the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Offline

Posted by Jeff Id on May 14, 2010

The blog is difficult to run full time.  I’ve got a newborn, a company and now an interesting chance to meet Lucia, Anthony and SteveM.  I don’t like Pielke’s latest paper in the same fashion that I don’t like the rest of the unrequired (is that a word?) leftist solutions to plant food.   I wrote half a rant on the idiocy of the thing but what’s the point.   Pissing off a respected skeptic isn’t a good use of my time.

Anyway, if you have the guts and wherewithal to post here (your truthful opinions) to some of the Carricks, Kenneths, Tony’s, lurkers or Paynes,  who have no trouble telling anyone they are wrong, send a self addressed, stamped email to ….

JeffId1 at gmail dot com

Warmers are welcome as always and receive far better moderation. — It still stinks tho.


10 Responses to “Offline”

  1. M. Simon said

    Pielke’s latest paper

    A link would be nice.

  2. HotRod said

    The paper is here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderProgramme/theHartwellPaper/

    Jeff, I was wondering when you’d vent about it. I think you’re quite right not to however much i enjoyed your last exchange with him.

    To the extent, unless it’s more subtle and deadly than I realise, that it matches my preferred solution (for the UK) in three key ways, I like it:

    1 Recognise that the 1.3bn without electricity want it (and will get a lot of it from coal, whatever RPJr thinks)

    2 Build loads of nuclear power stations

    3 Spend a billion or 3 per year on energy research JUST TO KEEP THE GREENIES HAPPY which is cheaper than wind and solar subsidies anyway (which he gets from a carbon tax, I wouldn’t)

    I agree there is a load of nonsense which makes you wonder how much academics understand about the real world, like the stuff about energy needing to be cheap and diversified (no it doesn’t, it can be expensive and single source).

  3. Jeff Id said

    Here’s a short list of why the paper sucks,

    1 – Nobody has shown a bit of CO2 to be a problem yet they go ahead and recommend a carbon tax — a low one. While I like low, it’s still more and still unnecessary. It also completely fails to recognize that the government does not get more money by taxing the people more. Jezus it’s stupid for a bunch of economists to miss the fact that all of the major countries are generating ‘less’ revenue with higher taxes. We are stifled to the limit already across Europe and the US, taking more just means there is less to feed ourselves with, not more income for the government.

    2 – While the attempt may be politically feasible, no politicians in the US will be for it. First it’s going to be unpopular with any right minded people for #1, second it doesn’t give the politicians their cap and trade scam. A low tax is far less than they KNOW they can take. Trillions are on the line and a low tax is going to be a loss for the Pachuri’s of the world. It’s to idealistic in that sense.

    3 – They claim that cap and trade was intended to alter peoples consumption of carbon. Bull, that was the sales pitch not the function. You have to be pretty far left to think otherwise.

    4 – Their proposed tax on carbon will be used to invest in research. Well giving the politicians another tax on everything simply means less of everything including less money in the governments hands for spending on research but WHEN THE HELL was he last time the government used the money for what it was intended. OH but their TAX is INNOVATIVE — why? It’s the same crap, nothing more and thinking the politicians will put it in a lock box or whatever, is again incredibly naive considering the way every OTHER DOLLAR is spent.

    5 – They write –The slowly increasing nature of the tax provides a forward price signal that incites firms to take up the lower-carbon technologies and in turn to develop any particular firm-specific adjustments.–

    Right there they have gone back on what they claimed the tax wasn’t for, inciting a change in consumption. Here they write that the money does just that.

    Has anyone noticed that ‘fossil fuel prices’ have skyrocketed in the last decade? Did anyone notice that we’re not talking about 5% or 10% but over 50% in the last 3 years? What the hell do we need more incentive than that for?

