Monday
Jun042012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Further thoughts on carbon taxes
Jun 4, 2012 Climate: other Economics Tax After I posted the carbon tax piece last night I was struck by a thought. The argument apparently goes that the uncertainty in climate change means that we should insure against it.
Now, let's suppose that I come up with a theory that our world is in danger of being taken over by a superrace of green lizards from the planet Beetlegeuse. Should we insure against that too?
I guess the question I'm asking is, what are the criteria that determine when a hypothesis of impending danger is sufficiently well-supported that insurance is required.
If a bunch of scientists say their models predict that there's a problem but their models seem unable to forecast anything very much, is that sufficient?
Reader Comments (129)
"By taking action, is there, on the balance of the evidence, an expectation that the future state will be improved?"
An excellent criterion by which to manage risk, IMO. The simple fact that there is no evidence at all to support the CAGW hypothesis then makes it self-evident that we should take no action until such evidence is identified.
Did I mention that I don't trust the IPCC or the climate establishment? I don't. I wouldn't believe a thing they say. Otherwise, why do they need to cheat?
Those proponents of a Carbon Tax must be mindful of The Law of Unintended Consequences.
For example, taxing manufacturers who use energy-efficient methods in say one region, exports production to producers further away who are not taxed AND use less-efficient methods.
The less-expensive goods are then transported back to the markets in the 'efficient-energy-use' countries.
With a net increase in energy used.
"what are the criteria that determine when a hypothesis of impending danger is sufficiently well-supported that insurance is required." I think that this is answered by Welfare Economics. Basically you have to compare the cost/benefit of actions given their probability. So suppose we have two actions Business as Usual (BAU) and Massive Mitigation (MM) and two outcome of these actions:
cagw -- catastrophic global warming
mit -- cost of mitigation
The expected value (aka utility) of BAU is (putting Pr(A|B) for probability of A given B):
(1) Pr(cagw|BAU)*Cost(cagw) + Pr(mit|BAU)*Cost(mit)
The utility of MM is:
(2) Pr(cagw|MM)*Cost(cagw) + Pr(mit|MM)*Cost(mit)
Given BAU the costs of mitigation are avoided (i.e. Pr(mit|BAU)=0 ) and given MM cagw is avoided. So the utility of BAU is Pr(cagw|BAU)*Cost(cagw) and the utility of MM is Cost(mit).
Much as expected: MM is undertaken if Cost(mit) > Pr(cagw|BAU)*Cost(cagw) (with costs as negative numbers)
So the answer to the Bishop's question is "when the utility of insuring against the danger is greater than the utility of not doing so" and utility is calculated as illustrated.
You can do a Pascal/Precautionary thing and set Cost(cagw) so high that it overwhelms any "reasonable" estimate of Pr(cagw|BAU).
You can do a Stern and suggest that Cost(mit) is lower than you think.
You can be a sceptic and put Pr(cagw|BAU) pretty low (and Cost(mit) high).
But without reasonable values for probabilities and costs really you are stuck.
On a regional scale (UK, EU) massive mitigation has high costs as before but if other countries don't also go for MM then we don't get rid of the first term in (2) but rather Pr(cagw|MM) = Pr(cagw|BAU). In which case the decision is clear. The British government recognises this and does indeed seem to be moving away from mitigation (windmills).
But surely all nations will eventually start MM? Well we'll see: there seems to be a case here of the paradox of the Prisoners' Dilemma ... and if so they won't
Pr(cagw|BAU) = 0.
QED?
@Peter Mott.
You left out some terms from the equation. Since the climate cycles irregularly between warm and ice age phases, we have to take into account the probability and cost of CAGW mitigation bringing us into the next ice age.
Welcome to the fantasy world of Tol and Worstall. Where if you pay an alien tax and enough of it, you can actually prevent an alien invasion.
Those proponents of a Carbon Tax must be mindful of The Law of Unintended Consequences.
For example, taxing manufacturers who use energy-efficient methods in say one region, exports production to producers further away who are not taxed AND use less-efficient methods.
The less-expensive goods are then transported back to the markets in the 'efficient-energy-use' countries.
With a net increase in energy used.
