Humphreys is back at it at Catallaxy promoting a carbon-tax as if it was some new idea that he just came out with and the rest of us had never heard of Pigou or read free-to-choose.
Here Humphreys is responding to a very bad and dishonest thread started by Jason Soon. Jason, as a CO2-bedwetter begins the lying very early on:
“These measures will not please the sceptics and the more hard core denialists. Nothing would. ”
This is a blatant lie. What would satisfy climate rationalists is if policy was based on reason. Not on rebellions from economic science, from the need for evidence, from the verdict of the data, and from the scientific method. So right from the start Jason is determined to be dishonest, and in this determination he travels with much company, all of it bad.
Bear in mind that the last time Humphreys was pushing this it was on the basis that heroin addiction is preferable to Malaria. He was putting it forward on the basis of the carbon tax being the second-worst option. That it was better then the cap-and-kill. So this is what economics graduates have stooped to in this country. They wish to promote the second-worst after a total sellout to the left.
Humphreys fear of CO2 must indeed be pathological. Because he is utterly persistant in this matter. I have been over at that idiot Jarrah Jobs site. And he won’t justify his advocacy of the carbon tax either. But Jarrah is always idiotic. Whereas Humphreys is idiotic in bursts which leads one to believe that he is harbouring almost pathological fears with regards to CO2.
Lets have a look at some of his comments. And let see if we can find a scientific, or economic justification for this tax that goes beyond the argument that a needle through the testicle may be preferable then one through the eyeball:
This is good politics. (HERE JOHN IS REFERRING TO MALCOLM TURNBULLS SELLOUT TO SCIENCE FRAUD)
And given all of Turnbull’s talking points already receive government funds, it might be possible for him to just re-arrange the deckchairs and pretend he’s doing something.
However, I still think a revenue-neutral carbon tax is a better approach than picking winners.
There are two clear advantages from what I can see. First, a revenue-neutral carbon tax will not increase totoal tax or the size of government. Extra spending will require extra tax, and so the Turnbull approach will increase the size of government.
Second, putting a price on carbon doesn’t bias the non-carbon energy market, whereas picking winners does. The government does not have a good track record for picking winners.
As ironic as this sounds, if the government is going to do something, then a revenue-neutral carbon tax still seems like the most free-market (and least cost) option available.
I should add that I think the revenue neutral carbon tax should be the only AGW policy. That is, I think we should remove all current energy subsidies. That means my approach would actually decrease the size of government.
Though I know that such an approach is not very likely. Once you start handing out money, it’s hard to turn off the tap without political “blowback”. Perhaps this is another reason why a tax is a better appraoch than spending — because a tax will be easier to remove in the future than spending projects.
And as a final clarifying point… I think the tax should be low, introduced slowly, and linked to recorded temperatures in the statosphere. The last point should please both the skeptics and the worried.”
It is not possible to convey the persistence that Humphreys has in favour of a new tax just from quoting his two comments. But he has persisted with it for years, religious in his committment, and without ever giving a coherent reason why this would be a good thing. I think the LDP has to get serious about collaring this rampant irrationalism.
Did you see a scientific or economic argument above? Humphreys, as founder of a third party, is actually advocating selling out as “GOOD POLICY” years prior to the next election.
This is Humphreys hemming and hawing. He is a CO2-Bedwetter. No doubt about that at all.
Also we see Jason Soon. Also unable to escape from his primary school potty training. His comments hide (but not very well) an ushakeable belief in this science fraud, unaffected at all by the total lack of evidence in favour of the racket and the absolute proof against it in the fact of a cooling trend becoming established in the midst of record CO2 levels.
“And as a matter of political expediency, Turnbull’s measures are less economically destructive than the hastily constructed ETS. If government is going to waste money on Keynesian schemes anyway I can think of worst things to waste it on than measures which also increase agricultural productivity. Or would you prefer an ETS instead?
If sceptics are so confident then delaying the ETS until 2011 will allow more data points to support their theory.”
This is a double game these compulsively dishonest kids are playing. Notice Jason tries to hedge by advocating that politicians lie for the sake of alleged voting gains from this lying. Yet there is no reason to believe such dishonesty can reap massive benefits so far from the next election. But then Jason flips from this advocacy of lying to try and put the burden of proof on the scientific side of the argument and away from the fraudulent alarmists.
Lets go through Jason Soons twisted confused and dishonest spiel again:
“And as a matter of political expediency (JASON NOT FORGIVING A POLITICIAN FOR TWISTING THE TRUTH. BUT ADMIRING HIM FOR IT….), Turnbull’s measures are less economically destructive than the hastily constructed ETS. (MALARIA IS WORSE THEN HEROIN ADDICTION ARGUMENT)…. If government is going to waste money on Keynesian schemes anyway (AS AN ECONOMIST JASON HAS NEVER COME OUT STRONGLY AGAINST FISCAL STIMULUS. BUT HERE HE IS CALCULATING ON BEING DISHONEST TO THE CROWD WHO DON’T LIKE BULLSHIT IN ANY FORM. SO JASON IS PLAYING A DOUBLE GAME. IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS HE REFUSES TO COME OUT AGAINST KEYNESIAN FISCAL STIMULUS. BUT HERE HERE HE PRETENDS HE IS AGAINST IT DISHONESTLY AND STILL MANAGES TO BE IRRATIONAL. SINCE IF HE IS AGAINST IT HE OUGHT TO BE AGAINST IT. THAT IS TO CONDEMN IT IN ALL ITS FORMS. IF PROFESSIONAL ECONOMISTS ARE NOT TO CONDEMN THIS REBELLION AGAINST ECONOMIC SCIENCE THEN WHO? BUT NO JASON PRETENDS TO CONDEMN IT, WHEN REALLY HE ISN’T CONDEMNING ANYTHING. RATHER HE IS SUPPORTING CO2-BEDWETTING. BUT HE DOESN’T WISH TO REVEAL HIS IRRATIONAL FEAR AND PIGOUVIAN EXTREMISM, HENCE THE SHITRAIN OF IRRATIONAL ARGUMENTATION… I can think of worst things to waste it on than measures which also increase agricultural productivity. WHAT MEASURES WOULD INCREASE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY? OTHER THEN A 20 YEAR TAX EXEMPTION FOR PRIMARY PRODUCTION? IS THIS WHAT TURNBULL IS PUSHING?
Or would you prefer an ETS instead?
(THE ADVOCACY OF THE SECOND WORST ALTERNATIVE AS A WAY OF LIFE FOR THIEF-ECONOMISTS. THIS IS A THREAT FROM BLOOD-SUCKER-CENTRALS LOYAL OPPOSITION. THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT RIDING ON MALARIA BEING WORSE THEN HEROIN-ADDICTION)
If sceptics are so confident then delaying the ETS until 2011 will allow more data points to support their theory.
(TO SUPPORT THEIR THEORY???????????? THIS FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER COME UP WITH ANY EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE SCIENCE FRAUD IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND KNOWS IT, AND KNOWS THAT THE REST OF US KNOW IT).
But there you have it. What else can this persistant, and persistantly dishonest insistence on economic vandalism from economic graduates mean? They are in fact Pigouvian extremists and CO2-bedwetters.
The fear that dare not speak its name with these sissies. They JUST BELIEVE. So all this pretense having reasons to support this fraud is just a cover for CO2-bedwetting. All this conjuring is just so Humphreys and Soon are not called upon to come up with evidence where evidence is not to be had since this is all part of their dark irrational fears and personal religious belief.