In truth, I've never heard a Christian attempt to say that climate denial is more aligned to a Christian worldview, so it's hard to imagine how the Bible might be exploited to suit the denialist worldview - but I daresay it is possible. Climate Change itself, along with it's anthropogenic causes, is, by way of contrast, well aligned with the Christian worldview:
1. In the Christian worldview we no longer live in Eden, so our interaction with the natural world is more like this:
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;
for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Thus the notion that we have some natural right to live a life of ease and plenty (a core tenet of Denialism) is contradictory to the Christian expectation.
2. In the Christian worldview everybody follows something they consider to be god (either knowingly or unknowingly) thus:
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Denialists are concerned that having to pay to rectify or prevent Climate Change will impact their ability to be wealthy and obtain a life of ease. And they would prefer to ignore their obligations toward the poor, who are people the primarily impacted by Climate Change, being far more vulnerable to it's ravages. In the Christian parlance then, they love money, and not God.
Leaked is probably the wrong word for it, it implies they uncovered something of import, or at least, something of interest to people other than lunatic conspiracy theorists who assert that the scientific world has been conspiring against them for 150 years. Stole might be closer to the truth, in which case, if this person or persons has committed a crime, why shouldn't they face justice? If it was legal and just trollish and a public nuisance, then by all means, let them face merely the condemnation of history.
1. What it the exact mechanism causing the temperature rise we have observed?
2. What happened to the latent heat that should have driven climate change given the increased concentrations of greenhouse gas?
You need to explain both the temperature rise AND the reason why CO2, for instance, would act in a way contrary to oft repeated observations concerning it's radiative properties.
During the course of that conversation, it became clear that you accepted that the theory itself (that is, that certain molecules, including CO2, absorb radiation in the infra-red spectra) is falsifiable. You admitted this was true. You also admitted that the models (used to test and predict the scale and direction of the subsequent climate change) were readily falsifiable.
Yet here you are again, asking the same questions, when you know the answers already, and do not dispute them. Which causes me to wonder whether you suffer some sort of short term memory loss, or whether your participation in these conversations is not actually in pursuit of intellectual honesty.
And here we see why the "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" movement is so subversive and dangerous. If someone where to say, "I don't belive in Einstein's theory of relativity", he would be told he is wrong, or ignored. If someone were to say, "I don't believe in the theory of continental drift", she would be told she is wrong, or ignored. But to DOUBT or DENY climate change is sacrilege - you are vile, selfish, practically an evil doer fit to be punished. Scientists who see the data differently are in danger of losing their jobs, and funding. It has happened before. What other science acts that way? What other theory demands such fealty?
If you choose promote a theory by using death threats to attempt to silence those who disagree with you then yes, vile evil doers is a perfectly appropriate term Even those denialists who repudiate the more radical arm of their organisation, and are horrified by those who pursue the ideologue and rhetoric to it's logical extreme are still culpable for their statements. How can they not be? If I drink and drive, and consequently kill someone, I'm culpable, even if I'm ignorant of the law. Ignorance is not an excuse. And most denialists, honestly, are not ignorant. They know very well the climate change is happening and that the causes are anthropogenic, but choose, for the sake preserving a conflicted world view, to live with the subsequent cognitive dissonance. I think they are culpable for the consequences of their actions (delaying action on climate change, thus making the effect slightly worse), and should be held to be so.
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 [senate.gov]
How many scientists are there in the US? Oh, wait, I already know 500 000 which means the number of scientists in the US who think that climate change is not anthropogenic is 0.08%.
No - character assassination is much more effective. The crucial thing is to ensure that the whole wikileaks story is a story about Assange, and not a story about US gunships gunning down reuters reporters, or casual threats of violence made against Al Jazeera, or the leader of a major US ally and troop contributer calling the situation in Afghanistan a clusterf*ck, or afghan boys being bought and sold for sex to warlords by US companies, and the US government sitting on their hands.
Funny, I never knew about that right. I had understood "parenting" (like the right to choose what medical treatment your child receives) was a fundamental right recognized at the founding of the country, whereas public education was a relatively recent development.
You understood wrong.
Universal public education began in the 1850s - before the country was founded (1901).
