According to the paid propagandist Joe Romm at Climate Progress: Humanity is choosing to destroy a livable climate, warn 18 of the world’s leading climate experts in a new study.
Tom Nelson asks on Twitter: Since when are these 18 some of the world’s leading climate experts?
Of course, there’s a call for a carbon tax to go along with that warning.
Economic efficiency would be improved by a rising carbon fee.
…
A rising carbon fee is the sine qua non for fossil fuel phase out, but
not enough by itself.
Absolute madness. What alternate reality do these 18 people live in? Or maybe it is simply that none of them have ever held a job that didn’t depend on tax revenue?
They are clamoring not only for a carbon tax, but also for green technology. But, real world data they cite suggests they are living in a dream world:
![Figure 14. World energy consumption for indicated fuels, which excludes wood [4]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.g014](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hansen_pols_windsolar.jpg?quality=83)
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.g014
An economic analysis indicates that a tax beginning at $15/tCO2 and rising $10/tCO2 each year would reduce emissions in the U.S. by 30% within 10 years [241]. Such a reduction is more than 10 times as great as the carbon content of tar sands oil carried by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (830,000 barrels/day) [242]. Reduced oil demand would be nearly six times the pipeline capacity [241], thus the carbon fee is far more effective than the proposed pipeline.
I will give them props for calling for more nuclear energy, but the rest of the paper is nothing more than a climate activist’s wet dream.
You can read it here: http://www.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/pone-8-12-hansen.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not merely their wet dream, but wet with oozing pustulence.
“Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations, and Nature”.
————————–
What about women and minorities?!?!
So just as the weather gets colder in the Northern Hemisphere these cognitively challenged folk think it’s a good idea to tell the rest of us to pay even more for our energy. I wonder how many more folk will die because of the cold and high fuel costs this Winter? Will these idiots accept that they are to blame for the scaremongering that has forced carbon taxes and laws upon us and created this faux crisis?
Tom Nelson asks on Twitter: Since when are these 18 some of the world’s leading climate experts?
——————-
They are the bull goose loonies!
If I remember correctly, I think Willis has a rule about declining quality in a paper with each additional author. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals a negative score I believe.
^^
The intelligence of any group of people is the intelligence of the most stupid among them, divided by the total number in the group – Alex Aldgate’s First Law of Tourism.
Maybe it applies to academic writing as well?
These are the 18 world’s leading warmista climate experts, Dr. Hansen has put himself in the same category.
BTW, “The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2013 is +0.19 deg. C, down from +0.29 deg. C in October.”
See UAH Global Temperature Update for November, 2013: +0.19 deg. C (December 3th, 2013)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/12/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-nov-2013-0-19-deg-c/
What sickening, lie-infested garbage. I tried wading through it, but had to stop. They did neatly side-step the 17-year warming halt issue, so kudos for that, I guess.
They live in the same reality as The Economist (for example), which favours a market based policy such as a carbon tax. Done properly, it is revenue neutral with offsetting cuts to income tax. Hardly a controversial idea among economists, who prefer a simpler pricing mechanism to drive emissions reductions over more cumbersome and complex regulation.
But obviously those who reject the science that says there is a problem will be hard to convince *any* proposed policy is worthwhile.
A good reason why these people are climate experts and not economists….
Leo Geiger says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:47 pm
….But obviously those who reject the science that says there is a problem will be hard to convince *any* proposed policy is worthwhile.
==================
You’re absolutely right. So far there is no science indicating a real problem. Simply handwaving and redistribution schemes are failing to convince those who actively engage in real science.
Camille Parmesan’s name is on that list. After reading Jim Steele’s critique of her poor work relating to climate change adversely impacting species, I would add her name to my list of paper’s to be ignored.
Valerie Masson-Delmotte the initiator of a petition against Vincent Courtillot and Claude Allegre… Calling for a carbon tax… and propping up nuclear since she works for the CEA… Self serving B!
Leo Geiger, economists claiming revenue neutrality are of course looking at the issue through high-level averages and not considering the distribution of carbon tax collections vs income tax receipts (ie it must involve a re-distribution of income to the poor as income tax offsets alone will not compensate for carbon tax-related price increases). Nor do they consider the other spending cuts in other areas that would be required for genuine neutrality. Of course economists will always claim that such things are very simple and will have minimal negative effects, yet in practice nothing works “as expected” from their point of view.
No free lunch here.
Climate scientists? One is from a law school. At least two are biologists. One is from U of Aberdeen, no discipline even listed.
But the absence of any of the real heavy weights from the alarmist side is also interesting.
So wind and solar has more of a percentage of the total than oil did a century ago? Interesting.
One can not assume good intentions that have been misdirected by stupidity. Ever single person in this list is a Marxist. The destruction of capitalism is the goal. Peoples lives are unimportant.
Dr. James Hansen is a physicist and astronomer. He dumped Venus and focused on Earth in order to go down in history. He will go down alright but for all the wrong reasons. He also wants to protect our children and nature from a recently greening biosphere due to co2 fertilization. World agricultural output continues to rise after the ‘hottest decade on the record!’ People are also living longer and are better fed since Man began ramping up global temperatures in the late 1970s. Good is bad, and bad is good.
The final line says the fee is far more effective than the pipeline. If one thinks about that statement from a ‘Hansen point of view’. Making carbon more expensive forces us to use less. In using less oil he is happy. But what point of view can he EVER take that the XL pipeline would be ‘effective’ in his world. I can only conclude that his last line is gibberish in his world.
Do these guy’s ever look at the news: http://iceagenow.info/2013/12/calgary-pulls-snowplows-routes-dangerous-operators/
My children and grandchildren will do better with cheaper, more plentiful energy. Hansen’s predictions haven’t been good enough to make me a believer. I believe his accuracy rate is something asymptotic to 0.
“Or maybe it is simply that none of them have ever held a job that didn’t depend on tax revenue?”
Bingo! We have a winnah!
“excludes wood”…
Well, my parents are pensioners in their 80s, living in rural Canada, on a 100 acre wood lot. Trust me, if you put up their hydro or oil costs with a tax, they will burn more wood. So will their neighbours, none of whom would ever come close to making what the Hansens of the world make…
They live in the same reality as The Economist (for example), which favours a market based policy such as a carbon tax. Done properly, it is revenue neutral with offsetting cuts to income tax. Hardly a controversial idea among economists, who prefer a simpler pricing mechanism to drive emissions reductions over more cumbersome and complex regulation.
Well, true. But in the end the only way to significantly cut carbon dioxide emissions is to go without carbon based fuels. Which means, more or less, going without energy — so going without transport, heating/cooling, etc.
So while an economic “solution” it would be a disaster for the people at the end of the chain, whose life-styles would be significantly affected for the worse.
Some “solutions” are far worse than the problem.
If they added another 23 authors I might be tempted to read the paper.