(10-26-2019, 06:19 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(10-26-2019, 07:18 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

Blaming "the oil industry" is a lie. The oil industry has donated far more money to Climastrology labs than they have to scientist who disagree with the alarmism. It's sort of hard to make the case for Climate Realism when over 99% of the funding goes to the alarmist side.

No one would benefit more from CO2 turning out to be harmless than oil companies.
Yet according to you, they could be funding 'climate realists' dedicated to proving that hypothesis, but they choose instead to give '99% of the funding' to the other side?
Why would that be?
Two possible explanations:
1) you're just wrong about who funds what
2) the evidence just isn't there for what you call 'climate realism' no matter how hard we look for it.

---

(10-26-2019, 06:32 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(10-26-2019, 06:17 PM)mikesez Wrote: Why does it fail? 
Think about the length that people go to today to avoid taxes.
They move just across the county line to get a lower property tax.
They think about state income tax rates before they move.
They demand receipts for all charitable contributions.
Similarly, people will try to avoid and minimize this tax.
They will put up solar panels and buy electric cars.
They won't travel by air as often.

RICH people move to avoid taxes.
Poor people are stuck paying the taxes, since they can't afford the electric cars.

A carbon tax is very regressive. Poor people pay a lot higher percentage of their income on gasoline and electricity.

And before you claim that the idea is to send everyone a check, that never actually happens.

The end consumer isn't the only one to look at.
if there is stability around this policy, industry will also work to change what they offer. Electric cars and solar panels will benefit from greater economies of scale and be more accessible.
Of course the checks would go out. the EITC checks go out reliably every year...

---