That’s good – the first step is to recognize the problem. )

Re, “everything that is political is bad.” You grossly oversimplify my position – it is definitely not the simple black and white you suppose. I agree that not every single thing done by a political body is bad (I thought that was self-evident). The problem is that in many areas the trendline is bad (i.e. where the scope of the political increases, freedom decreases).

Re, “politics introduces major problems, that we should all be suspicious of the government, and that government intervention should be minimized.” I agree, though my opinion of minimized is radically different from yours.

Re, “everything political is doomed.” Again this is not my position, and I’m not inclined to leaps of faith. I agree that some (very limited) activities are properly in scope for government. The fact that those duties are sometimes executed poorly does not mean they’re all doomed.

Re, “government has to be accountable to the people and the people have to stay informed and vigilant. The fact that government messes up a lot isn’t a reason to abandon government. It’s our responsibility to hold them accountable.” I wish it were that way – we’d have lots fewer problems. Unfortunately what you describe is completely unrealistic and does not happen. That is an example of where I see your thinking as naïve and simplistic. Oh, and the abandon government line is a straw man.

Re, “you equate trying to advocate better solutions with trying to encourage bad solutions.” I’m not making the logical error you suggest; I have a different opinion about what “good solution” means. For the most part, what you consider a better solution is IMO a bad solution. So, from my perspective you are encouraging bad solutions.

I don’t know why or how you reach the conclusions you do about what position is, but you should stop because your accuracy is abysmal. I’m sure you sincerely believe you’re trying to make the ratchet go the other way. I just think you’re wrong, and your ideas are often dangerous and antithetical to freedom. I’ve attempted to explain why (the nature-of-politics / blind-spot thing), but I don’t think I’ve communicated successfully yet. I freely admit I’m not a great writer, but perhaps if you’d stop thinking of me as some faith-driven simplistic dim-wit it would be a good start.

RE: “When government embarks on some intervention, they will not stay on the moderate course you write about.”

I recognize this – that’s why government has to be accountable to the people and the people have to stay informed and vigilant. The fact that government messes up a lot isn’t a reason to abandon government. It’s our responsibility to hold them accountable.

RE: “I’m in the crowd trying to reach the switch to make the ratchet go the other way; you’re in the crowd making that harder to do (or maybe even helping turn the ratchet).”

See, this is the problem – you equate trying to advocate better solutions with trying to encourage bad solutions. There’s no point in even talking about this if that’s the position you take. I’m the trying to make the ratchet go the other way. I think you’re fundamentally making it harder by not only criticizing the bad solutions, but criticizing the good solutions too. That leaves a vaccuum (because of the role special interests play in politics) makes more bad solutions more likely. I don’t want that.

Politics is a corrupt and corrupting process. If you realize everything government does is political and continue to support government intervention then you have much more faith in the political process than is justified by experience. IMO that is either foolish or naive (or worse). That is a root cause of much of my criticism, and you seem completely blind to it.

Like many other analysts, many of your ideas might be fine if only reality was different; they may seem prudent in some hypothetical abstract scenario, but they’re either incompatible with reality or incompatible with freedom (or both). When government embarks on some intervention, they will not stay on the moderate course you write about. Government will overstep its bounds because of the way politics works. When (not if) that happens it is very difficult, if not impossible, to stop them. It’s like a ratchet where we’re the ones getting screwed. I’m in the crowd trying to reach the switch to make the ratchet go the other way; you’re in the crowd making that harder to do (or maybe even helping turn the ratchet).

That is the realization I hope you have someday. If I can help you get there with my crappy writing skills I’ll have done my good deed for the day. (Of course, it’s also possible you do understand all this and you just don’t value freedom. Or you may just believe freedom is not threatened by government, but I don’t think you’re that stupid.)

As I said, I couldn’t agree more. I really feel like you’re not getting the fact that I don’t like C4C. I don’t support it. I never have. I’m just (1.) trying to find some gross positive effect where I can so I can feel better about it, and (2.) trying to keep Bastiat from being poorly applied. But I don’t like C4C. I don’t think you have to despise every facet of a program to be genuinely against it (just like I don’t think you have to support every single facet of a program to get behind it).

Since “politically” is not the opposite of “modestly” those two sentences seemed like independent thoughts. I didn’t quote the second one because as you say – you can’t really argue with it. They do it politically sort of by definition.

Re: “Evidently, however, you disagree with that statement. Are you really so naive to think government will proceed in some way other than political? ”

Is this really what you’re arguing about now? No, I agree completely that everything they do is political. I disagree that nothing they do is modest or cautious.

Happy now?

$3 billion also buys you a lot of CO2 scrubbers, and can replace many coal power plants with more efficient alternatives.

Or $3 billion could have been kept in people’s pockets so they can dispersely invest it in more efficient technologies or processes or capital.

C4C fails on every single one of its stated goals.

Daniel, you partially quoted me and responded, “You’re seriously telling me with a straight face that this is the statement of an objective observer that recognizes that the world is complicated, that he doesn’t know everything, that he cannot predict the future, and that things aren’t black and white?”

Does your brain just ignore the parts of statements that don’t work for you?

My complete statement was: “Once the government imposes itself, they will not proceed modestly. They will proceed politically, with all the badness that entails. That’s the inevitable result of what you support, therefore it is what you support.”

I have yet to observe a political process behave any other way than politically (it’s kinda definitional, duh). Evidently, however, you disagree with that statement. Are you really so naive to think government will proceed in some way other than political? Do you really believe that politics leads to modest and prudent action (excepting the rare dumb luck occasion)?

Reality is a pesky thing; you can delude yourself into thinking you’re all moderate, thoughtful and considered (hell, you may even be all those things) but it’s a safe bet Congress won’t be.

Some people are pessimistic by nature, a lot of people are informed by headlines, some people have funding/income at stake, some have their reputations at stake, and a fair number already believed that humankind is destroying the planet, and a fair number have “capitalism” in their cross hairs.

Daniel, for instance, believed that measured temperature changes exceeded the models: “My understanding is that temperature changes have exceeded projections (but that there has also been a ten year moderation).”, which is, based on all the graphs I have looked at, is decidedly NOT the case.

I’ve made my assessment of the arguments and my judgment is that the critiques that various scientists have made of the AGW hypothesis are valid.

1. most recent ice core data shows geohistorical evidence that CO2 increase LAG climate warming by about 800 years.

2. increasing CO2 levels have diminishing impact on thermal radiation.

3. the “hot spot” predicted by AGW theory has not appeared in the data.

4. the models completely failed to project the last decade trend. I emphasize the word “completely”. This does not encourage faith in the models.

Here, read this paper.

There is plenty more from different sources, including very notable climate researchers.

by suggesting a modest carbon tax with a rebate that makes it neutral with respect to the total tax burden,

Unfortunately, your proposal is not under consideration. I might vote for you if you ran for office due to your reasonableness, but until then, I don’t expect a reasonable response from congress. I don’t even expect a reasonably coherent response from congress.

No bill that can be expected to pass ever does so without a good deal of pork, and as I think spending is of greater import than taxes, then I don’t expect much good of cobbled bills.

Of course not all climatologists. I hope to God that’s not what you’re waiting on. I don’t understand that perspective on science and I don’t understand your legislative perspective either that seems to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I’m sorry, but I gave up hope that we live in a perfect world a long time ago. I don’t let it paralyze me. Anyway – this is getting thin so I suppose I’m done.

by suggesting a modest carbon tax with a rebate that makes it neutral with respect to the total tax burden,

Unfortunately, your proposal is not under consideration. I might vote for you if you ran for office due to your reasonableness, but until then, I don’t expect a reasonable response from congress. I don’t even expect a reasonably coherent response from congress.

No bill that can be expected to pass ever does so without a good deal of pork, and as I think spending is of greater import than taxes, then I don’t expect much good of cobbled bills.

RE: “Especially given that there is no evidence that CO2 forcings are significant?”

No evidence that is concinving to you – let’s qualify. I hope you’re not speaking for all the climatologists of the world. That would be a fatal conceit.

Aha – I see. It’s amazing these conversations can even be initiated without these sorts of fundamental definitional agreements. Oh well – no way around it I suppose.

By suggesting that the government CAN screw up, I’m being generous.

All is interpretation, but I hold to the view that the government WILL screw up and placing much faith in political salvation is the equivalent of putting all our eggs in one basket.