Linking A Carbon Dioxide Tax To Temperatures - Clever, But...

John Tierney mentioned this yesterday and Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolutions went with it:

John Tierney relays today what seems like a very sensible idea from economist Ross McKitrick, tie a carbon tax to the temperature.  If the temperature rises the tax goes up, if the temperature does not rise (as McKitrick, a climate change skeptic thinks) the tax will stay at a low level.  Temperature of the troposphere would be measured by satellite at the equator and averaged over a period of time.  (More here and a more detailed version here).

In theory, both climate change proponents and skeptics ought to agree to this proposal, but I predict the proponents will object.

Hmm, by what theory should all "skeptics" agree to this?  Let's flash back to Tierney for more details:

If the skeptics are right and the earth isn’t warming, then the penalties for burning carbon would stay small or maybe even disappear. But if the climate modelers and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are correct about the atmosphere heating up, then the penalties would quickly, and automatically, rise.

I think that "skeptics" can be subdivided into those who think warming isn't even happening, and those who believe warming may be happening (e.g., as we move out of the Little Ice Age) but doubt whether the human contribution to that warming is significant.

That second group of skeptics will have no interest in taxing humans in response to cyclical variations in sunspots, or whatever.

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Don't forget skeptics like Pielke Sr who think warming is happening, is partly anthropogenic, but that CO2 may not be the mechanism.

[Neo]

First, take a look at this ...

DOE-SR [Savannah River] has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England.

... then, take a look at email 1256765544.txt

> Imagine if there were no reliable
>records of global surface temperature. Raucous
>policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
>no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point
>be little more than a historical footnote, and
>President Obama would not be spending this U.N.
>session talking up a (likely unattainable)
>international climate deal in Copenhagen in
>December. Steel yourself for the new reality,
>because the data needed to verify the
>gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
>
> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were
>either lost or purged from some discarded
>computer. Only a very few people know what really
>happened, and they aren't talking much. And what
>little they are saying makes no sense.
> In the early 1980s, with funding from
>the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the
>United Kingdom's University of East Anglia
>established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to
>produce the world's first comprehensive history
>of surface temperature. It's known in the trade
>as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors,
>Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the
>primary reference standard for the U.N.
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>until 2007. It was this record that prompted the
>IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence on global climate."
...
> All of this is much more than an
>academic spat. It now appears likely that the
>U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate
>legislation from its docket this fall - whereupon
>the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is
>going to step in and issue regulations on
>carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which
>can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a
>regulation can. If there are no data, there's no
>science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the
>answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J.
>Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental
>studies at the Cato Institute and author of
>Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.) "

OMG !!! YIKES !!!

[Barry Dauphin]

And if temps go down, George Soros pays off our budget deficit.

[Fritz]

On another thread someone was looking for a simple article making the case against AGW.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY

[Ignatz]

Here's an alternate idea much more likely to produce benefits:

We tax congressmen's income based on how much of our money they spend.

[Danube of Thought]

I'm in the second group of skeptics. And I am a lifelong believer in H.L. Mencken's maxim that the urge to save humankind is almost always a front for the urge to rule.

[PD]

I'm skeptical that this is anything but a scheme for simply extracting more of our money, regardless of the putative justification for it.

[tea anyone]

Another climate thread and still no Kim----does anyone have any contact with him/her???? I am worried.

[Ignatz]

--Well, I think that "skeptics" can be subdivided into those who think warming isn't even happening, and those who believe warming may be happening (as we move out of the Little Ice Age) but doubt whether the human contribution to that warming is significant.--

There are also many sceptics who believe it is possible the human contribution to the warming is significant but the warming overall is not and will be subject to natural negative feedbacks limiting any rise.
And there are a good many sceptics who consider any likely warming to be a net positive. Considering the dire consequences of an end to the current inter-glacial era or even a moderate cooling I'd say they have a point.

[MikeS]

I propose that the U.S. should sell permits to build 500 nuclear plants in the U.S.

The proceeds should go to purchasing retirement homes for the discredited climate scientists on tropical islands in the Arctic.

[Boatbuilder]

My local fishwrap has a big headline piece about how Al Gore and "some climate scientists" are now claiming that the Artic Polar Icecap will be gone by . . . 2014!!!. (Not a word about Climategate, of course).

