Pirate's Cove

The delusion of the Warmists is on complete display in this opinion piece called Global warming pragmatism

Economist Robert Pindyck of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently examined the computer models that estimate the effects and costs of climate change — and he didn’t like what he found. The models reflect two gaping uncertainties, he says. First, we don’t know how much increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will raise global temperatures. “There are feedback loops” — interactions between greenhouse gases and weather — “that aren’t easy to measure.” The models make assumptions. Next, he says, we don’t know what economic losses will result from higher temperatures. More assumptions. The “damage functions” in the models, he says, “are completely made-up.”

Huh. So the economist Samuelson cites states that Warmists and their computer models and prognostications and scaremongering are plain mule fritters.

Pindyck sounds like a “global warming denier.” He isn’t. True, he thinks climate change and its adverse economic consequences could be wildly overstated. He also thinks they could be wildly understated. The effects might ultimately be catastrophic. We simply don’t know. Ignorance reigns. The best course, he says, would be to adopt a modest carbon tax — because there are certainly some ill effects of global warming — and adjust it as we learn more. Meanwhile, we shouldn’t assume that computer models convey scientific truth. “The models create an illusion of knowledge,” he says. “For me, the issue is being honest.”

Well, obviously, that’s the answer, yet another tax. I guess we’re going to tax your bodies, made up of carbon…oh, wait, that’s right, these Warmists keep calling everyone who doesn’t believe in “climate change” “anti-science”, yet they can’t even use the proper term, “carbon dioxide”. There is a difference between that and “carbon”.

Samuelson notes that there are three things which keep Government from Doing Something, including

Second, it requires that governments inflict pain (higher energy costs) on today’s citizens for hypothetical gains (less global warming) for tomorrow’s citizens. The politics are ugly.

Yet, this has been tried in many countries, particularly after the Kyoto Protocol was passed. All people in those countries obtained were higher taxes and higher costs, higher unemployment, more and more controlling regulations, and a reduction in life quality. It saw massive seat losses for the Australian political party that passed their form of a carbon tax, along with a loss of control of the government. Japan wants nothing to do with any sort of scheme (remember, Kyoto is in Japan). Same with New Zealand. Canada is moving away from this. So are other countries.

There’s no obvious way around these obstacles. Why not try something different? The crux of the matter is putting a price on carbon — through a tax on oil, coal and natural gas — that reflects global warming’s costs. This would promote energy efficiency and favor renewables. The trouble, as Pindyck says, is that we don’t know what that tax should be, because we don’t know global warming’s full effects.

But, hey, let’s slap a tax on the people of the USA anyhow! WarmistThink. A tax in search of a problem. The problem mostly being made up in the first place.