There has not been a big issue separating the federal parties since the election of 1998 was fought on free trade. Now, as a result of Stephane Dion’s announcement there will surely be a big issue in the next federal election. It is called a carbon (pollution) tax and its purpose is to slow global warming.
There is no longer much scientific disagreement of the close connection between the emission of greenhouse gases and the inexorable rise in the earth’s temperature. Nor is there much disagreement that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary culprit. An essential part of a market-based solution must involve imposing a cost on those responsible for those emissions. The result would be a greater incentive to find ways either to reduce the burning of fossil fuels altogether or to continue burning them while preventing the toxic emissions from polluting the atmosphere. It’s simple. Tax fossil fuels and reduce global warming.
But that’s only the first half of the policy which will raise more than 15 billion in new taxes. The other half is that every dime of these carbon taxes will be returned to Canadians in the form of tax cuts and tax credits. So « the green shift » at one stroke creates the right incentives to reduce fossil-fuel use while not increasing the government’s tax take.
The richer we are, the more cars we own, the more air travel we do, and the more oil or electricity we use to heat our larger homes. So a carbon tax which raises the price of these products will collect more tax revenue from high-income households than from low-income ones.
Look at it this way. Imagine three income groups – low, middle and high – and suppose that the amount of carbon tax collected annually from the three groups is $3,000, $6,000, and $9,000 respectively. If there were equal numbers of taxpayers in each group, the government would then need to reduce income taxes by $6,000 for each taxpayer. The low-income households would clearly be better off while the middle-income group would see no change in their total after-tax income. Only the higher income households would be worse off because their income-tax reduction would be insufficient to cover their higher carbon taxes.
So a new Liberal government under Dion’s carbon tax would ensure that lower-income Canadians would end up the real winners. In addition, of course, to the environment.
Do you agree that climate change is happening?
Do you support Dion’s carbon tax?
Can any reasonable person be against such a task?
Neil McKenty Weblog 
I’m against more taxes. This is big government at work.
Why tax people only to give them credits? Either tax them or don’t.
This is a perfectly stupid plan. I think Dion will lose the next election if he runs on this platform.
Neil writes: « There is no longer much scientific disagreement of the close connection between the emission of greenhouse gases and the inexorable rise in the earth’s temperature. Nor is there much disagreement that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary culprit. »
It simply astounds me that anyone would make a statement like that…and it frightens me, too.
31,000 scientists signed a petition protesting the very premise of catastrophic global warming. Here’s how it was reported on May 17, 2008 (I’d put a link here but doing that usually disables the post):
« On Monday, May 19th at 10:00 am, at the National Press Club, Dr. Arthur Robinson of The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.
« The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of ‘settled science’ and an overwhelming ‘consensus’ in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. »
There is, simply, ZERO evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming and those who engage in such talk are as if members of a cult…a religion…in which no dissent is allowed. I will be interested to see what stand those on this forum who are so insistent upon the non-existance of God take on the non-existance of catastrophic man-made global warming.
But the issue now has gone beyond just a debate between deniers and non-deniers. Those, such as Al « the debate is over » Gore, who promote
catastrophic man-made global warming can no longer just be accused of stifling debate and free speech; their words and actions are, in a very real and tangible way, responsible for influencing public policy to such a degree that they are, literally, killing people.
And the victims may soon number in the millions.
Insistence upon the global warming claim have directly led to policies such as corn-to-ethanol which has been the primary cause of driving up the price of basic-necessity food staples, such as corn, which has almost tripled in price over the past few years. The MOST VULNERABLE — the poor people of the world — are dying because they can no longer afford to feed their themselves and their families.
It is time to reword that ditty from the ’60s which the anti-war crowd was fond of directing towards President Johnson and redirect it towards Al Gore, Jr.:
« AGJ, AGJ, how many babies have you killed today? »
In research world one report chases another. On both sides of the debate there are people who stand to gain or lose. Wether man made or not the fact is there that large chunks of the artic ice shelf are gone and more will. The peoples of the north are endangered by this situation, just as peoples of the south are endangered by the food creisis engendered by panic and greed.
Problem is that there is a problem regardless of its origins. Something has to be done and whatever is the solution it will cost a bundle.
As with pro-life and pro-choice, the deniers and the convinced are just as sectarian and not given to compromise. Where are the shades of grey?
As for the carbon tax, my options are opened until it is explained more clearly.
I do not accept that global warming is man-made. I do accept that there has been NO warming since 1998 and that ‘science’ has been hijacked by agenda driven activists.
All of that bothers me, and for a simple reason – the green agenda is killing real people today for the promise of saving an unknown number sometime in the future.
It’s simple Opportunity Cost. Every dollar spent on the faux problem of global warming is a dollar that does not help rid Africa of malaria, or AIDS. It does not drill a well for fresh water and does not give a child essential nutrients. Over one million people die annually of malaria, more than that die of AIDS.
Clean drinking water is not available to 27% of the population in poor and developing countries. Malnutrition costs children their lives every day.
ALL of these problems are real, and ALL of them could be fixed with a small percentage of the resources poured into global warming. Consider that Al Gore is spending $300 million on advertising his green ‘WE » campaign in the US, but that it would only take $60 million provide essential nutrients to 80% of the 140 million or so undernourished children in the world. Does that seem moral to you?
Carbon taxes address a problem that probably does not exist but do prevent us from dealing with real issues. I am very much opposed to green taxes, or green anything when it comes at the cost of real kids.
Global warming is a hoax, a very serious hoax with devastating consequences. That serious, educated people promote this scam so that they can enrich themselves while we watch the poor of the world die is a crime against humanity. As far as I’m concerned Al Gore and David Suzuki are criminals, and it looks like you can add Stephane Dion to that list too.
What a wonderful dissertation by dailybayonet.
Indeed, if you click on his name you will be taken to even more common sense on climate change on his website.
I see no proof of the world getting colder today. What I do see, whether it is cyclical or not, is something happening such as heat that is causing the snows of Kilimanjaro to melt, the Arctic ice to melt, the levels of the Great Lakes to drop, the heat produced by 100 billion barrels of oil consumed every year, not to mention coal, natural gas wood. Also there are six billion people exausting hot air from their lungs every second. Lakes around the world are drying up. If one still thinks that the world isn’t getting warmer should stop smoking those cigarettes you-all are talking about and look through the smoke screen put up by the oil cartel who have vested interests in scoffing at warming.
Jim — doesn’t the knife cut both ways?
Al Gore has made over $100 million in stock he owns in « Green » companies that have a vested interest in the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis.
Would you not also say — as you have about the oil cartel — that Al Gore is putting up a smoke screen for people to look through because he, too, has a vested interest that you believe in global warming?
Tony – Let me know the name of of the stock that Gore owns, I want some too. I don’t care what the oils or greens are saying really. My mentioning the oil cartel was an aside. I measure what I know is going on by what I can see. Just look at the Columbia ice fields in Western Canada where the ice pack has regressed for miles over the decades. I see what I see.
Jim — then I suggest you go down to Antartica and see what you will see: the ice is increasing at an astronomical rate.
Your « I see what I see » method of observing the world at large and coming to the conclusions that you do is called « anecdotal evidence » and means absolutely nothing from a scientific stand-point. But it is a valuable tool when, as a documentary filmmaker, you want to manipulate your audience into believing what you want them to believe.
I’m not sure whether you were kidding about buying the same Green stocks that has made Gore $100 million, but here is a link from which you can find it: newsbusters dot org/node/11149 (copy the preceeding, paste into the address bar and then replace « dot » with « . »).
Tony –
« Insistence upon the global warming claim have directly led to policies such as corn-to-ethanol which has been the primary cause of driving up the price of basic-necessity food staples, such as corn, which has almost tripled in price over the past few years. The MOST VULNERABLE — the poor people of the world — are dying because they can no longer afford to feed themselves and their families. »
This has nothing to do with fighting global warming. The corn-to-ethanol is being done because of the price of oil. Since burning ethanol still puts CO2 into the air, it does nothing about the climate crisis. Nobody is dying because of the fight against global warming, but wars are being fought for oil.
Mr. Dailybayonet –
« ALL of these problems are real, and ALL of them could be fixed with a small percentage of the resources poured into global warming. Consider that Al Gore is spending $300 million on advertising his green ‘WE” campaign in the US, but that it would only take $60 million provide essential nutrients to 80% of the 140 million or so undernourished children in the world. Does that seem moral to you? »
Let me see… $300 million versus $87 billion spent on the war. Mmmm. $87 billion could sure feed a lot of children. $87 billion spent on a war for oil. Does that seem moral to you?
Of course not. But it has never been about morality to you, has it?
I am getting tired of having to defend « doing the right thing » against « but I’m not rich enough yet ».
Tony –
« Jim — then I suggest you go down to Antarctica and see what you will see: the ice is increasing at an astronomical rate. »
Right now there is increasing ice BECAUSE IT IS FREAKIN’ WINTER DOWN THERE!
We have scientists taking core samples. We have satellite images of entire ice shelves breaking up. The average annual temperature is clearly increasing at an alarming rate.
It takes less evidence to convict a man of murder! What will it take to convince you? High tide on the 38th floor of the Miami Hilton?
I’m sorry, but I need coffee…
Do you support a carbon tax? I do, and we also need a carbon cap. To force us to stop polluting even if we are willing to pay the tax.
Tony –
« 31,000 scientists signed a petition protesting the very premise of catastrophic global warming. »
I got a link for you:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
and this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
There are some very rich people who have a profound interest in denying the existence of any kind of climate crisis. Dr. Arthur B. Robinson gets paid very well for saying what they want him to say.
There is a difference between respected scientists and corporate hacks. One group says there is a man-made climate crisis. The other says that « greenhouse gases are good for plants, so we should be polluting more, not less ».
I suggest educating yourself on who is who, digging into the evidence and then make an informed assessment of the situation.
And remember that having a PhD does not make one right.
Jim, Dez, I have long learned that Tony can find statistics no ends to prove his point…as we could all do should we have the patience to do so. With Tony, unless you want to spend the rest of your life convincing you are way better to accept a draw.
Eithe way, statistics can prove and disprove the same thing and computer models, which are basically what all this is all about, can do the same according to what datas you feed them.
A half full glass is also half empty.
dez, money spent on the war is dealing with an actual problem, whether or not you agree with it.
Money spent on fakery like global warming is hurting poor kids and families.
But as long as you feel good about yourself why should you care about the kids, right?
Thanks for the warning, Paul.
But I’m feeling feisty today, so… (rolls up sleeves)
Right.
Mr. Dailybayonet – I read your blog. Pretty. Followed the links and looked up the statistics. I also noticed you tended to quote conservative sources. Newsbusters dot org, for example, is a hoot. Also check out energytribune dot com. Stock quotes right next to an article about « The Sloppy Science of Global Warming » by Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.
I recommend these sites to anyone who wants to understand the conservative agenda. Read with an analytical eye, though. Notice the use of the words « alarmist » and how everything is blamed on « Liberals ».
Scientists, like Dr. Spencer above, are quoted often. There is even a reference to a paper from the National Academy of Sciences, published in 1997: « Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? » by Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Like Dr. Spenser, Dr. Lindzen is a vocal opponent to the very concept of a climate crisis.
According to a PBS Frontline report, « Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon’s own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler’s Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute. »
There are respected scientists, and then there are corporate stooges. I suggest reading the works of both, and decide for yourself which has a correct interpretation of the data.
Dr. Lindzen’s paper in PNAS dot org suggests, in essence, that we don’t have enough data to say that global warming exists, or that it is the result of CO2 emissions from man-made sources. For definitive proof, we would need a few more hundred years of data.
Read it for yourself. Dense with graphs and numbers, isn’t it? Looks really scientific, doesn’t it? Look at what he’s saying, and how he interprets the data. There is a bias, and there are assumptions that are not based on science.
Right. Let’s move on, shall we?
Money spent on the war in Iraq. Actual problem? Oh, you mean the War on Terror? The one that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq?
I hate terrorists. I do. I want to see them all die. Let’s go find some. We looked in Iraq, and they are not there. There are, however, a lot of people who hate each other and us for keeping them from killing each other. I think we should leave the Iraqi people to fight their own civil war, and go looking for the terrorists.
