MSM reports: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.

There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.

Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?

Anarchist not Anarcho-Communist. For one thing I don't see addressing climate change now as any more authoritarian than anything else going on with governments these days. No suggested policies or new taxes (revenue neutral by the way) will change anything for we the people.

What happens of we do nothing and you are wrong? The change in Earth's overall temperature throws weather systems off, there's seal level rise with both major droughts and major flooding throughout the world. You want to talk about Totalitarianism? When millions and millions need to migrate or starve how do you think governments of the world are going to respond?

Didn't mean to offend, last time we chatted that was how you described yourself.

If you only want to express your view, I absolutely support you. As I have said environmental activists are the folks who have been the primary motivators for the dramatic reduction here in the US over the last half-century. In most cases, it was just better business to adopt the newest and least wasteful processes but, activists brought the subject into the light.

Also, the largest polluter in any particular area is usually the local government as you probably know.

a reply to: rickymouse

Then you agree that we should be banning things like the birth control pill?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


With all due respect, I think that you are wrong that most climate change believers don't understand life systems or cycles.

In fact, one of the main dangers of climate change is that it will shift climactic zones and basically destroy many many habitats, hence killing off many species or disrupting ecosystems and life cycles. Then too, food systems and agriculture will be threatened, greatly increasing the odds of food shortages, etc.

This is all talked about a great deal.

Remember, climate change is dangerous for the effects (food security, ecosystem destruction, droughts, extreme weather, etc), not just because it may happen.

The worst part is we are doing both most likely. Destroying habitat with population and consumption and changing climate with atmospheric changes.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.

There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.

Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?

They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.

There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.

Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?

They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

This is where we differ greatly. You cant force people to change. The carbon tax issue is a scam and has the potential for even more dammage and liberty destruction. What we need to do is provide massive tax breaks for companies who can create real and confirmed artifacts that solve problems. Almost every study now a days has motivation behind from politics and there funding. It takes a much more dilligent fact checker than most are wilking to do.

I will say almost all the comments have been about peoples "gut" feeling and not peer reviewed science we can get.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.

There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.

Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?

They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

This is where we differ greatly. You cant force people to change. The carbon tax issue is a scam and has the potential for even more dammage and liberty destruction. What we need to do is provide massive tax breaks for companies who can create real and confirmed artifacts that solve problems. Almost every study now a days has motivation behind from politics and there funding. It takes a much more dilligent fact checker than most are wilking to do.

I will say almost all the comments have been about peoples "gut" feeling and not peer reviewed science we can get.

I get your point.

But unfortunately, it has been discussed and examined and we now know that if rigorous change doesn't happen now, it will be too late. We can't wait 20-30 years. That's what the evidence shows.

So it has to be mixture of economic incentives like you are saying to real policy action now.

Again, for those who say "don't force anyone to do anything" it's like saying "Oh you say there is an imminent asteroid incoming that may wipe out millions? And you want to declare emergency and take action? Totalitarian!!"

Do you see what I mean?

Bear with me. There ARE things that can happen in our reality that take immediate action, even if some citizens don't like it.

Stalin didn't need to ask everyone to mobilize the military further when Hitler invaded...

a reply to: greencmp

I never described myself as such but I'm not offended just clarifying. Answer my question though... if you're wrong, how do you see the response from governments going down?

a reply to: luthier

Check out Milankovitch cycles.

originally posted by: jrod
Already posted day ago here.

This is just an example of the anti climate change crowd cherry picking data points.

It is cute how a lot of the resident anti man made climate faithful are up and already claiming victory over the climate debate because of this story.

Human ignorance is truly infinite.



The climate change crowd does not cherry pick and alter data? from the news blogs I read (not just ATS.com) climate changers do just as much as the climate change deniers.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

Maybe it isn't what most people think of but, no, we cannot know who will wield or what will be done with the authority we grant to any organization.

So, why isn't the conversation ever about climate change mitigation instead of taxation? That would be a very useful discussion.

When a corporation makes "adjustments" to its data and presents it to the shareholders, somebody gets criminal charges brought against them.
Somehow climate scientists get a free pass for "fiddling" with their data. That is usually called fraud.

a reply to: luthier

If we stopped using fossil fuels today, without an appropriate substitute and infrastructure many billions would die.

How does produce make it to the grocery stores? How much food is in a large metro at any given time (approx 1 week, perhaps 2 at most). What about all the food that is processed? No fossil fuels no wheaties. No fossil fuels no plastic. No fossil fuels no refregeration (what energy source?).