I'd say he's jumped the shark, if the series hadn't been running successfully for so long despite even greater absurdities.

[Jane]

We tax congressmen's income based on how much of our money they spend.

That's a start. I want most of them in jail at this point. So I would go a lot further.

[Old Lurker]

Rick Ballard and Old Lurker have dibs on the market for "Temp Change Swaps" so we can hedge against temp changes.

[Pofarmer]

I want most of them in jail at this point.

Making bigger rocks into littler rocks I hope.

[Anna Keppa]

Aw crap --- how many times does it have to be said: changes in temperature in the upper atmosphere may have NOTHING to do with CO2. PROVE the FRACKIN CASE FIRST!! Where is the empirical connection?

[clarice]

I vote with DoT..and I say for every day that the original data is missing and not re-constructed, we get to carve a pound of flesh out of Phil Jones, his friends at CRU and elsewhere and Al Gore.

Love that DOE hold! I think federsl fraud claims are in the air.

[Pofarmer]

I think federsl fraud claims are in the air.

Funny thing is, the true believers will still be beating the horse.

[Neo]

Obviously, the DOE is out looking for the data that comprises the basis of the EPA finding, the “Jones and Wigley” record, which the DOE funded. Without the “Jones and Wigley”, the EPA has to start all over again. No wonder the Met office started their 3 year long effort to recreate the "raw data" over the complaints of PM Gordon Brown.

[Rocco]

More on the DOE litigation hold notice by James Delingpole of the Telegraph.co.uk

What does it mean? Big, BIG trouble for the Climategate scientists is what it means. You don’t mess with US lawyers and the reason that what might seem an essentially British affair comes under their jurisdiction is because the DOE has provided funding for these scientists.

Here’s one example from the Climategate files:

From: Ben Santer
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
Reply-to: [email protected]
Cc: Tom Wigley , kevin trenberth

Dear Lisa,

That’s great news! I’ve confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own
travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days.

Mmm. I expect you can buy quite a nice no-strings dinner for $10,000.

[Lord Whorfin]

Pofarmer-

They dont have a choice-after all, this is their religion.

When does Hale-Bopp return??

[Pofarmer]

Aw crap --- how many times does it have to be said: changes in temperature in the upper atmosphere may have NOTHING to do with CO2. PROVE the FRACKIN CASE FIRST!! Where is the empirical connection?

See, that doesn't matter when you've got politicians in your pocket and an agenda to pursue.

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

As a skeptic that any current activities by humanity has any serious impact on global climate I'm more than willing to adopt this with one specific proviso...

That if temperatures rise taxes will rise is acceptable as long as if temperatures -DROP- then one (1) proponent of AGW is thrown bodily into a volcano per month until temperatures rise again.

You say "Trillions of dollars", I say "Hello Mr. Volcano!". So it's an equitable exchange.

[Sue]

Isn't part of the problem measuring temperatures? Who gets to monkey with those numbers?

[Sue]

I have no idea who "Kim" is. I was hoping someone here did, or possibly Tom had her email address and could send her one. She has been missing since about the same time the emails were "leaked". I'm sure that is merely a coincidence. ::grin::

As an aside, I think "Kim" is a he.

[James]

Regarding this:
That second group of skeptics will have no interest in taxing humans in response to cyclical variations in sunspots, or whatever

McKitrick's proposal addresses this point. It's not tied to surface temperature, which may be affected by natural variation. It's tied to "the region of the atmosphere up to 15 kilometres in altitude, over the tropics, from 20 degrees North to 20 degrees South"

CO2 based warming should increase temperatures in that zone in a way that natural variation wouldn't. So warming in that zone should appropriately trigger increased taxes on CO2.

As with most things in climate "science", the current trends in that region are unclear. Radiosonde data suggests the region has stubbornly refused to warm. And some "scientists" have responded by use dubious (and underspecified) methods to torture the data to make it recant its support for denialists...

[Pofarmer]

Sue, do you really want to get into all the problems with this? They are legion.

[Sue]

Actually, I had an old email address for Kim from our days when we battled Scary together. I just sent an email, I'll see what happens.

