Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Day 5 of a broken promise

13 comments

Written by Sinclair Davidson

July 5th, 2012 at 12:00 am

Posted in Uncategorized

«
»

13 Responses to 'Day 5 of a broken promise'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Day 5 of a broken promise'.

  1. “So what should have been done is … that economic assets should have been created to tie the hands of future governments, to tie the hands of the corporations that at the moment are against carbon trading. If you gave them free permits then they would actually have an incentive to support carbon trading. So this linking of the economic design into the real political situation should have been taken advantage of.”

    I think this is a bad thing.

    John Humphreys

    5 Jul 12 at 4:46 am

  2. That’s all well and good Warwick, but how much will the “Carbon Price” effect global temperature?

    You are talking about a scheme that will penalise Australia’s economy for no environmental benefit what so freaking ever.

    The whole idea is insane.

    jupes

    5 Jul 12 at 8:02 am

  3. John – yes. McKibbon is good on a lot of things and then suddenly gets very bad. Overall the interview is well worth watching.

    Sinclair Davidson

    5 Jul 12 at 8:39 am

  4. McKibbon does not understand climate science has failed; it has failed because there is no Tropical Hot Spot, it has failed because the Optical Depth has not changed, it has failed because the paleoclimatic record gives no support, it has failed because the mechanism of AGW, back-radiation, cannot heat in the way the theory demands, it has failed because natural variability has been underestimated as a determinator of temperature trend as well as variation.

    It has failed.

    Therefore all of McKibbon’s bloviations about the CO2 tax, some true, a lot bullshit, is irrelevant because the reason for having a CO2 tax has been disproved.

    cohenite

    5 Jul 12 at 9:25 am

  5. Outrageous that he suggests a scheme to “tie the hands of future Government” through the allocation of property rights.

    Thank god Mckibbon was pushed away by Labor.

    Scott

    5 Jul 12 at 10:07 am

  6. Sinclair the interview is frightening.

    He and others like him are framing the debate by refusing to even acknowledge that there is any doubt, argument or controversy surrounding AGW and fhe associated doomsday predictions which is the only basis for the ‘price’ in the first place.

    The skeptics amongst us may think we are winning the war against spurious climate ‘science’ but the other side is ignoring us and refusing to engage in debate.

    Until we have some politicians with the guts to challenge the AGW argument or at least the doomsday predictions associated with it then we have lost.

    Wayneofperth

    5 Jul 12 at 11:19 am

  7. A true believer in the “economist’s tool box”. He designs a policy for a certainty for the need for carbon constraint and the inevitability that all counties will agree to it and agree to a means of combating it.

    In these areas he has no expertise. Anyone can design a tax and assign property rights but to do so where there is no need or no chance of enforcement means employment only for those like McKibbin who do the advising. For the rest there are simply costs.
    In the context of the the Higgs boson, “When questioned on air about the usefulness of the discovery on air this morning, one physicist reverted back to a quote from Faraday when questioned by the 19th century prime minister Gladstone, then in charge of the treasury: I don’t know just yet but I am sure that you will find a way to tax it.”

    Alan Moran

    5 Jul 12 at 11:28 am

  8. Alan

    You are right about Wokka being a true believer in the ‘economist’s tool box’. IF there was dangerous warming caused by human activity and IF reducing emissions was the best way of takling it and IF there was an international agreement, THEN his analysis is very good.

    The heartening part of his presentation is his concern that becasue the Liar has mismanaged the introduction of her tax, it is unlikely that any political party would re-consider it for quite some time after Abbott gets rid of it. That’s a win. Even better, the longer we can delay action, the more people will see the scam unfold. So it is win win.

    johno

    5 Jul 12 at 11:47 am

  9. The ABC were reduced to running this morning with some survey that had a majority of a small sample (only about 70 polled) of businesses saying they thought they’d still be paying a carbon price in 2020.
    Translation: don’t bother voting for the coalition! There is no escape!
    As cohenite says above, the CO2 theory is dashed on the rocks. David Evans has covered this, but he is never going to get a fair hearing from the ABC or any other left luvvie media group. Even the Australian is backwards on full coverage, trying to “give the planet the benefit of the doubt”.
    If the coalition don’t start to state their case they’ll end up with a compromised mandate.

    blogstrop

    5 Jul 12 at 12:14 pm

  10. They also ran way too long with a scary story about da coal burning power plant at Aglesea. It fits the narrative.

    blogstrop

    5 Jul 12 at 12:17 pm

  11. Anglesea!

    blogstrop

    5 Jul 12 at 12:18 pm

  12. After the carbon tax has been consigned to outer darkness along with the bureaucracy surrounding it , Abbott and the Libs should simply stop talking about climate change. Let the whole thing wither from lack of oxygen or Co2 or whatever.

    Just as happened to sceptics until now, let any warmist who raises their head above the parapet be shouted down and mocked with much eye rolling. This tactic will be needed as the next El Nino induced drought is apparently hovering over the horizon.

    Viva

    5 Jul 12 at 1:20 pm

  13. I was watching the Tour de France last night. The commentators fill in the commentary by talking about bits of France they show from the Helicopter to oppress the boredom of watching bikes cruise along at 35kmh.

    Anyway, along the coastline they showed a windfarm, and one of the commentators went on how it was a 300 mw farm, and how it produced ‘clean green energy’. It sure wasn’t producing 300 mw as half of the windmills were dead still.

    A bit further along the coastline was a big nuclear plant. Same commentator said this plant produced 1300 mw. However, he said he wasn’t sure about them ‘taking the water from the english channel for cooling’. The other commentator cut in with ‘I’m sure they put it back, just slightly warmer’.

    I’m sure this dimwit thought that it was somehow radioactive when the water back in.

    Meanwhile he didn’t stop the think that the 1300 mw Nuke plant was hidden in a little cove where nobody could see it, and the windmills would have been able to be seen for miles, and the nuke energy is just as clean as the wind energy if you happen to think that carbon dioxide is a problem. And wouldn’t self-same commentator scream blue murder if he want to a cafe in Paris and was denied a hot coffee because the wind was’t blowing in the North, if he had his way and turned that nuke plant off.

    The greens certainly have done well to brainwash an entire generation of people into thinking that nuclear power is somehow a danger in society. Let me check the nuclear accident stats for France…. um, no, there hasn’t been any.

    brc

    5 Jul 12 at 2:27 pm

Leave a Reply