Slashdot Mirror
Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change?
Hugh Pickens writes "David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate. But behind the scenes, a different story is emerging that offers reason for optimism: the world's largest economies may be in the process of creating a climate-change response that does not depend on the politically painful process of raising the price of dirty energy. Despite some high-profile flops, like ethanol and Solyndra, clean-energy investments seem to be succeeding more than they are failing. 'The price of solar and wind power have both fallen sharply in the last few years. This country's largest wind farm, sprawling across eastern Oregon, is scheduled to open next month. Already, the world uses vastly more alternative energy than experts predicted only a decade ago,' writes Leonhardt. Natural gas, the use of which has jumped 25 percent since 2008 while prices have fallen more than 80 percent, now generates as much electricity as coal in the United States, which would have been unthinkable not long ago. Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible which, while far from perfectly clean, is less carbon-intensive than coal use. The clean-energy push has been successful enough to leave many climate advocates believing it is the single best hope for preventing even hotter summers, concludes Leonhardt, adding that while a cap-and-trade program faces an uphill political battle, an investment program that aims to make alternative energy less expensive is more politically feasible. 'Our best hope,' says Benjamin H. Strauss, 'is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.'"
Do you have reading comprehension problems? The quoted text says "on record". Go look back how far we've been keeping temperature records. Nobody was sitting around with thermometers in the Paleozoic era.
FWIW, Antarctica is still a desert.
even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)
Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era,
What part of "warmest year on record" is unclear to you?
What part of the temperature during earlier eras where we weren't on top of the food chain is relevant?
The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore
The sad thing is that many slashdotters wouldn't question your patently obviously boring rhetoric.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Bear in mind, those years where during a period where normal cycles should have been flat of slight cooler.
That's why they are more proof of Man Made Climate change.
It's also important to remind people like that because some conservatives make the bald face lie that the last decade or so was cooler. When presented with the actual facts, they refuse to reconsider their opinion. So we need to counter the people spreading that lie as well.
Could it be more precise? probably. OTOH if you want that level or precision there are plenty of excellent scientific papers on the subject
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Natural gas is not clean energy. I seem to remember that the greenhouse gasses emitted during extraction and processing of shale gas, which is the source of most of our current boom IIRC, offsets any benefits. Does anyone know?
Not to mention that the U.S. also wasn't around in the Mesozoic. It's not even 250 years old.
I musta missed the last few years then, when was it a middle Carboniferous era after 1998?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
"they" are telling us not to look at the weather ("boy it's 'whatever' today"), and to look at the climate data ("ooh look at that trend line" )
If you think "they" are saying anything else you are listening to the wrong "they".
It seems to me ... and I cannot provide references ... that it's been "too late to do anything" for ten years or more. This always seemed to be a counter-productive way to evangelize. If it really is too late, we need to put resources more toward mitigation (which I suspect will be the case anyway).
Dark Reflection
Hold on so what this article is saying is that once again the free market is taking care of us where the government has failed miserably? But thats not what the democrats tell me. The liberals keep telling me how bad the free market is at responding to, well, anything.
"But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!"
Can you name a single person who has advocating abolishing all industry?
There is a very straightforward solution: Sensible policies.
I know what you are thinking: 'That's politically impossible'. That's what obstructionists want you to think, that nothing can get done. Don't be so easily intimidated and demoralized. If you want it done, it will happen. Every other advanced economy manages it; we can too.
The obstructionists are out of steam; their tactics are obvious and they have little left to say. I think Churchill said, 'America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities'. I think we're just about at that point.
But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!
The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore, lest someone label them a GW denier.
What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate. (Since these resources generate on geological timescales, not human timescales.) Even if we don't care about the environment, once these resources are depleted, say goodbye to a high-tech human civilization unless we have developed alternative energy sources.
(Note that we will probably not be able to develop alternative energy sources once we have reached that point, since the development of alternative energy sources will require a high-tech human civilization.)
With highish first derivatives of temperature over time being on the order of a couple of degrees C per millennium, and second derivatives operating on the order of .1 degree per millennium per millennium. To treat 1800-2015 as the same as -10000 BC to 1 AD is crazy.
Personally, I'm a lot sicker of people talking about "crazy-eyed alarmists" preaching that "the fucking end is nigh." Who, specifically, are these "crazy-eyed alarmists" and where are they making such predictions? I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they? Where are they preaching that I've never heard them?
