oops.

I'm not denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'm not saying humans don't produce CO2.
I'm only pointing out, you can't call something science unless you follow this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method
And that so far of those steps we've done 1-3. Long term predictions require long term tests.
It's not science until predictions are validated, and tests are repeated.

Republicans benefit from cutting spending because it gives them an excuse to cut taxes, and those tax cuts go to the 1%, who then return the favor by giving enormous kickbacks, er, donations to the GOP. And at the same time, they get to gain the clear electoral advantage that comes with cutting taxes, ensuring that they get to keep their nice, cushy jobs.

Bad math: 3mm/yr != 3in in 30 years, it comes out to under a tenth of an inch.

Who cares how small it is! Quick! Tax someone!

"truth is true whether you believe it or not."
how true.

you seem like you already have your mind made up, but I'll give it a shot:

"All of the science" so far has been collecting data and making models that fit that data. Until you get a couple decades more data and find one of the model's predictions were right, all you've got is the hypothesis of warming - no scientific method, no objective truth.

Higher taxes + more bureaucracy = bigger government = more power. How do you not see how this helps them? Good Republicans are for smaller, less powerful government.

Ok. It's still just an estimate, not falsifiable, no real scientific rigor.

"the less you know about how bad the risk is the more you want to do things to avoid it"
I disagree. I don't believe in ghosts, but this is the first thing that popped into my head:
There's a risk a poltergeist will show up at my house.
This could be bad, he could be scary and destructive.
Or, it could be good, I can turn my house into a tourist attraction and become rich.
Lets assume I think I know how to prevent poltergeists from showing up.
Do I do it?
What if the way to prevent them from coming is to lop off part of my house? Is it worth it?
What if I lop off part of my house, and the ghost comes anyways?
Or what if it succeeds in thwarting ghosts, but the other half of my house falls down because of what I did?

They're legitimate questions. It's more like cost/benefit analysis, not pure (detrimental) risk management.

After re-reading my post I see how it's not clear what I meant, sorry about that.
Estimates from scientists are still estimates. How are we responsible for 120% of the warming?! Is this just yet another way to say "Humans are soo bad"?

Again, I didn't say a tax on breathing. Obamacare does that already. I use the phrase "taxing your breath" to illustrate the absurdity of a tax on CO2.

I agree delayed action on global warming would likely be more expensive - but that's only if you're already assuming #5 & #6.
If we're better off with a warmer Earth, then it's not more expensive.
If we're not better off with a warmer Earth, then you have to quantify how much, and justify that it outweighs the economic damage, loss of freedom and everything else, AND somehow justify that the proposed solution will work, and not have detrimental side effects.

No, YOU are the doodyhead! (great argument.)

"There's no doubt about 1-3" - false, unless you take it on faith.
#1 has the most evidence to back it up, but temperatures have been flat since 1998.
All the scientists have are theories and models that make predictions. Until those are verified or falsified, it's not science by the scientific method, and there's no results to justify political action. Note: many models from the 1990's have been shown wrong in the intervening years - why are we calling people "scientists" that are so arrogant they think "oh but NOW we CERTAINLY have it right"?

#5 is a no brainer for those not using their brains.
Who's to say what the optimal temperature of Earth is?
Perhaps we could grow lots more food if the earth was warmer?
Anyone do a cost/benefit analysis of land in Canada, Siberia, and Antarctica becoming habitable?
I would be more inclined to agree if we were talking about facing an ice age - life seems to thrive where there is warmth.

#6 is more generalizations than assumptions.
They have said they want to tax CO2. That will effect the things mentioned.
Not really grasping "ast [sic] some straws", but extrapolating - see my other comment below.

And no one has an argument against #7.
The same arrogance that allows people to think their models are accurate without verifying them allows them to think they have the solution to the "problem" right too, with no unexpected side effects.

I meant % of warming caused by humans, not % rise in temperature.

"taxing your breath" is only partially hyperbolic. They want to tax CO2 which we breathe out in greater quantities than we breathe in.
While they wont tax breathing (subtle but important difference), their taxes on companies and transportation will (and already have via fleet mpg reqs) make everything more expensive for every human participating in modern civilization.
Furthermore, using a colorful phrase has no bearing on one's knowledge about a subject.

Thank God you're in Europe.
And thank God the AGW crowd has yet to sufficiently influence politics here.

You have to ask the right questions:
1. Is the planet warming?
2. If yes, is it human caused?
3. If yes, by a significant amount? (say >=30%)
4. If yes, can we reverse it?
5. If yes, should we reverse it?
6. If yes, do the risks of not reversing it outweigh:

• - taxing your breath
  - crippling the world economy
  - billions of people poorer, governments richer
  - any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result

7. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?

There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-5, enough that there's not good reason for any politician to even look at #6.
Only 1-4 are actually science/engineering. 5 & 6 are political.
Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-4, and the answer to #6 is most certainly "NO".
And for #7, here I cite the Aral Sea, the tire reef, solyndra, and the recent article about wind turbines causing warming as examples of wonderful government environmental "successes".
P.S. If you're taking 1-5 as truth, you've got a religion.