Jun 4, 2012 at 11:54 AM | Joe Public
Joe but we would have a warm glow of feeling good,
as we freeze in our houses /sarc off
Shub: the alien invasion argument seems to have originated with Paul Krugman: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/26/krugman-scientists-should-falsely-predict-alien-invasion-so-governmen
The aim is to persuade governments to spend more money, a bit like the CAGW scare I suppose...;o)
I can see the headlines: "The invasion of the killer molecules. Death rays from space via 'back radiation', Three showings a day at your local cinema with a guest appearance by Tim Worstall at chosen venues in London'.
[snip]there is no empirical evidence of CAGW (with the first letter standing for "Catastrophic").
If there is, please share with the rest of the class.
There is no empirical evidence of CAGW (with the first letter standing for "Catastrophic"). There is lots of evidence that minor warming (0.6 deg C in the 20th century) causes no increases in storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts.
Do not feed the Cave Troll.
RKS:
And why is that a problem? Does Tallbloke's blog attract the contributions of Tim Worstall, Richard Tol, Jonathan Jones, Simon Anthony and Jeremy Harvey as much as this blog does? Horses for courses. I'd prefer a blog where every thread isn't interrupted by those who question the basics of the greenhouse story. That unfortunately may not this one, by the look of it - but this one has some other strengths. Freedom requires distinct alternatives. Thanks for sharing that BH and Tallbloke are providing that in this area.
@Robbo
"You left out some terms from the equation. Since the climate cycles irregularly between warm and ice age phases, we have to take into account the probability and cost of CAGW mitigation bringing us into the next ice age." Indeed. You could also have terms for warming of 1C...6C and for degrees of mitigation. It rapidly becomes completely unmangeable. The point is to find a useful "oversimplification". I'm not saying I did that - mostly I was just trying to answer the Bishop's question.
Chris M: I can't disagree with you. China and India won't let it go global. But as the DDT story shows we have a terrible way of passing our 'concerns' (or guilt trips) in the West onto the bottom billion countries, corrupting their elites at the expense of their poorest. Harold Ambler brings this out very well as far as Cap and Trade schemes are concerned in Don't Sell Your Coat. We're no doubt in violent agreement on the UNFCCC for this very reason. Let's never forget to remind people that radical socialism has only ever been a way to enrich elites, not ordinary people. (The way we tell the history really matters, as always.) The very poorest tend to pick up the tab. We need a new New Labour party that gets real on such matters. Or the Tories or UKIP, I don't care who.
Peter Mott at Jun 4, 2012, 11:55 AM is worth reading in the context of my own posting at at 11:43 AM.
Laying out the problem in terms of economic equations helps clarify some of the issues.
There are three further developments of Peter Mott's equations to clarify.
First, is that we have a range of possible Business as Usual (BAU) outcomes. Climate models have a huge range of predictions. The Stern Review implicitly recognised in recommending that CO2 levels be stablised at around 550ppm would still lead to costly climate change, but a small fraction of the BAU outcomes.
Second, the costs of mitigation policies is not fixed, nor is their effectiveness.
Third, is that the likelihood of CAGW should take into account the strength of evidence. That means cross-examining the evidence (like Steve McIntyre has done for hockey sticks) and also seeing if other explanations of recent warming are possible.
Peter Mott's equations might be sufficient to reject all mitigation policies, but they are just the start of the process. It opens up a new area of applied economic analysis to deal with public policy-making for potential catastrophic global events.
I'm penning a letter to my MP asking him to warn government that we must plan for the onset of the new Little Ice Age. Sere this update by Piers Corbyn on the development of LIA weather.
Generally colder, more extreme weather because of sudden jumps in the jet streams impossible to predict by GCMs. Also, we need to develop a small fleet of inshore ice breakers to keep the Northern ports open. Forget about CO2-AGW, that's probably net zero as is easily deduced once you fix the IR physics [effectively deducing the mechanism by which increase of [CO2] reduces average [H2O] through greater precipitation..
And why is that a problem? Does Tallbloke's blog attract the contributions of Tim Worstall, Richard Tol, Jonathan Jones, Simon Anthony and Jeremy Harvey as much as this blog does? Horses for courses. I'd prefer a blog where every thread isn't interrupted by those who question the basics of the greenhouse story. That unfortunately may not this one, by the look of it - but this one has some other strengths. Freedom requires distinct alternatives. Thanks for sharing that BH and Tallbloke are providing that in this area.
Jun 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM | Richard Drake>>>>
And what exactly is so special about all these names you like to drop please? A bit on the 'elite' side are they?