And while we are at it, who is insisting that we need to "abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!"? Again, I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they?
We'va also had 5 majour extinxion events during those millions of years. And all of them had something to do with major shifts in climate, caused by external factors: the big meteorite did not kill the dinosaurs. The nuclear winter which followed did.
Large, fast changes in climate don't matter much to life. It'll recover. We may not. Or we may, but our civilisation is a goner. Or maybe, if we are extra-lucky, we get to only have a major economic crisis. Something like the industrial revolution in reverse.
Global warming is a serious threat. And we will --those of us below fifty -- have to face its consequences directly. We can only hope that it won't be as bad as the scientists think it'll be, and that it much, much worse than what you see in news.
Our best hope is a radical alteration using chemical means?
Are you kidding me?
We still use HALF the energy in the US and Canada heating and cooling mostly empty buildings. We could easily just change zoning and tax laws to encourage buildings to have green roofs, provide their own power, use half the energy to heat and cool, and build them for barely more than we pay for buildings nowadays. Practically the entire campus here is built using such buildings now.
We still have massive untapped energy sources of hydro, mini-hydro, micro-hydro, geothermal, wind, urban wind, tidal and other energy sources that would dramatically impact GHG impacts. In America.
We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars. Or people could bike or walk more.
There are a lot of very simple things we could do today.
But ... we're lazy whiners. Period.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Stop being greedy self-centered asshole that main purpose in life is consumation. And it is main purpose in life for many of people. All those that, like George Carlin say, buy things they "DON'T NEED" with money they don't have.
I don't own a freaking iPod or iPad or 50 pairs of shoes and pants and big screen TV, and don't have a need to "get one" as soon as it starts hitting the media... if there's a practical need for me to get one, I'll get one. I'm not gonna go blindly buy everything. You may think this isn't related, but it is. 90 % of stuff you can buy/posses is BS. More worse, stupid BS. But as long as it's fancy and flashy ... it's alright eh ?
When you stop simply consuming without thinking, all those factories will gonna close down. Lost jobs ? Oh well, you can't sit with one ass on two chairs.
Stop bloody complaining, and do something about it.
Yes, it's perfectly clear that the "on record" qualifier still applies to the immediately appended parenthetical about the 13 warmest years, goldfish brain.
The enemies of Democracy are
AC, if you've got a comment, you didn't make that comment. Someone else made that happen.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
The 13 years are those for which we have records. When the Earth was covered with lava, I don't think anyone had a thermometer, smarty pants.
The vast majority of scientists in the applicable field believe the Earth is warming. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
The vast majority of those scientists believe that the warming is being significantly accelerated by human processes, and that the trend line is far sharper than standard climatic cycles would ordinary produce. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
Most outcome predictions based on the rate of change we're seeing include massive effects on humanity. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
But sadly, you are our problem. People who, despite growing evidence, fail to grasp the urgency of the matter will be our collective downfall. Even though I tend to get very frustrated at the ignorance, I've pretty much just come to accept it. The thing that really ticks me off is that my children will suffer because of people like you, spreading the "it's not that bad" schtick.
And by the way, industry can mean a lot of things. A clean energy industry would be awesome.
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
That's nice, but while natural gas is "cleaner burning" than some other fossil fuels in ways that are very significant to a number of other environmental concerns (particulates, sulfur emissions, etc.), its only very slightly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions for the energy produced, and even completely replacing all coal power generation overnight wouldn't do much for climate change. In the context of climate change, natural gas is red herring, not an alternative.
Is it really the warmest on record? On what record? The mercury thermometer record? Tree ring record? Ice core record? It was certainly warmer a little over 1000 years ago and one could consider them "on record".
thank you, at least someone gets it. We have only been keeping detailed weather records for around 100 years and now were supposed to believe that this is the hottest its ever been, thats crazy.
No, he doesn't "get it". Have you never heard of paleoclimatology? Scientists down in Antarctica have sampled cores of ice that have been trapped for millennia, and have been able to correlate the temperatures of the ice as well as trapped atmospheric particles with the time they were trapped. From them, they have determined an approximation of the average global temperature back through time, as well as estimates of things like the percentage of Earth's surface covered by wetlands based on methane levels indicating decomposed bacteria.
