Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Raff’s Carbon Tax

Mark Hodgson
We are. Despite my tongue in cheek reply of five minutes ago.

Jun 22, 2016 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

aTTP. Please inform me where I "promoted dishonest representations" about Hansen. All I asked about was, if we skeptics have misrepresented the time frame that Hansen predicted Manhattan's flooding, then surely it is reasonable to enquire if the prediction is on track to being proven correct. The answer could be a simple yes or no.

You wrote about a "denier meme" being promulgated by bloggers here. Are you not calling them deniers for doing this?

Jun 22, 2016 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

This is simple. James Hansen did not say what it was claimed he said - on this thread. It is claim that is regularly made and is - in my view - a typical "denier" meme. That is really all. If you don't like that, then maybe distance yourself from any suggestion that he did say any such thing. If you don't care, that's also fine. And, I didn't call anyone a denier. That would require me actually calling someone a denier.

Jun 22, 2016 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Clearly, 'we sceptics' is not a club that Golf Charlie can claim membership of ;-)

Jun 22, 2016 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Alan Kendall, from before, you were discussing supply and demand for water in the Keys. I don't understand why you think that the same mechanism might, on its own (i.e. without a carbon tax), reduce carbon emissions when it is supply and demand that has got us to the point where emissions need reducing. The purpose of the tax is, as ATTP pointed out, to use market mechanisms reduce emissions, but that wont work unless the tax changes the price of emitting CO2. And the level of the tax is important - as Tiny pointed out, just imposing a fixed tax might (would) not work. Demand for petroleum products is quite inelastic. The tax needs to be high enough to make switching away from fossil fuels cheaper either now or in the life of a product. It has to be clear that the level of the tax will rise so that everyone in a position to make decisions that affect the medium term know what to expect. Also, on what Sandy said, I don't see any way in which the tax wont increase prices - it is bound to to some extent. The dividend compensates for that, probably over compensating for people with low carbon usage. As I said before those increases can be either absorbed, passed on or designed out and the degree to which the tax works depends upon how much of the latter occurs over the medium to long term.

Jun 22, 2016 at 7:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

aTTP. Now I am thoroughly confused. Hansen either said Manhatten would flood during an interview as Phil Clarke claims or he never said it, which you claim. One of you has to be telling porkies.

Jun 22, 2016 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Good grief, how complicated is this? Golf Charlie (I don't know where you're getting Phil Clarke from) claimed that Hansen had predicted that much of Manhattan would be underwater by now. This is not true. Hansen was asked (in 1988) what would happen if CO2 doubled in the next 40 years. He apparently looked out of his window and said something like "the west side highway will be underwater". Not only is 40 years from 1988 not now (it is 2028), it was also based on CO2 having doubled by that time. It was a hypothetical, not a prediction, and certainly was nothing like much of Manhattan being underwater by now.

Jun 22, 2016 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

aTTP. So I rephrase my question. Hansen was asked what would happen by 2028, or when CO2 in the atmosphere doubled. Taking either possibility I ask is Hansen's prediction of a flooded Manhattan on target? Another question is if Hansen believed CO2 would double by 2028? If not why confuse the issue?

Clearly Hansen said something about Manhattan flooding as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. What he actually said seems to be disputed by supporters and skeptics alike.

Jun 22, 2016 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan Kendall you could always try google

"A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly"

Anthony Watts / October 22, 2009

Hansen is still wrong unless the sea level starts rising rather quickly. His economics is still wrong too.

Jun 22, 2016 at 10:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan Kendall, here is Hansen not admitting his 40 years was wrong.

From the Guardian "Climate guru James Hansen warns of much worse than expected sea level rise"
Former Nasa researcher and father of climate change awareness says melting of ice sheets could cause ‘several meters’ rise in a century, swamping coastal cities

World-Renowned Climate Scientist Makes Dire Warning About Sea Level Rise, StormsControversial new research explains why increasing global temperatures could be more dangerous than we thought.

 03/22/2016 08:12 am ET | Updated Mar 22, 2016
Jacqueline Howard Senior Science Editor, The Huffington Post

Of course if there is a link between CO2 levels and sea level, what is it, if that is why his previous non-predictions were wrong, and why now it is worse/more dangerous than previously thought?

Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie. In reality I was exploring the apparent discord between the messages being spun by our two friendly warmistas. This is much more interesting than what Hansen may or may not have speculated about Manhattan's flooding. If he believed Manhattan would be flooded on a permanent basis he would have been completely out to lunch. Any significant sea level rise will be met with the building of sea walls.

Jun 23, 2016 at 6:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall


In reality I was exploring the apparent discord between the messages being spun by our two friendly warmistas.

It's funny (in a slightly ironic way) how you seem to object to labels in some cases, and use them in another. I don't think there is a discord. Try reading the comments again. I think you have attributed things to the wrong people.

Jun 23, 2016 at 7:31 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

aTTP. You may have missed my very careful inclusion of the word "apparent".
Are you comparing my objection to your use of the word "denier" with my use of "warmista"? Well what grouping do you wish to be referred? Be serious, don't make gC spill his coffee.

Jun 23, 2016 at 8:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan Kendall, I am sure aTTP has some really scientific consensus work to get on with.

Jun 23, 2016 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

In my opinion, anyone who needs to put someone they're having a discussion with into a group, is someone not worth having a discussion with.

