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

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?

Alan,
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Alan,

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

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.

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

Alan,
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

Alan,
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.

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.

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?

Alan,
Very amusing. Kudos.