[Sue]

Sue, do you really want to get into all the problems with this?

I'm assuming you mean my monkeying with the numbers comment. And the answer is no. I don't like the monkeys.

[Rocco]

It's tied to "the region of the atmosphere up to 15 kilometres in altitude, over the tropics, from 20 degrees North to 20 degrees South"

Spot on...aka the greenhouse signature

[Rick Ballard]

I have a question for the crack JOM legal team. I saw an assertion in a comment yesterday (which I cannot find) that Federal rules of evidence require that all underlying code and data be furnished prior to the admission of the results generated by a model being allowed. I'd appreciate direction to the appropriate standard.

If the assertion is true then the EPA is going to be slapped into unconsciousness by the lawsuits. One might wonder if DoE is hearing the hum from the tracks grow while that little bitty light seems to grow much brighter with each passing moment?

[Jane]

Rick,

You need someone on a lot more crack than I. Here are the Rules

[Old Lurker]

Sue: "As an aside, I think "Kim" is a he."

Aw shucks...that bursts my whole mental image.

[Sue]

OL,

I'm not exactly sure why I think that. I had forgotten about an email exchange from mine and Kim's days of battling Larry Johnson. For some reason I remembered it today. I hope the email address is still good. And Kim responds.

[Sue]

Oh snap. Is it "mine and Kim's" or "me and Kim's" or "Kim and my"...so many choices. Makes my head hurt.

[clarice]

Rick--I think that may well be correct. The EPA cannot puton an expert to give testimony for example as to the effects of CO2 on the climate without his having to show his work--that is the underlying research data.

In the recent AIPAC case the Judge would not allow the govt to even claim that something was classified unless the expert was prepared to establish how and why each item was classified and whether that classification was appropriate. That went further on "classified" than I've ever seen butIIRC it was justified by the hearsay rules.

[Old Lurker]

Sue, I like to think of her as a Zoe type character from 24 who for the last two months has been hacking into servers in Russia and the UK. Having learned from Breitbart how to dribble the data out, she is now working undercover for the law firms preparing to spring.

Ah I can dream...

[Sue]

They also can't put on an expert that hasn't had their work "peer reviewed". Yeah. We have seen how that works, haven't we? There should be a new test on "peer reviewing" the "peer reviewer".

[Sue]

OL,

Kim has been known to disappear from around here for weeks, even months on end. But not from Watts' place. I can't help but worrty that something awful is keeping her from showing up here to gloat about what she has been saying all along.

[centralcal]

lol, Sue - mine, me, my - they all work just fine for me.

I have always thought that "Kim" was a guy too.

[Sue]

C-cal,

At the risk of starting another conspiracy, I have this weird memory of Kim being Pete at one time but changed it to Kim because we already had a Pete. It could be the other way around though. There could have been a Kim that posted as Pete because we had a Kim. Everyone confused yet?

[centralcal]

Sue, out of curiosity, I must ask . . .

Kim, after one lengthy hiatus from JOM, returned, however he/she no longer used the screen name Kim (or the distinctive =====), but long comments and snide remarks instead.

Did he/she change the screen name at Watts' place, too?

[Sue]

I hate to run around the internet yelling "Kim, are you here?". I've searched all the sites I've known her to visit and she hasn't been on any of them.

[centralcal]

Sue, ssshhhh - we don't want to awaken sylvia from her deep slumbers in the asylum.

[Sue]

Not that I know of. Kim still posted as Kim with the ===== over there as recently as a month ago.

[Extraneus]

I think kim is a gal.

[clarice]

I think Kim is maintaining radio silence..Her last post under one of those long monickers was on the very day the CRU emails went public IIRC.

[Sue]

Ex,

Yeah, sometimes I think so too. Until I don't. ::grin::

[Sue]

Clarice,

LOL. I can just see her now, screaming at me to shut up. She has my email, if she wants to maintain silence, she can send me a shut up email.

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

Thanks for the link. I'm interpreting the Notes to Rule 702 as being the basis for the presumption. It looks like Daubert provides the foundation.

Clarice,

I wonder who the EPA would put in the witness chair as their guiding "expert"? I don't think "the dog ate my data and records, trust me" is going to do the trick.