I find it refreshing to discuss more than one aspect of climate science, which unfortunately seems impossible on BH lately.
Anyway, I can only take so much pretentious political claptrap ABOUT AGW. What exactly is that going to achieve other than an awful lot of ego massaging for those who think they are somehow more important than the rest of humanity.
For Gods sake do something useful and help get rid of this dangerous CO2 hypothesis for good instead of sitting in the middle to see which way it's going to go.
There again I suppose it's horses for courses, and politics seems to be your hobby horse.
[snip]
If a current trend is negative, its hard to argue that it will become positive without something else changing first. If the model predicts uninterupted warming, but the record shows no increase in warming for 15 years, we can assume the model has no skill. If it has no skill, we need to change the model, or discard it.
yes, your excellency, I get the point. I will self snip in future.
Richard Tol
If we're talking about uncertainty rather than risk, we don't know the probability of catastrophe. So how do we determine how much money to spend to avert or reduce the unknown probability of catastrophe?
RKS, you seem to have misinterpreted me in a particularly unflattering way, as I think you have in every case in which you have responded to me here. In naming people I appreciate who contribute here (and I forgot Paul Matthews and no doubt myriads of others) I was in no way trying to persuade you to stay, still less to 'name drop' in order to impress you. With all due respect, I think I already know that I have no chance of impressing you in anything I say and I wasn't trying. And as usual these things tend to be pretty mutual.
What I was setting forth were a small fraction of the differences I perceive between Bishop Hill and Tallbloke, that allow people to make their choices as to which blog they want to read and contribute to. I was also giving examples of people whose contributions tend to bring me back here, other commitments permitting. You may have a different list, with mdgnn right at the top. He isn't at the top of mine, people will I'm sure be gobsmacked to learn. You and I are different and the beauty of the situation you describe is that I can enjoy Bishop Hill a bit more than you and you (perhaps) can enjoy Tallbloke's more than me. Freedom is a wonderful thing.
But there is one remaining question, I think for the third or fourth time of asking. Over here on 3rd May you said
To which I responded:
and later:
You never answered but I'm now guessing that you were thinking of some threads at Tallbloke's. Is that right? Or did mydog only make a positive impact there since 3rd May? Either way I'd be very interested which threads you were thinking of. Thanks once again.
We have to be realistic and accept that reduction in UK emissions will have no impact in reducing any effects of catastrophic global warming.
If the purpose of policies is therefore to set an example to others, what example is it to impoverish ourselves to no effect?
Richard Tol,
'lost a little money'.
No, it's not just about money, it's also about scientific and political credibility. The more they (you) cry wolf, the more I distrust you all. Look at the push to morph the argument to sustainability and conservation -- I have seen the lies and manipulations for too long and I just don't believe the message any more. This is more of a problem for Futerra* than someone like yourself, but it is at base a problem for everyone.
I have never trusted GreenPeace (I would not widdle on them if they caught fire in a urinal) but WWF? How long have they been the mouthpiece for anti-human fantasists? And the rest. We are apparently ruining the planet and all sorts of species are vanishing. Yeah, yeah, and we were all going to die in the thermageddon, yeah yeah. And freeze in the next ice age. Yeah yeah.
JF
This post is not to taken as refusal to accept the domination of our alien overlords, which I welcome, as I welcome our sacrifices to keep the CO2 content of our environment at a level consistent with their comfort. (well, it's the only explanation I can come up to explain the machinations of the AGW fanatics)
*Ah, that fragrant Solitaire. [sigh]
@All
I should of course have backed up my "bit of money".
Emissions can be changed at minimal cost if (a) policies are smart and (b) the transition is gradual. (Unfortunately, neither condition is met by current climate policy.)
If you don't want to take my word for it, you can search the literature. EMF and MIT are good sources. The 2nd and 3rd Assessment Reports of the IPCC are sound too. (AR4 is a load of old rubbish.)
Or you can do a back of the envelop calculation. How much do we collectively spend on energy? (2-3% of GDP) How much more expensive is wind power relative to gas? (33%). You need to add multipliers etc, but you would have a hard time coming up with a big number.
Peter Dunford:
Good question - and thank you, during the Jubilee holiday, for bringing to the table "the purpose of policies is therefore to set an example to others". This is something I've been thinking lots about for some years. We are influential in the world, more than our economic size would suggest and we are setting a terrible example in this area. Do poorer countries really need to see us taking from our poorest, in fuel poverty, to give to wealthy landowners? They have enough of that kind of thing in their own back yard, surely?
