Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[Raffy.Roma]

@RichardC

Great post!

 

[Johan]

Free Speech and Skepticism on Climate Change

I've always wondered if there really is an added health care cost for smokers. You can't just take the cost of care and assume that if the individual didn't smoke, they would be cost free. We all die eventually of something. And that something is often enough expensive. Is lung cancer more costly than the alternative - which may be another form of cancer, or heart disease, stroke, dementia or something else? It seems to me that smoking pulls the costs forward. If you die 20 years early, then I suppose we're paying now, saving later, and so we're losing out on the investment opportunity for that money.

One the other side, society also doesn't have to cover the post-retirement social security costs for as long, since there may not BE much of a retirement. That would be a savings.

Perhaps some statisticians took all of this into account, when looking at the tobacco companies.

First, great post just up the thread RichardC!!!

On the issue of smoking you are correct: taking the variables you mention in to account the economics become less clear, but still disfavor smoking. Even though it cuts many mostly non-productive, pension-paying years from people's life the added healthcare and other societal costs are greater. Economics aside it's also deeply unethical to shorten someone's life and make them sick with coronary heart disease, COPD and cancers knowingly...

The difference (if you disregard the issue of passive smoking) is that smokers are damaged by smoking but EVERYONE on the planet will suffer from the concequences of climate change. Even bigger reason for it to be illegal to actively try to hinder countermeasures towards AGW by knowingly denying undisputable facts (facts that may have been disputable 30 years ago but certainly not now. Just like the dangers of smoking in fact were not properly recognized in the early 20th century but well known and undisputable since the 1950's).

 

[nwdiver]

+1 RichardC...

Many people seem to think that 'deniers' are 'skeptics'... this could not be further from the truth. Deniers start with the conclusion they want and seek evidence to support it. Skeptics want sufficient evidence to form a conclusion. In the most important way they are complete opposites. There is no longer any such thing as 'Global Warming Skepticism' that disappeared over 40 years ago... just like there is no longer any such thing as 'Heliocentric Skepticism'.

Explain to me how someone clinging to the belief that the sun orbits the earth is aiding the progress of humanity...

 

[Robert.Boston]

Great post, Richard. We should all send it to our congressional delegations.

 

[tomas]

Richard pretty much said it all. There's one more cause for denial: fear and risk of change. The transition to clean energy is hard to navigate, especially in an "immediate gratification" world where there's little willingness to sacrifice individually for the long-term greater good. It will take persistent, sustained, compelling leadership to turn the ship around. Not clear that is possible under prevalent western political/economic systems. Gimme a benevolent dictator... That would work. Which is why I lean towards Raffy's early posts. It might not be possible to fix this in a political system that allows deniers a voice, because they will block it to avoid the fear and pain of change!

 

[RichardC]

Richard pretty much said it all. There's one more cause for denial: fear and risk of change. The transition to clean energy is hard to navigate, especially in an "immediate gratification" world where there's little willingness to sacrifice individually for the long-term greater good. It will take persistent, sustained, compelling leadership to turn the ship around. Not clear that is possible under prevalent western political/economic systems. Gimme a benevolent dictator... That would work. Which is why I lean towards Raffy's early posts. It might not be possible to fix this in a political system that allows deniers a voice, because they will block it to avoid the fear and pain of change!

Thomas, I agree that fear of change is a further (but equally illegitimate) basis for denial, but disagree that a dictatorship is the only hope for a solution. There have been numerous proposals for A revenue neutral carbon pollution levy which could quite rapidly move our society away from carbon emitting energy sources using efficient and market-based solutions. The following is one such example:

