Quantcast

«

»

Dec 10 2012

Monckton Thrown Out of Climate Conference

World class buffoon Lord Christopher Monckton was thrown out of a UN climate conference being held in Qatar after he dressed up as a sheikh and pretended to be a delegate from Burma so he could speak and deny that global warming exists in front of the assembly.

The former deputy leader of Ukip, Lord Monckton, has been ejected from the Doha climate change talks and permanently banned after impersonating a delegate from Burma on the conference floor.

At one of the sessions, Monckton assumed the seat for Burma in place of the real delegate, and addressed the hall from his microphone. He spoke for nearly a minute, before being escorted out.

He was ejected from the conference centre, had his badge revoked, and is thought to have left the country. The UN later confirmed he had been permanently barred from future rounds of the talks.

Here’s a video with Monckton in his costume, appropriately set to Benny Hill’s theme music.

143 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    d.c.wilson

    Naturally, Fox is spinning his expulsion as suppressing “debate” rather than him being caught as the fraud he is.

  2. 2
    Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

    Because nothing says “I have the facts on my side” like dressing up in disguise and trying to infiltrate an event.

  3. 3
    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Ed,

    I’m sorry to do this in an OT comment, but you’ll see why in a second. I have two more requests and/or bug reports regarding the new blog format.

    1) clicking the banner no longer has any effect on the front page. I used to use this as a quick “refresh” button, but now apparently it’s been redefined as “return to the front page”, so it’s disabled if you’re already on the front page. I don’t see any reason why there was anything wrong with the old functionality, where it was an unconditional “load the front page” regardless of what page you were on when you clicked it.

    2) at the bottom of the front page, the “Older posts” link doesn’t work. It produces a 404 error. I found this out because I wanted to go back and make this comment where it belonged, on your post about the new format.

  4. 4
    Francisco Bacopa

    Yet more evidence that Lord Monckton is a character played bySacha Baron Cohen.

  5. 5
    Michael Heath

    Chris Monckton stated in this video:

    In sixteen years . . . there has been no global warming at all. And secondly even if we were to take action to try to prevent global warming the cost of that would be many times greater than the cost of taking adaptative measures later.
    [...]
    . . . we should initiate very quickly a review of the science to make sure we are all on the right track.

    This is the sort of dishonesty and incoherency I observe from every single denialist I’ve ever encountered.

  6. 6
    Raging Bee

    Wait, what? Remember when denialists used to behave in more respectable ways, like stealing emails and lying about what they say? It’s a pretty steep fall from imitating the Watergate burglars to imitating James o’Keefe.

    He was ejected from the conference centre, had his badge revoked, and is thought to have left the country.

    Yeah, probably because impersonating someone with authority would get some bit of you chopped off in that part of the world.

  7. 7
    Michael Heath

    Francisco Bacopa,

    Thanks for the link. I forgot that Chris Monckton was invited to testify on the state of the climate by Republican members of Congress at a Congressional committee hearing.

  8. 8
    eric

    Yeah, probably because impersonating someone with authority would get some bit of you chopped off in that part of the world.

    If theft= hand, arguably identity theft = brain. In Monckton’s case, however, the sentence seemed to have already been carried out.

  9. 9
    Kevin

    I’m pretty sure that Monckton is not “Lord” of anything. He claimed an honorific that was not his to claim.

    So, impersonating someone from Burma dressed as someone from Bahrain? About par for the course.

    Does he even know where Burma is?

  10. 10
    hinschelwood

    #9

    He is proper legit Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount Brenchley.

    He’s been claiming to be a member of the House of Lords for ages now. Hereditary peers are no longer members of the HoL and this rankles. This is the important difference, since the HoL has feal influence in govenment. Not being there means that Monckton has no real influence. Saying he is a member is basically just a con-trick, but he is arguably deluded.

    They’ve told him to stop making the claim and this seems to have worked. However, he is perfectly entitled to be called “Lord Monckton”.

  11. 11
    hinschelwood

    Oh, and Burma used to be in The Empire. It’s fair to say he knows where the red parts of the globe are.

  12. 12
    John Pieret

    Next time he should dress up a Bozo the Clown … then nobody could accuse him of impersonation.

  13. 13
    Chiroptera

    Did he try to speak in a funny accent too?

    “Who eez Monckton? I know not zees Monckton!”

  14. 14
    Hairy Chris, blah blah blah etc

    That is epic. I’m waiting for a Potholer54 video takedown/piss-take now.

  15. 15
    iangould

    What will his fans in the Islamophobia movement make of his use of the phrase “As-salamu alaykum”?

  16. 16
    Ichthyic

    Monckton Thrown Out of Climate Conference

    I’m eagerly awaiting the media tossing him out of the spotlight, entirely.

    oh, mockable Monckton.

    …exceeds the cost of taking adaptive measures later…

    right, so I wonder how much it will cost to learn how to raise the dead?

    Mockaton just wants to start the zombie apocalypse!

  17. 17
    W. Kevin Vicklund

    1) clicking the banner no longer has any effect on the front page. I used to use this as a quick “refresh” button, but now apparently it’s been redefined as “return to the front page”, so it’s disabled if you’re already on the front page. I don’t see any reason why there was anything wrong with the old functionality, where it was an unconditional “load the front page” regardless of what page you were on when you clicked it.

    Actually, this is true for the following pages as well. In other words, it works when on individual stories, but not on the pages with multiple headlines and excerpts.

    2) at the bottom of the front page, the “Older posts” link doesn’t work. It produces a 404 error. I found this out because I wanted to go back and make this comment where it belonged, on your post about the new format.

    It appears that the code is inserting an extra “dispatches/” in the URL. So instead of …/dispatches/page/2, it’s linking to …/dispatches/dispatches/page/2. This is not the case for subsequent pages.

  18. 18
    Draken

    even if we were to take action to try to prevent global warming the cost of that would be many times greater than the cost of taking adaptative measures later.

    That might be true, for all we know, because the exact consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, and the effect of environmental measures even more so.

    But there’s the nagging thing that we need to decimate use of fossil fuels anyway, because (a) we’re running out, (b) they make us dependent on a few suppliers, and (c) they poison us when burned in uncontrolled conditions (i.e. a car).

  19. 19
    Ichthyic

    That might be true, for all we know, because the exact consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, and the effect of environmental measures even more so.

    it actually can’t be true, EXACTLY because the only thing that IS known is that there will be very significant shifts in productivity zones, sea level, and extreme weather.

    so, people will be dying as a direct result.

    that’s not a consequence that can be counted as something to be addressed by “adaptive measures”.

  20. 20
    imst

    I’ll admit that I don’t know a hell of a lot about Burmese culture, but I think we can be fairly confident that dressing like a stereotype of an Arab isn’t part of it. And I’m also guessing that an actual official from there would say “Myanmar”.

  21. 21
    Ichthyic

    I find it odd that security at this conference would be so lax as to even allow someone like Monckton to pull this stunt.

    I’m betting it actually isn’t that lax. Someone(s) wanted Monckton to have the floor.

  22. 22
    Pierce R. Butler

    Maybe some psychic will channel Erle Stanley Gardner and write The Case of the Burmese Burnoose.

    At least Monckton’s knowledge of cross-cultural clothing is on a par with his climatology.

  23. 23
    Michael Heath

    Monckton stated:

    . . . even if we were to take action to try to prevent global warming the cost of that would be many times greater than the cost of taking adaptative measures later.

    Draken writes:

    That might be true, for all we know . . .

    No, Monckton is lying, and in an incoherent way. He’s lying because he first stated there is no global warming, and then he’s lying again by claiming in absolute terms adaptative mesures later would in fact be cheaper. It’s incoherent because if there is no global warming, than no adaptative measures are needed nor could we compare them to mitigation efforts now. It’s like he’s claiming his value is zero (“no warming”) but then multiplying zero to get a lower value for future adaptative measures than acting now; that’s the incoherent aspect.

    Draken writes:

    That might be true, for all we know, because the exact consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, and the effect of environmental measures even more so.

    Also not true, we can roughly estimate that mitigation efforts now would either increase global GDP by a small amount or cost upwards of 25%, a very wide range but both affordable and necessary in the long run regardless. And that isn’t related to “business as usual” costs, such as the costs of conflicts which almost assuredly will occur due to mass human migration. We also have paleoclimate evidence that our current ‘business-as-usual’ approach will result in a mass extinction event and much of our coastal cities will be uninhabitable, along with a host of other catastrophic results for both humans in general and life on planet earth. We already have many data points much of this has already started where the results in those paleo events would be devastating to us now, and yet our rate of warming is far faster now than during those past events. That means the odds of mass extinction now is far higher than then when those did occur, because there’ll be far less time for life to adapt.

  24. 24
    tainthammer

    ED! Please bring back your links to navigate to the next or previous posts! Carry on.

  25. 25
    Abdul Alhazred

    FWIW, here is the last thing he wrote before being thrown out:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/334989/how-un-hides-secret-talks-public-monckton-arabia

    I wondered who the heck “Monckton of Arabia” was.

    Now I know. :)

  26. 26
    Winterwind

    According to the story, when he addressed the delegation he was wearing a suit and tie. He was in the sheikh costume earlier when he was handing out denialist brochures. I think he has a compulsive need for attention.

  27. 27
    Argle Bargle

    Burmese would be as likely to dress as Arabs as Inuit. Apparently Monckton is too ignorant to know this.

  28. 28
    lancifer

    Monckton’s shenanigans are a sideshow.

    The real new was that Canada, Japan and Russia opted out of the Kyoto Protocol. The US was never a signatory and the other big CO2 emitters, China and India, would sooner cede power to the Dali Lama and Islamabad (respectively) than agree to restrictions that would curtail their economies.

    The petroleum and methane in the ground is going to be pumped and the coal in the ground is going to be mined.

    Deal with it bitches.

  29. 29
    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    ED! Please bring back your links to navigate to the next or previous posts! Carry on.

    They’re there, hiding just above the post title in itty bitty type.

  30. 30
    leftwingfox

    Deal with it bitches.

