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?resize=640%2C295)
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
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.
Economics is concerned with the optimal use of limited resources. Getting more for less is economical. Getting less for more is the opposite of economical. It is Orwellian double-speak to even imply that artificially raising the cost of a resource through taxation is good for the economy. While it may be good for power seeking elitists, it is always bad for the economy. Sometimes it is very bad. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.
Oddly enough green energy subsidies coincide with green lobbying money. Huh, whodathunkit? I wonder what The Economist thinks of that?
Lost the link:
http://reason.org/files/green_electric_dreams.pdf
On the energy consumption chart, they show no wind or hydropower used in 1800! Waterwheels largely drove the early stages (before 1800) of the industrial revolution and sailing ships carried the freight. Almost like the 18 are historically ignorant.
Beesaman
31,000 excess deaths in the UK last winter alone, the main cause is reckoned to be fuel poverty directly attributed to the green “energy” subsidies added onto UK consumers fuel costs.
http://www.wmpho.org.uk/excesswinterdeathsinEnglandatlas/
The “carbon” tax is typical leftist clap trap – look to the shining, glorious, revolutionary, ecological, sustainable (pick your favourite epithet) future but please ignore the dead and dieing all around you, they are doing their bit for the greater good, now how about you citizen?.
Paternalism rises to a new notch.
Johan Rockström is not a climate expert !.
” Johan Rockström is a Professor in Environmental Science with emphasis on water resources and global sustainability at Stockholm University and the Executive Director of Stockholm Resilience Centre.
He is an internationally recognized scientist on global sustainability issues, where he, e.g., led the recent development of the new Planetary Boundaries framework for human development in the current era of rapid global change.
Prof. Rockström is a leading scientist on global water resources and strategies to build resilience in water scarce regions of the world. He has more than 15 years of experience from applied water research in tropical regions, and has over 100 research publications in fields ranging from applied land and water management to global sustainability.
Johan Rockström serves on several scientific committees and boards, e.g., as the vice-chair of the science advisory board of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research (PIK) and he chairs the visioning process on global environmental change of ICSU, the International Council for Science.”
http://www.kth.se/om/miljo-hallbar-utveckling/seminarier/beyond-planetary-boundaries-future-directions-for-global-sustainability-with-prof-johan-rockstrom-1.421211
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/contactus/staff/rockstrom.5.aeea46911a3127427980005551.html
Leo Geiger says:
They live in the same reality as The Economist…
I hope you’re not under the illusion The Economist is somehow impartial on climate change. Providing an unbiased economic analysis of the facts. The editorial stance of this once great newspaper has shifted significantly leftwards over the past two decades. It used to analyse free of political bias – sadly that is no longer true. And its judgement suffers. It fervently supported the Iraq war, the European single currency and Obamacare – all for political reasons. How has each one of those worked out so far?
It seems The Economist has gained an unfortunate ability to be on the wrong side of all the big issues over the past decade. And, I won’t be surprised to discover it got climate science wrong too. Around 12 months before Enron collapsed it wrote a glowing piece on the company (another horrendous misjudgement) – ironically the central theme of the article was how the firm was revolutionising energy markets. The conclusion was this would dramatically improve the efficiency and distribution of energy use – feeding private capital into renewables. It turned out Enron was just trying to make a fast buck – as I suspect is The Economist, pandering to its increasingly liberal leaning readership, while selling advertising space. That might be the ‘reality’ of economics but I wouldn’t make the mistake of confusing it with economic analysis.
Hilarious reading!
Hansen’s Rangers write:
However, the recent report by the NRC says:
…It’s really bad when these idiots can’t even agree on which scare-story to use!!
Tom Nelson rightly asks
“Since when are these 18 some of the world’s leading climate experts?”
Perhaps it’s a case of X = Sanity index (an unknown quantity)
and spurt = a drip under pressure.
I wish I was a famous nobody like 17 of these 18 ‘experts’. I too could then write stories and have them published in Science and other novels. Then I could apply for funding and do TV talks and, and, and. I’m serious!!!!
regards from the BatCave.
I wonder if they don’t know about wood:
http://paironworks.rootsweb.ancestry.com/clahelen.html
Scroll down for a photo of the furnace. The first b/w photo is about the way it looked in 1949/50.
It is they who are like the cuckoo chicks in the nest. Clamouring to be fed before everyone else but contributing nothing.
If AGW was not an “official” cause, there would be a lot more Bernie Madoffs in prison right now.
What needs to be kept in mind about carbon taxes is they are one of the better policy options available. Yes, most people reading a blog like this would rather nothing happens. That’s a given. But getting past that, the general sentiment should be the one oil sands executives in Alberta have adopted: if it has to be something, let it be a carbon tax.
business.financialpost.com/2013/02/01/why-the-oil-sands-industry-wants-the-carbon-tax-harper-hates/
If you don’t want to listen to Hansen et al, or The Economist, listen to them.
Well, no. For a start, this only works if it covers all economic activity on the globe. Otherwise the economic activity gets transferred to the location without the taxes, and economic activity in the taxed location falls. There is no decrease in emissions, and possibly an increase as activity is transferred to a location with higher emissions intensity and lower environmental controls.
The other point is that efficient taxation schemes can exist, but they never do. A carbon tax never gets to a floor without carve outs, special deals, redistributions and all the other pork and cruft that goes with it. The revenue neutral aspect also fails to consider no churn and no giveaways to junket-fests like the UN.