You need to understand that at this point denialists have reached the end of the road. Their own are deserting them. Their efforts against the CRU look increasingly trollish. They attempted a rhetorical distinction between the earlier positions they have since abandoned as untenable (self classifying those positions as "denialism") and later, factually sparse but rhetorically enhanced positions (self classified as "scepticism" e.g "sure, the earth is warming but who knows how much is caused by humans?" ) - but failed, the trick was exposed.
Therefore, even a paper that confirms the phenomena of AGW with increasing certitude (this paper) looks good to them, even if it utterly contradicts their actual position.
Well firstly religion isn't what you think it is. The worldview of a buddhist or a hindu is vastly different to a Mormon, which is vastly different from a Muslim. To assume a taxonomy where the first branch is "belief" and "non-belief" is nonsensical.
Religion treats basic truths as already known (my god exists and is responsible for everything) and then seeks to justify and glorify this base knowledge.
Not all religions have a deity. Atheists treat their basic truth (humans created the Deities in their own image) as already known and bristle at the notion of having to prove that principle. The "mainline" monotheistic beliefs (Christianity/Islam/Judaism) assume that God was unknown, but then revealed himself to Abraham. So I can only speculate about who this categorisation covers.
Science assumes that truth is unknown and seeks to get closer to this unknown goal, regardless of where the search takes us.
Science is a branch of natural philosophy and a discipline that studies the observable in order to draw conclusions. It makes not conclusion about entities that cannot be observed via the scientific method.
For religion to co-exist with science, the first step would have to be for you to admit that you might be worshiping the incorrect god and to be open to switching gods should evidence cast doubt on your current position; since that's incompatible with the very concept of "faith", the two approaches are irreconcilable.
You should focus on how you justify your own beliefs, and worry less about the belief of others. And if you wish to criticise something, maybe learn a bit about what it is you are criticising first.
Sorry, how would you go about selecting another provider with a better price?
I'm in Australia, and have recently tried shopping around for better energy rates. The first problem is that all companies charge virtually the same rates so its near impossible to differentiate between them. I would think that 99% of companies will pass on the costs of any carbon tax to the consumer. When one company increases their prices, the others usually follow. Same with fuel/petrol.
But again, the risk of those companies colluding to increase prices is the same risk regardless of whether they are paying a carbon tax. So unless they are colluding now, then they are not likely to collude when the tax is introduced. Add if they are colluding then that is illegal, and it needs to be stopped.
Really? The earth's global average temperature increased say,.8C from 1900 - 2000. We spent zero on mitigation. How much did we spend on adaptation?
I'd estimate the cost at approximately half a trillion dollars - including a component of money not yet spent, but that would need to be spent, even if the climate did not change any further.
Adaptation is far less expensive, and you can see why just by looking at the past century.
You model assumes that the cost of adaptation increase linearly as a function of increased emissions, and that emissions themselves have increased linearly as a function of time since 1900. Neither assumption is true, so your model can be safely ignored.
What I think or know is irrelevant to the topic on hand - which is your assertion, and your ability to provide for it. Your bad. If you, as I'm beginning to suspect, are unable to provide any evidence of your assertions, then you fail your own standard, and your assertions can be ignored.
OK, I don't care what you think about me.
Your feelings are irrelevant.
My assertion is true, if you are too lazy to look it up, remain in ignorance.
Assertions without proof are meaningless - doubly so, if you insist that the assertions of others meet criteria that yours cannot. Physician, heal thyself.
It's your problem, the world generally agrees that nothing should be done about global warming right now. Thus I get my way.
Thanks for you honesty. I do like to probe deep into the beast, to cut away, as it were, the flailing tentacles of rhetoric and logical fallacy and expose the fetid maw of truth underneath. A hobby of mine - only on this occasion, you've done it for me.
Here is the rhetoric:
But saying that there is a 'point of no return,' a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own, where ocean currents stop flowing.......that stretches belief.
The evidence for it is sparse. In fact, there is good evidence to believe the opposite: that each successive ton of CO2 causes a smaller and smaller effect on the earth's climate (see the above equation and consider its implications if you are in doubt). Thus going from 380ppm to 480ppm atmospheric CO2 will have a smaller effect than going from 280ppm to 380ppm.
Here is the truth, the rotten heart beneath the skin of lies:
It's your problem, the world generally agrees that nothing should be done about global warming right now. Thus I get my way.
In other words, you don't care whether or not a rise above 2 degrees triggers a dangerous change in climate. All that matters to you is that nothing is done about it.
I hope you don't mind if I quote these remarks in follow on conversations?