    I think you mean “Yahoo.”

  31. 31
    F [i'm not here, i'm gone]

    dressed up as a sheikh and pretended to be a delegate from Burma

    Lolwut?

  32. 32
    F [i'm not here, i'm gone]

    Ichthyic

    that’s not a consequence that can be counted as something to be addressed by “adaptive measures”.

    The privileged and globally powerful mean by this: Commit massive genocide and take land. That’s how it can be dealt with from their perspective. They don’t or refuse to understand the actual impacts, and think only corporately and militarily.

  33. 33
    democommie

    “Deal with it bitches.”

    It’s always nice to see that Mr. Lancedprick still has a delicate sense of humor.

    In the event, “dealing with it” will be the lot of all of us. Of course the area where your dear wife is from will be uninhabitable a lot sooner than northern NY. Denialism will not prevent the event.

  34. 34
    eamick

    If you watch the video, you’ll see that dressing as a sheikh and speaking at the conference were separate events.

  35. 35
    dingojack

    My dear Mr Monkton –

    These are professional comics, you are not. My advice, leave it to professionals.

    Thanks,
    Dingo

  36. 36
    Raging Bee

    And once again, Lance shows his integrity, his intelligence, and his willingness to deal honestly with facts. And he didn’t even wait for us to stop laughing and shaking our heads over his oh-so-educated opinions about the benefits of CO2. I guess he figured his fellow denialists weren’t funny enough on their own.

  37. 37
    dingojack

    Seconding Mr Raging Bee –
    Go away Lance, the adults are talking.
    Dingo

  38. 38
    Ichthyic

    The petroleum and methane in the ground is going to be pumped and the coal in the ground is going to be mined.

    Deal with it bitches.

    Mind if i sew an exhaust pipe to your mouth?

  39. 39
    lancifer

    democommie,

    Of course the area where your dear wife is from will be uninhabitable a lot sooner than northern NY.

    The welfare of the Ethiopian people is much more dependent on economic development and democratic reforms than a fraction of a degree per hundred year increase in temperature. You would of course restrict there access to the main thing that has raised living standards and life spans in the developed world, abundant and cheap energy from fossil fuels.

    And by the way, democommie, the famine that famously struck Ethiopia in the 80s was largely caused by the policies of the Marxist Derg government. This period is known as “The Red Terror” by Ethiopians. Socialism at its finest.

    Oh, and “the area where your dear wife is from” has been continuously “inhabited” by humans longer than any other place on the planet, nearly two hundred thousand years. The people in that region have seen much worse problems than a less than one degree change in over one hundred years.

    Despite your politically inspired death wish they’ll be fine.

  40. 40
    dingojack

    Homo gautengensis – 2.0 to 1.8? million years, South Africa.
    Homo rudolfesis – 2.0 to 1.9? million years. Kenya.
    Homo habilus – 2.3 to 1.9? million years. Kenya.

    Just a quick web search. Results are not definitive.

    Dingo

  41. 41
    slc1

    One of the interesting things about climate change deniers is that many of them are multiple science deniers. Monckton, for instance, is an HIV/AIDS denier. Richard Lindzen is a lung cancer/cigarette smoking denier. The climate change deniers at the Dishonesty Institute include evolution deniers, HIV/AIDS deniers, and ozone depletion/CFCs deniers. Fred Singer is an ozone depletion/CFCs and a lung cancer/cigarette smoking denier (at least relative to second hand smoke) in addition to his climate change denialism. Roy Spencer is a young earth creationist.

    I don’t know what other scientific theories that Sir Lancelot denies but, based on the evidence of his fellow travelers, there are probably at least a few.

  42. 42
    Raging Bee

    And by the way, democommie, the famine that famously struck Ethiopia in the 80s was largely caused by the policies of the Marxist Derg government. This period is known as “The Red Terror” by Ethiopians. Socialism at its finest.

    What does that have to do with climate change? The fact that you would bring this into a discussion about climate change — with ZERO connection to any actual environmental policies — once again proves you’re nothing but an ignorant, simpleminded ideologue with nothing relevant to say. You also remind us (again) that libertarianism is nothing but old-school McCarthyism with new lipstick: say whatever stupid dishonest shit you feel like saying, then call people commies when they question you.

    Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, Marxist regimes aren’t the only places that get hit by famine. I guess famine doesn’t matter to assholes like you unless you can blame it on someone you don’t like.

  43. 43
    Raging Bee

    You would of course restrict there access to the main thing that has raised living standards and life spans in the developed world, abundant and cheap energy from fossil fuels.

    How would less fossil-fuel use by the developed world restrict Ethiopians’ access to fossil fuels?

    Lance, you’re not just dumb, you’re stupid. Go back to bed, and don’t come back until you can at least act like you care what you’re talking about.

  44. 44
    bradleybetts

    Lol that;s hilarious :) I didn’t even know this bloke existed. And I’m English. He’s not really a Lord is he? That would be embarrassing :-/ Please someone tell me he’s not a Lord.

  45. 45
    composer99

    lancifer really needs to engage in some self-reflection: his behaviour on this and other threads related to climate is astonishingly similar to the behaviour of so many of the wingnuts Ed routinely roasts day in and day out.

  46. 46
    composer99

    bradleybetts:

    Monckton is indeed a member of the titled aristocracy.

    That said, I generally refuse to use the honorific. Meaningless as it is, using it is granting a modicum of respect to someone who deserves none whatsoever.

  47. 47
    Raging Bee

    Monckton’s shenanigans are a sideshow.

    Translation: “Stop paying attention to someone else’s transparently stupid antics and pay attention to MY transparently stupid antics instead!”

  48. 48
    slc1

    Re bradbetts @ #44

    His actual title is Viscount Monckon, which he inherited from his father. He has falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords.

  49. 49
    baal

    It’s all part of the outrageous theater but Burma is almost entirely buddhist. There are the usual range of xtian / muslim etal but it’s down under 5% each (give or take error). Also, I’m very impressed that he manages to look more like a nun than a sheik. It adds to the hilarity.

    Lancifer – props on the new gravitar but um, the rest of it? I suspect the Ethiopians care quite a bit about global grain prices which are likely to go up as more arable land goes dry under global climate change.

  50. 50
    lancifer

    Baal,

    -props on the new gravitar but um, the rest of it? I suspect the Ethiopians care quite a bit about global grain prices which are likely to go up as more arable land goes dry under global climate change.

    Thanks on the gravatar I rather like it too.

    As far as “arable land” is concerned both the Sahara and Sahel are greening over the last century. In Ethiopia the greatest challenge is to modernize agriculture. The greatest number of Ethiopian farmers are still tilling land with oxen and plow and using strategies that have been in place for centuries.

    Modernizing Ethiopia’s agricultural sector could lift the country out of poverty and make it a net exporter of grains, fruits, spice, coffee etc. It has a vast area of arable land in many different climactic regions.

    Inefficiency of central planning and a lack of resources (tractors, modern agricultural knowledge, inexpensive fuel) and a nearly absent transportation infrastructure are much greater problems than a small change in temperature.

  51. 51
    lancifer

    My “bitches” comment was meant to highlight the obvious fact that the vast majority of CO2 producing nations are not willing to curtail their energy use to placate a few, mostly politically motivated, carbon-phobes.

    If there is some small effect (or even large) from increased CO2 then the best strategy, as it has been through out human history, is adaptation.

  52. 52
    Raging Bee

    Explaining your asinine comments doesn’t make them any less asinine. (So don’t even bother trying to “explain” your brain-dead assertion about restricting Ethiopians’ access to fossil fuels, unless you want to try your hand at stand-up comedy.) You’ve proven yourself to be nothing more than a stupid simpleton ruled by stupid hatred. Now go back to your Cato mentors and tell them to find you a more gullible audience. You’re wasting your time here.

  53. 53
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #51

    Here’s a link to a post by a member of the National Science Board, which, I’m sure will totally fail to impress Sir Lancelot. As Richard Dawkins said about YEC Kurt Wise, there is no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference to Sir Lancelot.

    h##p://www.desmogblog.c#m/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

  54. 54
    lancifer

    composer99,

    You should “reflect” on the fact that you have been sold a bill of goods on “climate change”. We face no Thermo-geddon.

  55. 55
    Raging Bee

    If there is some small effect (or even large) from increased CO2 then the best strategy, as it has been through out human history, is adaptation.

    If adaptation is so wunnerful, why are you only advocating it for other people on the other side of the planet? Why shouldn’t WE adapt by making concerted efforts to get what we need in less destructive ways?

    You’re nothing but a hypocritical asshole.

  56. 56
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #52

    Sir Lancelot is nothing but a shill for the Koch brothers.

  57. 57
    lancifer

    slc1,

    “…there is no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference to Sir Lancelot.”

    Absolutely not true. Just another of your smears.

    Firstly, I have no problem accepting the fact that the earth has warmed over the last century by something less than one degree Celsius.

    Secondly, I have no doubt that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere, with most of the increase caused by human activity, has contributed to some of that less than one degree.

    However, I don’t agree that this increase is “dangerous” or likely to increase to levels that present a great enough danger to drastically reduce fossil fuel use. Which happens to account for the vast majority of energy used by humans all over the world.

    It’s really that simple, and it would be refreshing if you, among others, could make comments that attempt to address the actual issue rather than uttering a string of insults.

    I did try to access the url in your comment by replacing “##” with “tt” to no avail, but since it was to the dreadfully political DeSmogBlog, I doubt it would have been particularly informative.

    Seriously, after litterally years of going back and forth I know we aren’t going to agree on this topic, but it would be nice to be civil about it. I don’t think your are intellectually deficient or evil for disagreeing with me on climate change. It would be nice to be extended the same courtesy.

  58. 58
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #57

    You also have to replace the # in c#m with an o. Thus far, I have not been able to figure out how to post a hot link so that the comment doesn’t disappear into the aether.

    Apparently, it is my understanding that Sir Lancelot’s position now is that climate scientists are absolutely correct and accurate in their claims that global warming is occurring, that much, if not most of the effect is due to fossil fuel consumption, but that the warming is nothing to be too concerned about. Does that about cover it? In that case, he is in agreement with the article I linked to, except insofar as he may disagree with the seriousness of the situation.

  59. 59
    Raging Bee

    However, I don’t agree that this increase is “dangerous”…

    Plenty of people more knowledgeable and more credible than you say otherwise; so there’s really no reason to bother with your BS.

  60. 60
    Michael Heath

    lancifer writes to composer99:

    You should “reflect” on the fact that you have been sold a bill of goods on “climate change”.

    This from someone who has continually, many times over the years, demonstrated they are incapable of even reading and comprehending what climate scientists report about climate science, even when it’s put in a comment post with cites. His ignorance is the most determinedly fierce I’ve ever encountered on the subject.

    Yet those of us who are literate on what climate scientists publish in the peer-reviewed journals, we’re the ones being, “sold a bill of goods”. And by default supposed victims of a fraud require frauds to perpetuate the fraud, which here would be climate scientists. This not in the first time lancifer’s arguments require us to conclude climate scientists are part of some nefarious plot and moral failures. Though when we compare those scientists’ demonstrated behavior to lancifer’s demonstrated idiocy, impotency to even consider the science, dishonesty, and ignorance; we find instead some major psychological projection in play. So one interesting question is how self-aware is lancifer of his continual moral and critical thinking failures?

    lancifer is supposedly a teacher. Like JD is to the military, lancifer is to educators; somebody who continually demonstrates not merely a failure in integrity, but contempt for such integrity when expressed by others, like climate scientists who he claims here are frauds by way of “selling a bill of goods”.

    lancifer, the biggest contribution to humanity you could make is to quit teaching. You simply don’t have the integrity needed to be someone whose net contribution is a benefit. Given your behavior in this forum, the safe conclusion is that you approach teaching as an opportunity to promote your ideological swill rather than to educate students and to teach them to think critically. The latter where you’ve demonstrated not only no ability, but contempt for the concept where you instead continually rely almost exclusively on both remedial logical fallacies and outright falsehoods to buttress your arguments.

  61. 61
    Raging Bee

    slc1: no, that doesn’t quite cover it. He asserts that global warming isn’t happening, AND that it’s not significant, AND that’s it’s significant but not as significant as unspecified people losing out on unspecified economic opportunities if we try to do anything about it, AND that people (other people, not him or his chums, of course) should adapt to it. It’s all pure self-serving and self-contradictory horsey-poop, of course, but we can’t say it’s not comprehensive, nosireebob…

  62. 62
    speed0spank

    @45 I agree 100%. It’s quite pathetic to watch as an observer.

  63. 63
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #61

    Sounds like the Racehorse Haynes defense.

  64. 64
    Raging Bee

    Seriously, after litterally years of going back and forth I know we aren’t going to agree on this topic, but it would be nice to be civil about it.

    So now you’re falling back on a “tone” argument? Here’s a protip: lying and getting easily available facts wrong is not civil. All the worst “incivility” is coming from you, so if you want this debate to be civil, the ball is entirely in your court.

    And if you don’t want to stop lying, then go fuck yourself. You don’t deserve civility or respect, and you don’t get to lecture others about it.

  65. 65
    Raging Bee

    @63: Never heard of that. Is that another name for the Gish Gallop?

  66. 66
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #28

    Actually, aside from any consideration of climate change, it would be prudent to replace the use of coal with natural gas to generate electricity. This is because burning coal produces any number of toxic substances (e.g. much of the Hg found in seafood is a result of burning coal), which natural gas does not. As we sit here today, the cost difference between coal and natural gas for electricity generation is minimal due to the current surplus of the latter fuel because of greatly improved technology (e.g. fracking), in addition to recent discoveries of conventional sources. In fact, the surplus is now so extensive that it is proposed that the US become a net exporter of natural gas.

  67. 67
    Michael Heath

    Raging Bee writes about lancifer:

    He asserts that global warming isn’t happening

    That’s not entirely true; lancifer concedes the surface air temperature trend.

    However he’s demonstrated ignorance and denial on all other observed increases to earth’s energy budget since the dawn of the Industrial Age. He also avoids or denies all the harm already observed which climate scientists report is due to warming. He just doesn’t merely deny these facts, he demonstrates no understanding on why the physics would predict we’d encounter the findings we’re already observing.

  68. 68
    composer99

    The ‘Racehorse Haynes’ defence was new to me, too, this is the lawyer inspiring the name, and what I assume the defence is described thusly:

    At a late 1970s American Bar Association seminar in New York [1], Mr. Haynes explained how to plead in the alternative:

    Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense:
    My dog doesn’t bite.
    And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night.
    And third, I don’t believe you really got bit.
    And fourth, I don’t have a dog.

    You learn something new every day.

  69. 69
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #65

    No, it’s named after famed Texas criminal defense attorney Richard “racehorse” Haynes as a description of some of his trial tactics in murder cases. It goes something like this.

    1. My client was hundreds of miles away when the murder took place.

    2. My client was out of town when the murder took place.

    3. My client was in town but 10 miles away from the scene when the murder took place.

    4. My client was at the scene of the crime but didn’t fire the gun.

    5. My client fired the gun but it was in self defense

    6. My client committed the killing but the son of a bitch deserved it.

  70. 70
    Raging Bee

    He just doesn’t merely deny these facts, he demonstrates no understanding on why the physics would predict we’d encounter the findings we’re already observing.

    Yeah, I guess he’d have to do that, since we’re now hearing from ACTUAL PHYSICISTS who used to be denialists, but are now epxressing surprise at recent findings, and admitting they’d been wrong to pretend AGW wasn’t a problem.

    The denialists can’t even take refuge in physics anymore. What are they to do…get a bunch of engineers to sign a petition perhaps? That might be dicey too, as some engineers start to actually work on clean-energy projects and other forms of “adaptation.”…

  71. 71
    composer99

    By the way, lancifer, you keep going on and on about this:

    However, I don’t agree that this increase is “dangerous” or likely to increase to levels that present a great enough danger to drastically reduce fossil fuel use.

    But as I am certain has been pointed out to you before (on more than one occasion, I don’t doubt), the present rate of warming is much faster than past episodes of rapid global warming. The PETM saw a temperature increase of 6°C over 20,000 years – a linear rate of 0.0003°C/yr.

    Today’s changes are occuring at a rate of 0.8 to 1°C per century, or 0.008°C/yr, or just about 30 times the rate of the PETM. To the best of my knowledge, such a rate of change is generally associated with mass extinction events.

    If you think a temperature shift that rapid – along with the changes to precipitation patterns, ocean acidification, drying up of water from glacier run-off, and ocean currents – won’t completely fuck up the reliable, more-or-less stable food supply that the modern world depends on to feet 7+ billion people, then, politely put, you are a fantasist.

  72. 72
    composer99

    (Note ot self: preview is your friend.)

  73. 73
    Raging Bee

    composer99: you’re talking to the guy who said that us using less fossil-fuels would restrict Ethiopians’ access to fossil fuels. Do you really think he’ll understand any of the more complicated stuff in your comment? I’d say you’re casting pearls before swine, but comparing Lance to a pig would be an insult to pigs.

  74. 74
    Ichthyic

    As far as “arable land” is concerned both the Sahara and Sahel are greening over the last century.

    ROFLMAO

    good luck turning the Sahara into the breadbasket of Africa.

  75. 75
    democommie

    This link:

    https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=is+desertification+affecting+ethiopia&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7_____en

    will take anyone who might be interested to a number of pages of other links to various propaganda pieces by fearmongering profiteers who are lying to convince the rest of us that poor Lancyphilis is around the bend. They’re saying that Ethiopia is suffering increasing desertification, in contrast to this comment:

    “And by the way, democommie, the famine that famously struck Ethiopia in the 80s was largely caused by the policies of the Marxist Derg government. This period is known as “The Red Terror” by Ethiopians. Socialism at its finest.

    Oh, and “the area where your dear wife is from” has been continuously “inhabited” by humans longer than any other place on the planet, nearly two hundred thousand years. The people in that region have seen much worse problems than a less than one degree change in over one hundred years.

    Despite your politically inspired death wish they’ll be fine.”

    BTW, Lanced, it’s not a death wish, it’s a prediction.

    IF Ethiopia managed to somehow retain sufficient means to feed their populations while countries around them starved it would not increase their secuit. Ethiopia would actually, considering its abundant sunlight and lack of forestation in large area, be an ideal solar photovoltaic generation locale. Of course they would have to generate some serious hard currency to get into that game, not likely to happen anytime soon.

  76. 76
    iangould

    Why are peopel sting tim, yet again, in indulging the delusions of a man who starts out “suck it, bitches”?

  77. 77
    lancifer

    Well, there seems to be a few constructive, even honest, comments among the usual rubbish.

    It’s a start. My wife and I are going out to eat tonight. I’ll try to respond, as best I can, to the honest remarks when I return.

    Cheers… “bitches”.

  78. 78
    Ichthyic

    indulging the delusions of a man who starts out “suck it, bitches”?

    boredom? SIWOTI?

    I wonder if lanc-suckitbitches-ifer really thinks that because people responded to him, they take him seriously.

    here’s a tip, lance baby:

    no, nobody takes you seriously. You’re laughably ignorant.

    clear?

  79. 79
    composer99

    Curious, lancifer, that you are intent on using gendered insults against the other participants in this thread.

    I’m sure your wife would appreciate that the most significant insult you’ve been using recently against others on the internet is an insult because it associates them with being women.

  80. 80
    lancifer

    Ian Gould,

    Quoting someone falsely is highly dishonest, especially when cut and paste is so easy and the misquoted text is a few posts above.

    I actually said “Deal with it bitches.” It was meant humorously. Of course to this point I can’t recall your posts being anything but humorless so perhaps you are to be forgiven as the concept may be foreign to you.

    composer 99,

    “Bitches” in the context used has no gender reference. But of course, unless you live in total isolation or a monastery, you knew that.