How would farming be if all of a sudden they could not run their tractors, columbines, could not apply pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer? What would be the decrease in production as a result? What would be the level of spoilage if we could not transport, chill, freeze, process the food we could produce? Billions would die...more billions would riot....

We need a substitute, no doubt, but we do not currently have an acceptable one nor do we have the infrastructure to even make an unacceptable one available.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


With all due respect, I think that you are wrong that most climate change believers don't understand life systems or cycles.

In fact, one of the main dangers of climate change is that it will shift climactic zones and basically destroy many many habitats, hence killing off many species or disrupting ecosystems and life cycles. Then too, food systems and agriculture will be threatened, greatly increasing the odds of food shortages, etc.

This is all talked about a great deal.

Remember, climate change is dangerous for the effects (food security, ecosystem destruction, droughts, extreme weather, etc), not just because it may happen.

The worst part is we are doing both most likely. Destroying habitat with population and consumption and changing climate with atmospheric changes.

Exactly. Also through as you are saying other human behaviors, from land use and agriculture to chemical pollution.

This is why I tell then anti-environmental people that even if climate change is not real, or the environmental issue exaggerated, there isn't any real loss for us to become more green, more sustainable, less polluting, etc.

There is a very real and present danger not to do so.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

I never described myself as such but I'm not offended just clarifying. Answer my question though... if you're wrong, how do you see the response from governments going down?

Indeed, the term you used was 'collectivist anarchist' which I, perhaps erroneously, equate with anarcho-communism.

originally posted by: Kali74
reply to post by greencmp

 

Collectivists are not statists or globalists. They are a group of individuals with common goals. Collectivist anarchists still very much are anti-state/authority/government.

Honestly, I am not sure I understand the question.

If you mean "who will save the planet if not government?", my answer is: people.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.

There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.

Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?

They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

This is where we differ greatly. You cant force people to change. The carbon tax issue is a scam and has the potential for even more dammage and liberty destruction. What we need to do is provide massive tax breaks for companies who can create real and confirmed artifacts that solve problems. Almost every study now a days has motivation behind from politics and there funding. It takes a much more dilligent fact checker than most are wilking to do.

I will say almost all the comments have been about peoples "gut" feeling and not peer reviewed science we can get.

I get your point.

But unfortunately, it has been discussed and examined and we now know that if rigorous change doesn't happen now, it will be too late. We can't wait 20-30 years. That's what the evidence shows.

So it has to be mixture of economic incentives like you are saying to real policy action now.

Again, for those who say "don't force anyone to do anything" it's like saying "Oh you say there is an imminent asteroid incoming that may wipe out millions? And you want to declare emergency and take action? Totalitarian!!"

Do you see what I mean?

Bear with me. There ARE things that can happen in our reality that take immediate action, even if some citizens don't like it.

Stalin didn't need to ask everyone to mobilize the military further when Hitler invaded...

Again what you are saying is dangerous and so is the reasoning.

You would have to go back to your logic, ethics, and philosophy to determine if you are correct. Most people would agree empericist laid out the scientific method. Of those John Locke speaks extensively on the subjects os liberty which go hand in hand with justice and scientific method.

The danger of being scared into a decision far outweighs safety because of how easily and how well ot works. For all you 911 conspiracy people case in point. One of Americas greatest first scientists B. Franklin warned about it clearly.

The only moral choice is and i dare you to use actual logic, ethics or philosophy, to counter not a gut feeling for those that will die if you are right. You can even use Marx its fine I think he is misunderstood.

There is never an outcome if you do a logic equation were forcing scared people to do something is the better choice. You have to give them the choice to fail or not. Even if it means they die.

Because the danger of thinking you can control peoples thinking because what ypu think is right (even if it is) is more dangerous as a precendent. Eventually someone will manipulate that equation with force. Its just a fact through logic not the metaphorical kind but the one all the scientists used to create the system we have now.
Its no small thing the social scientists, philosophers, engineers, and hard science people who created modern society believed strongly in liberty. Taking away liberty is taking away justice is taking away science.
The only way i see is with local public support and local laws voted by the people and insentives for industry to create safer technology.

But hey no one cares about that crap anymore anyway.

I have only 2 words to add to this thread HAARP & PLANET X

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

Maybe it isn't what most people think of but, no, we cannot know who will wield or what will be done with the authority we grant to any organization.

So, why isn't the conversation ever about climate change mitigation instead of taxation? That would be a very useful discussion.

Tax regime discussions are totally about climate change mitigations.

For example, carbon taxes are quite simply "internalizing" the negative externalities that are NOT usually paid for by companies and organizations. This then makes them have to become more sustainable because they are now finally having to pay for it, as they should have from the beginning. Hence they then begin mitigating their pollution.

Mitigation simply means lowering the contribution to climate change collectively, through everything from policy to technology to economic incentives.

originally posted by: PlanetxIsComing
I have only 2 words to add to this thread HAARP & PLANET X

By my count that is 4 words or 2 plus a symbol character and a capital letter.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.

There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.

Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?

They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

This is where we differ greatly. You cant force people to change. The carbon tax issue is a scam and has the potential for even more dammage and liberty destruction. What we need to do is provide massive tax breaks for companies who can create real and confirmed artifacts that solve problems. Almost every study now a days has motivation behind from politics and there funding. It takes a much more dilligent fact checker than most are wilking to do.

I will say almost all the comments have been about peoples "gut" feeling and not peer reviewed science we can get.

I get your point.

But unfortunately, it has been discussed and examined and we now know that if rigorous change doesn't happen now, it will be too late. We can't wait 20-30 years. That's what the evidence shows.

So it has to be mixture of economic incentives like you are saying to real policy action now.

Again, for those who say "don't force anyone to do anything" it's like saying "Oh you say there is an imminent asteroid incoming that may wipe out millions? And you want to declare emergency and take action? Totalitarian!!"

Do you see what I mean?

Bear with me. There ARE things that can happen in our reality that take immediate action, even if some citizens don't like it.

Stalin didn't need to ask everyone to mobilize the military further when Hitler invaded...

Again what you are saying is dangerous and so is the reasoning.

You would have to go back to your logic, ethics, and philosophy to determine if you are correct. Most people would agree empericist laid out the scientific method. Of those John Locke speaks extensively on the subjects os liberty which go hand in hand with justice and scientific method.

The danger of being scared into a decision far outweighs safety because of how easily and how well ot works. For all you 911 conspiracy people case in point. One of Americas greatest first scientists B. Franklin warned about it clearly.

The only moral choice is and i dare you to use actual logic, ethics or philosophy, to counter not a gut feeling for those that will die if you are right. You can even use Marx its fine I think he is misunderstood.

There is never an outcome if you do a logic equation were forcing scared people to do something is the better choice. You have to give them the choice to fail or not. Even if it means they die.

Because the danger of thinking you can control peoples thinking because what ypu think is right (even if it is) is more dangerous as a precendent. Eventually someone will manipulate that equation with force. Its just a fact through logic not the metaphorical kind but the one all the scientists used to create the system we have now.
Its no small thing the social scientists, philosophers, engineers, and hard science people who created modern society believed strongly in liberty. Taking away liberty is taking away justice is taking away science.
The only way i see is with local public support and local laws voted by the people and insentives for industry to create safer technology.

But hey no one cares about that crap anymore anyway.

It is dangerous.

But my fundamental point is correct.

Using logic and ethics, we must make such decisions based on evidence, one, and how clear and present a danger is.

Again, no person nor government can nor needs to wait to respond if a threat is great enough. It's quite simply irresponsible and even insane.

So the clear and present nature must be based on evidence.

I must say to you that nobody is predicting this clear and present threat of climate change on "gut feelings." It is based on hordes of scientific and economic studies, as well as trajectories.

If we stay on the "business as usual" pathway, not taking rigorous action now, we are going to have severe consequences in 30-40 years. The social, economic, and environmental cost of not taking action has already been predicted to be FAR higher than taking action. That's what people aren't understanding.

So again, if that is true, then it is purely irresponsible to not take action.

And those who don't want to shouldn't dictate responsible action.

Remember if a man is trying to attack both of us I don't need to ask you to respond.

Climate change will hurt all of us. Therefore even if you don't want to do anything to address it, others don't need to wait and hence harm themselves, their descendants, nations, etc, because you don't believe in it or only see the short term impacts. I am not speaking to you literally but people generally.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

Maybe it isn't what most people think of but, no, we cannot know who will wield or what will be done with the authority we grant to any organization.

So, why isn't the conversation ever about climate change mitigation instead of taxation? That would be a very useful discussion.

Tax regime discussions are totally about climate change mitigations.

For example, carbon taxes are quite simply "internalizing" the negative externalities that are NOT usually paid for by companies and organizations. This then makes them have to become more sustainable because they are now finally having to pay for it, as they should have from the beginning. Hence they then begin mitigating their pollution.

Mitigation simply means lowering the contribution to climate change collectively, through everything from policy to technology to economic incentives.

If that was all that we ever did about pollution, we would still be nose deep in it. When I think about mitigation, I think about cleanup.

I would be delighted to hear the details of the various concepts and their projected efficacy.