In other words, you don't know of any positive feedbacks that are producing a greater effect than CO2, and thus you try to get me to posit something random so you can attack it. I'm sorry you are so ignorant, but it's not surprising since there aren't any.
What I think or know is irrelevant to the topic on hand - which is your assertion, and your ability to provide for it. Your bad.
If you, as I'm beginning to suspect, are unable to provide any evidence of your assertions, then you fail your own standard, and your assertions can be ignored.
The tax itself will not force anyone to reduce their carbon emissions. The extra cost will just be passed on to the consumer and things will continue as before.
You need to think some more about how it works. The government charges the emitter per ton of carbon, but then compensates you using the money from the charge. You are, by default, in the same position as before. The energy company can raise their prices beyond the amount of compensation, but if they do that, you can simply select another provider with a better price. You can also compensate by investing in some household efficiencies - and thus reduce you consumption.
Under the scheme, there are incentives for both you to reduce consumption and the emitter to reduce emissions.
It's possible for price gouging to occur, but then, that has always been possible.
(a) The emissions must be mitigated regardless of how long we delay starting. The task is unavoidable.
(b) The longer we delay starting, the harder it will be, because more mitigation will be required, and simultaneously our capability to mitigate will be reduced.
I suspect that many people think the world behaves as it does in disaster movies: i.e. there is a big spectacular disaster in which the protagonist and his new found love escape, anonymous people die, but the loss of those people is meaningless and entertaining. After the disaster, the President makes a grand statement and the rebuilding begins.
Climate Change isn't like that. There is no way to position nukes to fix the problem, no brief disaster in which inconsequential people die. It's a long hard slog, and every death is consequential. So back to our example:
The recently introduced ETS package is a small step, but a necessary one. If we wait for the truck to hit us, we won't be killed - instead we will feel the full force of the trauma, but remain fully alive and fully aware. The truck will roll over us in perpetuity. The only escape from the terrible pain is to crawl to the roadside, and the further from the roadside we are when the truck reaches us, the further we will need to crawl, and the more injured, and thus the more traumatic the journey.
This is the legacy that we are leaving for future generations. In the future, humans will remember us for this. They will remember the wartime generation for their bravery, their stubbornness, their implacability in the face of terrible trial. We will be remembered for our cowardice.
Please do try to follow the thread of the conversation.
To re-iterate:
[you]I want people to be scientific, that's all I'm asking.
[me] Physician, heal thyself.
Or, more fully - the standard that you expect of others is consequently expected of you. You have chosen to make an assertion, and now we will examine the evidentiary basis for your assertions:
Which feedbacks are in question?
For each feedback in question, what is the alternate predicted behaviour of that particular mechanism, and what is the alternate model that predicts that behaviour, and why is this model more accurate than the existing one?
There is scientific consensus on the idea that CO2 is warming the earth (really, you can find surveys all over the internet if you look for them). There is no scientific consensus that because of feedbacks, we have reached a point of no return, or that 450ppm is the point of no return, or that we reached the point of no return a decade ago, or that we will hit a positive feedback cycle that will drastically escalate the temperature.
I'm sure that this barely needs to be said - but these remarks do not constitute evidence for anything.
Which feedbacks are in question?
For each feedback in question, what is the alternate predicted behaviour of that particular mechanism, and what is the alternate model that predicts that behaviour, and why is this model more accurate than the existing one?
For example, one predicted feedback is that beyond a certain rise in temperature, the siberian permfrost will begin to melt, releasing it's payload of methane calthrates. These will have a powerful greenhouse effect - the feedback. Based on your modelling, what will happen instead? Please provide precise details of your model
The same modelling that predicts the impact of climate mitigation also predicts the cost of adaptation. You cannot claim that one cost is reliable and the other not.
Adaptation is far more expensive btw, and you can see why using a modicum of logical thought.
You find it insulting to be subjected to the same rules that you use for others?
That, at least, is insightful.
To summarise: unless you are actually able to back your assertion (that the predicted feedback will not happen), then your assertion has no basis in fact. Much like the previous assertions: it's not warming, ok it's warming but is a natural cycle, ok it's our emissions causing SOME warming but only a little bit, and on and on and on......
You are asserting that anthropogenic emissions are causing global warming.