Which argues perhaps for Tim's flat carbon tax as a better example, followed of course by the UK apologising to the world for the deceptions at UEA and the rest, then admitting that the arguments from models are bankrupt, as Spence_UK made clear so brilliantly here recently, and pulling right out of the game. Her majesty (God bless and save her) and her government would then be doing something of real worth as an example to all the world.
It's one way the situation could evolve. We're gonna need some politicians with real bottle.
One of the problems with the Precautionary Principle is that it conflicts with a well-known principle in economics, that of Opportunity Cost. If we use money (or other resources) for one purpose then that same money is not available for another purpose. In other words to choose one opportunity we must forgo another one.
If we spend money to tackle the possible problems of global warming then we have less money for tackling other problems and those other problems might turn out to be more real.
On first reading, it's easy to get the impression that Worstall's article is just a rehash of the precautionary principle, but it's not, and it actually makes a sensible point. I've had a brief exchange with Tim Worstall to check I had his argument correct, and he confirmed that I do - or at least that I did then. Any errors in the following explanation are likely to be mine.
Let's start by asking whether, if we could mitigate all possible consequences of what the alarmists are warning about for tuppence and pocket fluff, would it be worth doing? For that price, the answer is clearly yes - not because the alarmists' case is persuasive, but because it's simply not worth anyone's time to argue about it, or even think about it, if the cost is low enough.
From there, we can go on to ask about how much it will cost to be really sure about how climate works - in other words, how much certainty in this debate will cost. If the cost of proposed mitigation is less than the cost of gaining certainty, then, again, it's cheaper to remain uncertain and mitigate a possibility. Note: this is not the precautionary principle because we start with a large base of science which is already 'paid for' and which rules out with scientific certainty stuff like rains of pink elephants. Note also the 'if' which means it's a hypothetical situation, please.*
We've now established that there are scenarios in which it's not necessary to know anything more than we do in order to make a sensible decision - that is, to generalise, we can make sensible decisions about something which is uncertain, despite the uncertainty involved. Worstall's main point was that in fact economics has tools specifically for that job, and they're not being used. This is precisely the kind of problem that area of economic theory is for.
If I understand correctly, he also goes further, and says that the amount we pay in tax on fuel and so on in this country already (in total) is roughly the right amount - I don't think he's including windmill subsidies and so-on in that figure - and so all we need to do is rebalance the tax structure slightly and we'll be taking the economically correct amount and type of action to tackle the uncertain possibility of climate change without doing anything else at all. It seems to me that he has a very good point.
[* Talking of the precautionary principle, I think Tim Worstall takes the view that regardless of the fact that alarmists always claim the bee in their bonnet is the 'biggest threat ever', when it comes to CO2 emissions, in a way they're right. It looks like they're wrong about it being harmful, but emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is one of the biggest ways we're affecting the planet in terms of sheer volume o]f emissions. It is at least vaguely plausible that it might have some effect, and even though the science is increasingly suggesting it doesn't, I think few here would say it's completely impossible based on current evidence. We rule this one out, and they'll not have anything else similarly sized to scare us with.]
To answer the Bish's specific question:
"I guess the question I'm asking is, what are the criteria that determine when a hypothesis of impending danger is sufficiently well-supported that insurance is required?"
The answer is that you should ask an economist, because the calculation has to involve things like: the cost of mitigation; the cost-of, certainty-of, and possible variance-of the eventual predicted harm; the cost of scientific research; economic growth in the mean-time; and many other factors and complications of that nature which economists have tools for dealing with. It's in many ways a classic economics problem.
Wasn't there a Japanese satellite mission recently which showed that most CO2 comes from the third World? http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
If true, they owe reparations to us and there is no way we can insure against probably mythical AGW!
Let's give a Stern rebuke to these economists, they may have no case at all.
"I guess the question I'm asking is, what are the criteria that determine when a hypothesis of impending danger is sufficiently well-supported that insurance is required?" The answer is that you should ask an economist"
Dave, I could not disagree more. Economists have yet again brought this country to its knees as a result of greed, stupidity and incompetence. This is a fact.
