This price point is revolutionary news because why?
At least Sanders is honest (for a politician anyway)
That's kind of like being celibate (for a cheap prostitute anyway).
At least he's only a part-time warmonger: Kosovo, Afghanistan, playing Merchant of Death to the whole Middle East, supporting the boondoggle F35 - but hey, he voted against invading Iraq before he voted to fund it.
That, and he still has absolutely no sense of math when it comes to his political promises.
(Peasants half-heartedly shout "yay!")
No, we're all too focused on "Who's fault is it?" and nobody has properly considered "What do we do about it?"
We know exactly what to do about it: move to less convenient fuels (excuse me, "renewables") , adopt less comfortable living conditions (aka "reduce energy consumption"), reduce the amount of disposable consumer goods in our lives, etc. And those of us in the developed world have to cut enough from our carbon budgets to make allowances for the populations of the developing nations who want to better their standards of living, a move that is guaranteed to build resentment on both sides of the equation.
What you're missing here (either honestly or deliberately) is that the problem is ongoing, and that because it's caused by economic activity, the people who are profiting from it want to continue to profit from it, and they are actively working to derail efforts to correct or even acknowledge the problem.
And those of us in the developed world are not too excited about fixing it. The benefit we get from fossil fueled energy is great and immediate; the impact we feel from CO2 emissions is so low we have to be 40 years old before we have enough experience to notice the impact on our own lives. Rising water levels on a few tropical islands is a long way from stepping on a gas pedal in North Dakota.
So yeah, we need to do both: stop the people who are encouraging the growth of the problem, and we have to accept some sacrifices as a result. Neither is fun, so
Every single argument I've ever heard from the "deniers" is based on either a real lack of understanding of science, or they've assumed an argumentative position based on their political leanings. They don't understand the difference between weather and climate. They don't understand trends or statistical sampling. They don't understand the difference between tolerances and allowances, accuracy and precision, or how averages are computed. They don't understand how data from ice cores is calibrated and tested. They don't understand how geologic climate data works. They make faulty assumptions about CO2 data collection methods.
And you know what? That's OK. Not everyone can be expected to learn all that. But if they can't, then they at least need the honesty to either try to learn from people who do understand, or at least refrain from echoing arguments made by others - because those others aren't making those arguments out of pure stupidity. They are making them to advance their political agenda, or to at least delay someone else's agenda.
In any collection of people, there will be some "deniers" who will not listen to reason, meaning we will never see unanimity. The trick is recognizing when enough rational people have accepted the arguments. Once the percentage of "deniers" drops far enough below the population of rational people, it's time to stop trying to convince everyone and moving on to accomplish tasks. We have to know when the delays have run their course, because nothing will ever get done if we wait for every last denier to come into accordance.
As far as your argument goes, there are 50 years of science, 150 years of direct climate measurements, thousands of years of indirect climate measurements, and geological evidence going back much further. I think climate science is a lot further along than still trying to establish first principles.
Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.