    I have now spent the few minutes I have available, between grading final exams, responding to more insulting drivel.

    I’ll try to be more disciplined and constructive in my replies in the morning.

  81. 81
    Area Man

    “That might be true, for all we know, because the exact consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, and the effect of environmental measures even more so.”

    It doesn’t even matter all that much. For what it’s worth, most credible studies I’ve seen suggest that future costs of warming are likely to be vastly greater than present costs of carbon mitigation, not so much because future costs are expected to be that high (most studies use conservative estimates), but because the cost of carbon mitigation is actually very, very low. It comes out to something like a fraction of a percent of global GDP spread out over a few decades. This is what the Moncktons of the world are trying desperately to stop, a goddamned rounding error.

    But never mind all that. If certain people want to argue that the present cost of mitigation is greater than the future cost of warming, then fine. Just pay the fucking cost. If you emit carbon, then simply pay for the future damage you cause; if the present value of burning carbon exceeds the future cost, then you’ll gladly pay, right? To do otherwise would be nothing short of theft. But strangely enough, not one of these people has ever volunteered to follow their own argument to its logical conclusion. The benefits are always to be privatized, and the costs socialized.

  82. 82
    composer99

    Area Man:

    If memory serves, the general opinion among economists who study climate mitigation (e.g. Nicholas Stern) is that succesful mitigation (decarbonisation of global economy & development of effective carbon sequestration) will cost approximately 1-2% of global GDP for the next 1-2 decades.

    That’s a lot of money.

    But, and this is a very big but, the cost of failing to deal with climate is generally found to be much higher (Stern estimates it as between 5-20% of global GDP every year, effectively for ever).

    That’s a shit-ton more money. And plausible worse-case scenarios (4-6 °C temperature shift by 2100) would likely entail much higher drag on global GDP.

    Add in the fact that the people who will be most badly effected are the global poor, who will be least able to adapt (and will therefore mostly suffer) and as far as I can see there is no good case to be made for inaction.

  83. 83
    Area Man

    Thanks, I had forgotten the exact numbers. I would argue however that 1-2% of global GDP, while a lot in absolute terms, isn’t that much in relative terms and would go unnoticed by most people. GDP even in developed countries jolts up and down by much more than that all the time. But at any rate, as you point out, it doesn’t take much benefit from carbon mitigation to make it a net economic gain.

    My broader point is simply that arguing with “inactivists” over the exact cost/benefit ratio is kind of pointless. If these people really believe in free markets or whatnot, they should gladly pay the cost of carbon emissions whatever they are. But oddly enough, they turn into hardcore socialists the minute you suggest that they pay the costs they create, and suddenly it’s all about how “we” can better afford to adapt in the future, as if everyone were somehow sharing equally in the benefits and the burdens.

  84. 84
    lancifer

    The Stern review was widely criticized on many levels but one of the main criticisms was its use of an unrealistically low “discount rate”.

    So tell me, Area Man, what is the “cost” of my (average US citizen) annual “carbon foot print” and how would you distribute the “payment” you would take from me?

    Do tell.

  85. 85
    dingojack

    Lanve – Just as well you’re not teaching economics as well!
    Here’s Micheal Heath talking about a slightly different product, but the principal applies.
    Dingo

  86. 86
    lancifer

    Dingo,

    Of course such punitive taxation would eventually effectively eradicate the item being taxed as people moved to less costly goods and services.–Michael Heath

    And for an example he mentions sugar? Seriously? He seems to forget something called the “black market”. Also it is interesting that Heath sees sugar as some evil “externality”.

    When cupcakes are outlawed only outlaws will have cupcakes.

  87. 87
    lancifer

    Oooh thanks Dingo, that little post was a tiny gold mine as far as being a window into Heath’s centralized economic authoritarian mind.

    Of course such punitive taxation would eventually effectively eradicate the item being taxed as people moved to less costly goods and services. So to maintain that revenue stream, we’d have to find the next most abhorrent good or service creating a negative revenue stream. But we wouldn’t have to tax the shit out of that next item, but instead (shit – X). That’s given the marginal growth from eradicating an item which creates negative externalities, so we don’t the same taxation rate for a given level of GDP since GDP grew, coupled to the fact the next externality is smaller than the one we just eradicated.

    So taxation would eliminate every evil facing the world.

    The most important component noted here is the change to GDP as the market drives people away from those goods and services which put an undue burden on others.

    So in Heath’s autocratic worldview we can tax our way to a better and richer world.

  88. 88
    dingojack

    lance – I guess you don’t believe in obesity either, or congestive heart failure, or strokes or diabetes or…. *
    What exactly do you teach at the McDonald’s ‘you want fries with that?’ Preparatory School?
    Dingo
    ——-
    * Or prehaps you think they don’t cost money in productivity losses and repair costs. It all just magically pays for itself.
    Your rights end where mine begin. lancey-boy.

  89. 89
    dingojack

    Lance – Yep, it’s been working like that taxation was invented. I guess the benefits haven’t penetrated (so to speak) the nether regions of your rectum, making hard for you to observe directly.
    @@
    Dingo

  90. 90
    Raging Bee

    …a window into Heath’s centralized economic authoritarian mind.

    Right or wrong, Heath’s commentary here deserves far more than this sort of babyish (and factually false) name-calling. And I can’t help noting that such name-calling is coming from the guy who tried to pretend everyone else here had nothing to offer but insults. Once again, Lance proves himself to be an uncaring hypocritical moron.

    And just so we’re clear, I’m going to repeat a question Lance couldn’t answer earlier: How would less fossil-fuel use by the developed world restrict Ethiopians’ access to fossil fuels? Just another indicator of how libertarian bigotry overrides even the most basic reasoning.

  91. 91
    Michael Heath

    lancifer idiocy extends into new areas:

    a window into Heath’s centralized economic authoritarian mind.

    Eradicating negative external costs borne by taxpayers and those outside the supply chain of a given product or service is a free market approach to insuring market price signals are accurate rather than distorted by public policy, it’s not the centralization of economic policy but a protection against such policies.

    We know that sugar, which is also heavily subsidized to the detriment of other food products, is a primary contributor to a certain set of chronic diseases which in turn is a primary factor explaining why health care costs have risen over the past several decades. Much of those significantly increased costs not embedded in prices are borne by either taxpayers or the insurance premiums of people who don’t have those chronic diseases, along with creating barriers to entry for competing products whose prices are reflective of the total costs of production and consumption.

    You’re an incredible idiot you know that? I don’t know of anyone more willing to argue out of their ass while falsely posing as having a clue. It’s amazing really.

  92. 92
    dingojack

    Michael Heath – Firstly, I’m sorry I dragged you into this, it’s just that your sugar argument is a good example of letting the market inform consumer choices, (n the same vein as a carbon tax).
    And secondly, could you explain to the boy and girls the ‘Paradox of Thrift’. It would be informative for the ‘all taxes are evuuul’ brethren – and you explain it better than I ever could.
    Dingo

  93. 93
    Michael Heath

    I should have read what DJ quoted of me prior to responding to the above idiocy of lancifer. In addition to the points I make above, such tax policy which I proposed in that quote is less authoritarian since it taxes consumption rather than income or capital gains, giving people more of a choice on paying taxes or not. That prescription in the U.S. is a right wing idea, not an idea emerging out of some ideology seeking to centralize economic policy; it instead actually pushes such decisions to consumers. That makes lancifer’s comment even more dishonest and idiotic than I originally perceived.

    And once again we also find lancifer denying reality, i.e., that sugar doesn’t have enormous negative external costs. In spite of it being a major contributor to heart disease, diabetes, and other obesity-related diseases; which again is a significant factor in increasing healthcare costs here in the U.S.

    My quote that DJ quoted:

    I’d prefer taxing the shit out of products that creates enormous negative externalities, like sugar but especially coal. I think that tax rate should be far more than the cost of the externality in order to serve as a lucrative tax revenue stream so we can cut taxes on items which depress GDP (capital gains tax, taxes on certain types of income.

    Of course such punitive taxation would eventually effectively eradicate the item being taxed as people moved to less costly goods and services. So to maintain that revenue stream, we’d have to find the next most abhorrent good or service creating a negative revenue stream. But we wouldn’t have to tax the shit out of that next item, but instead (shit – X). That’s given the marginal growth from eradicating an item which creates negative externalities, so we don’t the same taxation rate for a given level of GDP since GDP grew, coupled to the fact the next externality is smaller than the one we just eradicated.

    The most important component noted here is the change to GDP as the market drives people away from those goods and services which put an undue burden on others.

  94. 94
    Michael Heath

    FYI – to understand how free markets get distorted by rent seekers who are also able to avoid the total cost of the production and consumption of their products and services, one has to study the product life cycles of certain business sectors. This subject is typically taught in Marketing departments, but its paramount in understanding economics. Sugar and coal are both in the last stage of their respective product life cycle where both sectors are able to behave true to form in the marketplace per what economists predict for this class of good/sector.

    The relevant factors here is that both generate very healthy cash flows which is what we expect out of the end-stage sectors, as opposed to product sectors who are in the early stages of their sector’s life cycle. Sectors with healthy cash flows are far more able and willing to to use some of that cash to influence government policy. They do so not merely to increase short-term profits, but distort the market to make it more difficult for competitors to fairly compete with them. They succeed when they get public policy which creates subsidies for themselves where that doesn’t merely increase profits, but creates economic barriers to entry for competing sectors since the prices of the mature product is artificially low. This effectively extends the life of their products market viability relative to a functioning free market.

    It’s also ironic that once again lancifer projects his own desire to distort markets onto those who actually favor the minimization of dysfunctional markets such as me. Just like lancifer has argued for no policy changes due to cliamate change, where the coal and oil industry enjoy substantial profits precisely because they’ve distorted the market through government policy, he now advocates maintaining a distorted market for sugar. It’s always ironic to see libertarians arguing for policies which are the anthesis of those advocated by people who actually do want the market to work rather than be distorted for the benefit of a few to the detriment of the: market, consumers en masse, and taxpayers – all who get burnt by the types of market distortions lancifer has advocated by his denial of the negative external costs generated by coal, oil, and now – sugar.

