Hence Quiggin's implicit claim that the energy taxes will be costless merely because he uses a 10 per cent discount rate is without foundation. The reader will have noticed that when a firm considers a potential project it discounts the anticipated streams of earnings and costs and compares them. Should the costs exceed the earning then obviously the project will be rejected. They are nowhere to be found because they do not exist. There are no climatic or other environmental benefits from burdening our economy, or any other economy, with these destructive taxes.
Any figures used by any group or agencies purporting to show otherwise are pure fiction.
In other words, there is not a shred of evidence that human activity is responsible for any slight changes in global temperatures that may have occurred. Embarrassed by their inability to establish a scientific link with former claims that man-made activity is raising the planet's temperature some scientists are already cooking up their alibis. I think the caveats are there. The climate forecasters' basic strategy is to build a mathematical model that recreates global climate processes as closely as possible, let the model run, and then test it by comparing the results to the historical climate record. To put it bluntly, the climate models that have been used to predict disaster have proved useless, except as weapons for Green activists and their media mates.