Why did you stop reading after the first sentence?

I'm just saying that if you make a bunch of projections to prove something, and the one that proves it the least is 20% off, you can't claim your projections are good.

Is it reasonable to expect a model that fits the data perfectly?

ALL Taxes are regressive.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive. If the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline, and if the average person used 500 gallons of gasoline in a year, everyone would receive a $500 tax rebate every year. For a poor person, that's a lot of money. And since the truly poor don't drive, they won't be the ones paying the tax in the first place.

All of the models used to predict GW have failed, miserably...

False.

We're taking food and converting it to fuel...

That makes bicycles, which get 48 miles per gallon of orange juice, sound bad.

And if it's wrong to use a natural resource for transportation when that same resource can also be used to produce food, then why are we using fossil fuels for transportation?

And is it wrong to use land to produce biofuels if the biofuel is used to produce or transport food?

For these reasons, the "no food for fuels" argument doesn't make perfect sense to me.

...using a fingerprint database to show that cash isn't anonymous.

A 767 once landed safely with 0 of 2 engines.

As for takeoff, the weight limits are set so that the aircraft is capable of climbing at an adequate gradient...with one engine inoperative.

The govt is not supposed to be there to track me

Are you a car? I know that cars are getting smarter, but this is ridiculous!

Stop setting up cash-cow speed traps.

But that's what we're paying them to do. That's why it's called a "cash cow." If we don't like it, we should stop paying them to do it.

texters have worse reaction times than drunks!

Reaction time isn't a problem if you drive at a speed and keep a following distance appropriate for your reaction time. This is why elderly people drive slowly.

the cost of improving brakes is likely to be far, far less than the economic cost of excluding millions of people from driving, in a society where driving is nearly essential for daily life.

Or taking bad drivers off the road would create better drivers and help free ourselves from an overdependence on a single mode of travel (a single point of failure), one that consumes massive amounts of land for roads and parking, drains similarly massive amounts of money to overseas oil and car companies, and creates respiratory problems, up to $1,600 per person per year.

the consensus view of the American public is that they do not want to sacrifice their lifestyles for the environment

[citation needed]

Having insurance through an insurance company doesn't guarantee that you won't be sued.