  95. 95
    Raging Bee

    …I don’t know of anyone more willing to argue out of their ass while falsely posing as having a clue.

    You mean you’ve managed to block the entire Republican Party (libertarian rentboys included) out of your consciousness since 1993? I don’t know whether to congratulate you for that or not.

    …such tax policy which I proposed in that quote is less authoritarian…

    In the right-wing mind, there’s no gradation on that scale; there’s “Makers of Things” and there’s Stalinism, and nothing in between. Notice how quick Lance was to bring up the Mengistu regime, despite the total lack of any relevance to any present-day policy?

    That makes lancifer’s comment even more dishonest and idiotic than I originally perceived.

    That’s how right-wingers win arguments: by saying things so deeply stupid, and so far removed from reality or reason, that no one else has enough time to unravel all the layers of stupidity.

  96. 96
    composer99

    As Michael Heath notes, lancifer only had a case to characterize him as a “tax & spend authoritarian” by cherry-picking his quote from the food regulation thread (leaving out that Heath’s advocacy for Pigovian taxes was in part inspired by society’s ability to then lower taxes on income, capital gains, and the like).

    If lancifer wants to avoid being characterized as a denialist, he would do well to avoid quacking like a duck (cherry-picking being a staple trick of denialists of all stripes, as anyone who’s had to debunk the “no warming since 1998″ myth over and over and over can tell you).

  97. 97
    Michael Heath

    dingojack writes:

    could you explain to the boy and girls the ‘Paradox of Thrift’. It would be informative for the ‘all taxes are evuuul’ brethren – and you explain it better than I ever could.

    I can’t right now. I can say that once again a Keynesian response to a recession was validated when we compare fiscal policy of all large economies during the start of the recession and they results they enjoyed because they followed the experts, e.g., China, suffered from because they did the opposite and implemented an “austerity” policy (read: contractionary), e.g., U.K., or limped along because the policy was correct but not sufficiently substantial (U.S.).

    The key here is not merely China’s stimulative efforts during the recession, but also not creating huge debts which don’t lead to growth during the up-part of the business cycle, which was promoted here by our Democrats in the early-2000s while the Republicans who ran the show did the exact opposite, creating the Bush tax cuts and spending initiatives that had them creating deficits during the up part of the business cycle with no investment that led to our better buffering the next down-turn. In fact those cuts and spending by Republicans were both known at the time to make the economy weaker and therefore less able to weather the next downturn.

    The most successful fiscal policy wonk on economic matters I know of is Bruce Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett was one of the architects of the widely successful Kemp-Roth tax cuts Reagan implemented at the start of his tenure, he then advocated for fiscally conservative policies at the end of Reagan and during H.W. Bush’s term (raise taxes to reduce deficits if you can’t cut Democrats’ favored spending initiatives). Those policies helped lead to enormous normative growth in the late-80s’ through 90s though those policies got H.W. Bush booted out of office. “Normative” in the sense of the marginal increase in GDP given our economy was already so large, but the rate of growth was mostly less than “enormous” during these boom times. We can do way better if we actually followed what the experts advise, which demands changes by Democrats they’ve largely accomplished but a complete reversal of where the GOP has descended since Reagan and H.W. Bush left office.

    Mr. Bartlett was also the first on the right to predict the W. Bush and Republican policies of the early-2000s would be catastrophic, publishing a book on the topic in the early-2000s. He’s recently conceded that Keynesian policies work given the evidence is and has been overwhelming now for eight-plus years. Of course any such strategy requires competent execution, which is where denialists come in and lie about certain policy efforts not being viable policies precisely because they were able to stop a successful strategy from being implemented. E.g, Congressional Republicans during the Obama era. Here’s the Bartlett article: http://goo.gl/kcGde . It’s aptly titled especially given our resident reality denier, “Revenge of the Reality-Based Community: My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong.

    Another outstanding recent article framing the current budgetary debate can be found here: http://goo.gl/TlBHK

  98. 98
    Michael Heath

    I wrote:

    [Bruce Bartlett's] recently conceded that Keynesian policies work given the evidence is and has been overwhelming now for eight-plus years

    That’s eighty-plus years, not eight.

  99. 99
    democommie

    “it is interesting that Heath sees sugar as some evil “externality”.”

    Actually, Michael Heath doesn’t even talk about several of “Big Sweety”‘s other externalities–the exponential explosion of slavery in the west indies and caribbean basin in the 1700′s as part of the “Triangle Trade”; the ruinous agricultural practices routinely used by cane growers in Florida and elsewhere–with concomitant destruction of the Everglades and the fouling of the entire south florida water table with fertizlers, pesticide and soil loss from farming. So, it’s not just shit that MIGHT happen, it’s shit that has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. The sale of sugar will enrich the Sugar Daddies of South Florida and cost the consumer and the residents of FL billions.

    This:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hcAjyOFX1M

    links to a video about “Big Sugar”. I know that Lancifer will either ignore it or insist that it was made by some Sorosfunded Stevia producing cartel but, then, he just rolls that way.

  100. 100
    lancifer

    More insults, and pseudo-intellectual idiocy from Heath (and the usual peanut gallery) I see.

    Democommie laments the evils of “Big Sugar”.

    Hey Heath, maybe you can start a “market based” cap and trade program to reduce and eventually end the use of sugar. I guess it’s no more ridiculous than your obsessions with the demon gas CO2.

  101. 101
    lancifer

    composer 99,

    I didn’t “cherry pick” anything. I responded to a Michael Heath quote posted by Dingo Jack.

    I used the quote in it’s entirety. It is not my responsibility to track down everything Heath ever said on the subject.

  102. 102
    Michael Heath

    lancifer,

    Your avoidance tactics fools no one but apparently you. You are a coward in the truest sense I observe on the ‘net. So cowardly you can’t even confront facts.

  103. 103
    lancifer

    Michael Heath,

    You are a bully and a blow hard. A true “big fish” in a tiny puddle. Impressed by the sound of his own voice. The word pseudo-intellectual fits you to a “t”. You fill post after post with trivial and irrelevant “factoids” and one-sided opinions.

    So Mr. Quixote, sugar is the windmill of the day I see.

    Did it ever occur to you that people have the right to eat as they like? Sugar is a basic ingredient of a vast array of foods enjoyed around the world. It is not a social ill that needs to be regulated and eventually purged by a centralized government tax plan.

    The freedom of others is the one commodity that has absolutely has no value in your authoritarian schemes. Luckily, with the exception of this one tiny blog, you are powerless to affect the lives of real people..

  104. 104
    Michael Heath

    Lancifer lies once again about what somebody else wrote:

    Did it ever occur to you that people have the right to eat as they like?

    I never claimed sugar consumers lacked the right you cowardly liar.

    I instead argued government shouldn’t subsidize sugar and coal because it distorts marketplace pricing signals by allowing the sugar and coal sectors to push some of their costs over to others outside their supply chain. Where taxpayers and consumers outside their supply chain bear those avoided costs. Such government subsidies and avoidance of costs borne by others also causes competing business sectors’ products to falsely appear more expensive than sugar and coal, which harms those sectors and their consumers.

    I’ve stated this at least three times, which argues you’re either an idiot, so delusional you can’t comprehend premises inconvenient to your political ideology, a determinedly ignorant coward, or some combination of the above plus other repugnant attributes which don’t immediately come to mind but probably apply to your behavior in this thread and all others related to climate change.

    lancifer lies again about my arguments:

    The freedom of others is the one commodity that has absolutely has no value in your authoritarian schemes.

    It’s not anti-freedom for me to oppose government subsidizing the cost of sugar and coal to the detriment of other business sectors and their consumers.

    It’s not authoritarian of me to oppose certain business sectors distorting the marketplace as the sugar and coal sectors do by their successful rent-seeking and avoiding their total costs; costs which are instead borne by taxpayers and consumers outside their supply chain.

    If you’re going to hurl a pejorative at someone at least represent their argument correctly so they’ve earned it. You’ve certainly earned yours. I have near-zero confidence you can do that since you’ve never demonstrated this ability. Nor have you demonstrated the character required to not lie about others’ arguments as you continually do in this thread and nearly every thread which has you defending the coal sector.

    In this case my opposition to government subsidizing the coal and sugar industries is in no way authoritarian. In fact my promotion of ending rent-seeking and the ability of these two sectors to avoid their total costs which are borne by others is the opposite of authoritarian.

    I did and do make an argument that the coal and sugar sectors should get taxed more heavily than their total costs after eradicating their current subsidies and covering their negative external costs. But as I said earlier, that’s only to reduce or some case even eradicate tax liabilities collected via income and capital gains. Especially when it comes to businesses where I’ve long argued shouldn’t pay any income taxes. Precisely because low or no rates on income and capital gains in a global economy promotes economic growth here in the U.S. given our advantages and disadvantages.

    Since support for a consumption/VAT tax allows consumers a choice on when or even if to pay those consumption/VAT taxes, it’s less authoritarian than taxing income and gains on capital investments. Which again shows you to be an ignorant moron always willing to argue shit you don’t now fuck about while simultaneously misrepresenting what others argue . In this you label me the very opposite of my arguments, par for the course for you.

  105. 105
    lancifer

    Taxing consumers of sugar has nothing at all to do with subsidies to sugar companies. If you want to stop subsidizing them then do so. Your original post, as quoted by Dingo Jack, was about using punitive taxation to reduce sugar use.

    You are a dishonest self-aggrandizing dipshit. You carpet bomb opposing viewpoints with turgid strings of quasi-related information and state your opinion as fact.

