What do you believe has been adequately demonstrated in climate change science?

[KrazyHorse]

This doesn't lend itself well to a poll. Plus I'm too lazy to make one.

I think it's been adequately demonstrated that:

1) CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (duh)
2) Human beings are currently altering the CO2 balance of the atmosphere significantly
3) This push will cause significant rises in global mean temperature (1-5C) over the next century or so
4) This will cause significant increases in global mean sea levels (30-200cm)
5) This will flood a number of currently low-lying areas

What I'm not convinced of:

a) This will cause enormous death and destruction
b) The cost of a solution will be significantly lower than the damage caused by global warming
c) Rainfall patterns will be significantly negatively affected

What should be obvious to even the most obtuse minds:

i) A carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system will both find the same equilibrium no matter how permits are initially distributed (Coase theorem) and both have the same initial deadweight costs
ii) The revenue from a carbon tax and a fully auctioned cap-and-trade system can be used to reduce other, more destructive taxes, and this is by far the most efficient way to reduce emissions (particularly compared to legislating/regulating/subsidizing technologies or industry-specific emissions levels)

My numbering system can be used to shorten your responses, if you'd like. Further numbering should complement, not conflict, with mine (in order to prevent confusion)

[Whoha]

6) Coal is a global cooling agent and can be cheaply used to reverse the effects of global warming

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not sure what the longevity of soot/smoke in the atmosphere is. If it's fairly short then you're simply disguising a long-term problem with a short-term solution. Also, there are other (than global warming/cooling) considerations for particulate pollution. such as sulfur content etc.

[notyoueither]

I have zero problem with a carbon tax so long as industrial emissions in China, etc are treated the same as those in Ontario, etc; petroleum producers in Saudi, Venezuala, Nigeria, Russia, etc are treated the same as those in Alberta; farms in Argentina, the Ukraine, Kansas, and France face the same carbon costs as those in Saskatchewan; and forestry in Sweden and Russia faces the same taxes as in British Columbia.

I am not sure about cap and trade.

[Imran Siddiqui]

'Cause I'm positive that national governments can tax other countries' industries in such fashion.

[notyoueither]

What?

[Drake Tungsten]

1 and 2 + i and ii

[Asher]

I'm pretty much in total agreement with the OP. With the additional clarification that I don't give a **** in general.

The climate on Earth has changed dramatically in the past, it'll happen again sooner or later. Adapt or die.

[KrazyHorse]

I have no more whiskey

Off to bed. Will try to finish at least one more chapter of The Partnership

[Asher]

What kind of whiskey?

[KrazyHorse]

Maker's. Also, I finished my Dewar's (given to us by a clueless but well-meaning houseguest who knew that we "like scotch")

[Asher]

I'm debating joining my brother in Kentucky in February just to tour the distillery. He's going to visit his woman who is on an optometry rotation. But the airfare is a bit too much, and the distance too far to drive.

[Ming]

Also, I finished my Dewar's (given to us by a clueless but well-meaning houseguest who knew that we "like scotch")

I have "friends" like that... you would think they would know better.
Maker's

[Ben Kenobi]

1) CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (duh)

Yes, but I don't see how the greenhouse effect by atmospheric CO2 is significant, compared to that of water vapour. It seems to me that changes in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere would have greater effects than the amount of CO2.

2) Human beings are currently altering the CO2 balance of the atmosphere significantly

Do you mean measurable? I'd agree that we can measure increases in atmospheric CO2. I don't believe that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere represents a significant shift in the overall atmosphere.

3) This push will cause significant rises in global mean temperature (1-5C) over the next century or so

1-5 C? I'm not convinced that the increase in CO2 will outweigh other factors, such as water vapour and solar radiation. The entire temperature shift we have recorded so far can be explained as variations in solar radiation.

4) This will cause significant increases in global mean sea levels (30-200cm)
5) This will flood a number of currently low-lying areas

Wow, you really believe we'll see significant changes in sea levels? I don't think we'll see anywhere close to a 2 metre rise in the seas.

[Ben Kenobi]

i) A carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system will both find the same equilibrium no matter how permits are initially distributed (Coase theorem) and both have the same initial deadweight costs
ii) The revenue from a carbon tax and a fully auctioned cap-and-trade system can be used to reduce other, more destructive taxes, and this is by far the most efficient way to reduce emissions (particularly compared to legislating/regulating/subsidizing technologies or industry-specific emissions levels)

I don't see the longterm economic benefit of either. The reduction in carbon emissions and gains in efficiency will happen naturally, as we have seen with improved coal mining and extraction techniques. Is there any evidence that either of these systems will provide decreases in emissions that would not have otherwise been accomplished? Personally, I think governments are best at ignoring arbitrary limitations like Kyoto.