James Hansen on the Carbon Tax

May 24, 2016

Adding yet another clip from my lengthy interview with James Hansen at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting. Here, Dr. Hansen speaks in simple, politically astute terms about how best to put a price on carbon.
supportdarksnowWe are already paying a carbon tax, with the lungs, brains, and organs of our citizens, and it is costing us billions. It’s time we face up to consciously pricing fossil fuels so that we can make market based, rational decisions on our energy policy.

This vid is the newest addition to my playlist of Scientists Interviews on Climate Change, the playlist Slate’s Bad Astronomer Phil Plait recently called a “great resource”:

These really are terrific. If you get confronted by some head-in-the-sand science denier who swears satellite measurements are better than in situ thermometers on the ground, who thinks the Earth hasn’t warmed since 1998, who thinks the Wall Street Journal is a legit source of climate change information, then check these videos out. They’ll help.

The list now contains 143 informative, brief, and understandable interviews, mostly by myself, of leading scientists on climate’s most important questions.

This is my life’s work now – and includes hundreds more videos of various lengths on various topics, from scientists famous and obscure, on topics familiar and arcane.  I believe that hundreds of years from now, historians wanting to know how human beings made, or failed to make, the most significant human decision in planetary history, they’ll want to review these recordings of this century’s most well informed observers.

One way or another, I’m going to continue to make it happen, but with help from readers and viewers, I can stretch farther, do more, and bring better resources to a larger audience.

Below, Hansen in the same interview, discussing his most recent research on ice melt and sea level rise.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “James Hansen on the Carbon Tax”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    The principal inventor of the Giss data set. The data set which is 66 percent fake at present and up to 92 percent fake as one goes back into the past. Example, Barrow Alaska, mean of Oct 2015, 7 degrees colder than in Oct of 1911. Giss fixed that, threw out the actual temperature and plugged in a fake temperature 1.5 degrees higher. If you want to use fake data to tax yourself, go ahead, be my guest. Just do not try to tax me and my family to get money to give to the third world thieves or Obama and Al Gore and company to increase their standard of living at my expense. Both Hansen and Al Gore are so concerned about CO2 they fly the world in a private jet while not eating bugs to help the planet. Remember to save the world, per the wackos eat bugs, not meat. Obama is so concerned about ocean rise due to CO2 warming he bought a house on the ocean in Hawaii just so he could have a water bed and will fly there after leaving the white house by private jet. Perfect examples.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Good morning. You’re in fine form.

      • Greg Wellman Says:

        Richard Muller would like a word…

        “Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

        For anyone for whom it’s non-obvious, the reason for quoting Muller is that his reanalysis was designed to redo all the data adjustments in a purely statistical way, eliminating any possibility of human bias. That he got 99.9% the same result as GISS and others simply shows that the previous adjustment work was fundamentally honest.

    • otter17 Says:

      Making the claim that a majority of the GISS data is simply “fake”, as in I presume you mean altered just for ideological purposes, puts you in the category of conspiracy theorist. If that is what you believe, then how does NASA keep that a secret with so many contributors to the data set? Did NASA fake the moon landing too?

      Furthermore, the behavior of certain people that you pick out has no bearing on the scientific validity of the issue. A common bias is to approach the issue from a political or human behavior standpoint, rather than the appropriate scientific motivations behind most all scientists’ work.

      Finally, you also seem to display the solution aversion bias here quite strongly (wackos eating bugs, tax yourself to give money to thieves, etc). If you dislike the solutions, then denial of the problem is likely going to follow, a “cure is worse than the disease” type fallacy. Most any person in denial I have discussed the issue with has the solution aversion bias, because I do try to probe their thought process to find a solution to reduce GHG emissions that agrees with them, but alas, it is exceedingly difficult and the person in denial very often dodges the discussion quickly.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: