Revenue neutral carbon taxes have been successfully used to reduce the amount of dirty electricity being used (by raising the price of produce), and still leave home owners with more money in their pocket. They drive economic growth (energy innovation, home modernization, grid modernization), and they also cause economic harm (fossil fuel interests are losers). When you tally up the growth and harm, they come feakily close to zero. So, on average, it costs nothing, but Koch and Koch will need a new business model.

There are always winners and loser when incentive structures change. The real question is who is being subsized by the status quo, and is it fair. Fighting AGW will produce winners and losers but the consensus among economists it that it will have a negligble effect on overall economic growth. That means we can move away from fossil fuels and, on average, we will still be as rich in the future even if AGW is a hoax. If it isn't a hoax, then we will be a lot richer in the future if the USA still keeps all the naval bases and city facilities and property that are at sea level -- to name merely one certain economic downside of warming.

A revenue neutral pollution tax can be used to compensate the losers, other than the fossil fuel industry, who are enjoying huge negative externalities right now. No wonder Koch and Koch are spending so much money shaping political perceptions on the issue.

It is a fallacy that we must sacrifice much to fight climate change. The real alarmists are the economic alarmists. (Sure there are far left weirdos who use AGW as cover for their anti-capitalist economics, but their lunacy does not reflect the reality of the problem.) The consensus from economists is that a lot can be done with zero net effect to the economy. This is not just technology. We must change incentive structures that are already biased toward drawing down on fossil fuels. (Remember, we are not paying the true cost of our energy, for a lot of complex reasons.) The technology is already ready, with wind energy already having a total cost of ownership lower than coal. Solar is more expensive, for now, but will soon be cheaper. The only reason why we burn coal is because it is subsidized. Thus, pricing in the cost of pollution will lower the overall energy costs of the nation, and also drive economic growth. This is because most of the world is using revenue neutral taxes -- taking money from polluters and then creating incentives for housing and grid modernization. We already have more people working in renewable energy than in coal in the USA. Sure renewables do not supply reliable baseline energy, but that is a grid problem that is being solved by technology. You can look up the solutions if you are interested. The main obstacle in the USA is the nimby crowd. (The USA needs more high voltage transmission between parts of the country.)

You are talking about one small vein of climate science -- and creating and testing models is actually science. It's part of "signal processing". I know you will get distracted by that last comment. So again, and speaking very, very, slowly. Modeling is a tiny part of climate science, and the AGW hypothesis does not depend on it in the slightest. See here and here.

The political argument is only choking on its own blood within conservative circles in the USA, Australia, and Canada -- with the later two making some discernible progress. The GOP is not equal to the entire world.

No amount of sound argumentation will help you phantom, because, as we both know, you are only interested in tickling your own motivated reasoning. It doesn't matter that the AGW theory doesn't rely on models. It doesn't matter surface temperature has next to nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter that 2014 was warmer than 1998, when there was no El Nino in 2014, and a record El Nino in 1998.

What matters is that you are right, and you are going to prove it, no matter what.

Do you know what a mimophant is? Either Mann is one, or his detractors are. Hint, his detractors came after him -- personally -- and now they are playing the victim if he so much as protests, let alone follow sound legal council over witch-hunts.

Well, you probably know too much about the "science" to actually understand one of Mann's papers -- so it is really pitched at your level.

And perhaps a combination of Ralph Nadar, and the US Supreme Court had something to do with Al Gore losing as well. I sure miss W. though. I time when the economy boomed, deficits came down, and the US garnered the world's respect.

They don't see it as pollution, but an assault on the very moral fabric of their being. If they are wrong about AGW, so then think about the consequences!!! TEH SOCIALISM!!! And so the cogs turn in the mind of the ideologue who, with no trace of irony sees themselves as balanced, nuanced and reasonable. Hence all the projection and gnashing at teeth.

It only takes a microsecond for a claim to be generated, and another microsecond of the ideologue to convince themselves it is true based on its pleasant chime. It takes forever to disprove the claim because, as the Japanese say, he who doesn't listen cannot hear. Thus it is, has been, and always will be. I'm convinced that the name "homo sapian" is a failed attempt at irony.

You probably believe that renewables can never compete with carbon energy on price alone -- unsubsidized. The simple truth is that after subsidies are removed, only gas can compete with renewables. Gas wins handily, for now. The main obstacle for renewables in that the USA needs more high voltage capacity -- blocked by the nimby crowd -- to move electricty across the country. With more high voltage power lines, it would quickly start to cost more to mine and ship coal to existing coal power plants than build wind power. Solar is close behind, and the prices are coming down fast.

Now it is not true that the above pricing estimates are purely subsidy free. Coal, oil and natural gas are still given huge subsidies in the calculations: private profits, socialized losses. You see, coal/oil/gas does not pay for the significant health burdens, or the trillions in wars. And that is leaving aside using the atmosphere as a free waste tip.

If your main concern about climate change action is "ruining the economy", then pull your head out of partisan news sources, and go look at the actual figures that businesses and governments use to make decisions. Most economists believe that climate action costs are negligible, but that not doing anything will cost a lot -- starting with all the beachfront property on the East coast, which will have moved in land within 100 years.

Haha! He said he couldn't breath like six times before being murdered by the cop choking him. Did you not watch the tape? Did it cause a mental syntax error or something?

Have you ever seen police breaking cameras? What would you do if someone broke your camera? Call the police?

Yeah, the police feel they are under assault. Yet there is almost a live-stream of police abusing the moral privilege they are given, even though the job is far safer than many other jobs. I've seen a good friend enter the police, and adopt the cultural talking points. There are real systemic problems with how police do their jobs, and how interrogations and prosecutions are done -- and at no point do police seem willing to accept any criticism or feedback at all. If there is video evidence, then the problem is that there is video evidence.