Apparently we can't do that either because somdumass opposes anything that would "artificially increase costs". Oh wait. You appear to already be opposed to your own solution for the same reason you oppose tariffs. Or maybe you think magic fairies are going to pay for carbon sequestration? The carbon is already sequestered, it's far cheaper to stop burning it than it is to try and re-sequester it after we burn it.

Somehow I doubt the veracity of that claim. After searching for a bit I only found one reference to what that amount actually is, and according to the chart that I found on the ICCT site, it's about to $200-400 per gasoline vehicle which is simply not going to be 1/3 of purchase price of any new car.

I actually sort of agree, in principle, that a private conversation should not be grounds for forcing an owner out of the league. However, this case is more than that. The NBA isn't actually penalising him for his racist views, they're penalising him for being publicly caught and therefore costing them money (if they don't punish him). If they tolerated his racism, they'd possibly face a player and/or fan boycott of the team, and potentially a larger one against the league for tolerating him. To make matters worse he said he didn't want black people in his arena or seeing his team. I suspect if he hadn't said that, and then gone on National TV and attacked one of the most famous basketball players ever instead of apologising and making nice, he would have gotten away with some token sanctions.

But he did what he did, and now the other owners have to choose between their money and a senile old guy they probably never liked in the first place. Is it any surprise they chose public acclaim and money over the angry old senile man? Particularly, when keeping him around would virtually guarantee a repeat performance and more lost money?

So you would say that there is no real competition between restaurants in most cities? They are fairly heavily regulated to provide for the safety of their customers.

A cynic might point out that the only three things you think the government should do could be easily turned against you. The Coyote said "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants the government to police his slaves". I wonder if you understand what that means.

It wasn't a phone call. He was just yelling at his girlfriend because she was seen in public with her non-white friends.

I don't understand why you included the words "seems to" in that sentence. Virtually all of the American media is owned by corporations, and the news (tv, radio, newspaper, and web) are mostly paid for by commercial advertisers. So the media very explicitly only cares about the money. Some of the reporters might care about morality or justice, but nobody above the level of editor does. They're paid not to.

You misunderstand entirely. He has been caught doing racist things. Caught many, many times, actually. There have been numerous complaints from his players and others about his racism (I remember one saying he treated the players like they were field workers at a plantation). He wasn't forced out because he said something racist or did something racist. He was forced out because he made the entire league look bad. At this point it doesn't matter whether the tape should or should not have been released. It was released and the NBA either had to take a collective write-down on their expected profits to defend a senile old man's racism*, or kick him out of the club. It's really simple, he was forced to sell because he was a liability to the league and to the other owners. He sealed his fate when he attacked one of the most famous Basketball players even for being a poor role model when he was supposed to be apologising and pretending he didn't mean what he said.

* The senile part is important, because if they've got half a brain they know this wouldn't have been the last time "Stirling the Racist NBA Owner" made the news as his dementia advanced and he became less able to control his racist outbursts. They also know that it would cost each of them millions every time Stirling made the headlines unless they made a clean and clear break from him.

Because "the huge deviations" do not actually exist?

Often the claims that the models don't match reality are based on incompetence or worse.

As a bonus here are some simpe trend comparison graphs.

Would that be the Richard Lindzen who has been funded by Exxon and OPEC, who actually does accept the basics of anthropogenic global warming, but disagrees with exactly how high the earth's climate sensistivity is (ie the amount of temperature increase you'll see from a doubling of CO2 levels). The man who been a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute, who writes opinion pieces for the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Stree Journal, and who recently joined the Cato Institute?

Not so much, no.

Unfortunately, that comparison is rarely disappassionate. In fact, some recent studies have found that the "just the facts" approach to education on controversial topics tends to backfire. Among the general populace, there a high tendency to acknowledge only the facts that support a pre-existing position and the ignore the facts that contradict it.

Frankly, that's why there is an entire cottage industry built around denying something that 97% of the people researching it have concluded is true. However, that 97% may actually be low-balling the consensus, since James Powell says he's reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reveiwed journals mentioning global warming and climate change since 1991 and only 26 of them reject the anthropogenic cause. That's would be a disagreement rate of about 0.1%.

The people most qualified to evaluate the evidence seem to be in a near universal agreement that is rarely accurately represented by the media.

"The logic of limited resources only applies when the economy is using most of those limited resources. If there are slack resources, we need merely mobilize some of the slack resources".

You are a couple steps behind me.

Everything attracts politicians. That shouldn't be a surprise, it's literally a politician's job to angle for power and votes. After all, a politician who loses an election isn't a politician, he's just an unemployed loudmouth.

That's because less than "a lot" can still be "a lot". Let's take for example, the difference between now and the 1940s, in 1940s it took 4 years to circumnavigate North America, including 3 years just for the Northwest passage, now it takes less than half a year. Being shut down for just months is a huge improvement over being shut down for years.

Actually, you can. Because surprise, surprise, the "politicians" give it to their "cronies" who give it back to the "productive sector". Spending the money three times increases the total of economic activity more than spending it once. It is pretty crazy, especially if you're a libertarian who believes the government is an evil black hole where money goes to die. The biggest problem for economy isn't who takes or gives the money, it's who holds on to it. If it's not moving, it doesn't get counted.

Furthermore, higher taxes can actually subsidize employment. It's counter-intuitive, I know, but for corporations employees are an expense that reduces profit. Since taxes are only applied to profit, hiring more employees is effectively cheaper for the owners when taxes are high (if they would lose 30% of the profit to taxes, they're only effectively paying 70% of the price of an additional employee out of the profit they would keep, if it were 50%, they'd only be effectively paying half the cost for another employee*). Since capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, when taxes are higher it can be more effective to invest profits into growing the business.

* numbers for example purposes only, I'm not avocating for any particular tax rate here.

They grow there now too.

No, actually it doesn't, it actually says the trend over the last 15 years is lower than the overall trend because of the chosen start and end dates:

Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade)

Very convenient, anyone who disagrees with you is a religious zealot. However, any time that you are allying with religious leaders and calling scientists zealots, you should really take that as a clue that you need to carefully examine your beliefs.

97% of the scientists who study climate change think it's happening and it's man-made, as does 97% of the published research on the topic. That leaves a mere 3% to split between the undecided and those who think it's either not happening or not man-made. If it weren't actually happening there should be a lot more research showing negative results.

They're called Tariffs. Make it cheaper to make stuff right in your own country than to make them the wrong way in someone else's country and it's a win-win situation.