Are you 100% sure the scientific consensus is wrong? Why take the risk?

What would specific proof of global warming look like to you?

Your approach is like playing Russian roulette not even believing in the existence of bullets

If it could be shown that paying 2% higher taxes today would avoid certain environmental calamity in 50-100 years, would you do it?

What is your silly obsession with this non-solution measly 2% tax?

To see if deniers would support even this relatively small and simple step to save our planet supported by conservative and moderate economists.

And it’s not really that small. It’d generate billions and billions of dollars.

Neither you or Timber will support it, it appears. I just want you on record denying it or continuing to dodge the question.

What would you rather be called than “denier”? Do you accept the overwhelming scientific climate change consensus? If not, you are a denier. It’s simple and accurate shorthand.

You are crying foul just like the guy the other day who I called a “flat-earther,” after he admitted he believed the earth was flat.

The weird thing about problems is it takes money to solve them! And: this problem is so large it will not be solved through spontaneous private action. It hasn’t been already, and there is little reason to pin our hopes on it. People and businesses must be nudged and incentivized to reduce unnecessary pollution.

I didn’t say 2 cents like Warren. I said 2%.

Perhaps I should advocate cutting the military budget or reforming entitlements (since there’s a lot of waste there) instead of raising taxes by 2 or 3% or whatever, to get around the objections of those who refuse to countenance a tax hike for just about any reason.

I don’t really care where the money comes from to be honest.

Your projection never ceases to amaze.

I'VE been asking YOU for weeks WHAT this measly 2% tax will DO to combat this GlobaX- Climate Thingy and what ACTION have YOU taken by YOURSELF.

And I’ve answered that question every time you’ve asked.

1. A carbon tax would force consumers and businesses to sit down and reckon with their environmental impact, and cut any economically inefficient and wasteful pollution. Right now they can emit as much CO2 and other greenhouse gases as they want with no consequence.

2. The proceeds can be re-invested in other green infrastructure and technologies depending on how the government chooses to spend it.

You seem flummoxed by the fact I’m not calling for banning airplanes, or ripping up the nation’s highways, or shuttering all coal plants instantly, or whatever.

Me personally? I eat less red meat than before and try to avoid unnecessary travel. I’ve not had children yet, and I’m toying with never having them at all partly because having a child is the single worst decision you could make from a climate perspective.

However, I’m under no illusions that my own individual efforts (or lack of efforts) will make any meaningful impact whatsoever on an issue this large.

I answered your question — When will you answer mine?

1. No, it would not.

2. Key word: "Goverment."
You aware of how Social Security works? Money raised is money raised, goverment will waste it on what pork they wish.

"You seem flummoxed by the fact I’m not calling for banning airplanes, or ripping up the nation’s highways, or shuttering all coal plants instantly, or whatever."

Don't do that, don't put words in my mouth.
1. You're lying
2. You're lying stupidly.

"Me personally? I eat less red meat than before and try to avoid unnecessary travel. I’ve not had children yet, and I’m toying with never having them at all partly because having a child is the single worst decision you could make from a climate perspective."

LESS red meat? Avoid UNNECESSARY travel? No children YET? Shucky dee, ain't you doing a Joan of Arc for humanity.
Agreed, your own individual efforts (or lack of efforts) will make no meaningful impact whatsoever on an issue this large or small. But they will keep the flames of your big shiny ego fed nicely.

Are you 100% sure you won't die if you don't give me a million dollars? Why take the risk?

As for carbon taxes, big companies can afford to pay it and still pollute, while small businesses strain under the pressure. Also government is notorious for spending money on things unprompted instead of what they say it is for wasting huge amount of money. Taxes will not likely have an the benefits you think they will.

If you can amass thousands of scientists to agree on a simple yet powerful theory that giving you a million dollars will save my life, then I’ll listen!

If you have a better solution than a carbon tax, be my guest. It’s less punitive than other options like banning stuff left and right.

Amassing a consensus is not the standard you started with.

It's the biggest reason why your analogy differs from mine.

--In yours, you are the only one telling me and you have a powerful self-interest in receiving the million. That gives me strong reasons to doubt your motives.
--In mine, thousands of scientists agree after having reviewed data and reaching their own conclusions. And they have no particular interest in the outcome other than accuracy and the truth. In fact, if they were less than intellectually honest they would suffer a loss of reputation among their peers and possibly lose their careers. That gives me reason to trust their motives.

I speak about a "consensus" because a consensus exists. And it is relevant that a consensus exists.