  106. 106
    dingojack

    Boy Lance you really are that dumb?
    Charging the actual cost of all externalises means cutting the subsidies and changing prices to reflect the real cost to the consumer of the commodity. This allows consumers to decide which alternative they want to use and prompts producers to change the raw ingredients for their products to minimize costs and damage to the environment/ consumers.
    It’s really not rocket science!
    Dingo

  107. 107
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot and MH

    Speaking of sugar, the situation relative to subsidies is even worse then MH describes. There are prohibitive tariffs on sugar cane imports, particularly from Brazil, which indirectly subsidize sugar cane growers in Louisiana and Florida and, even more atrociously, corn syrup, which raises the price of other corn products for everybody else. The situation with sugar is as far from a free market as one can imagine, but, I suspect that Sir Lancelot is as ignorant of that fact as he is of climate change.

  108. 108
    lancifer

    slc1,

    I am aware of the tariffs etc. on sugar. That has exactly dick to do with putting punitive consumer taxes on sugar and related products.

    If you had read my comments above you would see that I am not opposed to ending subsidies to the sugar, or any other, companies.

    That would of course only serve to lower sugar prices, at least in the short term, thus making sugar, and the products that contain sugar, cheaper.

    Mr. Heath’s remarks were about “taxing the shit” out of sugar to compel people to eat less of it.

    The dishonest bastard only brought in the “market distorting” issues after I called him on his original remarks.

    This is typical of Mr. Heath’s dishonest and despicable tactics.

    I actually think you are a rather fair fellow who, like most of us, has a few hot button issues that set you off. I actually agree with you much of the time. You have a tendency to yell names like “liar” etc. but hey it’s the internet so I expect some of that.

  109. 109
    lancifer

    slc1,

    I wrote ending “subsidies” above were I meant to write ending “tariffs” would serve to lower sugar prices.

    I am in favor of ending both subsidies and tariffs.

  110. 110
    lancifer

    dingo jack,

    If you eat too much sugary food and get fat and have health problems, that is not an “externality”. That was a decision you made that has consequences for you.

    There are a variety of foods that if eaten to excess on a long term basis can cause health issues, carbohydrates, fats, etc.

    Not to mention other “risky” behaviors such as, motorcycle riding, scuba diving, casual sex, auto racing, sky diving etc. Are you going to “tax the shit” out them as well?

    The usual weasely authoritarian response is “Well those risky behaviors will cause injuries or disease that will be born by insurance companies that will pass the costs to the rest of us.” This insidious idea can be used to regulate almost every aspect of a person life, some thing you are probably cool with.

    I am not.

    Life is risky, get over it. Don’t want to eat sugar? Don’t. But don’t try to tell other people what to do.

    Of course telling other people what to do is your raison d’être.

  111. 111
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #108

    If it makes Sir Lancelot feel any better, MH doesn’t like me either and thinks that I am a bigger liar then he is. C’est la vie.

    Life is risky, get over it. Don’t want to eat sugar? Don’t. But don’t try to tell other people what to do.

    Don’t want to drive 100 miles/hour? Don’t but don’t try to tell other people that they can’t drive 100 miles/hour.

  112. 112
    lancifer

    slc1,

    Don’t want to drive 100 miles/hour? Don’t but don’t try to tell other people that they can’t drive 100 miles/hour.

    C’mon slc1, are you really going to equate drinking a large soda with driving 100 mph?

  113. 113
    Michael Heath

    slc1 writes:

    If it makes Sir Lancelot feel any better, MH doesn’t like me either and thinks that I am a bigger liar then he is.

    Not true, I like you just fine slc1. I simply tired of you continuously misrepresenting my positions I’ve taken in other threads, as you do here once again. My patience wore out when you repeatedly described certain positions of mine which I found abhorrent and don’t take. And given I use my actual name, don’t want myself tied to those positions. I suggest ending your attempts to define others and simply respond to what people actually write.

    I don’t have a problem with lancifer continually misrepresenting my positions because he does so in the same thread where it’s obvious to anyone who can read he’s blatantly lying and couldn’t present a coherent honest argument if his life depended on it. Whereas a reasonable reader whose not a regular here would trust what you describe slc1 about others in spite of that being so often incorrect.

  114. 114
    dingojack

    Lace – “If you eat too much sugary food and get fat and have health problems, that is not an “externality”. That was a decision you made that has consequences for you

    No, idiot, it has consequences for us all. Increased health care costs and rising insurance premiums are just part of it. Try lowered productively, more sick days, greater costs in medical infrastructure, increased employment costs and etc,, and etc.
    Raising the cost to make a better alternative a reasonable choice is a lot cheaper in the long run and improves the health of the society as a whole.
    But close your eyes and pretend it will all go away by all means, just keep out of the way of those who actually want to improve things, and die quietly in a corner.
    Dingo.

  115. 115
    Michael Heath

    Lancifer writes:

    “If you eat too much sugary food and get fat and have health problems, that is not an “externality”. That was a decision you made that has consequences for you

    This reminds me of something Victoria Jackson or Michelle Bachmann would say in reaction to the fact negative external costs exist in the sugar supply chain and are borne by taxpayers and those who pay for health insurance.

    In spite of my not being a theist nor am I someone who prays, lancifer’s statement is compelling evidence God exists and he’s answering Voltaire’s prayer to my benefit. Unfortunately, many other comments by lancifer also qualify. I’d prefer God not answer that prayer; it’s painful observing any acts of determined ignorance, idiocy and avoidance.

  116. 116
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #112

    C’mon slc1, are you really going to equate drinking a large soda with driving 100 mph?

    In terms of personal risk to the subject, the answer is yes; both activities are dangerous to one’s health. Obviously, the consumption of large quantities of sugary soft drinks is not dangerous to others while driving 100 mph on the highway is quite dangerous to others.

  117. 117
    lancifer

    Voltaire’s prayer huh?

    Yeah, that’s the kind of pseudo-intellectual dodge I would expect from you.

    You are sounding more and more like Nathan Thurm.

    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/saturday-night-news-segment—nathan-thurm/1357835/

    “I knew that. It’s so funny that you would think I didn’t know that. Is it me or is it him?”

  118. 118
    dingojack

    Lance (again) pans Michael Heath.
    ” it’s painful observing any acts of determined ignorance, idiocy and avoidance“.. [Empasis mine]
    Dingo

  119. 119
    Michael Heath

    More projection from lancifer:

    Voltaire’s prayer huh?

    Yeah, that’s the kind of pseudo-intellectual dodge I would expect from you.

    My insult wasn’t done in a vacuum nor was I “dodging” you. I was in fact ridiculing you for continuing to deny and avoid the reality that the sugar and coal sectors enjoy distortions in the market at the expense of others. That they both create negative externalities while also enjoying significant subsidies and other market contrivances (tariffs on imports); all of which artificially lowers their prices at the expense of competing business sectors, taxpayers, and others (e.g., those who pay for health insurance).

    This isn’t “pseudo-intellectualism” on my part as you falsely claimed, it’s actually first presented to introductory level college econ students. These are not theories, but instead facts, they are observations about the marketplace.

    You’re the one who has a problem with reality where your repeated avoidance is so absurd ridicule is almost demanded, i.e. your statement which “dodges” around the facts presented:

    “If you eat too much sugary food and get fat and have health problems, that is not an “externality”. That was a decision you made that has consequences for you“

    Are you really so stupid or delusional I have to point by point demonstrate why this statement by you once again avoids what’s been previously presented that’s actually relevant to the topic? That your response here sinks to the level of delusional stupidity of a Victoria Jackson? I think not, I think it doesn’t matter. You’ve long demonstrated that you can’t confront inconvenient facts, your ideology has made you impotent to confronting reality. So really this is more an exercise to see how far down the rabbit hole you’ll go to publically defend your false view of reality.

    Once again in this thread you’ve demonstrated what scientists have learned about ideologues, that they increase their commitment to their false premises which are politically convenient when confronted with the fact their premises are false. We’ve observed this dozens if not hundreds of times from you. It’s really amazing to watch the degree to which people like you deny, avoid, and deflect. And your continued cowardly and false whines we’re only lobbing insults when instead we’re lobbing insults only after you’ve started avoiding, denying, lying, misrepresenting others, and insulting others; well that’s self-evident to rational readers of this thread.

  120. 120
    lancifer

    Michael Heath,

    Perhaps you should look up the words “direct” and it’s antonym “indirect”. Your latest distasteful and irrational screed is a claim that “sugar” needs to be punitively taxed as an “externality” . This demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the concept or a purposeful and dishonest misuse of the term.

    If I produce a chemical that as a direct byproduct of the process releases a toxic substance into the local water supply, that is an externality. If I produce a product that can be safely consumed by responsible customers but is abused by some of them, that is not an externality.

    Sugar clearly falls into the second category. The vast majority of people that consume products that contain sugar do not do so to excess. And even if they did, they would bear responsibility for the consequences.

    Proposing punitive taxes on all sugar consumers would be irrational, irresponsible and unfair to both sugar producers and consumers.

    It is of course very appealing to leftist authoritarian pricks like you.

  121. 121
    lancifer

    Heath,

    Perhaps you should read F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. You advocate nearly all of the policies that he warns will result in an authoritarian state. Even the economist that invented the idea of taxing “externalites, Arthur Cecil Pigou, realized that it would probably do more harm than good.

    Of course an authoritarian nanny state would be a paradise for moralistic technocrats like you, since you imagine all of the restrictions and prohibitions would be imposed on others by people that think like you.

  122. 122
    Raging Bee

    Your latest distasteful and irrational screed is a claim that “sugar” needs to be punitively taxed as an “externality” .

    Eww Deah, it seems we’ve offended someone’s ever-so-delicate sensibilities by saying bad things about sugar. Why, it’s almost like we’d blasphemed against lance’s god.

    Proposing punitive taxes on all sugar consumers would be irrational, irresponsible and unfair to both sugar producers and consumers.

    It’s iresponsible and unfair to even PROPOSE a tax? I alwys knew you libertards were a bunch of brittle pretentious crybabies, but geez… Look past that scary demon mask you use for an icon, and all we see is a child in the throes of a perpetual temper-tantrum.

    Seriously, boy, are you even capable of controlling your hate? The fact that you’re now screaming bloody murder about SUGAR, on a nearly dead thread about something else entirely, suggests you can’t.

