A fully implemented CO2 global tax could reduce human emissions to ZERO.

Let me make it clear that I am NOT a "climate denier." Human activity -- the liberation of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere -- very plausibly can have an effect in the long run. Furthermore, there is much to love about "renewable" energy sources -- although they are not without some drawbacks, as well. But I'm not arguing that the drawbacks outweigh their goodness. I'm happy to see renewables get used. Sincerely.

No, I'm not trying to argue against "climate change" or against renewable energy.

I'm only concerned and hopeful that a rational desire to act responsibly will not cause us, accidentally, to "throw baby out with bath water" and abandon our objectivity or practicality because fear or ideology takes over.

I don't think every single wildfire can be attributed automatically and uncritically to global warming, for example. We need to pay attention, also, to OTHER factors that could be much more important. Are wildfires happening with equal frequency everywhere? Or do forestry practices vary across the globe, and seem to have an impact?

Do some places seem to be more successful in managing their forests? If so, let's not miss the importance of that by leaping to causal conclusions that may be less relevant.

That's merely one example of what I think are commonsense questions that can be asked, without the questioner properly being labelled, mistakenly, a "climate denier" and dismissed out of hand.

Other questions that seem to HAVE to be answered are: at night, when the wind isn't blowing, and it might take years to get any nuclear project approved and past attempts to halt it, how can we keep the lights (not to mention other critical systems) powered up WITHOUT the help of supplementary fossil fuel, like natural gas?

Such questions can't just be dismissed -- and I don't think they ARE being dismissed by anybody with actual responsibility to keep societies powered up. But in internet conversation, it sometimes feels to me like some don't give decision makers the benefit of the doubt, and sometimes champion unrealistic measures inspired, no doubt, by good faith concern.

@Noflaps said in #121:

Let me make it clear that I am NOT a "climate denier."
I don't think they ARE being dismissed by anybody with actual responsibility to keep societies powered up.

Thank you for your interest in having a good faith conversation but your application has been rejected due to inconsistencies in the presented narrative.

In your opinion. Fortunately, I don't depend upon that. I depend upon the languages I speak and upon my own experiences and education -- and the fact that I live in a democracy, where freedom of thought largely remains.

@Noflaps

Hey, don't shoot me I'm just the messenger!

Nevertheless, it's your opinion that you message -- not a passage from the book of life. We all have opinions, and they need not be identical. Indeed, they seldom are.

@Noflaps said in #125:

Nevertheless, it's your opinion that you message -- not a passage from the book of life.

Are you sure?

Of course. I know myself better than you do. I have much more experience with myself.

Do you suspect your opinions are necessarily indisputable truths in some way?

@Noflaps said in #127:

Of course. I know myself better than you do. I have much more experience with myself.

Of course.

@Noflaps said in #127:

Do you suspect your opinions are necessarily indisputable truths in some way?

Look, man. If you're asking if my hubris is bigger than your hubris, it's no contest. I fold. No one has bigger hubris than you.

I don't try to get personal in response to disagreement. Which is not a sign of hubris. It's a sign of my tolerance of differing opinions. . Trying to unflatteringly characterize those with whom I disagree is not typically my way of discussing substance.

I have said, plainly, that I am not a "climate denier." I shouldn't have to say, further, that I am not a liar. Not being a "climate denier" does not require me to accept every worrisome assertion presented. I can examine assertions objectively, and ask questions to explore their basis and politely explore any possible logical inconsistencies which the assertions may entail. That's not hubris.

I don't tell others WHAT they think. I discuss what they tell me they do.