[Porchlight]

kim, if you're out there, I'd sure love it if you would drop a line to Sue to let her know you're OK.

This Climategate stuff is no fun without you.

[centralcal]

I think JMH mentioned the date of Kim's last comment as November 17th or something like that.

[Sue]

I can't find her at WUWT after November 7. When did the emails get dropped?

[clarice]

Mid-November.

[clarice]

Rick, the EPA announcement acts in effect as a tax on business but for this and a number of other reasons I never considered it a serious possibility that the EPA would successfully regulate CO2 emissions.
Rest assured, business has been watching the green litigation tactics and is prepared to use them against this nonsense.

[rse]

Rick-

Having some law school classmates over for dinner this weekend, one is precisely who will know the answer to your question on the EPA and what it must prove. Will be interesting discussion than planned.

I may have to wait until dessert has a mellowing effect.

Sue- it is "my and Kim's" because you need a possessive modifying pronoun to go with "days".

"Mine" is a possessive pronoun but stands alone. "my book" vs "that book is mine" .

[Sue]

Okay, as crazy as this sounds, there is someone at WUWT that might be "Kim" posting under another name. I'm not sure how to find out though. If so, she is posting incognito. But the flow of words seems right. I really need a life. Or rather, I need to stop stalking Kim, I guess. ::grin::

[Sue]

I meant CA, not WUWT.

[Sue]

rse,

Yeah, I used the rule I learned in elementary school to figure it out, but not until I had already posted.

[Porchlight]

IIRC kim's last post here was on a thread about the mammogram screening guidelines, 4-5 days before the CRU emails broke. At least that was the last one I found.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I can't find her at WUWT after November 7. When did the emails get dropped?

The McIntyre FOIA request was refused 12 November, the emails showed up on RealClimate sometime about the 14th, they broke on the evening of the 19th, I posted my article to the PJM editors at about 2300 mMT on the 19th.

BBC apparently had some of them as early as the 15th October.

[Sue]

The false positive rate is so high because of the tremendous damage of a missed diagnosis. Easy solution, don't do the imaging. Oops, diagnoses are missed.
=====================================

Posted by: Keep abreast of the panels' work. | November 17, 2009 at 07:11 AM

The LUN goes to Climate Realists, so I know it is her.

[Sue]

And Kim disappears on the 17th. Seriously, it is just a coincidence. I think.

[rse]

Sue-

I homeschooled 3 kids for a year so we could travel. I explained a lot of grammar plus it's not really taught anymore and I think it does lend clarity.

Would you believe I keep a Warriner's 1958 copyright 11th grade Grammar and Comp book by my desk? It's so sad what used to be explained well when it was English, and not "Language Arts".

[Sue]

rse,

I need refresher courses. I tend to lapse into my native tongue when I type. Texan. ::grin::

[susanne]

rse,
Ain't it the truth?
My school district went from teaching grammar to linguistics when I was in the fifth grade. Needless to say, I am pretty much clueless and wing it most of the time. I do keep a copy of "Elements of Style" close to me for the times when winging it doesn't work.
A good friend gave me a copy of Lynne Truss' book "Eats Shoots & Leaves", which I recommend.
Hmmm....looks like I should give that book a go again myself....

[Elliott]

from mine and Kim's days

I believe rse is correct about the currently accepted usage of "mine," though I note it has not always been so. There are a few ossified phrases like "mine host" and "mine enemy" marching on in step with the opening words of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, "mine eyes."

[Janet]

But the flow of words seems right.

Very cool Sue...it's like each poster has their own voice.

[rse]

Sue-

You're talking to someone who never understands why people have a problem with "fixin' to" and start laughing when I'm explaining something.

[Old Lurker]

100 reasons AGW is a hoax. Interesting LUN.

[Janet]

From Tim Blair -
The competing forces of Climategate and Copenhagen have crushed British zoologist George Monbiot’s mind. Observe:

"This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves."

LUN is the Monbiot article...and another jewel -
"The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy. We are the universal ape,..."

Good Lord, speak for yourself man.

[Flodigarry]

Sue - I've always had the sense that "Kim" is female. Don't know why exactly....