Let's have a look at a few more facts:
evidence to support the CAGW hypothesis - none
evidence to support the AGW hypothesis - none
demonstrated predictive power of numerical models - none
evidence top support the theory that planetary climates are dependent upon atmospheric pressure only (regardless of chemical composition) - well, quite a bit actually............. (see the work of Huffman and Nickolov & Zeller).
Sorry, that should have been: "...insolation and atmospheric pressure only".
"Now, let's suppose that I come up with a theory that our world is in danger of being taken over by a superrace of green lizards from the planet Beetlegeuse. Should we insure against that too?"
The way I have made the same argument to some of my "greenie" friends is this ...... If you should insure against that .... shouldn't you go to church every weekend and pray feverishly, just in case this whole religion thing is real. It doesn't affect your life too much (it didn't you parents and their parents), and if it were to come to pass that they were right about the heaven and hell thing, you would be covered.
Cue strange look ....
The 'risk' of AGW causing global climate catastrophe has proved unsubstantiated; 15 years of increased CO2 levels set against static / falling global temperatures really ought to have been enough to kill the theory stone dead.
But we're not talking about sane risk-aversion here; rather we're talking about idealogues using AGW as an excuse to change everyone else's behaviour in line with the 'progressive lefts' selected preferences.
The correct answer to the alleged but patently false AGW 'problem' is to do absolutely nothing.
Churchill Insurance offer a multi-planet deal that's pretty reasonable. Could we go in with Venus?
As I understand insurance, any insurance, car, life, marine, property, is to have a means not to have the burden of cost of a loss. Liability insurance is an other mater.
But I will only buy insurance if the insurer can show me that he has the ability to deliver the payment he has promised. And the insurance cost is not too great.
The Warmists can't even show that there is anything to insure against. Let alone deliver the payment promised. That is the control of the climate of the planet. And the cost of insurance is unacceptably great.
Massive meteor strike is a classic low probability, high impact (literally!) event.
I don't see much in the way of taxes going to protect us from a possible extinction level event.
Jun 4, 2012 at 6:53 PM | James Evans
Ooooh, yes!
Its wrong to get hung up on whether this is insurance as in I insure my house against fire. No, the proposal is not that. But one understands why it is spoken of loosely as insurance. If one has right of way, be very alert in case the entering car does not yield. That is precautionary, insurance if you like.
The problem with the AGW proposals is not that they are not insurance in some strict sense, but that they are economic nonsense given the failure to match action and risk and payoffs. They make no economic sense.
The most egregious example is the propsal to basically deindustrialise the UK, which, on the terms of the theory, will have no effect on global warming.
@Tom from Worcester(US)
Yes, this is the form of the argument, and this was Pascal's Wager. Unfortunately one will also court eternal damnation through not becoming Muslim, and all but one of the many varieties of Christianity will also doom one.... So the real problem, choice between competing alternatives, is not addressed by the argument at all. In addition to its other defects.
Since we still have no idea at all of how much we are effecting the climate, there is no possible way to put a price on it, and hence no way of deciding how much wealth to dissipate in order to offset it. As Bish notes, we don't even know the sign of our effects, let alone the magnitude.
Jun 4, 2012 at 9:30 AM | philiprichens
I'm with you on this one, Philip! Add to this the certainty that my disposable income is limited, So, I need to priorize my expenditures: I have to weigh the benefit of using $x to fix a known and verifiable serious problem (e.g. badly leaking hot water heater) vs the benefit of spending the same $x on a "solution" that may or may not fix a yet to be proven problem that may or may not occur ... The answer strikes me as a no brainer.
Donna has a timely and related post on this today, in which she notes that in a recent Newsweek article, Lomborg:
Poverty Pollutes: Lomborg on the Rio+20 Conference
Wasn't that how the planet of Golgafrincham got rid of the 1/3 useless members of the planet? Planet to be swallowed by a Mutant star goat.or whatever... about as likely as the AGWers' scenarios!
Maybe Douglas Adams would be be amazed at how his 'Guide' has been fulfilled in reality.
To which I responded:
Could you please give URLs of threads - not just the blogs but specific threads - containing 'in depth scientific discussion' where contributors who really do know their science, who I'd like you please to identify by name, give a respectful hearing for mdog. Thank you in advance.
and later:
It's a genuine question. Let's have mdog's five greatest hits, so to speak, as far as persuading or at least challenging those who know their science. There'd surely be plenty to learn from such a list and I'm genuinely keen to learn.
You never answered but I'm now guessing that you were thinking of some threads at Tallbloke's. Is that right? Or did mydog only make a positive impact there since 3rd May? Either way I'd be very interested which threads you were thinking of. Thanks once again.
Jun 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM | Richard Drake>>>>
You show me yours and I'll show you mine!!
The kind of troll confrontation ZDB would be proud of.
Don't confuse petty politics with intelligence - it stands out a mile and convinces no one.
RKS: you talked about "blogs covering in depth scientific discussion ... where mydog gets a respectful hearing from contributors who really do know their science" but you can't give a single example of what you meant. Asking for details isn't playing politics, it's a simple check to see if it's worth taking your words seriously. Apparently not.
Hilary, thanks for that pointer to Donna and Lomborg. It's the most important message coming out of all of this that there is.
Dave said:
Let's start by asking whether, if we could mitigate all possible consequences of what the alarmists are warning about for tuppence and pocket fluff, would it be worth doing? For that price, the answer is clearly yes - not because the alarmists' case is persuasive, but because it's simply not worth anyone's time to argue about it, or even think about it, if the cost is low enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave, you need to spend a few months reading Ministerial correspondence. The world is full of people who want the equivalent of a bit of pocket fluff for their pet projects. Giving in to even half of them would quickly send us all broke. They may have some merit from the perspective of the interest group promoting them, but that is not the point.
For a responsible government, the default position to all requests for taxpayers' money is "no". Remember, this is money which people have worked for and is then extracted from them by coercive measures. Penalties for non-compliance include prison.
The arguments against a carbon tax have been well covered in this and the previous thread. There is no doubt that the current hodge-podge of measures which amount to taxes in that they impose extra costs for little or no benefit, and significant downside, on the populace is not to replace them with a more rational instrument for extracting funds, but to abolish them forthwith.
Johanna>
I'll note again that it's not my argument, so I'm attempting to present someone else's case (and now whilst a little *ahem* tired and emotional).
"The world is full of people who want the equivalent of a bit of pocket fluff for their pet projects. Giving in to even half of them would quickly send us all broke"
I refer you to the fourth sentence in the third paragraph of my initial post:
"Note also the 'if' which means it's a hypothetical situation, please.*
Perhaps that would have been clearer if I had pluralised that sentence, but it was intended to apply to every hypothetical situation presented.
"The arguments against a carbon tax have been well covered in this and the previous thread. "
Yes. But Tim Worstall's point, as I understand it, which actually bears thinking about, is that with all the various taxes on fuel in this country - particularly petrol - we're already paying a lot of 'carbon tax' simply as tax to run the country (for no carbon-related purpose). If the right thing to do in response to the global warming alarmism (assuming it's uncertain) is to slightly reduce taxes on petrol, slightly increase tax on electricity, and over-all end up even, then it's just not worth arguing about. The alarmists could be wrong, and yet we could humour them without it costing us anything. If he's right on that - which is a strictly economic question, and hence one that most of us aren't qualified to answer - then he has a point we should all be focussing on: that it doesn't matter if global warming is real or not, because we can mitigate the possibility at zero cost, and doing so is cheaper than finding out one way or the other.
The whole problem with AGW theory is that it, unlike pink hippopotomi, is at least somewhat plausible. The evidence is against it, but it's not completely ridiculous as an idea to be disproven.
[P.S. Aren't hippopotomi actually pink? I know they are if they get sunburnt. Anyway, please feel free to substitute your favourite unlikeliness, such as Elvis riding Shergar out of a space-craft, with accompaniment on the piano from Glen Miller, or Tottenham finishing above Arsenal in the league.]
RKS: you talked about "blogs covering in depth scientific discussion ... where mydog gets a respectful hearing from contributors who really do know their science" but you can't give a single example of what you meant. Asking for details isn't playing politics, it's a simple check to see if it's worth taking your words seriously. Apparently not.
Jun 5, 2012 at 12:44 AM | Richard Drake>>>>>
How about if you actually take the trouble to take a look at the Tallbloke threads dealing with both back radiation and Graeff and N&Z, and perhaps even broaden your scientific outlook a little beyond your political prejudices.
It's all there - do your own homework!
"The alarmists could be wrong, and yet we could humour them without it costing us anything"
Nope. No ransom to the alarmist.
Princeton professor of physics, William Happer also had some words of wisdom well-worth considering: