So here is the problem. I was on board too until I started really looking at the science. I have been in computer science since the early 70s so I know something about computers. The current hysteria is based on computer modelling and there is a saying in science about computer models, "all computer models are wrong". They are a useful tool to test hypothesis but unfortunately the current CO2 centric hypothesis is unfalsifiable. What do I mean by that? It means that no experiment can be created to test it. Don't get me wrong. The only falsifiable part of the hypothesis are first principles but how they react in a non-linear chaotic environment are not. The current CO2 centric hypothesis is so vague that anything can be blamed on it since no one can prove otherwise which you see daily in the media with every weather event blamed on climate change. The fact that extreme weather was worse in the 30s and 50s seems to escape the narrative. After 3 decades one would think that the sensitivity to CO2 could be nailed down but it has only widened since observed science made it lower the low range from 2C to 1.5C. The upper range is still 4C. Well this is all based on computer models. The real shame is that all of the hysteria is based on the least likely upper range when observed science is skirting the lower range. Then there are the solar scientists that are predicting coming cooling with the lowering rate of solar activity that is now rivaling the Dalton Minimum. BTW, that is science too. The AGW hysteria has become both political and a billion dollar industry.
Nonsense. Our theory is falsifiable, because it's real science. In stark contrast, your beliefs are unfalsifiable, making them obvious pseudoscience. You also ignore the fact that the hard data that proves AGW theory without any models at all. The success of the models is just icing on the cake. And finally, you leave out the stunning success of the models. If your theory can only stand by deliberately ignoring all contrary data, it's not much of a theory.
Those who figure they can profit from it, monetarily or otherwise, and that any consequent misfortunes will befall others than themselves.
There is an experiment that could have falsified the anthroprogenic hypothesis. The experiment was ran in real life on a global scale. It is still ongoing today. That experiment monitors the troposhere, hydrosphere, and stratosphere. The idea was that if the stratosphere was warming in conjunction with the troposphere and hydrosphere than that would falsify the anthroprogenic hypothesis because greenhouse gases necessarily work by trapping radiation in the troposphere and preventing it from heating the stratosphere. So if the stratosphere were observed to have been warming then that would have been powerful evidence that GHGs weren't the cause of the warming troposphere and hydrosphere. And, of course, as we know the stratosphere is indeed cooling which is not only consistent with GHG warming, but GHGs are the only agent which can cause such a unique effect. It's not the only line of evidence that supports the anthroprogenic hypothesis, but it is the experiment skeptics were calling for as a definitive falsification attempt.
Scientists, physics, chemistry, computer models, and mass quantities of data are behind this, not politicians or business people. They are merely following the consensus of science. You have the cart before the horse. This has been an evolving scientific issue since the 1970s. And now we have high mathematical confidence in the models - as much as 95% confidence.
That's amazing. I've never heard of anyone who thought the Sun didn't provide heat. The IPCC is a political quasi-governmental body organized by the United Nations, another political quasi-governmental body. The express goal of this committee is to agitate for mitigation of a supposed global warming crisis. As such, it draws people who already believe that global warming is a problem and actively seeks to exclude those who do not. Data that come into the organization is viewed through the lens of global warming. It is a textbook example of confirmation bias. Another stupid statement. I ask again — so what if the Earth is 1ºF warmer since 1985? You cannot be so stupid as to think that simply showing that the Earth has warmed is going to make me think that the sky is falling. Showing that the Earth has warmed does not demonstrate that: 1. The warming will continue, 2. The warming is human caused, 3. The warming is a problem, 4. Mitigation efforts would be successful, or 5. The government is the best vehicle to handle these mitigation efforts. I'm sure you meant FEWER trees not less trees. Anyway, look at Those trees exist because people use paper. I would write more, but I've got to run.
Your response is incoherent. There are two basic philosophies of science, both of which are designed to deal with the problem of induction — also known as the reality that science doesn't work very well if at all. The first philosophy involves Bayesian statistics. Bayesians admit that science has serious methodological flaws but believe that the problem can be overcome by rigid application of mathematics to show that even though their conclusions cannot be rigidly justified, mathematics can create a solid framework for updating the subjective probability of an item in such a way that highly probabilistic conclusions can be arrived at. Said theories are not and never will be proven, but Bayesians believe that you can reach a very high confidence level. The second philosophy does not accept that science has serious methodological flaws, rather it claims that people do not truly understand science. Science, according to these people, is not inductive but rather deductive. Bad theories can be falsified leaving behind theories that have, at least so far, avoided falsification. These theories are said to have greater empirical content and to have greater explanatory power because they forbid more outcomes. By claiming that your theory is not falsifiable, the first poster obviously indicated that his philosophy was the second one — that science advances not by finding good theories but by tossing out bad ones. You then followed up with the claim that "...[there exists] hard data that proves AGW theory without any models at all." It is at this point that your argument becomes incoherent. Neither philosophy of science claims that science proves (or even can prove) anything. All that can be said is that the results are statistically significant and consistent with a theory. The implication would be that the results lend probabilistic support to the theory. That's not proof. Nor are you likely to convince someone whose philosophical position is opposed to that. It's like quoting the Bible to Buddhists. You're wasting your time, and you're making yourself look foolish.
I understand your problem. The irrational lack the mindset necessary to understand rational thought. So, AGW theory passes there. And AGW theory passes there. Excellent, we've established AGW theory is good science no matter which view you take. Well, yes, speaking there in the Bayesian sense. There's just so much evidence piled up, the probability of being wrong approaches zero. You're obviously very confused. You claim the Bayesian technique is valid, then immediately afterwards, you rave that it's invalid. Your arguments never make sense, which is why nobody takes you seriously.
I didn't say the Sun doesn't provide heat. What I said was that a negative perturbation in the Sun's output leads to a negative perturbation in the equilibrium temperature and vice versa all other things being equal. Remember, the debate here centers around the fact that you claim that the Sun is responsible for the positive change in the equilibrium temperature. I pointed out that the Sun's output has been declining. I'm asking you how you think that's possible that the Sun can cause a positive change in the equilibrium temperature even though there has been a negative change in it's output. Then don't accept any information from the IPCC. Nearly every reputable institution corroborates the findings of the IPCC. You're not going to get a different result by shopping for an analysis from another reputable institution. I don't want you to think the sky is falling because the science does not support that viewpoint. This is correct. A warming Earth does not mean that it will continue to warm or that it is human caused or that it is a problem. Those are conclusions that are made from other lines of evidence. I'm happy to discuss if you're interested. So are you saying that for every tree cut down there is at least one that is planted such that consuming paper creates net reforestation? How much CO2 would be scrubbed from the atmosphere under your proposal to recycle paper? I'm all for a solution that would reforest the planet and scrub CO2 in the process.
That's pretty funny. The empiricist telling the rationalist that empiricism is more rational than rationalism. But I'll bite. If your claim is that truth comes through scientific experiments, please indicate the scientific experiment you used to demonstrate that truth comes through scientific experiments. I won't hold my breath because we both know that such an experiment not only doesn't exist but also can't be constructed. The best you can fall back on is the claim "But it only makes sense that the only way to know whether grass is green is to look at grass!" So, basically, you are resorting to a rational argument as some kind of "proof" that rationalism doesn't work as well as science does. I seriously doubt that, but I'm willing to look at your calculations. Kindly present the math and show your work. Oh wait... now you'll have to fess up that you didn't do any math and probably couldn't do it if your life depended on it. I never said the Bayesian "technique" was valid. I seriously question the value of updating one's degree of subjective belief as proof for anything. I also wonder how you think you've solved the problem of the priors. Oh wait... let me guess. You don't even know what the problem of the priors is.
