A lot of people like climate change, mainly because it presents them with a platform for doing things they like to do. Of course, they will tell you they have come to do it because it needs to be done. So you see often – experts seriously discussing ins-and-outs of a ‘policy’ even as you blink about the need for the whole thing. Tim Worstall, provides us with an example. Tim
likes the idea of a carbon tax thinks a ‘carbon’ tax just needs to be done. Apparently he’s been yammering away about it for years.
We can ask him the ‘blink’ question. Why, do we need this ‘tax’? The answers pour forth – for those who seek:
Now, as you all know, I’m generally on board with the idea that climate change is a) happening and b) something we ought to do something about.
As you all know, I’m generally on side over this climate change thing. It’s happening, we’re causing it and something must be done.
Start from where the Government is: yes, climate change is a problem, something we should do something about.
Let us assume a number of things: that climate change is happening, that it’s a problem, that it’s human activity causing it and that we really do need to do something about it.
Ok, Tim’s really convinced ‘something needs to be done’. But why? These are not really an answer to our question, are they? One digs deeper.
I take the IPCC projections to be pretty much what they say they are, the current state of the scientific art
When you start reading some of the scientists actually involved, William Connelly(sic), James Annan for example, you actually get told that while this is a problem, …
I will still defer to the collected expertise of climatologists, which, for the moment, still supports the AGW hypothesis. (via quote)
As is usual around here, we’ll start with the assumption that the IPCC is correct.
That’s it, really. I’ve looked quite hard – though I haven’t read Worstall’s book – there is absolutely nowhere that he examines why we need to put a tax on ‘carbon’. It is just layers of assumptions and belief in experts.
Please mind – Worstall actually gives very clever reasons to why a carbon tax would be a good thing, even if the climate thing were not true. But that would mean he’s using the climate as an excuse to push things he happens to like, wont it? There is the odd mumbling about solar power, and titanium dioxide, and fuel cells, and “billions “of people dying from climate change. But why would you operate a battery-powered car when you have a tankful of gas? And why would one listen to Worstall when he is busy deferring to experts other than himself ?
Worstall even says:
I’m perfetly(sic) happy with the basic science of climate change.
What is this ‘basic science of climate change’ and why is Worstall ‘happy’ with it? And about that “we really need need to do something about it?” What the heck is that? And, because William Connolley said so?
How about this? Let us not do something just because we feel like ‘doing something.’ I wonder about economists and policymakers whose life’s work would go swirling down the drain – just like the tax money they advocate collecting. When the IPCC which forms the basis for what they do, crashes under the weight of such hopes and expectations, that is.