Economists want uncarbonated...

Indicative.

Because the economy gets bigger every year. Hello? If 0.01% of all buildings are destroyed by weather disasters every year, and the total value of buildings in existence goes up 3% every year, then the exact same weather disasters will cost 3% more in destroyed buildings every year.

See how easily I prove anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda is a disgrace to science?

Neither do anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists. Calling CO2 a pollutant -- or Satan's effluvium -- doesn't make it harmful.

False. I identified the facts pf objective physical reality that prove your claim is not a fact. "Nope" is thus correct.

See above. I just schooled you in logic.

 

That's the beauty of a Carbon Tax. You let the market sort it out.

The smart way to do that is with an incrementing tax, one that adds the equivalent of 10 or 15 cents on a gallon of gas, each year, to each carbon fuel.

 

Somebody never studied logic or science...

20 years ago, after the scientific community as a whole supported climate change, denialism went from idiotic to batsh*t crazy.

 

Legislators should wave their magic wands, conduct rituals, and craft spells thus thus creating prosperity for all!

The faith of the statist religion seems to grow stronger every year.

 

I'm not sure the market would be enough. In fact, I'm skeptical about the green transition, not because I don't wish for, but I'm skeptical it would happen. The new, green unlimited that would magically replace oil is to me just a myth.

 

Right: you. My degree credits include courses in both planetary physics (including atmospheric physics) and deductive logic at an internationally respected university. I'm betting you have never studied either physics or logic beyond high-school level.

See how meaningless, absurd and disingenuous your claims always have to be? What could that even mean, "support climate change"? Who has denied that climate changes? What I see anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists denying is that climate could be changing naturally.

Calling fact-based scientific dissent "denialism" is not only both idiotic and bat$#!+ crazy. It is blatantly disingenuous propaganda.

 

Nice projection.

This isn't a forum of science. If you actually have a degree, you should be able to find an appropriate venue for your "dissent".

Frankly, denialism is batsh*t crazy.. there is simply no basis in science, your motivations must, therefore, lie elsewhere.

 

Yep: by you. You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself with such grotesque and contentless filth.

No #!+, Sherlock. You are certainly proof of that.

I think this one is quite appropriate.

Frankly, calling reasoned and informed dissent "denialism" is disingenuous, anti-scientific filth.

There is ample basis for dissent in science, because science is based on dissent. Many respected scientists dissent from the anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda campaign, and they and I will continue to be proved right by actual physical events, like the non-disappearance of arctic sea ice, and the non-appearance of millions of climate refugees.

 

You keep making interesting mistakes.

Some scientists get left behind when things change. Einstein got left behind when he rejected statistics. Consensus was achieved over 20 years ago.

So called dissent that is mostly the product of Koch money is irrelevant.. the actual science continues, as does your crazy.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Choosing between you and NASA is a no brainer...

But your projection is duly noted.

 

When are you going to stop with the Cook nonsense, it makes one look like a child .





^^^^^
This is the clown your parroting..

 

Right after you lay off the crazy.

 

Crazy what? I am not the one that's parroting an idiot

 

No. You keep making the same old boring ones. Like:

That's just flat false. Also:

Except that it has nothing to do with Koch money, and keeps being proved right by actual physical events, while the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign keeps being proved wrong.

The actual science continues, as does your crazy.

But in fact, no such scientific consensus has ever been demonstrated, only a political one. The politically based claims of such consensus have been comprehensively and conclusively debunked many times, including here:



The relentless financial and career pressure being applied to climate scientists by politically connected anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers means that claims of consensus based on politically arranged statements by scientific organizations have no actual validity.

I don't make arguments based on my own authority or appeals to authority. That's your fallacy.

But your lack of credible empirical arguments in support of your claims is duly noted.

 

Wow to think I didn't like you .

Thanks the 97% is the most idiotic argument of all time

 

See? Same old absurd and disingenuous name-calling. BTW, you never responded to this:

I was right, wasn't I?

 

The Kochs have been brainwashing people with their propaganda for over a quarter century.

This isn't a science forum, and we're not climatologists, and frankly, whether you are paid or crazy, I am sick to death of it.

 

Don't get your hopes up.

I've seen worse. But it's a contender.

 

With what?

You do know that Koch industry has Union company's right..

 

My fave is when the Kochs sent their people into nursing homes to get senile scientists to sign climate denial statements.

What a science says is determined by the scientists in that discipline, and only them.

You are shilling propaganda, which has f all to do with science.

 

That's the Poisoning the Well fallacy.

Everyone has a responsibility to evaluate arguments concerning public policy for themselves. That's what voting and democracy are based on.

Same fallacy. Same lack of actual empirical science.

 

So you think this car would sell if it wasn't for your boogeyman?

 

Naw, it's propaganda.

The Kochs have spent hundreds of millions doing it. In the real world...

 

You got a link ..

I have seen your signature's it includes scientist that study worms

 

You made that up. Most people in nursing homes are not senile, and scientists are less likely than average people to suffer cognitive decline in advance of physical decline.

Bless your heart.

You are shilling propaganda, which has f all to do with science.

 

You do know it's not koch's anymore right?

He died