I'm not asserting anything. You seem to not understand the scientific method. Previously confirmed hypothesises do not need to be re-examined simply because some person on the internet says that they are wrong. The hypothesis proposed by Tyndall and other pioneers in this field have been confirmed experimentally and match our observations of both GHGs and the earths climate. The fact that you don't like it doesn't throw these findings into question, anymore than a cancer patient who doesn't like having cancer can change the objective facts of his/her condition. If you want to challenge these findings, then you need to produce a better hypothesis, that better matches the observations. The ball is entirely in your court.
I'm asserting that it could be causing it or it could be something else... we don't know. I've read the Wikipedia article (for the second time) and it's said nothing about the over all effect CO2 would have on the atmosphere only that it's radiative and that it's significantly less radiative than Water Vapor. Based on those assumptions the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere would make the earth cooler by causing water vapor to condensate is just as logical as saying it would make the earth warmer.
Does an increase in CO2 cause more condensation in the atmosphere? How does this effect explain the observed warming? Please describe this mechanism precisely.
Not that either idea has any real validity.
A lack of an alternate hypothesis leaves us where we started - that human emissions of GHGs are the primary cause of a dangerously rapid warming of the earth.
Please link me to the peer reviewed science journal showing repeatable results of causation between anthropogenic emissions and the Earth getting warmer and I will concede that we know that that's whats causing it.
Here's the rub - No. You are engaging in a burden of proof fallacy. Science does not owe you an explanation, because it does not matter whether you believe the science or not. If you want to call the science into dispute, you need a plausible alternative hypothesis that:
1. Explains what actually happened to the energy that should have been absorbed by anthropogenic emissions of GHGs - why didn't the GHGs absorb radiation and warm the atmosphere in the way predicted?
2. Explains what is causing the warming we are currently experiencing, and which has recently been confirmed - again - by Richard Muller, previously a sceptic.
Except you completely missed the point, and I'll gratuitously quote myself:
Again, you are contradicting 150 years of peer reviewed science: In the 1860s, John Tyndall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall) observed the radiative properties of CO2 and the theory of AGW arose soon after. This was prior to an observed rise in temperature.
To repeat: The prediction pre-dated any observed rise: and hence there was never a time in which a temperature rise was observed without us knowing what had caused that rise.
In other words the "correlation versus causation" thing is just a myth. What we have is Tyndall confirming, experimentally, the theory of greenhouse gases, and then science predicting (via models) a temperature rise due to increases in the concentration of those gases. Then we observed that temperature rise, along with other model predicted effects.
Alternatively, we have a small bunch of people who are saying that the temperature rise is caused by something else, but they are unable to say what. Additionally, even though the temperature is rising, they say we should not react to or attempt to adapt in any way, despite them not being able to define either the reasons for, or extent of the temperature rise. Not exactly a plausible position from an objective perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
1. In the Christian worldview we no longer live in Eden, so our interaction with the natural world is more like this:
“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Thus the notion that we have some natural right to live a life of ease and plenty (a core tenet of Denialism) is contradictory to the Christian expectation.
2. In the Christian worldview everybody follows something they consider to be god (either knowingly or unknowingly) thus:
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Denialists are concerned that having to pay to rectify or prevent Climate Change will impact their ability to be wealthy and obtain a life of ease. And they would prefer to ignore their obligations toward the poor, who are people the primarily impacted by Climate Change, being far more vulnerable to it's ravages. In the Christian parlance then, they love money, and not God.
Leaked is probably the wrong word for it, it implies they uncovered something of import, or at least, something of interest to people other than lunatic conspiracy theorists who assert that the scientific world has been conspiring against them for 150 years. Stole might be closer to the truth, in which case, if this person or persons has committed a crime, why shouldn't they face justice? If it was legal and just trollish and a public nuisance, then by all means, let them face merely the condemnation of history.
1. What it the exact mechanism causing the temperature rise we have observed?
2. What happened to the latent heat that should have driven climate change given the increased concentrations of greenhouse gas?
You need to explain both the temperature rise AND the reason why CO2, for instance, would act in a way contrary to oft repeated observations concerning it's radiative properties.
During the course of that conversation, it became clear that you accepted that the theory itself (that is, that certain molecules, including CO2, absorb radiation in the infra-red spectra) is falsifiable. You admitted this was true. You also admitted that the models (used to test and predict the scale and direction of the subsequent climate change) were readily falsifiable.
