Denialist Denier Tom Harris rebuts David Suzuki

In a recent piece in the Woodstock Sentinel-Review,  International Climate Science Coalition's CEO Tom Harris was described by David Suzuki as a "Climate Change Denier."  Tom counters in a rebuttal in the same paper: (Link)  "I deny that I am a climate-change denier, I am a denial denier."

Climate changes all the time. The only constant about climate is change. It has been changing since the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago and will continue to change until the planet is enveloped by the sun five billion years from now (at which time global warming will be a real problem.)

After adding that Suzuki's attack is an attempt to discredit those who disagree with him, Tom continues:
I also deny that the science of climate change is in any way settled. Experts in the field know that climate science is highly immature. We are in a period of "negative discovery," in that the more we learn about climate, the more we realise we do not know.

Tom the discusses the Essex and McKitrick's "Doctrine of Certainty" (this doctrine is a collection of now familiar assertions about climate that are to be accepted without question) and the confidence expressed by Gore and Suzuki.

Essex and McKitrick explain: "But the Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know is false."

The rest of Tom's piece can be found in this jpg image of the comment page: Click to enlarge.

Dragon Slayer McKittrck proposes evidence-based tax on carbon dioxide

IPCC Expert reviewer Professor Ross McKitrick proposes a carbon tax with the rate tied to climate response. Ross McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario and, with Stephen McIntyre, exposed the flawed MBH98 "Hockey Stick" Graph.

Andrew Orlowski, writing for The Register (link) says the idea to tackle global warming is so simple, it’s stunning no one has thought of it before.

Ross McKitrick........ proposes a carbon tax with the rate tied to climate response. He explained the idea at the House of Lords yesterday before an audience that included the architect of the UK’s Climate Change Act. 

The idea of an evidence-based tax alarmed some in the audience. And it was fascinating to see who was most alarmed by it. 

McKitrick’s plan replaces the piecemeal regulation and taxes, which are arbitrary and random (ranging from patio heater bans to a “carbon floor price”) with a tax linked to the temperature of the troposphere. According to IPCC scientists this is the “fingerprint” of greenhouse gas-induced global warming and the most rapid indicator of climate change. If temperatures go up, then so does the tax.

So, with no significant rise in temperature for 17 to 23 years, that would mean NO TAX....and what about a drop in troposphere temperatures?

“Sceptics who do not believe in global warming will not expect the tax to go up, and might even expect it to go down. Those convinced we are in for rapid warming will expect the tax to rise quickly in the years ahead,” McKitrick explains in a paper outlining the idea.
“Companies managing factories and power plants will have to figure out who is more likely to be right, because billions of dollars of potential tax liabilities will depend on what is going to happen.”  

As he elaborated at Westminster yesterday:

Nobody has an incentive to ignore the forecasts – while everyone has an incentive to check them for accuracy… As a scientist, instead of complaining that nobody’s listening to you, you could put your pension in it. If a scientist can’t persuade himself to put his pension on his own science, he shouldn’t try to persuade other people to.

Sounds reasonable.

Read more at The Register (Link)

H/t Benny Peiser