    You lost the argument and made an ass of yourself. Let it go before you go full-Gollum. NEVER go full-Gollum.

  123. 123
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot

    How about the taxes on tobacco and booze? Are they any different then taxes on sugar?

  124. 124
    lancifer

    slc1,

    Sugar is a necessary nutrient to sustain life. Every cell in your body uses it to make energy.

    Even complex carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars. So I guess they should be taxed as well.

    And let’s not forget about fats. Meat contains cholesterol which can lead to heart disease but even plant based fats are dangerous if eaten to excess so I guess we tax them as well?

    Even too much protein in your diet can lead to kidney problems, heart disease and increased cancer risk so I guess it’s restrictions on the size of steaks and taxes on protein?

    Once one accepts the idea that bad behavior by a few can be remedied by taxes on all consumers you have crossed an irrational and dangerous threshold.

  125. 125
    lancifer

    Raging Bee,

    Seriously, boy, are you even capable of controlling your hate?

    This from a guy that can’t form a paragraph that doesn’t contain at least two spit flecked rants.

  126. 126
    slc1

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #124

    If Sir Lancelot can’t see the difference between soft drinks sweetened with cane sugar (actually, Coke and Pepsi use sugar extracted from corn syrup while Whole Foods and Hansen use cane sugar) and carbohydrates in foods like bread, then he is totally hopeless. The foods that Sir Lancelot describes are, indeed, essential to health. Soft drinks are not, in fact are nothing but empty calories, no more essential then tobacco and booze. Stop trying to promote home runs. As someone who claims to teach physics and has a degree in the subject, Sir Lancelot is an embarrassment to PhD holding physicists like me.

  127. 127
    Raging Bee

    Once one accepts the idea that bad behavior by a few can be remedied by taxes on all consumers you have crossed an irrational and dangerous threshold.

    …the same dangerous threshhold his parents crossed when they tried to make him clean up his room and take baths every day. With such nanny-state rules the road to serfdom begins…

  128. 128
    Nick Gotts

    Perhaps you should read F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. – lancifer

    Since Hayek’s central thesis has been comprehensively disproved since he promulgated it – he claimed that any state economic planning would inevitably lead to totalitarianism, while in fact all modern states do undertake such planning and none I can think of have become totalitarian that were democratic when he wrote – this would tell us a good deal about lancifer’s stupidity, if we didn’t already have abundant proof of it.

    With regard to sugar, a point not yet made is that it’s pushed most intensively to children – but of course, in lancifer’s world, developing serious health problems as a result of excessive sugar consumption is entirely the child’s responsibility.

    Quite a piece of work lancifer, isn’t he? Combining completely unfounded and unevidenced claims of a gigantic conspiracy of lies by climate scientists, with continual whines about being insulted.

  129. 129
    lancifer

    Nick Gotts,

    You have misrepresented my comments on taxation.
    You have misrepresented my comments on climate change.
    You have misrepresented Hayek’s work.

    At least your consistent.
    Consistently a lying piece of shit.

  130. 130
    Nick Gotts

    lancifer,

    You’re the liar here.
    1) With regard to taxation, I said nothing whatsoever about your comments on taxation, so I cannot possibly have misrepresented them.
    2) With regard to climate change, you said:

    You should “reflect” on the fact that you have been sold a bill of goods on “climate change”. We face no Thermo-geddon.

    The consensus among climate scientists is the exact opposite: that anthropogenic climate change is an extremely serious problem that demands urgent and radical mitigation measures. You can, for example, go to Real Climate to see eminent climate scientists making this point. Or you can consult the publication Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, edited by climate scientists; or look at the joint declarations (in 2007, 2008, 2009) by the national scientific associations of the “G8+5″ (USA, Canada, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, India, China, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil). When you claim those who accept the seriousness of the problem have been ‘sold a bill of goods on “climate change”‘ you are indeed accusing climate scientists of a vast conspiracy of lies, since it is climate scientists who have produced the evidence of this urgent problem, and (along with others) called for action to mitigate it. But it is you, your fellow glibertarian fuckwits, and the corporate interests for which you are merely useful idiots, who are lying.
    3) With regard to Hayek, you do not of course say how I have misrepresented him – and this is because you can’t, since I haven’t. Here is Hayek himself (from the condensed edition, available here):

    What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the
    Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be
    the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of
    planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such
    vague term as ‘the general welfare’. There will be no real agreement
    as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people’s
    agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on
    the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit
    themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they
    want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey
    which most of them do not want at all.

    Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies.
    They cannot produce agreement on everything – the whole direction
    of the resources of the nation – for the number of possible
    courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding
    step by step and compromising at each point, agree on
    some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.
    To draw up an economic plan in this fashion is even less possible
    than, for instance, successfully to plan a military campaign by
    democratic procedure. As in strategy, it would become inevitable
    to delegate the task to experts. And even if, by this expedient, a
    democracy should succeed in planning every sector of economic
    activity, it would still have to face the problem of integrating these
    separate plans into a unitary whole. There will be a stronger and
    stronger demand that some board or some single individual
    should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The cry
    for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement
    toward planning.

    Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the persons
    who are to have practically absolute power. The whole system
    will tend toward that kind of dictatorship in which the head of
    government is from time to time confirmed in his position by popular
    vote, but where he has all the power at his command to make
    certain that the vote will go in the direction that he desires.
    Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most
    effective instrument of coercion and, as such, essential if central
    planning on a large scale is to be possible. There is no justification
    for the widespread belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic
    procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; it is not the source of
    power which prevents it from being arbitrary; to be free from dictatorial
    qualities, the power must also be limited.

    Hayek explicitly rules out the feasibility of any halfway house between competition and economic planning:

    To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible,
    to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies – these
    tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity.

    This does not mean that it is possible to find some ‘middle
    way’ between competition and central direction, though nothing
    seems at first more plausible, or is more likely to appeal to reasonable
    people. Mere common sense proves a treacherous guide in
    this field. Although competition can bear some mixture of regulation,
    it cannot be combined with planning to any extent we like
    without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production.
    Both competition and central direction become poor and inefficient
    tools if they are incomplete, and a mixture of the two means
    that neither will work.

    Planning and competition can be combined only by planning
    for competition, not by planning against competition. The planning
    against which all our criticism is directed is solely the planning
    against competition.

    Now it is abundantly clear that all liberal democratic states have indeed taken a middle way between competition and central direction, and used planning to limit competition in various ways (tariffs, subsidies, control of interest rates and currency exchange rates, large-scale public infrastructure projects, in some cases minimum wage laws), ever since Hayek wrote, and that they have not thereby become totalitarian. Hayek’s claims have, therefore, been comprehensively refuted, as I said, and your stupidity is thereby proved, as I noted.

  131. 131
    Raging Bee

    Nick: thanks for the Hayek quote — which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was nothing more than a laissez-faire hack spouting bullshit to justify mindless resistance to ANY and ALL proposed regualtion of any sector of economic activity.

    His thesis seems to be “You can’t make a plan that covers everything, therefore it’s useless to make a plan that covers anything.” Followed by lots of exclusion of a middle that’s clearly visible all over the real world. And all I need is a bit of common sense and personal experience to prove it wrong: I can’t make a plan that covers every aspect of my personal life, but that doesn’t mean I can’t set some priorities and decide a general direction, and keep that plan in mind as I respond to unforeseen events.

    He’s also taking a page from Ayn Rand, and pretending the concept of “general welfare” is some vague, undefinable alien concept that can be used as a tool to enslave everybody. Every time I read this sort of libertardian crap, I remember myself at age eight, calling my parents “slave drivers” every time they told me to clean up my room or take a bath. That’s the level these spoiled brats never gew out of. Been there, done that, didn’t get away with it (thank the Gods for educated parents), bit the bullet and grew up instead.

  132. 132
    Raging Bee

    With regard to sugar, a point not yet made is that it’s pushed most intensively to children…

    Another point is that it is often added, unnecessarily, to other prepared food items, without consumers necessarily being aware of it or having an opt-out opportunity. And it is added, not to enhance quality, but merely to make the food item a little more addictive, and/or a little better tasting than a competitor’s version of the same thing.

  133. 133
    Nick Gotts

    Raging Bee@131,
    Actually, Hayek was by no means as bad as present-day glibertarians: the following is also from the condensed version of The Road to Serfdom (p.36, the previous quotes are from pp 41-2):

    The successful use of competition does not preclude some types
    ofgovernment interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to
    require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system
    of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of
    competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition
    is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation
    or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner
    of the property in question.

    But he was as irrational as present-day glibertarians in his worship of competition and horror of economic planning. How he’d have responded to the need to take action against AGW is hard to say: the quote above suggests he might have been more rational than lancifer, but he also seems to have had a strong prejudice against international agreements.

    @132, yeah, good point. Same applies to salt and saturated fats, and perhaps even more strongly to trans-fats.

  134. 134
    Nick Gotts

    Further to #133, the dedication of the right to antiscience is relatively recent. Naomi Oreskes and Eric M. Conway’s Merchants of Doubt gives a fascinating historical account. In the 1950s and 1960s, the majority of American scientists were Republican voters – now, only a small minority are. The right’s turn to antiscience dates from the discovery of the deadly consequences of smoking, and has continued as science has increasingly produced findings that go against corporate interests (on acid rain, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion and of course AGW) . Some of the most prominent AGW denialists began their careers as smoking -> cancer denialists in the service of “Big Tobacco”. Although Hayek lived until 1992, I admit I don’t know whether he followed the antiscience trend in his later years. He was, however, a fan of Pinochet, and hence a supporter of dictatorship, torture and murder in the service of “free markets”.

  135. 135
    lancifer

    Hey Gotts,

    You take a casual off hand remark by me and turn it into something it isn’t.

    You selectively quote Hayek, painting him as some sort of anarcho-capitalist, and march about as if you have slain the evil libertarian dragon.

    You are beyond contempt and not worth my time.

    Fuck off!

  136. 136
    Raging Bee

    Atlas Flounced.