A Modest Proposal for a Carbon Pollution Levy and Rebate Regime for Canada

Public Policy Rationale for a New Canadian Climate Change Policy

1. Manmade greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (principally CO2) cause climate change which has had and is projected to have increasingly high costs, in terms of both human lives and economic damage.
2. Human CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are an unnecessary form of pollution, which has a high social cost which is not borne by the polluters, but is indirectly borne by the public in form of personal harm and property damage, higher insurance premiums, higher taxes and in other ways. Currently the emitters of CO2 are imposing a high, involuntary, and steadily increasing tax on all members of the public, especially those in less developed countries whose lives are directly threatened and who do not have the resources to protect themselves from the consequences of climate change.
3. If the polluters were to bear the true cost of the CO2 emissions, free markets would automatically lead to the widespread replacement of CO2 emitting energy sources with clean alternatives. Current emissions of CO2 reflect a market failure that governments have an obligation to intervene to correct, in the public interest, as they have in the past with respect to the public dumping of untreated sewage and other dangerous pollutants into the environment.
4. In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, scientists tell us that we cannot exceed 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere (human activity has already raised the level of CO2 from around 270 or 280 ppm to around 400 ppm – and the level is rising increasingly quickly).
5. 450 ppm of CO2 represents total cumulative per capita addition of around 200 Tonnes of CO2 per person to the atmosphere (calculated from the beginning of the industrial revolution when mankind began to substantially change the chemistry of the atmosphere). (This calculation is based on the current population of 7 billion.)
6. 200 Tonnes of CO2 per person translates into total cumulative emissions of around 400 Tonnes of CO2 per person (as approximately half of the emissions are removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and other natural mechanisms, while the other half remains in the atmosphere).
7. Canadians have already emitted a cumulative total of over 800 Tonnes per person (which is more than twice their fair share) and continue to emit approximately four times as much on a per capita basis as the global average. (If everyone on earth had emitted as much CO2 as Canadians, the global temperature would go up by four degrees C, which would result in a breakdown of natural and social systems upon which human civilization is based.)
8. As enlightened and responsible international citizens, Canadians need to take reasonable steps to reduce their CO2 emissions and to lead the way in the implementation of non-polluting alternatives (all of which exist and are in use at the present time).
9. It is widely recognized by economists that the most efficient way of reducing pollution to reasonable levels is to charge the polluters for the damage caused by their emissions.
10. The following section describes one model for a revenue neutral (fully refunded), relatively modest pollution levy which will increase steadily and predictably over time and could be expected to automatically induce, through the operation of the free market, the implementation of non-polluting alternatives without harming the economy, imposing a tax, or removing any money from the economy.

Pollution Levy and Dividend - Methodology and Process

1. Set a significant, and annually increasing, price on GHG emissions (Co2, methane, etc., all calculated as CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent)) including the emissions embedded in all imported goods and services. (For example, initially $50 per tonne, increasing annually by $20 per tonne, together with any required adjustment for inflation.)
2. Establish accounting and audit standards (for example, based on ISO 14064) and collection mechanisms (which could easily piggyback on the GST collection apparatus to capture and collect the pollution added by transport and further processing).
3. Calculate total annual estimated pollution levy for the first year.
4. Divide the total annual estimated pollution levy for the first year by the number of permanent residents of Canada to determine the annual per resident dividend for the first year.
5. One quarter of the annual per resident dividend will be distributed to each permanent resident at the beginning of each calendar quarter (Jan 1, April 1, July 1 and Oct 1) in advance of the collection of the levy.
6. The same process, at annually increasing pollution levy levels, would be applied for each successive year.
7. Any adjustment (surplus or deficit) required to dividend out the full amount of the pollution levy would be made to the dividend payments for the following year.
8. The steadily increasing prices (and the known amount of the increases in the future) would encourage investments in innovation, the substitution of non-emitting alternatives and conservation, and over time lead to the gradual replacement of carbon emitting energy sources with non-emitting alternatives.