Jun 23, 2016 at 9:06 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

In my opinion, anyone who needs to put someone they're having a discussion with into a group, is someone not worth having a discussion with.

Jun 23, 2016 at 9:06 AM | ...and Then There's Physics

Do all your writing colleagues at Skeptical Science agree? What about the RICO 20? Have you been involved with a consensus project to back up your claims with fully unsubstantiated evidence?

Jun 23, 2016 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Assuming I'm one of the two friendly warmistas (and I am flattered to be so bracketed ) I see no discord: we are at one in observing that Jim Hansen never predicted a submersed Manhattan 'by now' as claimed, twice, by a sceptic.

As I said, I am interested in the evidence base that informs people who have taken a stance contrary to the consensus.

About the same time as he gave the interview and speculated about the effects of doubled CO2 on the relative height of the sea and the lowlying West Side Highway, Dr Hansen published a paper containing three projections from the NASA GISS climate model, and he also presented these in testimony to Congress. The paper and testimony are still available.

Under the middle, 'most plausible' Scenario B, the global temperature anomaly for 2015 was forecast as +1.0C compared to a 1951-1980 baseline. The observed value in the GISTEMP Met Station dataset was +0.98C, ( other comparisons are available. ). A single year and dataset are perhaps not a great way of assessing skill, however just being in the right ballpark is a little scary, as in the intervening decades our estimate of climate sensitivity has been revised downwards from the 4C that was a property of that early model.

I humbly suggest that looking at what Hansen projected for the whole globe in his peer-reviewed output and Congressional Testimony is just maybe a tad more informative than trying to evaluate a hypothetical off -the-cuff prediction for a scenario that has probably another half century to run.

Jun 23, 2016 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

More banality from ATTP to justify his use of "denier". And to think that that the mind behind such ignorance and circular reasoning teaches as well.

Jun 23, 2016 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

aTTP. Both you and Phil Clarke have in the past few days written about DENIER lies and DENIER memes. Did these lies and memes spontaneously generate or were they spoken/written by a group of people you both label deniers? As you know full well the word denier has implications which I'm sure you don't wish to promote.
What's insulting about the word "warmista": I would not be too offended by being called it because I do accept that my part of the world at least has warmed in my lifetime.
Your high horse is rocking a tad.

Jun 23, 2016 at 12:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Phil Clarke I have just read your 12pm post (after responding to aTTP) and am delighted by your reaction to being called a "friendly warmista". It was certainly not written with any ill motives. I saw the word used last week in a comment in WUWT and thought then it was a less offensive term for people like yourself who previously had been called rightly or wrongly "alarmists".

Jun 23, 2016 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

I don't really care. I was simply highlighting your pearl clutching about me using "denier memes" while referring to others on this threads as warmistas. Carry on if it's what you want to do.

Jun 23, 2016 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

ATTP. Oh a million thank yous for the licence you have given me, I am so mightily grateful for your benevolence. But a thousand sighs that you don't care*. Take heart you still have the support of your warmista buddy.

Is "pearl clutching" a common term you use? I must come from humbler origins because we "grasp straws".

*As you know, I'm easily confused. If you don't care, why write about it? So perplexing.

Jun 23, 2016 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Phil Clarke, where is the signature of CO2 in sea level rise, or global temperature rise, apart from in the writings of Skeptical Science approved authors?

I am looking at the sea, South Coast, UK. It is just past high tide, and the WW2 era structures I am next to, do not appear overwhelmed by climate science sea level rise predictions.

As nothing has happened in accordance with reports or corrected off-the-record conversations, why should anyone take any warnings from climate science seriously?

If Climate Science claims never to have predicted anything, then what is the point in any of the hysteria?

Jun 23, 2016 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

…I am interested in the evidence base that informs people who have taken a stance contrary to the consensus.
The evidence so far: there has been a slight rise of about 1 – 1.5K in global temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age; this rise has been irregular, with rises interspersed with slight falls. There has been a rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere since… when? I have always assumed it is since the end of the Little Ice Age, too, but please correct me if I am wrong. There has been an increase in human consumption of fossil fuels. The rise in CO2 has been more or less steady; the consumption of fossil fuels has been exponential – there does seem little to actually connect the two. The consensus to which so many cleave so dearly is that there is somehow some connection between these quite disparate facts. It is this strange belief that raises my scepticism; as yet, nothing has been presented by you, aTTP, or others in this site or elsewhere, that has convinced me that I should follow the “majority” in discounting the evidence and accepting the politico-religious meme of catastrophic man-made global warming. It ain’t real, bub – fossil fuel consumption continues to rise apace; CO2 continues its slow climb; yet, while CO2 rises, temperatures do not. What is it about the “consensus” that cannot see the disconnect between that evidence and their beliefs?

Also, at what point did science become dependent upon consensus?

(Yeah, yeah… I know that you are going to riposte with “but the idea of catastrophe is a denier meme…” When you consider the doom and gloom that is being predicted for further temperature rises, what would your label be for that scenario? Even if temperatures do continue their slow rise, why are we being told the consequences are to be feared, if it is not raising the spectre of catastrophe? Is “cities swamped by rising seas” not a catastrophe?)

Jun 23, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Very amusing. Kudos.

Jun 23, 2016 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics