Carbon tax...good or bad?

No he hasn't. There has never been a substantiated claim of fraud against Hansen. And why would there be? His GISS dataset is inline with all of the other datasets that have been independently developed using wildly different techniques and subsets of available data. Even the Berkeley Earth project which was founded and funded by AGW skeptics and deniers specifically to refute the world's leading experts on the global mean temperature record dropped an absolute bomb on the denier community when they released their report in 2012 conceded that not only did all of the world leading experts not engage in fraud of any kind but that they were all likely underestimating the warming. Read that again...a group funded specifically be denier institutions said the scientific consensus was underestimating the warming. Their dataset can be viewed at the followng link. They still maintain and update it with current data today.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

And before you even go there...nope. Hansen never claimed the Arctic would be ice free by now or that Manhattan would be under water or any of the other fake news items that deniers make up. You can review all of Hansen's work here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml

Notice the absence of alarmist prediction or works that could even remotely cause him to be described as a "flake"?

 

I'm sorry, but this isn't correct either. The average temperature of the continential United States will be well above average tonight. In fact, over the last 7 days the CONUS has been approximately +3.8C above the climatological average.

 

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:

How is the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming while the stratosphere cools if not by the GHG effect?

 

You should only be taxes if you "have other affordable energy options available to you but you choose to use fossil fuels. You shouldn't be taxed when you have no other options.

Solar panels are still to expensive for most homeowners and builders. Individuals obviously can't have their own "windmill" in their yard.
O
So this tax should not be imposed on consumers of energy but rather providers of energy should be held responsible

 

You're not a serious person. You cite Hansen as a credible authority.

There's no point trying to discuss science with you, b/c you've hitched your wagon to a guy who has no credability.

Hansen, along with Scmidt, Mann, Jones, et al, all belong in jail.

 

Oh boy another useless chart war.

 

Bumper sticker answers to complex questions are seldom if ever correct.

 

That's because he is a credible source; or least a more credible source than Christy.

But, let me make this clear. I'm not hanging my hat on just one guy. I'm hanging my hat on thousands of guys and tens of thousands of lines of evidence.

So if Hansen deserves jail time what do you think Christy deserves?

 

What do the economic models indicate is the effect on global average temperature of various magnitudes of politically possible carbon taxes in the US ?? The answer is ZERO. Why would the party of the people advocate for such a blatantly regressive tax on fossil fuels ??

What global carbon tax rate will achieve the goal ?? What is the goal ??

 

If your arguments are science based then you must acknowledge that global warming is net beneficial for the next ~ 3 deg C.

 

It's bad. It is a deeply regressive tax which does economic harm for absolutely no reduction in CO2 emissions.

 

I provided a link from a libertarian web site concerning the impact of taxes to achieve desiewd economic impact

If taxes increase prices... the affected consumers and manufacturers will be incentivized to change economic decisions. Consumers will substitute untaxed, or lower taxed products. Highly taxed manufacturers will becom non competitive until they figure out how to alter their production. Countries have been doing this for years with automobiles.... making gas hog cars more expensive, energy efficient and electric cars less expensive.... the result.... average automobile fuel efficiency has improved dramatically.

This has been a win-win-win. Because there is less demand for gas, fuel prices are lower for consumers, Because less gas is used, fuel imports are lower with consequent lower balance of trade deficits and economic vulnerabilities of countries with these policies, and because cars are more fuel efficient, consumers need to buy less gasoline and so save money, also consumers are learning that they actually prefer electric cars like tesla (which likely would not have been developed with out various incentives)

 

And how much will the global average temperature rate of rise be reduced. ZERO. Anyone with a working knowledge of economics clearly understands that increasing the price of energy is extremely regressive and causes economic harm. So this policy results in economic harm for ZERO impact on global warming.

 

You know this number is impossible to calculate
All we can say for sure is that prices impact behavior

Fact is that energy is a very significant cost of everyday life
And changing consumption patterns wi necessarily impact peoples lives
This was also true in wwii where the gov felt they needed to change consumption patterns to help fight the war. If their were a dire national interest (like war). You would not object
... you simply do not agree there is any reason to do this

We have had gasoline taxes for decades... and somehow the economy has done ok

You cannot prove there is zero impact... what i can, or cannot prove does not give you proof of your claim. For example, in the sixties the tabacco companies claimed there was no proof that tabacco had negative health impacts... so there was no proof, right? And your claim appears to be that no proof equals proof that tabacco has zero health impacts.... which is absurd

 

It's easy to calculate - ZERO. It's absolutely been estimated using the same models that the IPCC uses. Do your homework.

 

And you still never read the Professor's book. I can tell since you claim he suddenly converted. But did he convert the way you say he did? In his book he explains that the warming happens, but the solutions offered, especially by Democrats here in America got it all wrong.

 

Ralph Nader destroyed a very fine small car. And it will also happen to Tesla. When driving a Tesla, you are sitting on a fireplace. Get into an accident and your car catches on fire.

If you care about safety, do not get fooled into higher taxes using the local produced Tesla.

 

People in snow country loved corvairs. And yes, subsidizing inferior technology with tax payer dollars is an economic growth killer.

 

I did not drive my 1964 Corvair Monza in the snow that I recall. It is possible I did but forgot it. The first Corvair had a problem on wet roads with spin outs. But by 1964 that problem ended.

Rather than sell the car on a small engine, light weight, easy to handle car, he sold it as a death trap. It was decent on fuel economy too.

 

It was great in the snow because of the weight on the rear wheels. Nader was a lawyer who manufactured an issue to make money.

 

Are you saying that you accept the models?

Btw.
Because these policies are very new and would only have long term impact, your assertion is meaningless. But in any case do you have a link

 

The same models that generate absurdly high levels of global warming can’t produce any benefit in terms of temperature reduction to carbon taxes.

I have books not links. Alarmists generally do not like to read books because as Howard Zinn famously stated ‘objectivity is undesirable’.

 

Who is the Professor that you speak of?

 

If you think the models are unreliable, any results they do or dont give are irrelevant

Name calling is not a valid form of argument

 

The same professor you quoted or paraphrased. Richard A Muller.