ABSOLUTELY, and said evidence is sadly lacking.
9. The official narrative features a large emotional/propaganda element, as contrasted with solid scientific evidence. And, there is plenty of pressure on members of the scientific community to conform. They are pushed to "go along to get along." Generally, AGW alarmists resort to character assassination, not reasoned argument.
10. There are at least 700 leading scientists who are skeptical of the Official Narrative, so the IPCC claim of scientific unanimity is a fabrication. Please "google" "Global Warming, Senate Minority Report," to see many poignant quotations, which raise serious questions and tend to refute the official narrative. Some scientists were surprised to see their names on the IPCC list, as they had never subscribed to the AFW doctrine. Others have since changed their minds.
11. An examination of temperature patterns over the centuries shows significant cyclical changes from warmer to cooler, and then back to warmer...and that certain periods, e.g., during the “Medieval Warm Period,” then followed by the “Little Ice Age”, featured much more radical temperature divergence than seen in recent history. Thus, modest tempera-ture changes today---even were they to exist--are not exceptional, nor problematic. The melting of polar ice-caps has been grossly exaggerated. Friends of mine in Europe tell me they have been experiencing record-making cold winters.
12. Many of us who oppose the Official Narrative find ourselves accused of being supported by the Fossil Fuel and Nuclear industries. Yet, many of us are very concerned about ecology, and favor a shift from "dirty" energy sources, and a move toward alternative fuels and engines. And, we are concerned about toxic emission levels, and about halting destruction of the "rain forests." We are NOT sell-outs, nor on the side of "special inter-ests." As a matter of fact, Special Interests tend to favor the Official Narrative, as they see "gold" in AGW provisions such as "carbon trading," and because this stand has the appearance of placing them “on the same page” as pro-ecology ("green") groups, and making them heroes.
No, I don't think proof or validity is required to enact tax laws. Sometimes, taxes are an idea proposed as a solution to some problem or as an economic boost. And after the idea is implemented, it is checked to see how it is working; i.e. the results are analyzed. Either it is working as intended or it is not.
However, cynics would point out that there are many instances where a new tax doesn't have the intended result yet it is kept just because of the increase in government revenue. Or there is some very sketchy analysis to try to show that it is working. When this continually happens, bad economic results usually occur.
Here is one opinion and an example of a climate related tax that doesn't appear to be working as intended: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc2... (cynic alert!) Unless of course you consider driving CO2-producing businesses out of town a positive result although I'm fairly certain that was not one of the proposed benefits when selling the tax.
"Proof" is kind of a meaningless concept in science. If you were an actual scientist, you would know this. For example, I cannot *prove* that the thing holding up my computer is a desk, rather than a virtual reality projection or a cleverly disguised shapeshifting alien. All I can do is provide overwhelming evidence in favor of that explanation.
There is overwhelming evidence in favor of AGW, despite what you chose to believe. We do not know exactly how *much* warming will occur, or exactly how much harm it will cause, but we can be adequately certain that it is happening, it is in large part due to human CO2 emissions (with lesser contributions from other greenhouse gasses), and it is very likely to cause significant problems. And since our fossil fuel supplies are finite, and burning fossil fuels (especially coal) has negative effects, it's probably a good idea to do most of the things we'll need to do to stop AGW in any case.
And, as Pegminer pointed out, even if "perfect" information were available, we can't afford to wait around for it. It makes sense to wait until there's enough evidence that we can be reasonably sure there is a problem and this is a good solution, but we've reached that point. Or, at least, those of us out here in reality-land have.
We get questions about morality from the "man" who has stated over and over "Justice and equality are code words for communism", "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA" and "Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!" Ohhh, the irony.....
But yes, there has to be proof and validity before collecting taxes and enacting laws.
As you might have learned in school, had you paid attention, Congress enacts laws, not proponents of legislation, and not proponents of that which the proposed legislation seeks to thwart. Since you are a little old to go back and redo the high school civics classes you flunked, find a college grad somewhere to explain this to you. Back when your less delinquent classmates WERE paying attention, it was called "How a bill becomes a law."
What laws and what taxes? And you dismiss any evidence as being lies and post what looks like videos of graphs taped to see-saws as your evidence as lies a quote such figures as Maurice Strong and your hero, Joseph Goebles. People will die, while those like yourself claims that any evidence is a Marxist plot.
OMG Sage get with it. Do you think that the fact every country on my planet, maybe not yours, has strategies for AGW because it is an unproven theory. Get a grip.
Many countries are considering a carbon tax, but also considering alleviating some of the personal income tax because AGW has been proven beyond a doubt.
Just because you and your ilk and some nutty (oil financed) scientists refuse to accept reality, doesn't mean AGW isn't real
Why not the denialists collect taxes with no proof at all
First there is very substantial proof, but scientifically illiterate people (e.g., those that think that winter occurs because of greater distance from the sun) will never understand it.
Second, almost everything done in the public sector is done without "proof." Policy decisions often cannot wait for hundreds of years of study. That's known as "paralysis by analysis." If the US had waited for definitive proof that bin Laden was in that house in Pakistan, he would still be alive.
Most nations have a national science academy to advise the nation on issues of complex science.
The American National Academy of Science is very clear. You want it in writing or in pictures?
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
The problem is that some uneducated hicks deny scientific proof even when it is laid down right in front of them. You can't fix stupid.
Is this not only reasonable? Wouldn't that only be the moral way?
What constitutes "proof" in the mind of someone who thinks evolution is a fraud but that it is proven the earth is less than 10,000 years old?
They have. Scientifically. Beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is that deniers like yourself reject that, not because of the Science itself, but because of its implications. And that is why the term 'denier' is more appropriate than 'skeptic'.
Religions always tithe.
