In a previous post I mentioned that Richard Tol had published a paper on the structure of the climate debate. As I said in that post, the paper appears to be trying to portray the author as part of some sensible middle, which – given their association with the GWPF – is clearly nonsense, and I’m not quite as optimistic that climate change is a relatively small problem that can easily be solved, but I largely agree with the basic suggestion that [f]irst-best climate policy is a uniform carbon tax which gradually rises over time.
In a Cliscep post that discusses this paper, Richard Tol, however, suggested that cliscep.com should be seen as a blog that set[s] an example for other climate blogs. Well, given that calling themselve Climate Skepticism is overly generous, and given that the tone of their site would be regarded by many as extremely poor, it was rather surprising that someone who felt capable of discussing the structure of the climate debate would regard cliscep.com as an exemplar. Of course, it appears that Richard’s judgement is based more on how he feels he is treated, than on any actual assessment of the quality of the blog itself.
However, just for fun, I ran a poll on Twitter asking if people agreed, or disagreed, that cliscep.com should be seen as an exemplar. The result of my poll is below. As you can see, 97% of those polled disagreed with Richard’s suggestion that cliscep.com is a blog that is setting example that others should aim to follow. Given who made the suggestion that it was, this would seem to be a very apt result 😉 .
P.S.: Just to be clear, my Twitter followers almost certainly have a certain bias, so there is probably a large selection effect here, and only 37 took the poll, so only 1 actually agreed with Richard’s suggestion. It is, however, amusing that the result turned out as it did.