Example: Assume average per resident Canadian emissions of 20 Tonnes CO2e

1. Year 1 - At $50 per tonne of CO2e ($0.14/litre), the annual per resident dividend for the first year would be $1000 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
2. During the course of Year 1 (and thereafter) the pollution levy would be charged on all GHG emissions (including embedded GHG emissions) and any surplus or deficit carried forward to the next year.
3. Year 2 - At $70 per tonne of CO2e ($0.19/litre) and assuming a 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the second year would be $1330 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 1 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
4. Year 3 - At $90 per tonne of CO2e ($0.25/litre) and assuming a further 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the third year would be $1620 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 2 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
5. Year 4 - At $110 per tonne of CO2e ($0.30/litre) and assuming a further 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the fourth year would be $1870 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 3 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
6. Year 5 - At $130 per tonne of CO2e ($0.35/litre) and assuming a further 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the fourth year would be $2080 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 4 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).

The advantages of this approach include the following:

1. It is a pollution levy, to reflect the additional cost of GHG emissions, and not a tax as it is fully paid back to the public.
2. The pollution levy is not increasing government revenues, and it is not impacting the economy as it is not removing any money from the economy. (These two points would be important to sell the approach to Conservatives and Republicans.)
3. It is not regressive in its impact on the least fortunate members of society, and will not cause any hardship as the average amount of pollution levy to be paid by Canadians will be received by them in advance.
4. The dividend can be used to finance investments in conservation and/or low emissions alternatives by the less fortunate. (These two points would be important to sell the approach to Liberals, Democrats and the New Democrats.)
5. It relies upon the free market, and the opportunities provided by the increasing pollution levy, to incent investments in innovation and the development of creative solutions.
6. While its initial impact is very small, e.g., $0.14 per litre, and provides the public, industry and investors with time to adapt and to coordinate effective responses through the market, it will gradually (over a 20 or 30 or 40 year time frame), result in the complete replacement of fossil fuels as the pollution levy increases to approximately $2 per litre (plus adjustments for inflation).
7. Recognition by investors of the massive size of the renewable energy market will lead to continually falling prices and the rapid adoption of replacement technologies at prices that will rapidly accelerate the transition from fossil fuels for most purposes.
8. This approach is comparatively simple to implement and to audit, and does not provide the broad opportunities for fraud, cheating and sector by sector government interference which are inherent in cap and trade systems. The pollution levy model can also relatively easily be extended across national borders.
9. It also facilitates planning and investment based on known future prices (unlike cap and trade models where wild swings in prices do not provide the stability and predictability required to spur investments). (The EU cap and trade model and the US renewable portfolio standards have both suffered from booms and busts which have impeded the development of alternatives.)
10. Imports would be subject to a pollution levy on their accrued emission content (on a completely non-discriminatory basis) to comply with WTO trade agreements which would prevent the export of jobs to more heavily polluting jurisdictions and in fact encourage other jurisdictions to both reduce their own GHG emissions (to improve the competitiveness of their exports) and to implement their own compatible pollution levy regimes in order to avoid losing the pollution levy revenues to Canada (and the other countries which adopt similar and compatible models).

All of the foregoing considerations are equally applicable to the US and other developed countries, would be of a net economic advantage to a substantial majority of the population and would increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the local and global economies (by recognizing and internalizing the costs of carbon emissions, rather than imposing them on the global public, taxpayers and future generations). The fossil fuel industry is the only constituency which would not benefit from such a regime. ​

See: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/28339-Carbon-Tax/page5

For further discussions see: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...rbon-Tax-From-Elon-Musk-and-Many-Others/page7
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13441-Climate-Change-Global-Warming-Discussion/page48
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13441-Climate-Change-Global-Warming-Discussion/page131
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/29539-Fossil-Fuel-Divestment-Carbon-Bubble-Discussion
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13441-Climate-Change-Global-Warming-Discussion/page44
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13441-Climate-Change-Global-Warming-Discussion/page184

The economic benefits of charging a pollution levy (whether in the form of a revenue neutral carbon tax or in some other form) have been demonstrated by the experience with such a carbon tax in British Columbia and innumerable economic studies.