This is not theoretical. Australia is currently lumbered with a carbon tax until the new government can secure the passage of legislation to remove it. This has seen emissions drop – through industry closure and relocation. It also is/was a grab-bag of handouts to favoured industries, and absurdly actually costs the government $4billion a year in the first years because it gives away more than it collects in the hope of becoming a popular policy. It wasn’t, it isn’t and it destroyed the government that brought it in.
So what we can safely say about Carbon taxes is that only a perpetually stupid government with a n electoral death wish would bring one in now. The tide has turned, and governments will now get into power by promising to remove green taxes and regulations rather than imposing them.
Leo Geiger says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:48 am
What needs to be kept in mind about carbon taxes is they are one of the better policy options available.
No, no, and hell no. It’s a false choice between (supposedly) the lesser of two evils. The fact that they are a “solution” to a non-problem remains.
Carbon Taxes are the mill stone around the neck of any economy.
In fact it is the most effective way to strangle it, together with what remains of your freedoms, and your ability to make money.
Leo Geiger says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:48 am
… Brian Ferguson, chief executive officer of Calgary-based oil-sands producer Cenovus, said last year that a carbon tax is “probably the most effective means of regulating and addressing the cost of carbon.”
If you don’t want to listen to Hansen et al, or The Economist, listen to them.
————————————————————————————————————–
Since the “cost of carbon” is a work of fiction, listening to either is a waste of time.
This is not theoretical. The province of British Columbia has had a revenue neutral carbon tax for 5 years. The fear mongering about economic damage has not come to pass there. “Successful” and “popular” (polls have shown an increase in support for it since it was implemented) are adjectives that tend to be used to describe it.
Policies can certainly be implemented badly. An argument that ‘we might do a carbon tax wrong so we shouldn’t even try’ leaves a vacuum that might be filled by more cumbersome policies.
But again, as I said at the top, those who reject the science that says there is a problem to begin with think everything is a waste of time.
[ Pippen Kool says:
December 3, 2013 at 5:33 pm ]
…..”have”……
Leo Geiger says:
“those who reject the science that says there is a problem to begin with think everything is a waste of time.”
What science says there’s a problem with global climate readily distinguishable w/o statistical machinations from natural variation of anthropogenic origin that can be resolved through carbon taxes?
“Tom Nelson asks on Twitter: Since when are these 18 some of the world’s leading climate experts?”
And we need to remember, that according to Cook, only 97% of them believe that man’s responsible.
Beesaman says: ” I wonder how many more folk will die because of the cold and high fuel costs this Winter? ”
Very few because leftists have that covered in the form of FUEL ASSISTANCE. Because they are gun-shy about raising income and capital gains taxes much higher than they are now they’re busy finding other ways to suck money from the working class to expand a culture of dependency on federal government for the NON working class representing the bulk of democrat voters. Taxing carbon is a no-brainer.
“Very few because leftists have that covered in the form of FUEL ASSISTANCE.”
True there are programs. But, many of them in the US are run at the state level, not the federal level. And with many states still cash-strapped because of the non-rebounding economy, lots of that money has been stripped away. In my northeast state the projection for this winter for fuel assistance is equivalent of one tank of heating oil.
Mike M, see my comment above and
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/the-poor-need-cheap-fossil-fuels.html?_r=0
Deaths are in the millions already, the premature deaths of the worlds poor who heat their homes and cook with wood – the fuel of choice of the watermelons – kerosene and charcoal. Drax the biggest coal-fired electricity plant in Europe was built be a rational generation in the middle of the north east England coal fields. At enormous expense – to the poor of UK – it is being converted to burn wood imported from the US – facepalm.
I think we should replace the climate scientists with astrologers. They’re cheaper and just as accurate.
Carbon taxes are the most injurious “climate change” program for poor people. Not only do they make it difficult for them to heat their homes or buy gasoline to drive to work, everything that moves on motor fuel goes up in cost, further squeezing them – and people are DYING because of them. Of course, the wealthy left-wingers don’t feel the effect of these taxes, and they are actually likely to profit from them on otherwise uneconomic investments in bird choppers and other such environmentally ruinous and destructive sorts of “renewable” energy. Another example of how wealth redistribution schemes move wealth upward to the rich, not down to the poor.
Leo Geiger says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:48 am
.——————————————————————————-
Listen to them? “Brian Ferguson, chief executive officer of Calgary-based oil-sands producer Cenovus, said last year that a carbon tax is “probably the most effective means of regulating and addressing the cost of carbon.” Why? They are simply trying to survive the current political environment and procure government approved price increases. Economically it is destructive, and the only savings of energy is in that destruction of life quality and jobs.
Abundant inexpensive Energy is the life blood of EVERY economy. It is the quickest way to reduce populations, clean up the environment (deal with real environmental concerns) promote jobs and peace.
Leo Geiger 4:48 am
Apparently you are not able to read what is being said in what you quote.
The man is essentially saying that it is better to be whipped than to have your head cut off. Ideally i am sure he would prefer not to be pointlessly punished at all.
Eugene WR Gallun
Leo Geiger – the BC carbon tax is the usual leftist BS but this time by the “right” (different moniker same BS) whereby certain sectors e.g. schools and hospital have to suck up the tax and spend policies whereas other sectors e.g. the tourist industry gets the benefit of the subsidies. A good -bad- example being a luxury Whistler hotel using public money to instal a geo-thermal heating/cooling system.
Private business, saving private profits, with public money, that could be spent helping to educate or improve the health of the poor or, hell, just left in the pockets of the average citizen where it belongs.