    And the fact that Lance trashed Nick after Nick had tried to paint his favorite sage in a better light, only makes Lance’s obvious stupidity and immaturity even more laughable than they already were.

    Actually, Hayek was by no means as bad as present-day glibertarians…

    Yeah, and Mitt Romney once said he actually thought gummint regulations were good.

    He was, however, a fan of Pinochet, and hence a supporter of dictatorship, torture and murder in the service of “free markets”.

    And he was dead wrong there too. I remember reading about an earthquake in Chile, and the observation that buildings built during the dictatorship suffered worse damage than those built during the democratic regime. Why? Because the democratic government pressured builders to build better buildings, while the dictators coddled businessfolk and let them do what they wanted, with no worries about uppity peasants holding them accountable like the dangerous evil commies they were.

    PS: One more thing about sugar — the bad health effects of too much sugar consumption are still an externality, whether or not people choose to consume it, because the costs of said bad effects are not factored into the price of sugar. So there is a sensible reason to tax it. Long story short: Lance is just as laughably wrong about sugar as he is about everything else. Changing the subject to avoid looking stupid has never been so counterproductive.

  137. 137
    Nick Gotts

    lancifer,

    You really are quite hilariously stupid. Anyone who reads the comment of yours that I quoted can see that it is indeed an accusation of a conspiracy to lie about climate change – what else does “sold a bill of goods” mean? If you didn’t mean what you quite plainly said, you should have the good grace to retract and apologise for your slanders against honest scientists, not froth at the mouth about being taken to task for them. And it’s difficult to see what would have satisfied you with regard to quoting Hayek: I not only went out of my way to include material showing that he did allow for certain types of government intervention – far more so than glibertarian fuckwits like you – I linked to an online version of his book, so that anyone who wants to can check that I have not distorted what he said in any way whatever. Should I have included the entire sacred scriptures in my quote?

  138. 138
    lancifer

    Gotts,

    Hey dipshit, here’s a challenge, name any food that cannot cause problems if eaten in excess. Should all foods be accessed a tax to cover the potential costs of over consumption? Sadly you’d probably answer, yes.

    And here’s a clue as to your, (perhaps purposeful), miss-evaluation Hayek’s writings ; the word “planning”, as used by Hayek, does not mean what you think it means.

    When I said “Sold a bill of goods” I was referring to the likes of Bill Mckibben and other catastrophists that claim that radical changes, all requiring large government interventions and taxation of course, are needing to stave off a doomsday therm-o-geddon.

    You of course are a part of the Chicken Little squad, all the while carrying the false banner of scientific sanctity.

  139. 139
    Raging Bee

    …the word “planning”, as used by Hayek, does not mean what you think it means.

    So he’s one of those people who unilaterally changes the meanings of commonly-used words for his own convenience? That would be typical of libertarian dishonesty, doubletalk, and shameless manipulative con-artistry.

  140. 140
    Nick Gotts

    lancifer,

    1)Taxation policy is one tool for improving public health. It should be used where the expected benefits are sufficient to justify it. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but you’re such an ideology-addled fuckwit that I’m sure that idea is well beyond your comprehension.
    2) Hayek does indeed use “planning” in a non-standard sense. I used it in the sense that will be generally understood. I quoted Hayek in such a way as to show that he allows for various forms of government action, contrary to your barefaced lie that I represented him as an anarcho-capitalist. You have failed to show that I have misrepresented his stance in any way whatever.
    3) As I’ve already shown, the push for radical action to mitigate anthropogenic climate change comes from climate scientists as well as non-scientists environmentalists and politicians. When you refer to those who support mitigation as having been “sold a bill of goods” you are slandering these scientists. Government intervention is indeed absolutely necessary: “free markets” are not going to solve this grave and urgent problem. You know that, of course, which is why and your fellow lying scumbag glibertarians misrepresent the state of the science, slander honest scientists, and shift your ground according to expediency. You would not have put “climate change” in scare quotes if you accepted the overwhelming scientific consensus that such change is real. Nor would you have referred to “a fraction of a degree per hundred year increase in temperature”. Here is a quote from the executive summary of Ch.10, “Global Climate Predictions” of the IPCC’s AR4:

    There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C). Thus, this warming rate is affected little by different scenario assumptions or different model sensitivities, and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades (see Chapter 3). Possible future variations in natural forcings (e.g., a large volcanic eruption) could change those values somewhat, but about half of the early 21st-century warming is committed in the sense that it would occur even if atmospheric concentrations were held fixed at year 2000 values. By mid-century (2046–2065), the choice of scenario becomes more important for the magnitude of multi-model globally averaged SAT warming, with values of +1.3°C, +1.8°C and +1.7°C from the AOGCMs for B1, A1B and A2, respectively. About a third of that warming is projected to be due to climate change that is already committed. By late century (2090–2099), differences between scenarios are large, and only about 20% of that warming arises from climate change that is already committed.
    An assessment based on AOGCM projections, probabilistic methods, EMICs, a simple model tuned to the AOGCM responses, as well as coupled climate carbon cycle models, suggests that for non-mitigation scenarios, the future increase in global mean SAT is likely to fall within –40 to +60% of the multi-model AOGCM mean warming simulated for a given scenario. The greater uncertainty at higher values results in part from uncertainties in the carbon cycle feedbacks. The multi-model mean SAT warming and associated uncertainty ranges for 2090 to 2099 relative to 1980 to 1999 are B1: +1.8°C (1.1°C to 2.9°C), B2: +2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A1B: +2.8°C (1.7°C to 4.4°C), A1T: 2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A2: +3.4°C (2.0°C to 5.4°C) and A1FI: +4.0°C (2.4°C to 6.4°C).

    The actual trajectory of emissions has been higher than any of the scenarios referred to in this passage. That the change over the 21st century, without serious mitigation efforts, will be over 1 degree C and could be over 6 degrees C is the scientific consensus.

    You’re both a liar and a fool, lancifer. Grow up.

  141. 141
    lancifer

    Nick Gotts,

    …“Global Climate Predictions” of the IPCC’s AR4:

    What exactly do your quotes mean? The IPCC does NOT make “predictions”. It publishes “projections”

    Projections of Future Changes in Climate

    A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures including idealised emission or concentration assumptions. These include SRES[14] illustrative marker scenarios for the 2000 to 2100 period and model experiments with greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations held constant after year 2000 or 2100.

    Do you know what a “model simulation” is?

    The only thing that is scientifically meaningful is data. 0.64-0.8C does not a “crisis” make.

    You spew a lot of characters but very little useful information.

  142. 142
    Nick Gotts

    lancifer,

    Gosh, I said “prediction” when I meant “projection”. Mea culpa.

    Do you know what a “model simulation” is?

    Yes. Evidently, you don’t. GCMs are based on the physics of climate. They have a good record of “skill”, for example modelling the effect of volcanic eruptions matched the observed effects of Mt. Pinatubo. And you are in any case either ignorant or dishonest in implying that projections of climate change are based only on simulations (see below).

    The only thing that is scientifically meaningful is data. 0.64-0.8C does not a “crisis” make.

    Are you seriously proposing that we should not use our best efforts to avoid future dangers because they haven’t happened yet?The results of simulations based on climate physics are data: both theoretical and experimental physics tell us that carbon dioxide* is a greenhouse gas, that the effect of increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will be to raise global temperatures, and that this effect will be amplified by the resultant increase in atmospheric water vapour. Quite apart from that, paleoclimatic data constrains estimates of the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations to between 1.5C and 4.5C, with recent results tending to rule out values below 2.0C. It is simply stupid to pretend that we don’t have very good reason to believe that global temperatures will continue to rise if we continue to increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, they would do so by a significant amount even if we stopped doing so right now, as there is a measured imbalance between heat coming in from the sun and heat reradiated to space: temperatures will rise until this ceases to be the case. Also, of course, a global rise in temperature is expected to change precipitation regimes, and is likely to increase both droughts and floods, as warmer air holds more water vapour.

    You spew a lot of characters but very little useful information.

    A classic case of projection. I am simply relaying the key points in the expert scientific consensus, which you cannot accept because of your ludicrous glibertarian ideology. You have nothing but ignorant and dishonest bluster.

    *And of course methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs…, but carbon dioxide is the most important.

  143. 143
    Nick Gotts

    Sorry – post repeated to correct blockquote fail.

    lancifer,

    Gosh, I said “prediction” when I meant “projection”. Mea culpa.

    Do you know what a “model simulation” is?

    Yes. Evidently, you don’t. GCMs are based on the physics of climate. They have a good record of “skill”, for example modelling the effect of volcanic eruptions matched the observed effects of Mt. Pinatubo. And you are in any case either ignorant or dishonest in implying that projections of climate change are based only on simulations (see below).

    The only thing that is scientifically meaningful is data. 0.64-0.8C does not a “crisis” make.

    Are you seriously proposing that we should not use our best efforts to avoid future dangers because they haven’t happened yet?The results of simulations based on climate physics are data: both theoretical and experimental physics tell us that carbon dioxide* is a greenhouse gas, that the effect of increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will be to raise global temperatures, and that this effect will be amplified by the resultant increase in atmospheric water vapour. Quite apart from that, paleoclimatic data constrains estimates of the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations to between 1.5C and 4.5C, with recent results tending to rule out values below 2.0C. It is simply stupid to pretend that we don’t have very good reason to believe that global temperatures will continue to rise if we continue to increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, they would do so by a significant amount even if we stopped doing so right now, as there is a measured imbalance between heat coming in from the sun and heat reradiated to space: temperatures will rise until this ceases to be the case. Also, of course, a global rise in temperature is expected to change precipitation regimes, and is likely to increase both droughts and floods, as warmer air holds more water vapour.

    You spew a lot of characters but very little useful information.

    A classic case of projection. I am simply relaying the key points in the expert scientific consensus, which you cannot accept because of your ludicrous glibertarian ideology. You have nothing but ignorant and dishonest bluster.

    *And of course methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs…, but carbon dioxide is the most important.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site