With respect to the experience in British Columbia, see:
4 key reasons why BC’s carbon tax is working http://business.financialpost.com/20..._lsa=8dfe-79a8;
The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle19512237/
B.C. carbon tax cut fuel use, didn't hurt economy http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...nomy-1.1309766
Economists hail British Columbia’s carbon tax a success https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cana...205955047.html
BC’s Carbon Tax Shift After Five Years An Environmental (and Economic) Success Story http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/article3685
Overview of the revenue-neutral carbon tax http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm

Recent economic studies and commentaries include:
In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax creates jobs, grows the economy A new study from REMI finds that a revenue neutral carbon tax could create 2.8 million jobs, increase GDP by $1.3 trillion http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-grows-economy
Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax Coupled with the elimination of costly energy subsidies, it would encourage competition By George P. Shultz And Gary S. Becker http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...96401965799658
Support for carbon ‘tax’ is growing http://www.postcrescent.com/story/op...wing/13190147/
The Coming Climate Crash Lessons for Climate Change in the 2008 Recession http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/op...Reward=relbias
Citizens' Climate Lobby: Republicans' call for a carbon tax is validated http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c...-carbon-tax-is
Proposal for U.S. Carbon Price by Richard Hobbs Insurance policy: Revenue-neutral carbon tax with global temperature indexation http://climatecolab.org/plans/-/plan...planId/1309217
Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Buzz http://americanactionforum.org/insig...arbon-tax-buzz
Carbon tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
Why taxes on carbon pollution are essential, what’s happening now, and how you can help http://www.carbontax.org/
Carbon Taxes as Part of the Fiscal Solution http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...arbon-tax-gale
Carbon Tax To Spread To Washington, Oregon From B.C. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10...n_4171871.html

There is now growing recognition of the benefits of a revenue neutral carbon tax or pollution levy. For examples see:

http://www.carbontax.org/
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...carbon-tax-broad-bipartisan-support-congress/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
http://climatecolab.org/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/planId/1309217
http://www.carbontax.org/services/supporters/public-officials/

From my perspective the principal impediment to the implementation of intelligent public policy lies in the corrosive effects of covert fossil fuel funding of the denialist movement, and the corruption of the political systems in North America through out-of-control election spending, lobbying and other socially harmful conduct. In this context the socially laudable objective of "Free Speech" has been abused to the point at which now serves to constitutionally protect the rights of those with money to override the public interest by completely dominating the US political process.


​

 

[ggies07]

so we shouldn't regulate the media, but the gov't can regulate what our kids are taught? Seems a bit off to me.......

Texas Hits The Books : NPR Ed : NPR

My state is controlled by Republicans (which we know are tied to the oil industry) and tried to get this passed into the books:

Another point of contention: climate change. Josh Rosenau, programs and policy director with the National Center for Science Education, took issue with its characterization in books by megapublishers Pearson and McGraw-Hill.
"They were saying we didn't know what was causing climate change or saying that scientists were divided about whether humans were responsible," Rosenau says. "And that was just not true."

Luckily it was changed, but the article doesn't say to what.

 

[Reykjavik]

I am curious about how careful deniers have been to avoid committing slander or libel. If they've slipped up in this regard, I think throwing the book at them is the right thing to do.

 

[nwdiver]

I am curious about how careful deniers have been to avoid committing slander or libel. If they've slipped up in this regard, I think throwing the book at them is the right thing to do.

Already happened...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...14/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/

 

[RichardC]

I am curious about how careful deniers have been to avoid committing slander or libel. If they've slipped up in this regard, I think throwing the book at them is the right thing to do.

I suspect that the stronger case relates to their knowingly paying third parties to make false and misleading representations (which cause harm, as previously discussed) about climate change for commercial purposes. The increasing use of "dark money" vehicles to implement these schemes would appear to provide prima facie evidence that they know the conduct is illegal and could lead to liability if the sources of the funding were to be fully disclosed.

 

[Karma]

^ this should be taught in all Texas and Florida public schools, and be required reading by all incoming US Representatives and Senators.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

^ this should be taught in all Texas and Florida public schools, and be required reading by all incoming US Representatives and Senators.

Actually a correct information about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue should be given not only in Texas and Florida schools but also in schools worldwide. Texas and Florida schools could start and give the example. Then I am sure that other States and Countries will follow this example.

 

[RichardC]

so we shouldn't regulate the media, but the gov't can regulate what our kids are taught? Seems a bit off to me.......

Texas Hits The Books : NPR Ed : NPR

My state is controlled by Republicans (which we know are tied to the oil industry) and tried to get this passed into the books:

Luckily it was changed, but the article doesn't say to what.

This discussion brought to mind an initiative of the Heartland Institute which has been described by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as follows:

Around Halloween, thousands of science teachers, science professors, and graduate students received copies of a slick packet attacking climate science. A prominent climate change denial group sent teachers a booklet which mimics a real scientific report, and a cover letter slyly urging recipients to "use that work to inform your thinking—and your students—on this important issue."

Further reports on this initiative and other work of the Heartland Institute follow:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/track-denialist-nipcc-mailing
http://ncse.com/climate/proposed-texas-textbooks-distort-climate-change-facts
http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/alternative-reality-heartland-institute-s-nipcc-report-0015140
http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/heartland-institute-needs-to-work-its-mailing-list-0015167
http://io9.com/creationists-help-climate-change-deniers-attack-scienc-1603554406
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...te-Change-Reconsidered-global-warming-denial/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/02/22/heartland-institute-exposed-as-a-propaganda-outfit/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...s-global-warming-curriculum-for-k-12-schools/

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I strongly disagree. Scientific skeptics help to advance the course of science by challenging each and every theory and assumption, and helping to refine and improve the science. Deniers serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Their impacts are exclusively harmful and damaging. They do not contribute to the development of the science or of scientific theories, and they poison the public sphere with disinformation, thereby inhibiting the implementation of the sound policies and laws that are required to protect the health and safety of our children and future generations.

Deniers are just born skeptics who have been co-oped and amplified by outside money. That outside money doesn't care one way or the other if humans are causing global warming or if the globe is even warming. Their sole interest is consolidating and hoarding resources.

To say the solution to that is making it illegal for people to blindly disagree with consensus is Un-American and just a bad idea IMO. It's pretty clear that nothing is going to stop this transition to renewable energy, so what's the problem? Yes we could have moved more quickly, but that's not how human civilization works. Solar capacity has doubled every two years and will continue to do so until it very shortly provides half our energy. There's no need for thought police, just let the transition happen organically while doing your part to advance positive change locally and systemically.

 

[nwdiver]

Deniers are just born skeptics who have been co-oped and amplified by outside money. That outside money doesn't care one way or the other if humans are causing global warming or if the globe is even warming. Their sole interest is consolidating and hoarding resources.

To say the solution to that is making it illegal for people to blindly disagree with consensus is Un-American and just a bad idea IMO. It's pretty clear that nothing is going to stop this transition to renewable energy, so what's the problem? Yes we could have moved more quickly, but that's not how human civilization works. Solar capacity has doubled every two years and will continue to do so until it very shortly provides half our energy. There's no need for thought police, just let the transition happen organically while doing your part to advance positive change locally and systemically.

Deniers pick evidence that conforms to their conclusion; Skeptics pick a conclusion that conforms to their evidence.... rather sharp difference...

You're entitled to any OPINION (non-falsifiable) that you want; You ARE NOT entitled to your own FACTS (falsifiable)... this applies more to the media and public entities more than private citizens but here are a few gems that if they keep getting regurgitated publicly there should be legal consequences...

- CO2 has never driven climate change.
- Volcanoes emit more CO2 that fossil fuels
- CO2 causes cooling
- Fossil Fuels don't emit enough CO2 to matter

Should Pfizer be able to tell the public that Ibuprofen prevents cancer? Then why should fossil fuel puppets be able to keep repeating that crap?

 

[sandpiper]

Deniers pick evidence that conforms to their conclusion; Skeptics pick a conclusion that conforms to their evidence.... rather sharp difference...