The Antarctic ice sheet has a pretty good record going all the way back to the previous ice age and a bit earlier. It's not like an almanac, where they can ask "what was the temperature on July 4th, 4004 BC", but they can see slow moving trends. For example, they can see a small dip that correlates to the Little Ice Age, and a more dramatic dip from an earlier ice age.
And the ice sheets aren't the only evidence. Geological records also contain clues about the earlier weather, in the forms of rock scratchings where they were pushed by glaciers, glacial moraines, ancient dried lake beds, etc. And the distribution of fossils can show where climates went from "hospitable" to "inhospitable" to certain forms of ancient life.
It's just the kind of data you need to have if you are trying to figure out if this decade is warmer than all previous decades in the last 40,000 years.
There is nothing crazy about it. It's just science.
John
We are currently at around seven billion people, starvation we see currently is from political, not technical issues. We do not have too many people, we have some people that suffer needlessly - an entirely different problem.
The upper growth is around 10 billion people, after that the population will remain fairly stable. There's no reason to think that with technological improvements in obtaining food we could not support that population indefinitely, assuming some vast plague does not take us down a lot...
Ironically, current warming trends would help us with more arable land, if scared fools would allow climate change to proceed normally.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Natural Gas == Fracking == Destruction Of Dwindling Clean Drinking Water.
Not much of an improvement
The sentence says this year is the warmest on record for the US. It says the past 13 are the warmest period for the whole planet, no mention of recorded or time at all.
Actually, you're just showing off a poor understanding of the English language. The actual text in question is:
... even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), ...
Anyone with minimal competence in (written) English will understand that the parenthesized part is an addendum to what came before, and what came before included "on record". So that "on record" would normally be understood to apply to the parenthesized extension of the sentence.
Of course, such a misreading could be due to ignorance or malice. But it's fairly common to make "mistakes" like this for propaganda purposes. I suspect that this was the case here. In particular, I suspect that the parent comment was written by someone (Baloroth 3270816) understood the statement quite well, but decided to ignore the normal reading of the typical English speaker, and claim that it said something other than what it actually said. This was done for the usual propaganda reasons.
(It can be useful to study propaganda techniques; it gives you the ability to both see through them and also use them for your own purposes. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I recommend reading "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years" (http://www.amazon.com/2052-Global-Forecast-Forty-Years/dp/1603584218).
It is written by the same guy who co-wrote the 1972 report "The Limits Of Growth" and deals with what humanity will likely do (globally) in the next 40 years (not what we SHOULD do, but what we will most likely do).
It is very interesting (and actually quite easy) to read and deals among other things with the expected results of climate change.
Prices are determined by the law of supply vs. demand. As supply of fossil fuel decreases the costs will rise and that will leave people very hungry for energy. People are already complaining about rising energy costs and fossil fuel is still relatively extremely cheap.
So long as "we all agree" that fossil fuel is not inexhaustible, then it's pretty much common sense that there is going to be a massive market for alternatives in the future.
I have nothing at all against investing in those alternatives. I just don't see the point in using tax money to do so. Not only do I think it's unnecessary but I think it's counter-productive; which is to say if anything is going to prevent alternatives from coming to market it's going to be government intervention that keeps new energy start-ups out of the market as a favour to the giants who lobby and buy politicians. One can even argue that direct funding of alternative research by government is potentially dangerous to the emergence of "viable alternatives" because tax money doesn't generally have a way of finding itself in the pockets of those who are competent and capable of building, producing, marketing and distributing things on their own. Instead it finds it's way into the pockets of those are really good at getting things from government.
"David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998) [...]"
Actually, the parenthetical claim is clearly saying that the absolute warmest years for the entire planet have been since 1998. The claim is an example of poor writing. Just because the meaning can be inferred does not mean that it should be necessary to do so. The possibility of inferring the meaning does not excuse the writer from the onus of clear and precise communication.
Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
No it is a case were a particular generation, due to demographic factors, always got its way, and upset the intergenerational transfers, where education must be balanced with retirements and unemployment. The baby boom passing through the system tilted it always towards them. They got their education cheap, they got inflation as wage earner which allowed them to buy property for cheap, and now that they retire, they force deflation and cuts to education to pay for their retirement.
Their parents, on the contrary constructed a society for their children rather than for themselves. Are they responsible for all the ills in the world? No. Are they responsible for being selfish arseholes (collectively) who caused a situation were education and research get sacrificed on the altar of retirement funds? you bet.
