Comments on: Opportunity cost of the global warming scare

By: two bob

two bob — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:00:07 +0000

I read these comments suggesting that grain biofuels are bad.I fully agree.
What I find strange is that there has been no debate in our media, on sites such as this etc about our own grian ethanol disgrace.
The E10 mandate demands that 28 percent of our average annual NSW cereal starch production be converted to ethanol for no read benifits.

How about having a look at this homegrown scam.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:51:43 +0000

Actually Tim I think you have represented the World Bank publication quite well. Very well. Your op-ed was very carefully worded so that it is not inconsistent with the World Bank Report but makes it look like Monckton is wrong.

By: Tim Wallace

Tim Wallace — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:42:13 +0000

Congratulations to Sinclair on tracking down the World Bank Development Prospect Group’s 2008 policy research working paper on rising food prices.

I trust the “clue” of explicitly referring in the sixth paragraph of my piece to the “The World Bank Development Prospect Group’s 2008 policy research working paper on rising food prices” aided the discovery process.

I would invite readers to read the report and judge for themselves the merit of Sinclair’s claim I have not represented the report’s conclusions accurately.

By: Semi Regular Libertarian

Semi Regular Libertarian — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:57:01 +0000

I suggest you check out William Nordhaus.

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/

By: WestWright

WestWright — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:48:54 +0000

Bravo & Hello! I found this site thru Andrew Bolt, a daily read for this American regarding the view from down under. I’m a strong advocate for extensive utilization of “opportunity cost” analysis applied to all policies and especially to AGW.
IMO, there may well be a Nobel Prize waiting for someone in establishing a clear Oportunity Cost methodology.

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:13:03 +0000

Hamilton is plagiarising Blaise Pascal, and they were both wrong.

By: ken nielsen

ken nielsen — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:24:22 +0000

Well analyzed Sinc.
I have remarked before that many or most AGW campaigners will not accept any defect or adverse consequence from what they are prescribing.

[I've moved this from the other thread. Sinc]

By: JC

JC — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:32:23 +0000

oops Send HIM and give HIM…

By: JC

JC — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:27:37 +0000

hahahaahhahaha

Send there anyway and give the choice on which side he wants to fight… That’s the best answer from a libertarian perspective. LOL.

By: jtfsoon

jtfsoon — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:20:30 +0000

Based on his views he is more likely to fight *for* the Taliban.