Yet here you are again, asking the same questions, when you know the answers already, and do not dispute them. Which causes me to wonder whether you suffer some sort of short term memory loss, or whether your participation in these conversations is not actually in pursuit of intellectual honesty.
And here we see why the "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" movement is so subversive and dangerous. If someone where to say, "I don't belive in Einstein's theory of relativity", he would be told he is wrong, or ignored. If someone were to say, "I don't believe in the theory of continental drift", she would be told she is wrong, or ignored. But to DOUBT or DENY climate change is sacrilege - you are vile, selfish, practically an evil doer fit to be punished. Scientists who see the data differently are in danger of losing their jobs, and funding. It has happened before. What other science acts that way? What other theory demands such fealty?
If you choose promote a theory by using death threats to attempt to silence those who disagree with you then yes, vile evil doers is a perfectly appropriate term Even those denialists who repudiate the more radical arm of their organisation, and are horrified by those who pursue the ideologue and rhetoric to it's logical extreme are still culpable for their statements. How can they not be? If I drink and drive, and consequently kill someone, I'm culpable, even if I'm ignorant of the law. Ignorance is not an excuse. And most denialists, honestly, are not ignorant. They know very well the climate change is happening and that the causes are anthropogenic, but choose, for the sake preserving a conflicted world view, to live with the subsequent cognitive dissonance. I think they are culpable for the consequences of their actions (delaying action on climate change, thus making the effect slightly worse), and should be held to be so.
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 [senate.gov]
How many scientists are there in the US? Oh, wait, I already know 500 000 which means the number of scientists in the US who think that climate change is not anthropogenic is 0.08%.
Makes as much sense as their current gob-smackingly moronic theories...
No - character assassination is much more effective. The crucial thing is to ensure that the whole wikileaks story is a story about Assange, and not a story about US gunships gunning down reuters reporters, or casual threats of violence made against Al Jazeera, or the leader of a major US ally and troop contributer calling the situation in Afghanistan a clusterf*ck, or afghan boys being bought and sold for sex to warlords by US companies, and the US government sitting on their hands.
Funny, I never knew about that right. I had understood "parenting" (like the right to choose what medical treatment your child receives) was a fundamental right recognized at the founding of the country, whereas public education was a relatively recent development.
You understood wrong.
Universal public education began in the 1850s - before the country was founded (1901).
Therefore, even a paper that confirms the phenomena of AGW with increasing certitude (this paper) looks good to them, even if it utterly contradicts their actual position.
Or maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Religion treats basic truths as already known (my god exists and is responsible for everything) and then seeks to justify and glorify this base knowledge.
Not all religions have a deity. Atheists treat their basic truth (humans created the Deities in their own image) as already known and bristle at the notion of having to prove that principle. The "mainline" monotheistic beliefs (Christianity/Islam/Judaism) assume that God was unknown, but then revealed himself to Abraham. So I can only speculate about who this categorisation covers.
Science assumes that truth is unknown and seeks to get closer to this unknown goal, regardless of where the search takes us.
Science is a branch of natural philosophy and a discipline that studies the observable in order to draw conclusions. It makes not conclusion about entities that cannot be observed via the scientific method.
For religion to co-exist with science, the first step would have to be for you to admit that you might be worshiping the incorrect god and to be open to switching gods should evidence cast doubt on your current position; since that's incompatible with the very concept of "faith", the two approaches are irreconcilable.
You should focus on how you justify your own beliefs, and worry less about the belief of others. And if you wish to criticise something, maybe learn a bit about what it is you are criticising first.
Then it will come as no surprise to you that the bible has been censored more than any other book in history - because of it's offensive content.
Sorry, how would you go about selecting another provider with a better price? I'm in Australia, and have recently tried shopping around for better energy rates. The first problem is that all companies charge virtually the same rates so its near impossible to differentiate between them. I would think that 99% of companies will pass on the costs of any carbon tax to the consumer. When one company increases their prices, the others usually follow. Same with fuel/petrol.
But again, the risk of those companies colluding to increase prices is the same risk regardless of whether they are paying a carbon tax. So unless they are colluding now, then they are not likely to collude when the tax is introduced. Add if they are colluding then that is illegal, and it needs to be stopped.
Really? The earth's global average temperature increased say, .8C from 1900 - 2000. We spent zero on mitigation. How much did we spend on adaptation?
I'd estimate the cost at approximately half a trillion dollars - including a component of money not yet spent, but that would need to be spent, even if the climate did not change any further.
