That's not what the law says or does. You still have the freedom to leave your children unprotected from crippling diseases, however, they are will not be allowed in the public school system, where your parental negligence would endanger other children. Frankly, if you reframe the issue to "Should the state be able to set admission requirements for public schools?", the controversy goes away because the answer is obviously yes. Of course, I think that's actually the correct way to looking at this. The whole "violating my freedom" angle is bullshit. No SWAT team is going to break into your home, hold you down, and inject the measles vaccine into you, so it is clearly not a question of forced injections.

The problem is too many people want to use religion as an excuse to avoid doing something that they don't want to do and then use it again to escape any consequences for their actions.

I would be very reluctant to blame the incompetence of your co-workers on Agile. It seems like that they were incompetent before Agile came along.

So... There's no global warming because you start your graph on a unusually warm year, use a satellite derived value, and one that measures the estimated temperature of the lower troposphere?

That's three strikes against your example graph already, and I barely had to look at it.

If we look at the surface temperature average, like HADCRUT4, there's clearly warming even if we start with your cherry-picked start point. The trend is much more pronounced if we use a 30 year graph.

Heck if we use a 30 year RSS graph the trend is pretty clear there too.

So, who are you trying to fool?

Do you have any proof that he "wants to micromanage everyone's lives"?

No, it isn't. Skepticism is reserving judgement on an issue until sufficient factual evidence has been provided to actually make an informed decision.

Of course deniers don't ignore all evidence, they only ignore the evidence that is contrary to their position and accept unquestioningly anything that supports their position.

Hmm... So you're saying the top result is right?

So, is there anything more credible to support this position than a notoriously unreliable scientist faking a discrepancy between the models and the data?

The modest carbon tax in British Columbia has cut emissions in that province by 16% while emissions grew in the rest of Canada by 3% (a rate that likely would have grown higher still if Ontario and Quebec weren't also working to reduce emissions). A carbon tax, by itself, might not reach a 50% reduction, but it could spur changes in consumer behavior. For instance, now that gas prices have fallen again, sales of SUVs are increasing again after declining during our last period of high prices. That's probably a missed opportunity to reduce emissions.

Without a carbon tax, the United States is aiming at (and currently looks like it will hit) a target of 20% below 2005 levels. If a carbon tax had been added to the policy, the United States might have been able to hit 40% below 2005 levels, which is not that far from 50%.

Frankly, I doubt you understand politics. Despite your claims the parties are different entities although with very similar goals (power and control). In some areas, the policies of the parties are indistinguishable because they are appealing to same people for funding and trying to get same people to vote for them. Both parties need a majority of votes to win so they are by necessity fighting over the same people in the American center.

Frankly, in the current American system, large differences are not sustainable because if the difference loses votes, it will be abandoned and if it gains votes it will be copied or mirrored by the other party. The American system, whether by design or by accident, generates nearly identical parties.

It's not that the parties are the same organization, because they clearly are not, it's that the American political system is so poorly designed that serving the people brings few benefits when compared to playing internal politics for advantages and begging money from sponsors to fund election campagins.

Maybe I should have clipped the quote shorter, to make my meaning clearer. I was making an observation that every organization tries to claim power because it's human nature to seek power. Virtually everyone is part of "those who want to consolidate power in their own hands". While people seek power for different reasons, some good, some bad, there are very few people who want to be powerless.

So by my reading of Dredd's claims that makes all organizations the same. I have to admit that does make for a very simple world view, which is perfect for those with very simple minds.

Oh, but it has in a few places, most of them last less than a year before they are destroyed by a neighbour or internal struggles. Although, I hear that the government of Honduras is fond of libertarianism, and it's working out quite well, if you are either rich and can afford your own private army, or have your own guns and want to work in a private army...

That pretty much describes every organization everywhere in every country and every time period.

I guess you must be anti-science too, since you are denouncing the people who are skeptical of the skeptics...

So why are you attacking the people who are skeptical of the self-proclaimed skeptics?

Here is a graph showing human factors versus natural factors over the last 50-65 years. By themselves, the natural factors would have the earth cooling, which it has actually been doing since the end of the last ice age. So global warming is actually slightly more than 100% anthropogenic.

You could read the report

for yourself or you can look at a pretty graph that summarizes the findings.

What can we do about it if so?

There are a variety of strategies that we could try but the simplest, easiest, and cheapest solution is to apply a price to carbon emissions. Any economist can tell you that charging for emissions will reduce them.

Very little, many of the economies with carbon emission taxes are outperforming their neighbours, who don't have emission taxes.

Generally speaking, estimates of adaptation costs that have them running around 2-4 times as much as mitigation are considered to be low-balling the costs.

The libertarians (among others) are very, very scared of having an honest discussion about those issues, which is why they continually attempt to deny that climate change exists or has an anthropogenic cause. That is why we keep having the same moronic debate about whether climate change is real. We can talk about what we're going to do about it, when half of the people are listening to professional liars who are paid to sideline that debate for their sponsors, who are pretty happy with the status quo and afraid of change.