The Ponzi scheme that you mention was definitely a big issue and I am appalled by the privatization of profit mixed with the socialization of risk. It was not limited to the single family house market – take a good look at the condition of commercial real estate these days. There were a lot of completely unrealistic prices paid for shopping malls, hotels, and office buildings that only made sense in an era of extremely low interest rates and escalating real estate prices.

My point was to challenge your assertion that someone is a “nut” because they uttered a few words that could be taken out of context. Your assertion that taxes are evil did not include any of the far more complicated situation that you later discussed.

Though Hansen did what some consider to be unforgivable by introducing a reference to Nazis, what he was trying to say was that he considered that compromise was not a good path to follow in reducing emissions. It is sort of like being on an elevator with a bunch of smokers – the air is no more pleasant if only half of the people light up than if all of them do. I am not saying I agree with Hansen’s assessment, just that I do not think it is evidence of being a “nut”.

Let me clarify: when 10% of the population is taxed while the remaining 90% of the population is not (as an example), then that sort of taxation is a form of stealing. Stealing is wrong, evil, or whatever you want to call it. If the fundamental purpose of taxation is to pay for goods and services done in the name of common good, then it is logical that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. At least in nanny-states like Sweden and Norway, everyone (rich and poor) pays a high level of taxes (i.e., their tax policy is consistent with their high social safety net society). Anything beyond that is forced charity, which again, is a form of stealing.

Finally, do you not see the nexus of government taxes and grant spending as the primary cause of scientific misconduct in climate research? When people abuse other people’s money, is that not wrong? Didn’t people abuse the free money handed out during the days of mortgage mania? How do you feel about people peddling worthless mortgage-back securities? Was that evil, wrong, or are you ambilivent about it? The financial mess was really a ponzi scheme since it all depended upon rising housing values (i.e., people could always sell their house for a profit even after their mortgage reset at a higher payment). As long as people kept buying houses at higher and higher prices, everything was fine (the very definition of a Ponzi scheme). When housing values dropped 20%, the securities became worthless as the underlying mortgages went into default. Again, ponzi schemes are a form of stealing, instigated by greed (both by the mortgage sellers and those buying the houses under false pretenses). Greed is evil right?

Disclosure – I have been a tax taker for most of my career. Taxpayers provided my public education, and sent me to the Naval Academy. They have also paid my salary as a professional naval officer. I hope that I have served well enough to provide some return on that investment.

Yes, Hansen is a nut. It is not the first time he made those type of comments (you can search the WUWT website for past comments). No, the carbon tax in my mind would simply fund non-carbon energy technologies (including nuclear). It also puts in place a mechanism IF catastrophic global warming is shown plausible (which I don’t think it is). The tax should be pegged to the satellite temperature record. In other words, the higher it goes, the higher the tax. If it gets colder, the government then subsidizes coal use, for example, with a tax credit. You could also make trades on whether it will be warmer or colder in the future (i.e., buy carbon tax futures). Wouldn’t that be a lot more intersesting than a stale policy debate going nowhere? Finally, I believe in flat taxes, such as social security, medicare, sales tax, etc. In essense, a CO2 take is a flat tax – the more you consume, the more you pay (proportionately), but everybody pays it. Taxes are so evil, I believe everyone should hurt when paying them. Otherwise, what is the dis-incentive for politicians to not raise taxes on the producers and investors of our economy? In summary, 1) taxes are evil for the waste that they generate, 2) everyone needs to pay an equal proportion (relative to their income, consumption, etc.) so that all are affected by distastrous tax policy, and 3) a CO2 tax would be preferable to our progressive income tax.

“James Hansen: Climate change akin to ‘slavery’ and ‘Nazism’”

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/11/james_hansen_climate_change_akin_to_slavery_and_na.html

And check out the reader comments too. Here is just the first one:

“Well, no surprise Eric, this Nazi and slavery talk shows the man is seriously mentally unhinged about AGW. But his economics knowledge is juvenile at best. He thinks that taking taxes from people who buy fossil fuels as energy and then giving it back to them is going to change their consumption patterns. Not if they know that is what is happening. How do fossil fuels become expensive if you give people a subsidy and they can just keep buying them? Not sure where he got his economics training.”

Is Hansen his own worst enemy?

P.S. Eric Berger just posted his complete interview with Hansen:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/12/james_hansen_the_interview_in_its_entirety.html#more

I believe that question is unanswerable today; and, that it will always be unanswerable.

If carbon emissions must be reduced by “x” percent in “y” years, a cap at current emissions rates, declining by “x”/”y” percent per year would reliably achieve the reduction. Including the ability to trade provides timing flexibility. Including “offsets” of dubious reality and value adds nothing to the potential of achieving the reductions; arguably, it takes away a great deal.

Some additional questions to ponder:
What percentage reduction in global annual carbon emissions would be required to stabilize the atmospheric carbon concentration?
By what year is it necessary to achieve stabilization to reliably avoid a climactic cataclysm?

Surely a settled science offers a discrete answer to each of these questions.

The carbon imbalance can be small but result in increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. Chip Knappenberger questions this ‘ultra-skepticism’ point here:
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/03/part-i-in-an-occasional-series-challenging-ultra-skeptic-climate-claims/