Adaptation is far less expensive, and you can see why just by looking at the past century.
You model assumes that the cost of adaptation increase linearly as a function of increased emissions, and that emissions themselves have increased linearly as a function of time since 1900. Neither assumption is true, so your model can be safely ignored.
What I think or know is irrelevant to the topic on hand - which is your assertion, and your ability to provide for it. Your bad. If you, as I'm beginning to suspect, are unable to provide any evidence of your assertions, then you fail your own standard, and your assertions can be ignored.
OK, I don't care what you think about me.
Your feelings are irrelevant.
My assertion is true, if you are too lazy to look it up, remain in ignorance.
Assertions without proof are meaningless - doubly so, if you insist that the assertions of others meet criteria that yours cannot. Physician, heal thyself.
It's your problem, the world generally agrees that nothing should be done about global warming right now. Thus I get my way.
Thanks for you honesty. I do like to probe deep into the beast, to cut away, as it were, the flailing tentacles of rhetoric and logical fallacy and expose the fetid maw of truth underneath. A hobby of mine - only on this occasion, you've done it for me.
Here is the rhetoric: But saying that there is a 'point of no return,' a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own, where ocean currents stop flowing.......that stretches belief.
The evidence for it is sparse. In fact, there is good evidence to believe the opposite: that each successive ton of CO2 causes a smaller and smaller effect on the earth's climate (see the above equation and consider its implications if you are in doubt). Thus going from 380ppm to 480ppm atmospheric CO2 will have a smaller effect than going from 280ppm to 380ppm.
Here is the truth, the rotten heart beneath the skin of lies:
It's your problem, the world generally agrees that nothing should be done about global warming right now. Thus I get my way.
In other words, you don't care whether or not a rise above 2 degrees triggers a dangerous change in climate. All that matters to you is that nothing is done about it.
I hope you don't mind if I quote these remarks in follow on conversations?
In other words, you don't know of any positive feedbacks that are producing a greater effect than CO2, and thus you try to get me to posit something random so you can attack it. I'm sorry you are so ignorant, but it's not surprising since there aren't any.
What I think or know is irrelevant to the topic on hand - which is your assertion, and your ability to provide for it. Your bad. If you, as I'm beginning to suspect, are unable to provide any evidence of your assertions, then you fail your own standard, and your assertions can be ignored.
The tax itself will not force anyone to reduce their carbon emissions. The extra cost will just be passed on to the consumer and things will continue as before.
You need to think some more about how it works. The government charges the emitter per ton of carbon, but then compensates you using the money from the charge. You are, by default, in the same position as before. The energy company can raise their prices beyond the amount of compensation, but if they do that, you can simply select another provider with a better price. You can also compensate by investing in some household efficiencies - and thus reduce you consumption.
Under the scheme, there are incentives for both you to reduce consumption and the emitter to reduce emissions. It's possible for price gouging to occur, but then, that has always been possible.
(a) The emissions must be mitigated regardless of how long we delay starting. The task is unavoidable.
(b) The longer we delay starting, the harder it will be, because more mitigation will be required, and simultaneously our capability to mitigate will be reduced.
I suspect that many people think the world behaves as it does in disaster movies: i.e. there is a big spectacular disaster in which the protagonist and his new found love escape, anonymous people die, but the loss of those people is meaningless and entertaining. After the disaster, the President makes a grand statement and the rebuilding begins.
Climate Change isn't like that. There is no way to position nukes to fix the problem, no brief disaster in which inconsequential people die. It's a long hard slog, and every death is consequential. So back to our example:
The recently introduced ETS package is a small step, but a necessary one. If we wait for the truck to hit us, we won't be killed - instead we will feel the full force of the trauma, but remain fully alive and fully aware. The truck will roll over us in perpetuity. The only escape from the terrible pain is to crawl to the roadside, and the further from the roadside we are when the truck reaches us, the further we will need to crawl, and the more injured, and thus the more traumatic the journey.
This is the legacy that we are leaving for future generations. In the future, humans will remember us for this. They will remember the wartime generation for their bravery, their stubbornness, their implacability in the face of terrible trial. We will be remembered for our cowardice.
To re-iterate:
[you]I want people to be scientific, that's all I'm asking.
[me] Physician, heal thyself.
Or, more fully - the standard that you expect of others is consequently expected of you. You have chosen to make an assertion, and now we will examine the evidentiary basis for your assertions:
Which feedbacks are in question?