For a short summary of the facts that *support* the consensus, here it is again:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Debunk away, if you can!

"Having facts that 'support' a BELIEF doesn't make that BELIEF true."

We've reached this point in the conversation several times before, and I have asked you something like: "What would tangible proof of the global warming theory look like to you?"

I repeat that question. What would tangible proof of the theory look like to you?

It turns out we already had this conversation before in this very thread.

Me: "What would specific proof of global warming look like to you?"
You: "That's never been the issue, as you well know."

That was a deflection.

You keep railing against the lack of a connection between the facts and the theory, but you have (so far) not committed to a specific demonstration of fact that would prove the theory.

I also recall you saying something like this before: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." [definition of "scientific theory."] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

There is sort of an inherent problem here in "repeatedly" testing the global warming theory, in that we only have one world to work with. We simply cannot run experiments the size of the globe, let alone with control groups of equivalent worlds.

However, I am pretty sure it is possible to create microcosms in the laboratory that involve various greenhouse gases and their heat-retaining effect when exposed to external sources of heat. As well as other phenomena that influence climate change.

Climate scientists have taken detailed observations of the natural world involving all the variables at play here and have created a theory that fits the evidence. I am not sure what else you want them to do.

Which is why I ask: What would specific proof of global warming look like to you?

"Then you got your answer, didn't you?"

No, I didn't get one. I keep getting dodges from you on this point. Again I ask: What would specific proof of global warming look like to you?

"PS. Stop citing Wikipedia. It is not a legitimate source."

Me: I've cited Wikipedia (which, as I've pointed out, itself cites primary sources), merely for the definition of the scientific method. I've also cited NASA several times. Scroll to the bottom of this page I cited earlier -- https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ --and you will see the sources the article relies upon. Click on those links at the bottom of the page, you will, in turn, find that those sources cite even more sources. And: there are even more links at the bottom of this page I cited -- https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Add all that together, and I've cited a lot of directly relevant information.

You: You've cited *one* primary source, published in a medical journal (citing other medical papers), which calls the accuracy of scientific papers into discussion. It's not about climate science. What you've cited not really directly on point in this discussion.

I've asked you to specifically debunk any of the information presented in this article -- https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ -- and so far you haven't.

You are in fact the one who is being "pseudo-scientific": throwing up a smokescreen of words, definitions, and points of skepticism rather than engaging directly with the climate science.

You in fact conceded all of the evidence of climate change which I quoted, which were raised in https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Yet you maintain that the issue is "WHY" these changes are happening.

So again I ask: What would specific proof of global warming look like to you?

Global warming isn't the issue anymore, since you've conceded that's what's happening. *Anthropogenic* global warming is the question up for debate.

Let me rephrase, then: What would specific proof of anthropogenic global warming look like to you?

"People are demanding ANY proof. Any at all. You and your religious colleagues can't even do that."

Nope. I've done that plenty of times here. Here it is again:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Just one place to start on this. You are perfectly capable of educating yourself with a simple Google search. And if you want to try to debunk anything NASA says in these links, be my guest.

Again from https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

"Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

This is a basic explanation of the consensus theory, and is exactly the "link" you claim is missing.

NASA does not subscribe to a religion, and neither do I.

Taxation is not a weapon against the American people.

All I have proposed is a carbon tax that would equate to a 2% tax hike

Is that a weapon against the American people?

About how much of our annual federal budget is allocated to various priorities on the basis of political beliefs rather than hard science?

It's relevant to think about the rest of the budget.

A moment's reflection shows that you are demanding a ridiculously high standard of scientific proof from anti-climate change efforts that you do not apply to other areas of our budget on which far more money is spent every year.

There are plenty of differences between the two, and you’re willfully blind to them.

It’s a dumb analogy that I decided to humor this time.

Hey, you called it “pseudo-scientific religion” this time instead of just a “religion”!

I’ll accept that as a small sign of progress.

Other groups lobbying for particular political priorities or budgetary goals are virtually never described as adherents of a religion. Including, by the way, the coal, oil, and other polluting industries who fight back just as hard, with tremendous amounts of misinformation, a lot of which you yourself have probably bought into.

Again, you are applying ridiculous standards of scrutiny toward advocates of this one issue (and only one side of this issue) that you simply don't to others.

Not to mention the whole real-world observation and evidence thing, which makes climate science way different from religion.

"But Scientology!" No. Scientology is not peer-reviewed science and it most certainly has pretensions of being a religion, including the fact that it calls itself a religion and speaks to spiritual goals and such.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

No evidence? Start here.