You're entitled to any OPINION (non-falsifiable) that you want; You ARE NOT entitled to your own FACTS (falsifiable)... this applies more to the media and public entities more than private citizens but here are a few gems that if they keep getting regurgitated publicly there should be legal consequences...

- CO2 has never driven climate change.
- Volcanoes emit more CO2 that fossil fuels
- CO2 causes cooling
- Fossil Fuels don't emit enough CO2 to matter

Should Pfizer be able to tell the public that Ibuprofen prevents cancer? Then why should fossil fuel puppets be able to keep repeating that crap?

Wow... are we seriously considering this? If you want to limit the speech of all folks who pick evidence to support their own preferred conclusion, then you're going to have to send "cease and desist" letters to an enormous swath of humanity. We are emotionally driven creatures. If any person really believes that they look at everything objectively then they, by that simple fact, are themselves clearly lacking in objectivity. Remember - common sense is what we learn before the age of 5.

The green movement is in no way always objective or correct. It's populated with at least as many extremists and wackos as the other side. And some of the things that I hear the movement espousing is every bit as crazy and illogical as what comes from the "deniers".

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

I'm a firm believer in manmade climate change but, I don't believe in suppressing the (albeit-deep-pocketed) voices of dissent.

I'd draw a parallel to atheism (only 5% ?! of humanity - including myself - subscribe to that) vs religion; given that scientists haven't proven the existence of God, should the voices of religious followers be stifled?

The clock may be running out on our planet but, I hold out hope that, in the next couple of decades, the skeptics can be convinced and the deniers would just be shown for who they are. I can already see the generational transformation in our children and what they believe in.

We are a resilient species and will find a way out of this mess as well.

 

[sandpiper]

I'm a firm believer in manmade climate change but, I don't believe in suppressing the (albeit-deep-pocketed) voices of dissent.

I'd draw a parallel to atheism (only 5% ?! of humanity - including myself - subscribe to that) vs religion; given that scientists haven't proven the existence of God, should the voices of religious followers be stifled?

The clock may be running out on our planet but, I hold out hope that, in the next couple of decades, the skeptics can be convinced and the deniers would just be shown for who they are. I can already see the generational transformation in our children and what they believe in.

We are a resilient species and will find a way out of this mess as well.

I only wish I could be so optimistic. Sadly, we are very very reactionary. Our hunter-gatherer minds heavily lean to short/medium term thinking.

 

[tomas]

Yes, free speech important. I think most suggestions to contrary in this thread are out of frustration that the "earth is flat" oil lobby is economically motivated, preys on the ignorant, and slows down progress in this critical area.

I dont think necessary to push in schools: the kids get it, our generation is the problem.

And, yes humans are adaptable and find a way to solve most messes. But I worry this one may be irreversable and fatal before we take sufficient actions. F'ing with our planet and pandemic are the biggest risks to humankind.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

You ARE NOT entitled to your own FACTS (falsifiable)... this applies more to the media and public entities more than private citizens but here are a few gems that if they keep getting regurgitated publicly there should be legal consequences...

- CO2 has never driven climate change.
- Volcanoes emit more CO2 that fossil fuels
- CO2 causes cooling
- Fossil Fuels don't emit enough CO2 to matter

We don't have rock solid evidence that any of that is 100% true or false(except maybe the last one, but "matter" is a bit vague), therefore the forum must remain open to any and all points of view. As I said before, even Musk frames the climate change conversation as taking a very big and unnecessary risk. Nothing about the climate or our effect on it is incontrovertible, we simply don't know enough to get past 95% certainty on almost anything.

To me, looking at ice samples for the last 400k years and linking up the CO2 concentrations to global average temperature is more than enough evidence to sound the alarm. That doesn't mean it's the "right" conclusion and we should make two sharp 90 degree policy turns. Things are rapidly headed in the right direction, hopefully Germany pushed us into the Renewables Age in time.