For each feedback in question, what is the alternate predicted behaviour of that particular mechanism, and what is the alternate model that predicts that behaviour, and why is this model more accurate than the existing one?
There is scientific consensus on the idea that CO2 is warming the earth (really, you can find surveys all over the internet if you look for them). There is no scientific consensus that because of feedbacks, we have reached a point of no return, or that 450ppm is the point of no return, or that we reached the point of no return a decade ago, or that we will hit a positive feedback cycle that will drastically escalate the temperature.
I'm sure that this barely needs to be said - but these remarks do not constitute evidence for anything.
Which feedbacks are in question?
For each feedback in question, what is the alternate predicted behaviour of that particular mechanism, and what is the alternate model that predicts that behaviour, and why is this model more accurate than the existing one?
For example, one predicted feedback is that beyond a certain rise in temperature, the siberian permfrost will begin to melt, releasing it's payload of methane calthrates. These will have a powerful greenhouse effect - the feedback. Based on your modelling, what will happen instead? Please provide precise details of your model
Adaptation is far more expensive btw, and you can see why using a modicum of logical thought.
That, at least, is insightful.
To summarise: unless you are actually able to back your assertion (that the predicted feedback will not happen), then your assertion has no basis in fact. Much like the previous assertions: it's not warming, ok it's warming but is a natural cycle, ok it's our emissions causing SOME warming but only a little bit, and on and on and on......
I want people to be scientific, that's all I'm asking.
Physician, heal thyself.
You are asserting that anthropogenic emissions are causing global warming.
I'm not asserting anything. You seem to not understand the scientific method. Previously confirmed hypothesises do not need to be re-examined simply because some person on the internet says that they are wrong. The hypothesis proposed by Tyndall and other pioneers in this field have been confirmed experimentally and match our observations of both GHGs and the earths climate. The fact that you don't like it doesn't throw these findings into question, anymore than a cancer patient who doesn't like having cancer can change the objective facts of his/her condition. If you want to challenge these findings, then you need to produce a better hypothesis, that better matches the observations. The ball is entirely in your court.
I'm asserting that it could be causing it or it could be something else... we don't know. I've read the Wikipedia article (for the second time) and it's said nothing about the over all effect CO2 would have on the atmosphere only that it's radiative and that it's significantly less radiative than Water Vapor. Based on those assumptions the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere would make the earth cooler by causing water vapor to condensate is just as logical as saying it would make the earth warmer.
Does an increase in CO2 cause more condensation in the atmosphere? How does this effect explain the observed warming? Please describe this mechanism precisely.
Not that either idea has any real validity.
A lack of an alternate hypothesis leaves us where we started - that human emissions of GHGs are the primary cause of a dangerously rapid warming of the earth.
Please link me to the peer reviewed science journal showing repeatable results of causation between anthropogenic emissions and the Earth getting warmer and I will concede that we know that that's whats causing it.
Here's the rub - No. You are engaging in a burden of proof fallacy. Science does not owe you an explanation, because it does not matter whether you believe the science or not. If you want to call the science into dispute, you need a plausible alternative hypothesis that:
1. Explains what actually happened to the energy that should have been absorbed by anthropogenic emissions of GHGs - why didn't the GHGs absorb radiation and warm the atmosphere in the way predicted?
2. Explains what is causing the warming we are currently experiencing, and which has recently been confirmed - again - by Richard Muller, previously a sceptic.
Again, you are contradicting 150 years of peer reviewed science: In the 1860s, John Tyndall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall) observed the radiative properties of CO2 and the theory of AGW arose soon after. This was prior to an observed rise in temperature.
To repeat: The prediction pre-dated any observed rise: and hence there was never a time in which a temperature rise was observed without us knowing what had caused that rise.
In other words the "correlation versus causation" thing is just a myth. What we have is Tyndall confirming, experimentally, the theory of greenhouse gases, and then science predicting (via models) a temperature rise due to increases in the concentration of those gases. Then we observed that temperature rise, along with other model predicted effects.
Alternatively, we have a small bunch of people who are saying that the temperature rise is caused by something else, but they are unable to say what. Additionally, even though the temperature is rising, they say we should not react to or attempt to adapt in any way, despite them not being able to define either the reasons for, or extent of the temperature rise. Not exactly a plausible position from an objective perspective.