Skip to content

Watch Your Pocket – Hansen’s About!

December 27, 2014

By Paul Homewood




That well known, totally impartial, ex govt scientist, James Hansen has issued what I guess is his Xmas message, “Assuring Real Progress on Climate”.






He acknowledges that the annual round of climate negotiations is pretty much a waste of time, and even if some sort of agreement is ever reached, it will do little to curb CO2 emissions.

And what is his answer? A worldwide carbon tax, or fee as he calls it.  



His logic is that if fossil fuels are taxed enough, expensive renewables will become a cheaper option. As the revenue from the tax, under his plan, is going to be redistributed, (don’t you just love that word!), people will be no worse off.

Unfortunately, his understanding of economics is even shakier than his knowledge of climate science.

The only reason for a carbon tax is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. So what happens when that has been achieved?

We are all left with those expensive renewables, but with no carbon tax revenue to be redistributed to offset the extra cost.

Back to the drawing board, Homer!

  1. December 27, 2014 3:42 pm

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    There are no free lunches!

  2. December 27, 2014 3:46 pm

    I recently discovered that Hansen is major influencer behind this climate primer on TED:

    One quote:

    “It’s also not surprising that the scientific evidence is contested, given that the indicators of climate change — like changing precipitation patterns over decadal time scales — may be difficult for ordinary citizens to detect, and given what’s at stake once we acknowledge that those indicators are correct. Initially — and even today, despite the fact that we’ve reached the gold standard for scientific certainty — some have questioned the quantity and quality of the evidence, feeding the public’s perception that the science is half-baked. In reality, by the time Hansen delivered his congressional testimony in 1988, he’d been researching the relationship between atmospheric components and temperature since the 1960s, building upon a line of scientific inquiry stretching back at least a century.”

    Note the references to “ordinary citizens” and the “gold standard”. The first suggests that we are too stupid to have an opinion and the second is a meaningless qualification not used in real science and again just says, stop thinking we know better. Of course, no discussion of models not matching observations and minor details like that.

    Ideas worth shredding?

    • Brian H permalink
      December 28, 2014 9:36 pm

      The “gold standard” doesn’t even match up to a “possible pass” in the hard sciences for a hypothesis worth testing further. Let’s have 5 or 6 sigma, Hansen, not 1 or 2!

  3. December 27, 2014 4:08 pm

    Thanks for this article, Paul.
    I think Hansen knows very well what he’s pushing for: Socialism; the perfect redistribution of almost nothing, and a direct pipeline from taxes to compliant research.
    They need larger grants and faster computers!

  4. Derek Buxton permalink
    December 27, 2014 4:24 pm

    Just another after getting on the huge gravy train that is the climate fraud. The climate changes, and will whatever puny man tries to do about it.

  5. Paul2 permalink
    December 27, 2014 5:00 pm

    More utter lunacy. Where do these people come from?

  6. John F. Hultquist permalink
    December 27, 2014 6:25 pm

    Being delusional (there likely is a better word) is thinking there will be a quick transition to non-coal/oil/gas and/or removing the CO2 generated from these fuels. The spatial dispersion of society is well set in concrete and legal contracts. Think of places (western Canada and much of the US come to mind) with respect to agricultural practices and small town living, and also in metro-suburban configurations (dispersed schools, medical practices, factories, and retail outlets). Even when new discoveries (or using known ones – nuclear power) are shown useful and disruptive of the current situation a transition will occur very slowly. About 50 years ago a writer on urban change referred to the issue as “a hardening of the arteries.” [I have his small book somewhere.]

  7. Paul2 permalink
    December 27, 2014 6:32 pm


  8. manicbeancounter permalink
    December 27, 2014 7:08 pm

    There are a couple of problems with a global carbon tax.
    First is that to have a global effect, it needs for the vast majority emissions to be covered by the tax. Emerging/developing economies who have over 60% of global emissions (and increasing) will not be bound by any policy for the conceivable future. So the countries foolish enough to implement any policy will bear all the cost and nearly all the consequences of global warming if they had done nothing.
    Second is that demand for fossil fuel energy is highly inelastic with respect to price. This will continue to be the case until renewables become competitive on price and can be generated when demanded. Price elasticity of demand is something I learnt in ‘O’ level economics.

  9. Sparks permalink
    December 27, 2014 10:31 pm

    The plan really is not very well thought through at all. It will certainly bite the poorest hard.. especially during these brutal winters we will have and are having.

    Charlatan! at least the real Homer doesn’t believe in global warming and believes it to be “a load of crap”. 🙂

  10. catweazle666 permalink
    December 27, 2014 11:12 pm

    What a dipstick.

  11. Streetcred permalink
    December 28, 2014 12:19 am

    Raider of the Lost Carbon Tax … the bloke is a dipsh8t.

  12. December 28, 2014 6:53 am

    How is it possible for a person to live such a delusional life for so long without going mad?. Oh…..

  13. December 28, 2014 12:08 pm

    I agree we should have a carbon tax – everytime this blaggard bumps his gums and mentions carbon he should be charged a nice six figure sum.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: