extort the purchase of Cape Wind power out of them. The cost of that extortion, of course, will be passed on to rate-payers (like me).
And a conservative thinks this is a good idea that should have been sped up? Good God!
↧
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by lolwot
Well I am no fan of the pope, I regard religion as a collection of old wives tales. But the butler story has no relevance to climate other than stolen documents.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Pekka Pirilä
Rob
I didn’t propose that the funds collected should be sent out from US. Why do you think that there were less funds available?
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by A fan of *MORE* discourse
OK. Václav Klaus' lectures are scientifically irrelevant, morally wrong, economically short-sighted, and ideology-dominated … <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/03/conservative-perspectives-on-climate-change/#comment-205801" rel="nofollow">for reasons previously given.</a>
What is your next question?
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by gbaikie
“It’s near term effect would be making energy consuming activities more expensive relative to other activities. If these other activities will be of greater value in the future speeding up the transition is likely to be beneficial for the economy.”
How can increasing price sooner make higher prices later, better?
If so, why not do more of this?
And has it ever been done before and been beneficial?
It seems such a sooner increase will in addition increase prices in the future at higher price than they would be otherwise.
↧
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Rob Starkey
Pekka
There would be less funds available for the consumer to spend on other things if they had to spend more on energy. This is especially true of lower income consumers.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by NW
Lolwot, I’ve done that (posted criticism to WUWT from an academic domain) with no apparent problem, other than some light banter.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Peter Lang
NW
What, exactly, is so much worse about a tax on carbon than a tax on labor, or capital, or whatever?
However, you did not mention the issue of the compliance cost of measuring and monitoring CO2 emissions. It seems to me, to tax a commodity you need to be able to measure the quantities accurately. But that is virtually impossible with emissions of CO2-eq. See my comment to Pekka Pirila here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/03/conservative-perspectives-on-climate-change/#comment-206301
Have you done a rough estimate of what the compliance cost would be for the USA? Could it be $230 billion per year (or more) ($21 billion per year admitted by the EPA, and at least ten times that figure for the costs to business)?
↧
Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Fanof Dr. Curry
I think the social sciences in general are sciences:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expclass.php
Sometimes they meet the label of “soft”sciences and sometimes not, depending upon the applications, methods and underlying constructs devised to be investigated. Climate science, physics and, yes biology are mostly part of the “hard” sciences.
This does not mean there are not mistakes, exaggerations, omissions, and even outright fabrications made in each of the aforementioned divisions of science.
Last year when I worked in a lab looking at the physiological basis of human behavior in a University psychology department within a psycho-biology lab the general methodology, questions asked and ways of arriving at answers were all scientific using principles/techniques of biology, psychology and biochemistry. Yet the results were embellished and written in the best possible light with an overkill of scientifically sounding verbiage. Also, the sample sizes were far too small and the sampling resembled too much a convenience sampling rather than a true random sampling, though it was not dishonest to state that the methods employed a simple random sampling technique. In other words the study was worthwhile to pursue and the questions asked were of interest along with the use of well operationally defined variables and SPSS analysis of the data.
The study to be honest, however, was not looking for an answer in nearly as complex a subject as climate systems and the potential for AGW and so called “projections” or “predictions” and it already met with serious limitations in producing robust results. My research was NSF funded too,
Side note:
Dr. B you should re-read the posts in response to yours especially regarding falsification and so forth… they could benefit you on your quest to understand Popper and post Popperian falsifiability in a correct manner. I work extensively within this subject matter and these models have been falsified by real world data. The models have failed.
I also want to to state that Rabbett Run is unfairly mischaracterizing Judith Curry as somehow encouraging violence against AGW proponents as well.This is a shame, I think, that many in and around the climate research/blog community is attacking Dr. Curry. Politics as usual.
Climate science is at times very good and scientific but not when it bases already biased claims upon falsified Global Circulation Models.
Now are air pollution, soot, benzene in water potential issues–sure, but even many of these issues in the developed world have improved.
↧
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by treyg
If we’re going to tax (supposedly) negative externalities such as carbon, “clean energy” can’t get off free. We are offshoring pollution — think neodymium for wind turbines mined in Mongolia, solar cells in China, etc. And don’t forget, manufacturing these clean energy components produces carbon, which would get off scot-free overseas.
A better idea is to eliminate all energy subsidies and let economics do it’s job. Case in point, natural gas which is reducing our carbon intensity on a large scale with clean, reliable, and dispatchable power.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by NW
Wag, look at the data:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o
You are forgetting that payroll tax ends at a relatively low level of income (I mean relative to the poeple who pay most of the taxes, the top percentile people) so that in terms of total federal revenues the payroll tax is relatively trifling (though of course not for the people who pay it).
Try again, Wag.
↧
Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by NW
I said “Sure, to tax any activity, there are better and worse ways of doing it.”
See earlier comments by Pekka and Faustino. I am willing to go along with a carbon content (fuel-based) tax to avoid the emissions-monitoring problem though that misses some prospective efficiencies that could be gained.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
