All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Saturday, 6 July 2013

Dragon Slayer McKittrck proposes evidence-based tax on carbon dioxide

IPCC Expert reviewer Professor Ross McKitrick proposes a carbon tax with the rate tied to climate response. Ross McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario and, with Stephen McIntyre, exposed the flawed MBH98 "Hockey Stick" Graph.

Andrew Orlowski, writing for The Register (link) says the idea to tackle global warming is so simple, it’s stunning no one has thought of it before.
Ross McKitrick........ proposes a carbon tax with the rate tied to climate response. He explained the idea at the House of Lords yesterday before an audience that included the architect of the UK’s Climate Change Act. 
The idea of an evidence-based tax alarmed some in the audience. And it was fascinating to see who was most alarmed by it. 
McKitrick’s plan replaces the piecemeal regulation and taxes, which are arbitrary and random (ranging from patio heater bans to a “carbon floor price”) with a tax linked to the temperature of the troposphere. According to IPCC scientists this is the “fingerprint” of greenhouse gas-induced global warming and the most rapid indicator of climate change. If temperatures go up, then so does the tax.
So, with no significant rise in temperature for 17 to 23 years, that would mean NO TAX....and what about a drop in troposphere temperatures?
“Sceptics who do not believe in global warming will not expect the tax to go up, and might even expect it to go down. Those convinced we are in for rapid warming will expect the tax to rise quickly in the years ahead,” McKitrick explains in a paper outlining the idea.
“Companies managing factories and power plants will have to figure out who is more likely to be right, because billions of dollars of potential tax liabilities will depend on what is going to happen.”  
As he elaborated at Westminster yesterday:
Nobody has an incentive to ignore the forecasts – while everyone has an incentive to check them for accuracy… As a scientist, instead of complaining that nobody’s listening to you, you could put your pension in it. If a scientist can’t persuade himself to put his pension on his own science, he shouldn’t try to persuade other people to.
Sounds reasonable.
Read more at The Register (Link)

H/t Benny Peiser


1 comment:

  1. Not a good idea to tax air ! in fact its absolute insanity.

    Never been a beleiver in AGW & not about to start now.

    If there had ever had been any evident real warming problems there would never have been any debate globally (not that there is debate!) - just rapid direct action - globally! since there has been a lack of any real action and just an avalanche of financial involvment, it is clear that the whole subject is a farce.

    We are taught how & what to think from year dot.

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!