^ this. Times 1,000,000.

Imagine what the majority of people would do if they actually saw their money first, then had to send in the full amount in April.

<stiffness.>
:-P sorry couldn't keep it.

I hadn't heard about the $21+ billion run on savings - that does add to your case for government action. But I would contend then that the bailouts + stimulus and continuing deficits on the order of trillions is 3+ orders of magnitude too large (if I were to suppose that government action was needed.)

I'm coming to agree at least with the prevention side - no one wants another downturn like this. Though I'm leery of the government limiting the size of a business. Perhaps it should instead increase the reserve requirement for banks? I don't know what the percentage is right now, but if banks only need 10% on hand to lend 100%, I'd guess that's too low - the banks are at risk of failing on even a modest run of withdrawals.
The biggest problem was indeed over-leveraging - I'm not sure how to set a reserve requirement on assets like stocks+mortgages/houses whose prices fluctuate rapidly (any ideas?) but I'd favor this before letting the government say all businesses must have a market cap (or market share) below X.

Before I reply, let me just say thank you for continuing the discussion. I love debating these things. You bring up a lot of good points.

I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph, with perhaps one caveat. I agree it is the government's duty to prevent (or at least punish and thereby deter) fraud on the part of brokers in their dealings with individuals and lenders. My caveat would be that we have to draw a line somewhere between when someone is dumb and/or making a bad decision, and when a broker is misleading them. If someone wasn't told the difference between an ARM and a fixed rate, or pushed into getting an ARM, that would be misleading and shouldn't be allowed. But if someone is shown the difference and still picks the ARM, they need to accept the consequences when the rates jump. Ideally something this simple would be grasped by everyone, and no one would buy ARMs and they'd stop being offered. I think the schools have failed us here, but that's another topic.

FDIC (one New Deal era item I'm still open to supporting) should prevent bank runs nowadays. I don't recall reading about any mass withdrawals in 2008.
If AIG and BoA had made that many bad decisions too that they would have failed, then so be it. Remember - I'm not sold yet on "too big to fail" so saying (right though you are) that more big banks would have been sold off piecemeal with their management shamed and fired - doesn't really sound like a bad thing to me.

I must be from planet Jefferson :) I don't want to sound too much like a Ron Paul nut, but I don't think the Fed should have been created, and I think we should still be on the gold standard. Just because the government has leaped at the chance to be our overlords, does not mean that they should be. Also there are a lot of people that like Justin Beiber - that doesn't make him good, or common sense.

I agree with your assessment of the thinking of the congress, but disagree that they alone must have acted to save the economy. I think if you let them go through bankruptcy, sell off the good parts of the businesses, and discredit/fire the bad actors, within a year you'd have recovery. Notice how the recoveries from the panics of 1837, 1893, 1907 you mentioned were all much quicker than both the great depression and the current recession, when Keynsians made the policy.

And if the people buying the mortgages had to eat losses and not rely on a bailout (and also weren't defrauded by brokers, which I agree the government should act to ensure) they would not buy bad mortgages from brokers. Brokers will not make loans they can't sell.

I like the quote in your sig btw.

heh sorry if I put words in your mouth - I so rarely encounter a like-minded soul here :)

I might pay such a fee - sounds analogous to Sam's Club almost. But ordinarily the pharmaceutical company would reinvest some of their profits to discover future drugs, so they could make more profits on those. (and do the same thing again - everybody gets new medicines, yay!)

None. You want to force me to?

I only use my dollars for things I need/want, and my church. If there's a demand for something, a company will put the R&D into it.

You're thinking of non-marketable research, a.k.a. useless research. You're going to quote the Apollo program at me. I'll say it's always been in the interest of the defense of the country to have an edge in space, and I have no problem with NASA. Maybe you'll cite the internet. What's your next example? (I truly am curious to see if there's different research outside of DARPA/NASA that I can come around on and "see the light" as it were on government-funded research).

I assume businesses act in their self interest, and if they don't they should get bankruptcy (not in their interest). I have no problem with stupid people/businesses doing stupid things as long as I'm not paying for it.

No one company's bankruptcy would cause the entire economy to crater. GM was the largest car manufacturer in the country (world?) and they went through it - 4th largest bankruptcy in history. Lehman went through it. Other businesses buy up the pieces and life goes on. I would never ascribe to the government the role of "ultimate arbiter of systemic risk". They can arbitrate contract disputes and punish fraudulent activity but they are not the overlords of the whole market.

Correct. "too big to fail" was a lie told to congressmen (and their constituents) to give taxpayer money to companies in trouble as opposed to them taking responsibility for bad decisions.

What gives you confidence in that assertion? Whether or not the lender brokered the mortgage itself, they would not own a mortgage with excessive risk if they didn't think the government was their backstop. (unless they were irrational and/or made bad decisions, in which case, let them go bankrupt!)