And that is stealing the future.
I remember twenty years ago or so when Al Gore was stumping for more public transportation. Even then I thought what a ridiculous, old-school, political-suicide-inducing idea that was. Why the hell are we commuting in the first place, when so many of us could do what we do perfectly well from home (or some other location)? Instead of forcing people to ride buses like a bunch of proles, the government could create telecommuting initiatives. At least it would be a lot cheaper and bound to be more popular.
Proverbs 21:19
No, "for the entire planet" means in contrast to specific parts of the planet which have not necessarily had their warmest years since 1998, as in global average temperature. Repeating "on record" every single time once the context has already been established would be bad writing.
Just because it is possible for you to deliberately smash the language centers of your brain that normally work just fine so as to manage to misunderstand perfectly clear English does not make it the writer's problem.
The enemies of Democracy are
No. More like actual risks of famine and drought. In fucking developed countries.
Also, I don't like heat very much, but that is pretty minor ;)
Every time I read one of these climate change stories and the comments shouting "hoax!", I think back to a story. A professor was asked to study the atomic bomb yields and say whether or not it would ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere and destroy the Earth. He came back a short time later and said, "No, of course not!"
After the test, his colleagues asked him how he arrived at his answer so quickly. He said, "Well, if I was wrong, who would've known?"
Ahem. Global warming and the self-destruction of mankind is a hoax!
Also, if a scientist came along with conclusive evidence that there was no such thing as global warming, he'd get a *LOT* more money. Think about it. How much would the oil companies pay for such information? There's no selfish reason to lie about this.
Technically it would have to be read as only the hottest in the hundred or so years we have records for. But it was written such that most people will read it with the meaning of 'hottest evar'
The context of "on record" was clearly established. The only part of the context that changed -- from hottest year in the U.S. to hottest years for the whole planet -- was also clearly established. Most people do not have goldfish brains and can keep track of this context for six whole words.
So, only people who wanted to invent a reason to complain would read it that way. Everyone else knows that the author did not suddenly, mid-sentence, despite already qualifying their claims with "on record", expand the context to the entire history of our rock ball which was at one point molten.
The enemies of Democracy are
Even if your (or the previous similar comment's, or the original poster's) interpretation made sense - which it doesn't - what amazes me is how perfect an example these posts are of the usual bullshit arguments against climate change.
You can't question the facts, so you question the grammar of the person stating the facts. I believe that's called an "ad hominem"...
But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh...
You are, of course, talking about the people who spout the bullshit about how if we dare to be a little more conservative with our fossil fuel use, the economy will collapse and we'll all live in caves, right?
Given enough clean energy, we can always build a plant that will take CO2 from the air, combine it with hydrogen from water, and make hydrocarbons. We can then gasify the hydrocarbons to produce carbon. And pure carbon (as opposed to CO2) we can sequester easily.
Don't believe me? Look out your window. See that plant? No, the living one. That's such a plant. Then the gasification produces charcoal. Or, if you can't get enough of those plants, for this function, they can be replaced.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Never mind the trolls. And forget about our nominal leaders. They follow us, not the other way around. So, what are we going to do about climate change?
My house is a 70's era of about 2200 sq. ft., with a gas furnace, gas water heater (tank), and a 12 SEER A/C. The location is suburbia, and there's nothing I can do about that. It's be nice to be within walking distance of necessities, but that's just not happening. I've got us down to about $1500/year on energy costs. I understand that's very good. But I'd like to do more. I've already done most of the easy stuff. Most of the lights are CFLs. I set the thermostat at 82 in the summer and 70 in the winter. (I'd push that further, but the rest of the family whines too much when I do.) The house is well shaded by mature trees on the south side. But according to my calculations, half of our energy still goes towards heating and cooling. I have fuel efficient cars, and a plug in electric mower that I use as little as possible. I was very happy to bid farewell to the CRT.