We are in Iraq for the oil. That is a terrific reason if you are an oil company executive (all of whom, BTW, make Al Gore look like a pauper, so bringing up how much money he makes is meaningless).
And I don’t understand this connection with starving children and global warming. Corn-to-ethanol is about fighting the high cost of fuel, not fighting global warming. Burning ethanol is still making CO2 and is not even very efficient in terms of energy cost. Frankly, I’m against it, since it is also driving up the cost of food (along with the high price of fuel needed to transport the food).
Again, NOTHING to do with the climate crisis. So the attempt to make me feel bad about starving children because I support a Carbon Tax is actually quite lame.
You got an argument with some substance? Bring it on!
Wow.
$90,000 to CATO, which Lindzen is associated with (and note that the money went to CATO, not directly to Lindzen who most certainly didn’t get all of that $90,000 himself).
Since you insist upon playing the « he who pays the piper… » game, dez, tell me: how does that $90,000 stack up to Al Gore’s $100 million?
Wow.
$90,000 to CATO, which Lindzen is associated with (and note that the money went to CATO, not directly to Lindzen who most certainly didn’t get all of that $90,000 himself).
Since you insist upon playing the « he who pays the piper… » game, dez, tell me: how does that $90,000 stack up to Al Gore’s $100 million?
Tony: Because I don’t want to be anecdotal I decided to book a flight with the Brits to the Antartica. They said they can’t help me because the tarmac is covered with water from the melted ice sheet. Whilst on the phone they volunteered the following info:-
1) Part of the Antarctica Larsen B Ice Shelf collapsed a few years back cutting a 3250 square kilometer iceberg loose.
2) The Western Peninsula has shown the biggest increase in temperatures (primarily in Winter) observed anywhere on earth.
3) March 28 2008 – A 500 square kilometer chunk of ice cut away.
4) The Wilkins ice shelf has lost about 6% of its surface a few years back.
5) Hanging on by a thread is a 5500 square mile shelf (about half the size of Connecticut) of ice expected to drop this summer.
This info from the British Antarctica Survey and the United Nations.
The Brits are recognized as the top experts in this field. Please, please, Tony stop smoking those cigarettes.
jim — you keep reading and believing what you want to believe.
ilovemycarbondioxide dot com/Antarctic.html
Tony – Out of all that information, THAT is the one thing you could find to poke a hole in? Thanks.
The difference is, Gore’s money is coming from a number of sources in the form of donations and contributions to help fight the climate crisis. Lindzen’s money is coming from Exxon. If you think Gore is pushing snake oil to get rich, then you should know that, like George Bush, Al Gore was born into wealth. He gave the 1.5 million he got from the Nobel Prize to the non-profit group, Alliance for Climate Protection.
And thanks for bringing another conservative website to our attention.
ilovemycarbondioxide dot com. You got more of these? They’re hilarious.
The Republican Senate staffer quoted in the article, Marc Morano was previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show.
Keep it coming, Tony.
Wonderful exchange gentlemen. So far, I think Dez is ahead in points. However, Tony and DB are not yet on the ropes. This a worth any Joe Louis or Max Schmelling fights.
And I am learning a hell of lot.
A lively discussion indeed. Now for non sequitur. I interviewed Max Schmeling during the 1976 summer Olympics in Montreal.
dez — the $100 million that Al Gore earned is from capital gain to the stocks he owns in the « green » company. That means that the more he promotes fear and « the sky is falling », the greater chance his stock will go up.
You don’t see a conflict of interest there?
Lindzen is on record as saying he took about $10,000 from fossil-fuel types in the ’90s and none since.
I ignored most of the rest of your post because I thought it was so obvious to everyone that you didn’t know what you were talking about when it came to ethanol. The corn-to-ethanol bill was passed in Congress when oil was about $40 a barrel so contrary to what you claim it had nothing to do with the high price of oil, which has happened mostly in the last two years.
Neil: great HBO movie called « Joe and Max » about the famous fights Joe Louis and Max Schmeling had and the friendship they had that lasted the rest of their lives.
The more private interests finance research chairs in Universities and elswhere, the more apparent conflicts of interest there will be. On this topic, no researcher or proponents are entirely clean. However, when the the USA’s National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Agency warns against air and water warming, regardless of human action or not, I guess we should cock an ear and listen.
As for ethanol, Tony is right about the date and Dez is right about the consequences and the relative benefits of it. I »d call a draw on that round.
My last words on the above –
The area of the Antarctic is greater than that of the USA. The shores of the South Pole are melting. If one foot of the 5000 plus foot thickness of Antarctica ice were to deluge as rain on the US, they would be under a foot of water.
One doesn’t have to use corn for ethanol, straw is usuable.
Max Schmeling never beat anyone for the US title.
Jim:-
It’s true that Max Schmeling never beat anyone for the US title. But Schmeling was champion of the world 1930-32. He also knocked out the up and coming Joe Louis in 1937.
Jim, Dez congratulations for a gallant fight. But don’t say I had not warned you. And I’m with you all the way, poor deluded soul that I am.
Neil, Jim:
Sorry, I can’t help myself but…
Schmeling, Louis, Ali, Marciano…all great fighters, all great champions.
But pit any of them in their prime against Mike Tyson in his prime and Tyson will beat them all, hands down.
And that goes for any other heavyweight champion as well!
Tony – Gore’s finances have been an open book since the campaign in 1999, so he’s been an easy target for accusations of conflict of interest.
Paul makes a good point, though, about nobody being completely clean in this situation.
But, just because he’s making money by promoting the cause of climate change – and I never said he wasn’t – does not invalidate the message. And you could make the same arguement for Dr. Lindzen’s paper, along with his continuing attack on the very concept of global warming.
Also, Al Gore is not the only one advocating the issue, just as Dr. Lindzen is not the only one on the other side of it.
But, who stands to make the most money – the ones for change, or the ones against change?
In 2006, Exxon gave CEO Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.
In 2003 Exxon Mobil Corporation reported a gross income of $74.22 Billion. In 2007, the reported gross income was 113.50 Billion.
There seems to be some money to be made in selling gasoline in this country. Do you suppose the richest and most powerful corporations on the planet want people to buy less gasoline?
Even at $40/barrel, adding ethanol was seen as a way to bring the price of gasoline down. I have been driving since the mid-seventies, and I have never known a time when gas prices seemed reasonable. Yes, ethanol also helps gas burn cleaner, and air pollution was considered a problem back then. I don’t believe that has changed, either.
I also said I am against using corn for ethanol production, since there are a variety of methods for producing ethanol that do not use food stocks, and the reduction of emissions is insufficient to effect the problem of climate change.
Blaming corn-to-ethanol for starving children is still a mistake, however. I mentioned the price of fuel used to deliver food to markets, but the price of crude oil also effects the cost of fertilizer and insecticides, all made from oil. Increasing population has also created greater demand, and resources would be straining to keep up even without the corn-to-ethanol subsidies in the United States (except for Brazil, no other country provides such subsidies for ethanol, that I am aware of).
And this « so-called » climate change, which apparently resides only in the imaginations of certain scientists and greedy politicians, has affected harvests world-wide, including prolonged droughts in Australia and southern Africa, floods in West Africa, and this past winter’s deep frost in China and record-breaking warmth in northern Europe.
So, fine. Stop adding ethanol to gasoline. This would increase gas prices by another twenty cents or so, and make food prices rise a little higher. But, at least there would be plenty of corn to send to the starving children in Ethiopia.
Clearly, I am the one ignorant on this subject.
I’ve been driving since 1954 and I remember gaz at 0.15$ a gallon.
I remember the complaining when it hit $1.00, and then $2.00, and wasn’t it just $3.00 not more than a few years ago?
Ah, the good old daze.
Oh, and I need to correct myself about my previous post.
Most of the corn used for ethanol would otherwise be used for animal feed, and most of that for the meat and dairy industries.
So, we would not be sending raw corn to the starving children of the world. We would be sending them cheeseburgers.
Tony:-
I had pretty well abandoned professional boxing by the time the notorious Mike Tyson entered the ring. My boxing hero was Mike Braddock.
You claim Tyson could clean the clock of every boxing champion since Schmeling and Louis in the thirties up to an including Ali.
Pray tell me whom Tyson defeated of the caliber of the guys you mentioned.
Neil, maybe the guy whose ear he bit off?
It should have been Jim Braddock. Sorry.
Yeay, right.
I’d be very suspicious of this tax.
Al Gore is making a killing and the government is making a killing. Why? Because we fall for their poor rationalize way too easily.
And as a sports fan, that’s interesting about the Schemling interview. You wouldn’t happen to have a transcript lying around now, eh?
Neil: Tyson defeated Larry Holmes, Trevor Berbick, Michael Spinks and, yes, a bunch of bums…but so did Ali and Louis.
If you ever have the inclination there is a two-disc DVD set called « Ringside-the best of Mike Tyson » which chronicles his career and even though the first 20 or so fights were unknowns, the power and the quickness with which he did away with his opponents was simply amazing…he’s a force of nature.
Tony:
I was puzzled when you rated Tyson so highly. More puzzled when I learned that Boxing Magazine rates him 72nd.
Sorry, Commentator, no transcript of the Schmeling interview.
« It simply astounds me that anyone would make a statement like that…and it frightens me, too. »
I didn’t get past the beginning of the second comment before I had to comment…. I couldn’t agree more with Tony. It’s truly scary that someone as educated as Neil would perpetrate such an untruth.
From Neil: « Nor is there much disagreement that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary culprit. »
Pure and total BS…. There is an abundance of scientific evidence that shows this is NOT the case! The jury is definitely still out in the scientific community about global warming – well, unless you listen to twits like Al Gore or David Suzuki.
Now that I’ve read all the comments I have a few more points.
« But, who stands to make the most money – the ones for change, or the ones against change? »
How is this AT ALL relevant?? There is a conflict of interest everywhere – because Al Gore gains more than Dr. Lindzen doesn’t make either one more right or wrong!
My stance on this subject is that we don’t know enough to say either way. Is the earth warming? Are humans to blame? Do humans have ANYTHING to do with it? We just don’t know yet – and running full tilt at this « problem » with carbon taxes, carbon credits, etc. is foolish beyond words.
As I said before: The jury is still out and we shouldn’t be jumping to (expensive) conclutions!!
(as an aside: I think it’s pretty silly to think that we can affect the climate on earth with the things currently being proposed anyway. ~IF~ burning fossil fuels really is causing global warming then I’m afraid we’re all toast anyway guys!! But that’s a BIG « if ».)
Okay, so scientific evidence is clearly not enough to convince some people.
Doesn’t matter. I couldn’t sit by and let the FUD department rattle on unchallenged. I never had a hope of convincing that side of the table, since, like myself, they are true believers in their cause.
Both sides do need to be heard. We covered the bases and made the points. People can look at it all and make up their own minds.
That’s all I’m saying.
Amen!
My final thoughts on this subject is that there are numerous hurdles that have to be overcome before we must commit ourselves in any big way to « fighting » global warming. Those hurdles are:
1) Is global warming indeed occuring?
2) If global warming IS occuring, is it a bad thing?
3) If global warming is occuring and it is a bad thing, is it catastrophic?
4) If global warming is occuring and it’s catstrophic, to what degree is man responsible for it?
5) If catastrophic man-made global warming is occuring, can we do anything to reverse it?
6) What are the costs and opportunity costs to stopping or reversing or cutting down on catastrophic man-made global warming? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
If we can answer « yes » to all 6 hurdles, then I’m on board. But so far, I don’t think we’ve even crossed hurdle #1.
« Okay, so scientific evidence is clearly not enough to convince some people. »
The point is that there isn’t a scientific consensus yet… there just isn’t!! Pretending that there is could be catastrophic for mankind!
« But so far, I don’t think we’ve even crossed hurdle #1. »
Exactly…. running full tilt at a problem which hasn’t even been proven to exist is an enormous waste of resources.
I’m not saying it isn’t occuring. I’m not saying man isn’t responsible for it. I’m just saying that we don’t know all of the facts yet and should wait before acting…