    Anyway, I’m just getting started but when I see other bloggers pretending like this is an innovative or better solution to a problem which may actually be beneficial, I GET PISSED. I’m sick of the foolish left pulling an ever better lever to ‘fix’ things. I’m sick of those who consider themselves elite – and pielke does – jumping up and down to tell us how to live. These people are too naive to run a business let alone a government.

    If you want to fix the energy problem and stop using oil, just keep drilling and capitalism will take care of the rest. If you really feel we need to accelerate the process, build some damned nukes. Other technologies will come no matter what happy lever the government pulls.

    Jeez!

  4. Chuckles said

    #3 Jeff, I think you’re trying to say that they can’t even run a temperature?

    Enjoy the conference and the break.

  5. kdk33 said

    Nobody has shown … CO2 to be a problem

    Bingo!

    I know some folk who think CO2 MIGHT be a problem so we should do a LITTLE bit about it, but not a lot. This seems the worst course of action (and intellectually bankrupt). If CO2 is destroying the planet, then little steps won’t matter. If CO2 is not, then these taxes cause needless suffering. Which brings us back to the intro.

    Nobody has shown CO2 to be a problem.

  6. Lady in Red said

    You might consider a Kate McMillan-like style blog, with many contributors. Kate is a Canadian with a gorgeous
    blog, a lot on climate science, but other topics, also. Rather than “controlled” by Kate, she has “helpers.”

    The blog is SmallDeadAnimals.com

    Here’s a bit, of recent:

    May 14, 2010

    Y2Kyoto: We Don’t Need No Stinking Peer Review
    “[T]he IPCC’s chairman said there was a need to use information which was not from peer-reviewed scientific journals…”

    Posted by Kate at 6:34 PM| Comments (21)

    The Madness of Political Correctness
    With Barbara Kay – a five part series on video. Start here.
    Posted by Kate at 8:31 AM| Comments (12)

    Reader Tips
    Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio.
    Tonight, for your delectation, here are Chilliwack performing There’s
    Something I Like About That ¤ in 1974 (2:40).

    Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.
    Posted by Vitruvius at 12:01 AM| Comments (23)

    There’s more from that date, but I esp enjoy SDA Late Nite Radio, always, a welcome counterpoint to the depression I
    sometimes feel reading unrelenting blogs…. The Chilliwack cut is awesome! …as is Barbara Kay’s interview
    about political correctness…..

    Of course, this is *your* blog. Pls do enjoy the “There’s Something I Like About That” Chilliwack cut from 1974.
    Who ever heard of Chilliwack? …smile. ….Lady in Red

  7. j ferguson said

    Jeff, I agree with you. I feel that some of our colleagues think that doing an ill-advised thing half-way is “moderate.” It’s like “balance” in newspaper reporting. Not every issue is susceptible to “balance.”

    Maybe, no increment of Roger’s idea can be supported by “science to-date.”

    Too bad. Maybe we should wait some more before doing something which may not need to be done.

  8. Tony Hansen said

    A slowly increasing tax is an interesting idea.
    Are there any examples of major taxes that have only increased at the rate originally promised (or gone beyond the promised cap)?

  9. EJ said

    Thanks again for all your work, Jeff!

  10. oMan said

    Jeff: Love your blog but I completely sympathize with your frustration. Please keep it going if you can; or adapt the format to get “helpers” (no, I’m not volunteering…).

    Regarding the “just a little tax” this joins the list of Three Greatest Lies. The danger here is that once the idea has been accepted –not just in political debate but in the institutional process– then it just grows. Why wouldn’t it? The government is to tax revenue as an addict is to crack.

    The fact that there is no intellectually coherent argument behind the tax enlarges the corruption. If it were just a tax, and one that grew over time (how often have you seen tax rates go down? Especially consumption taxes?), it would be bad enough. But the vacuous reasoning –that we have no idea of what’s going on, but we need to “do something”– just makes it easier for the next lamebrained initiative to acquire the force of bad law; or conversely for the next tax-addicted government to present any old BS as a good rationale.

    The time to stop this is now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: