[late]

Honest.

Guess again. The closest would be geolibertarian, but unlike many geolibertarians, I'm not a knee-jerk opponent of government spending on desirable public services and infrastructure. I wouldn't mind a bigger government role in the economy to patch market failures, as long as it was democratically accountable and funded by just, efficient, and consensual revenue sources, including Pigovian taxes.

That's a new one for me.

Would a Carbon Tax be Pigovian? I don't have a problem taxing neg externalities.

Guys like you fought the evolution of the Modern era, at every step. They also lost nearly every fight because failure would follow close behind.

[Truth To Power]

Would a Carbon Tax be Pigovian?

It would be, if carbon were harmful.

I don't have a problem taxing neg externalities.

So we have a point of agreement. I would also tax positive ones to the extent that some people get the benefit of them by depriving others of those benefits.

Guys like you fought the evolution of the Modern era, at every step.

Name one. To the extent that anyone was ever like me, they created the modern era.

They also lost nearly every fight because failure would follow close behind.

Which fights do you incorrectly imagine those would be? The fights to abolish slavery and serfdom? The fight to extend the franchise beyond white male landowners? The fights for publicly funded education, health care, pensions, water and sewer infrastructure, etc.? Inquiring minds want to know.

[late]

It would be, if carbon were harmful.

Inquiring minds want to know.

It is the worst crisis in human history.

You don't look like someone interested in learning.

[Truth To Power]

It is the worst crisis in human history.

No it isn't. It's nothing. There is self-evidently and indisputably no climate crisis, no climate emergency whatever. The worst crisis in human history was the genetic bottleneck about 70Kya, which very nearly saw us off. If you are talking only about historical times, then the worst was probably the Dark Ages in Europe, roughly from the 5th to the 11th century.

You don't look like someone interested in learning.

How about you find a willingness to learn the fact that to the modest extent that anthropogenic CO2 has affected the earth's climate, it has been beneficial?

[late]

It's nothing.

Hmmm, do I believe you, or scientists and NASA?

Tough call..

[Truth To Power]

Hmmm, do I believe you, or scientists and NASA?

Tough call..

"In nothing trust to me." -- Henry George

Don't believe or trust either of us. Trust your own mind, your own certain knowledge of actual physical events. Look around you. Where is the climate "crisis"? Where is the climate "emergency"? Where is the credible empirical evidence -- actual physical events, not falsified temperature data -- that it is any warmer now than it was during the Medieval Warm Period, or for the majority of the Holocene, for that matter? THINK.

[late]

Look around you. Where is the climate "crisis"?

My wife nearly died last summer from a tick borne disease that didn't used to be able to survive Maine winters.

Australia is burning, the poles are melting, the jungles are more vulnerable to climate change than we thought, and they are our genetic reservoir.

There's a thousand climate crises, if you were paying attention.

[Truth To Power]

My wife nearly died last summer from a tick borne disease that didn't used to be able to survive Maine winters.

Oh, really? How do you know? How do you know it was not common in Maine before the Little Ice Age? How do you know it isn't surviving now only because there are so many heated spaces in and around buildings for ticks to shelter in through the winter?

Australia is burning,

As it has for millions of years, except that people stopped the small burns so this time the fuel added up to a big burn.

the poles are melting,

Flat false.

the jungles are more vulnerable to climate change than we thought, and they are our genetic reservoir.

So, no crisis or emergency.

There's a thousand climate crises, if you were paying attention.

I'm doing more than paying attention, I'm thinking about what I'm paying attention to. You could try it.

[late]

You could try it.

I can tell the difference between science and kook.

[Truth To Power]

I can tell the difference between science and kook.

No, the problem is precisely that you can't tell the difference between science and kook -- or between science and crook.

[late]

No, the problem is precisely that you can't tell the difference between science and kook -- or between science and crook.

I had basic college level training in science. After I graduated, I bought a PHD level book on scientific methodology. That was discouraging, what I didn't know is that a lot of scientists use only a couple ways of handling their numbers, and often make mistakes.

I took this year long History of Ideas class, and that included a couple centuries of science, but the Prof was more interested in the philosophical angle.

Later, I got into the philosophy of science.

I've been following climate research since the 80s. Computer modeling was new back then, and really opened up research in dozens of fields. Fascinating stuff.

[Truth To Power]

I had basic college level training in science.

Same. I also took a course in planetary physics, including atmospheric physics.

After I graduated, I bought a PHD level book on scientific methodology. That was discouraging, what I didn't know is that a lot of scientists use only a couple ways of handling their numbers, and often make mistakes.

They also have a lot of biases, and are extremely resistant to discoveries that disprove what they have spent their professional lives assuming was true.

I've been following climate research since the 80s. Computer modeling was new back then, and really opened up research in dozens of fields. Fascinating stuff.

Sure. But back to science vs kook: if you think apocalyptic prophecies of runaway warming, multi-meter sea level rise, etc. caused by CO2 from use of fossil fuels are science and not kook, then you CANNOT tell the difference between science and kook.

[late]

Sure. But back to science vs kook: if you think apocalyptic prophecies of runaway warming, multi-meter sea level rise, etc. caused by CO2 from use of fossil fuels are science and not kook, then you CANNOT tell the difference between science and kook.

I'm not the guy pretending he can rewrite a science.

There is a ton of evidence that backs up the theory now. Which tells me you are full of it. Paid or unpaid, one of Koch's little trolls.

[Truth To Power]

I'm not the guy pretending he can rewrite a science.

Nor am I. But you have swallowed the line of those who are pretending to.

There is a ton of evidence that backs up the theory now.

Nope. Only grossly falsified "evidence," as comprehensively documented here:

https://realclimatescience.com/

Which tells me you are full of it.

And yet somehow, ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS keep proving me right and the anti-CO2 hysteria crowd wrong...

Paid or unpaid, one of Koch's little trolls.

I will continue to be proved right by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS.

[late]

"Koch Family Foundations have spent $127,006,756 directly financing 92 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2017."

There's your corruption. They bought an army of trolls, fake experts, and crap scientists that needed the money.

This is NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Needless say, they aren't kooks.

What you are doing is the same propaganda technique tobacco used to delay legislation curtailing smoking.

It's pure sleaze.