I'm looking for paybacks of no more than 5 years, but that depends on price. I'll accept longer paybacks for cheap stuff. Ideas like putting in double pane windows filled with argon gas, roof vents, solar cells, solar water heaters, water recapture, and other expensive home remodeling notions simply aren't worth the cost. I heard that leaky ductwork can be a big waste of energy, but in this house, the ductwork is inside. The hallways have lower ceilings than the rooms. Anyway, it's a poor quality cookie cutter home. Hate to spend money on a piece of crap house. But if a bit of remodeling isn't worth doing, then knocking it down and starting over sure isn't worth doing. There are other things. I have a few 80%+ efficient computer power supplies, and some of those green power strips that automatically cut the power to peripherals when the main computer is off. For convenience I leave a computer running all the time, however it takes only 20 watts. It'd be better if I could get power management working in Linux. Even at only 20 watts, automatic suspend to disk could be a big saver if only it worked. Replaced a 40 watt fluorescent light fixture with the new 32 watt kind when the ballast went bad.
In any case, I have the feeling that's all "small ball". As a whole, our houses are poor and our cities are oblivious to all forms of transportation other than the almighty car. It's exasperating how much low hanging fruit we are ignoring. Automobile aerodynamics is a big one. Why isn't the underside of every car nice and smooth? Because no one looks at that part of the car. Why don't we have skirts on the wheels? Because they look "ugly"! A huge saver would be the electric car. I'm impatiently waiting for decent batteries. Would like to see at least 500 km capacity on a 15 minute charge, and able to last several thousand cycles.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
"Records" include ice cores, pollen samples, a lot of contemporary data going back a long way. I found the phrase ambiguous too, although not to the rage level of the OP.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
So from 0.0004% to 0.000548%?
"Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
The one with actual measurements. I'm guessing you knew that, though and are just faking ignorance because it helps you undermine the science.
Clever signature text goes here.
There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help (see that infamous 10/10 video).
See
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html
2. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (lots of examples of ridiculous alarmism)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
Now, let me make myself clear: AGW is probably real and it makes sense to work against it. Still, the end is NOT nigh, and there is no reason for authoritarian measures such as reducing human population or severely crippling the economy.
The market is already moving in the right direction. If we want to accelerate it, then some slight subsidy for renewable coupled with some slight overtaxing of oil/coal is enough.
They have only been keeping records for 150+ years, and there is no telling how accurate the early records really are. Take into account that most cities were still rural (like) and not as advanced as cities today with being primarily asphalt and concrete, which adds another 10+ degrees to the actual temp. There were not as many cities recording and reporting temps like there have been prior to the 90's. I could go on and on.. I am not denying global warming, but if you are going to be fair and scientific you need to look at all the factors, the idiot media takes scientific reports out of context to make a buck.. People should stop worrying if it is true or not and ask themselves what if? I am not sure if people are just arrogant with there belief systems thinking it is god will, or the figure they will not be alive by the time anything major happens so f**k it. Take a quote from Master Shake's Self Help book When a problem arises, and there appears to be no solution!!! "lets all take a nap and hope it goes away"
I'm not the mod but obviously your comment was marked overrated for a number of reasons. Ascribing it to an agent of BP or DuPont is a delightful display of your paranoid personality disorder. As though the people that run this world give a crap about your high and mighty opinions. A glance at the prolific number of comments you make on Slashdot each and everyday reveals you have very little to do with your life but try to prove others dumber than you. Well done. But, back to your comment. It was modded overrated because it is dismissive without much substance. You make assertions without backing them up. Some of those assertions are just plain wrong. For example, the original poster makes a valid point about the role of fossil fuels in the development of agricultural revolution. Your assertion that things can be grown just as efficiently organically is baseless, incorrect, deluded hippie-speak. On to your completely incorrect, yet ironically entertaining, understanding of economics. If something is "cost-effective" that means it is profitable to use it instead of alternatives. Do you see how stupid it sounds when I say "BP and DuPont could make a larger profit by switching from oil to algae, but instead they are financing a conspiracy to make smaller profits -- just so they can destroy the Earth" ? Its ridiculous and reveals a person who, behind those words, sees the world in an illogical way. The only consistency I see to your words is that you feel everyone (except you) is evil and everyone is out to get you. I would go on, but since you don't generally give people the consideration of thoughtful discourse, I see no point. But, if you get a chance, define narcissist.
if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.
No serious party is making those predictions or proposals. Only the deniers characterize the argument that way. Read the actual science and proposals, instead of the characterizations by their political opponents; for example read the IPCC reports (or just the summaries, which are relatively short); they are what you are looking for.
Your assurance doesn't help in the face of the facts. Also, the free market would work better if those emitting carbon had to pay for it, instead of dumping the cost on everyone else: It creates a false incentive to the emitters (carbon emission is free!) and runs up my taxes and bills.