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Okay, at least in theory I'm doing the Martha Zoller show tomorrow about 8:15 ET.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

OL. don't take that "100 reasons"post as gospel — there are a good number of those things that might be arguable, but are false as stated or oversimplified.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Not all of them, though: zB
39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

is actually understated; that's based on a Pielke Jr et al paper which the IPCC actually reversed their findings to come to that conclusion.

[pagar]

"Climategate: the ailing 'mainstream' media are committing suicide by ignoring the scoop of the century"

LUN

I believe that there are people who understand what is going on, with MSM avoiding the Climategate story.

[Captain Hate]

Sue - I've always had the sense that "Kim" is female. Don't know why exactly....

She gave comments that seemed likely to be what a woman would say.

[Old Lurker]

Frankly Chaco, I only read it because you are slowing down in your old age. Your work has been a real treat for me, and I'm sure many others.

But as I went down this list of 100, I was thinking well so what if half these are wrong, the other half are pretty interesting... Boil it down to the top ten, and it is still important.

Then again, I already thought it was hogwash so I like reinforcement.

[jimmyk]

Isn't part of the problem measuring temperatures?

Exactly, Sue. Democrats will appoint some Hansen or Mann jokester who will hide the decline.

Even if it were done fairly, warmenists would also oppose this because they would argue that we need to be preemptive. If temperatures rise, it will be too late.

[Pofarmer]

I'm glad I'm not a Catholic, but, I'm kinda sorry my better half is. The Pope is trying to make the Catholic Church completely irrelevant.

[sbw]

Is it "mine and Kim's" or "me and Kim's" or "Kim and my"

I believe it is "Kim" and "chi".

[Captain Hate]

The Pope is trying to make the Catholic Church completely irrelevant.

Every Pope does something squirrely along that line; even JP2 did. As Clarice would say, it's bred in the bone. I blame the Jesuits.

[narciso]

well Kim was if not the leaker, was the vessel for it, You can trace her threads,
I remember there was a reference to the Palacio de Los Jugos, a great place for
cuban sandwich, and other totally non dietetic food from her sun.

[clarice]

I think she (or he ) mentioned her father at one point and I got the idea he was a scientist.
If her (his) father is connected to climate
scientology I don't think it's in Britain because she wrote like an American and her posts included a lot of birther stuff.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Frankly Chaco, I only read it because you are slowing down in your old age.

I spent a couple days prepping Roger Simon for Copenhagen.

[Old Lurker]

Good excuse.

[macphisto]

"I've always had the sense that "Kim" is female."

i'm more of a reader than a poster, but that's the impression i've had as well.

[glasater]

Climate Deniers Love the 70s! -- The Remix

[clarice]

Rionovsta says CRU manipulated the Russian data which in fact shows there is no warming.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/>ochi chomya--black eyes for CRU

[Neo]

“This is not a climate-change negotiation,” said Janos Pasztor, director of the U.N. secretary-general’s climate-change support team. “It’s about something much more fundamental. It’s about economic strength.” Countries, he added, “just have to slug it out.”

Frankly, this is now sounding more like a negotiation on setting a World Industrial Plan with climate change as a pretext. More or less locking in industrial output and market share globally. Given the the two largest up and coming industrial countries, China and India, are trying to opt out, it seems pointless if at least the underlying pretext has no validity. It seems that the lackeys at the UN thought they could sucker them in, but these folks are no fools. I keep trying to imagine what happens as 2nd and 3rd world countries realize that they have been dupped or mislead or just plain negotiated badly. We are talking trade wars, the likes of which have not occurred in over a century, and that means quite possibly real wars as well. Using a phony pretext, like AGW, will only make this possible outcome even more likely.

[A Bonne Idee, and overdue, too.]

Swashbuckled Sue bounded off the bloody maindeck and into the galley where she popped open the icebox door, only to find kim lying, snoozing, on the lettuce, the laurels, and the leftovers.

'Wascally Wabbit' she cried, 'What are you doing here?

kim popped open one eye and said 'Well, this is a Westinghouse, right?' before turning over and nodding back off.
====================================

[clarice]

KIM!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Porchlight]

kim, hooray!!!!! Oh how glad I am to see those ======== again!