Tim Worstall

7 responses so far ↓

• 1 BlacquesJacquesShellacques // Mar 26, 2008 at 4:45 pm

  “But if you think politics is going to save us instead then you’ve simply not been paying attention.”

  Save us from what?

  There is no global warming. If there is then it is not man-made in any substantial degree. If there is, and it is man-made, there is no credible evidence that it is or will be harmful.

  Politicians need false premises as an excuse to stay in the limelight and to steal, but why would a journalists need them.?

• 2 john b // Mar 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  “There is no global warming. If there is then it is not man-made in any substantial degree. If there is, and it is man-made, there is no credible evidence that it is or will be harmful.”

  In other news, the boat is not sinking; if the boat is sinking, then it isn’t the captain’s fault; and even if it is the captain’s fault, there’s no evidence that there are too few lifeboats.

• 3 JuliaM // Mar 26, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  A little….well, a lot egocentric to assume that mankind is captain of the planet…!

• 4 Will Rhodes // Mar 26, 2008 at 7:38 pm

  As we know fossil fuels are finite, as so the world will go green anyway - so what is the hurry?

• 5 Cleanthes // Mar 26, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  John b,

  And what about the counterfactual?

  Quick everyone! Let’s get off this very comfortable, safe and well stocked ocean-going luxury liner that is on its way with us to a delightful island paradise and get out - now, whilst we are in the midst of the boundless ocean in a storm - onto the lifeboats which are small, parsimoniously stocked and open to elements.

  Obviously, I mean obviously, that is the sensible course of action.

• 6 Nigel Sedgwick // Mar 26, 2008 at 11:14 pm

  The trouble with John B’s general view is two-fold (at least).

  First he declines to accept the possibility that there are problems that are not man-made. Secondly, he declines to accept that there are problems with no solution under man-made control (beyond that of tolerance and making the best of it).

  Concerning the particular issue of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), I’m very much with BlacquesJacquesShellacques, with my current interpretation (which is, of course, under continual review in the light of new evidence). Such effect as there might be is most likely to have had its magnitude severely overstated; non-anthropogenic causes (including our own ignorance of the magnitude of other effects) have been improperly discounted for non-scientific reasons; such consequences as there might be are quite likely to be, overall, beneficial rather than damaging; the widely proposed actions vary between the irrelevant and those that will worsen the condition of humankind.

  Also, such objectively collected evidence, and analysis there-of, as we have indicates that the warming (for whatever reason) has stopped. There is evidence in support of scientific hypotheses of overall cooling over the next several years.

  Best regards

• 7 Cleanthes // Mar 27, 2008 at 2:12 pm

  What Nigel said. Rather more elegantly and with very much less snarkiness than me.

Leave a Comment