Wrong. This is the problem — you don't know what the argument is about. My arguments with you tend to go thus: Iamanonman: The Earth is warming! Zosimus: Well, not necessarily. The Earth has warmed. But so what? That's probably a good thing. Iamanonman: But the Earth is warmer! What is the source of this energy? Zosimus: The Sun, bub. The Sun is the source of the energy input to the Earth. Didn't you know that? Iamanonman: But it's warmer! The IPCC insists that it's warmer. Zosimus: Of course they do. They're a political body. But so what if it is warmer? As I said, that's probably a good thing! Iamanonman: But where could the energy be coming from? Zosimus: The Sun, obviously. The Sun radiates energy to Earth on a daily basis. Iamanonman: You are claiming that the Sun is the only reason the Earth is warmer! That's not true! The Sun is dimming! Zosimus: No, I told you before that the warming of the Earth is a good thing. I asked why you thought it was important that the Earth had warmed. You had no answer. Iamanonman: But the Earth is warming! Look at all this data from IPCC! (data, data, data, data, data). Zosimus: The data are irrelevant. So what if the Earth has warmed? A warming Earth is probably a good thing. Fewer children will freeze to death in Puno this year. I rejoice. Iamanonman: But the Sun cannot be the source of warming for the planet! Zosimus: Well, where do you think the Earth gets its energy from? Satan? It comes from the Sun. The most you could possibly claim is that less energy is escaping from the atmosphere. Again, I ask: So what? It's probably a good thing and anyway, the Earth will reach some future equilibrium point. Iamanonman: But the Earth is warmer! Zosimus: Yes and, as I said, that's a good thing. Iamanonman: Remember, the debate here centers around the fact that you claim that the Sun is responsible for the positive change in the equilibrium temperature. That's not true! It can't be true. The sun is dimmer! Zosimus: The Sun may be dimmer but certainly not dimmer than you. Can't you follow a simple argument? If the Earth is warmer, that's good. There's no reason to think the warming is bad. Even if it is bad, we'll all be dead and gone long before it's a problem. Why are you panicking about it? Iamanonman: I'm not political. I advocate for no political solution. I merely advocate for the scientific consensus that the Earth is warmer! Zosimus: Yes, the Earth is warmer. So what? Why should I think that's bad? Iamanonman: You are a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect. You don't know what you're talking about so you think you're an expert. Zosimus: I am an expert — on asking you questions that you refuse to answer. The Earth has warmed. So what? That's probably a good thing. Iamanonman: But the Earth is warmer! The Sun cannot be the cause of the warming! Where is the energy coming from? Zosimus: This is a retarded question. Obviously, the vast majority of the energy coming to the Earth comes from the Sun. Why don't you ask a better question than: What is the source of the energy? It's not coming from cow farts or from lava eruptions. It's coming from the Sun. Iamanonman: But the Earth is warming! Why can't you accept that fact? Zosimus: I already told you that I agreed that the Earth is 1ºF warmer since 1985. But so what? Why is that important? What's your conclusion? Iamanonman: My conclusion is that the Earth is warming! Zosimus: Well, not necessarily. It certainly has warmed. Do you not know the difference between "The Earth is warming" and "The Earth has warmed?" Try this: What's the difference between "John has arrived" and "John is arriving?" Iamanonman: I'm asking you how you think that's possible that the Sun can cause a positive change in the equilibrium temperature even though there has been a negative change in it's output. Zosimus: Will you ever stop asking retarded questions? Okay, the Earth has warmed. So what? Why should I care? It's not a problem and, if it eventually becomes a problem, even my kids will be dead by that time. All the information I have seen indicates that greater carbon dioxide and higher temperatures are good things. Sure, it may mean that we'll all have to abandon Texas in favor of North Dakota but again — so what? Why is that a bad thing? Can you just answer the question for once?! Iamanonman: The Earth is warming! I advocate for the IPCC consensus. The Earth is warming! Zosimus: For f--k sake, fine. It's warmer. Heck, maybe it's even warming. But again, so what?!!? Iamanonman: I don't understand how you can think that you're more intelligent than all these experts. It's the Dunning Kruger effect. Zosimus: **** about the Dunning Kruger effect and just answer the question: Even if the Earth is warming, so what? Who cares? Why should I care? Iamanonman: The IPCC consensus is that the Earth is warming! Look at the data! The data is clear! (data, data, data, data, data). Zosimus: It's data are. Even your own website confirms that. Anyway, the data are irrelevant. So what that it's warmed. Why should I care? Iamanonman: So go to another source if you don't like the IPCC. It doesn't matter. The Earth is warming! Zosimus: Oh for f--k sake. When will you answer the question????
Zosimus, I think you're not understanding that although the Sun is the source of energy that dominates what the equilibrium temperature is it is not the source or cause of the radiative forcing that is causing it to change. There is a difference between temperature (T) and a change in temperature (ΔT or dT/dt). T is not the same thing as ΔT. Warming is a change in temperature per unit time. It is ΔT or dT/dt. To increase the temperature or to warm something or for dT/dt > 0 this necessarily requires there to be a positive power perturbation in the system. The Sun cannot be the cause or the source of the warming because it's power perturbation has been negative over the last few decades. This in no way contradicts the fact that the Sun is still the primary source of energy that contributes to Earth's equilibrium temperature. The reason the planet is warming and the reason it will continue to warm is due to the net effect of all radiative forcing agents. This includes but is not limited to changes in the luminosity of the Sun, cloud cover, albedo, aerosols, greenhouse gases etc. Some of these agents are naturally modulated and some are anthroprogenically modulated. We just happen to live in an era where the anthroprogenic modulates are dwarfing the natural modulations. The Earth will continue to warm primarily because humans are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by the gigaton while at the same we are reducing aerosol production. The geosphere responds instantly to this radiative forcing mainly through uptake via the hydrosphere. The temperature in the troposphere has a 25-50 year lag relative to the uptake of energy in the hydrosphere. What this means is that even if humans immediately stopped CO2 emissions the troposhere would continue to warm for 10s of years until an equilibrium is achieved. This is why the transient climate response (TCR) is lower than the equilibrium climate response (ECR). The Earth has already warmed about 1.1C and that's just the TCR and we aren't even 50% the way to a doubling of CO2 yet. Direct observations and nothing but observations confirm that we should get close to the IPCC's ECR target of 3.0C upon a doubling of CO2. So you can reject the IPCC if you like, but their predictions, despite not being perfect, have actually done pretty well. It's the same with Guy Callendar's predictions in 1938 and Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius' predictions from 1896. That's right. Arrhenius predicted that the Earth would warm under the influence of human CO2 emissions over 120 years ago. He even correctly predicted that the warming would be more pronounced at the poles vs the equator, the magnitude of the warming, and the fact that the ocean would scrub a significant portion of our CO2 emissions. And this was before the molecular physics and quantum mechanical ideas developed that explain how CO2 does this.
That word doesn't mean anything like what you think it means, obviously. If you were gonna run an experiment that involved monitoring the heat content of a fluid over a period of time, why the hell would you end up with hundreds of times the number of temp sensors that you started with?
I think you're playing his denier game now...he understands very well the question you've asked repeatedly, he's deliberately re-framing the question so he can avoid answering. Seriously iamanonmanit's time to move on from his trolling, you won this debate pages ago he's never going to answer the question he can't answer.
I'm glad you finally admit that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth! We're making progress finally!! Now, perhaps you'll get around the answering the first of my questions: Why should I care that the Earth has warmed? No, the planet is not necessarily warming. The planet has warmed. But why should I care? Why should I care? The planetary warming is a great thing. I'm all for it! No, it's not that I reject the idea that the Earth has warmed. Certainly, I reject the IPCC because it's a political body with a predefined political agenda. What I have asked, my reading-comprehension challenged friend, is why should I care? The Earth is warmer. Excellent! You seem to think that there's something wrong with it. I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Our great-grandchildren may end up living in a comfortable zone of Greenland. So what? Why should I care? Yes, well, the Little Ice Age ended in about 1850 so he had 46 years to see the trend. Yes, the Earth got warmer from the Little Ice Age and is heading back to times similar to the Medieval Warm Period. But why should I care? This gibberish is more of the same for you. You just ignore everything that everyone says and post more data that supposedly show that the Earth is warming. You never address the issue. The Earth is warmer than it was during the Little Ice Age. So what? Why should I care? Any problem, if one occurs, will occur more than 80 years from now. I plan on being dead by then. So, again — why should I care? You have no idea what technology will exist 80 years from now. For all you know, humans will have colonized Mars or the bottom of the ocean by then. Even if Texas and Florida become uninhabitable, there will always be areas that are. Huge swaths of Canada will be lush, fertile places where we'll all hang out and sing God Save the King. Again — why should I care? Stop posting long winded rants trying to prove that the Earth has warmed. Nobody cares. Why should we?
I'm terribly sorry that you have zero reading comprehension skills. Perhaps you should sit down with your special ed teacher and have her walk you through the posts so that you'll stop making a fool out of yourself. There are no questions in iamanonman's screed. Not one. Zero. There's not even a question mark. So, there's no question to "re-frame" to "avoid answering." All we have is a retarded post both lacking a conclusion and misrepresenting my position. The only person who is asking questions is I. Why should I care that the Earth is all of 1ºF warmer today than it was in the mid 80s? It's not a problem. It's never going to be a problem. Even if became a problem, I'd be dead long before that.
It is a primary source of energy for Earth. This isn't something I need to admit. This is something I absolutely acknowledge and advocate for. I have countless posts on this forum explaining this very same thing to other people. And you're still not getting it. Although the Sun is the primary source of energy for the climate system it is not the primary source of the perturbation of that energy that is causing the Earth to warm. Let's see if an analogy works here. Consider a home with a furnace of fixed btu output and assume the furnace runs continuously on a really cold day and achieves an equilibrium temperature of 66F. Being frustrated by the uncomfortably cool temperature in the home let's say you decided to upgrade the insulation in the home. Without making any changes to the btu output or amount of time the furnace runs (continuously) the act of adding insulation has increased the equilibrium temperature of the home to a comfortable 72F. What is the primary source energy for the home? The furnace. What is the primary source of the energy perturbation that caused the home to warm from 66F to 72? The insulation. Just like the furnace is the primary source of energy and the insulation is the primary source of the increase in the equilibrium temperature (warming) for the home so too is the Sun the primary source of energy for the climate system and greenhouse gases the primary source of the increase in the equilibrium temperature (warming) for the geosphere. Does this make sense? Arrhenius did not have the ability to measure the global mean temperature in the 1890's. He had no idea if the Earth was warming or cooling at the time he made his prediction. And what do you think was the cause of the LIA and MWP temperature perturbations? The Earth is already warmer than it was during the MWP. Even if you don't think understanding of how the climate changes so that informed decisions can be made you should still care because learning how things works is the drive that all scientists share. So what heuristics do you use to determine whether a problem should be tackled today or kicked down the road? If you're logic is that it's always someone else's problem then how does anything get fixed in your mind?
I have repeatedly asked... "How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985?" ...and I've not yet received a response. I'm just saying. If you feel I have misrepresented your position regarding your claim that the Sun is the cause of the warming today then this is your chance to set me straight. What is your position on this topic? Why do you think the Earth is warming?
I have exceptional reading comprehension thank you...it's why I see through your BS, the dodging, dancing and verbal contortions you go through to avoid answering the question put to you. Why, because the answer would reveal you to be an irrational denier. It's essentially the same question I've ask every denier and I have yet to receive an answer.
Yes. I went to kindergarten. I know how heaters work. I know how insulation works. Despite what you may think, I am not an alien from another planet who has no experience with the Earth. You don't need to explain simple things to me. I know more than you do about these things. Hallelujah !! I've already explained this to you, but you don't seem to get it. So let's start from the beginning. People want things. People always have and always will. For example, some people want to live in Malibu. It's a nice place — it overlooks the ocean, has great scenery, and it's a safe neighborhood. But not everyone can live in Malibu. You cannot squeeze 300 million people in there. So some people will need to live elsewhere. Some people are going to have to live in Calabasas. Like Malibu, it's nice, but it doesn't overlook the ocean. So how are we going to decide who live in Malibu, who lives in Calabasas, who lives in Woodland Hills, and who lives in Canyon Country? The answer is simple: Price. You see, Palmdale is cheaper than Encino south of the Boulevard. So, some people are going to live out there and commute the 2 hours to their jobs whereas others will live in Encino and their commute will be shorter. Rather than have the government intervene, we let people bid on where they want to live. They do so by using little green sheets of papers called dollars. Maybe you've heard of them. I can send you pictures if you'd like. Prices control more than where you live. They also control what kind of car you drive. Perhaps you think it would be wonderful to drive an electric so-called "zero emissions" vehicle. So, you run over to the Tesla dealership in Pasadena and you find out that the cheapest Tesla they offer runs about $42,900 whereas you can pick up a 2018 Ford Fiesta from Galpin Ford for about $17,400. These prices are telling you something — they are telling you not to buy a Tesla. You see, despite all the hype, Teslas suck. They don't really have zero emissions — that electricity gets made somewhere. It's probably made through burning natural gas. Plus, if you get into an accident in a Tesla, the battery could be punctured. An event like this would result in the car catching fire and you would burn alive. Not only that, you can fill up your Fiesta with gas at the nearest Arco station in about 5 minutes whereas your Tesla needs 8-9 hours to charge up. So, if you want to drive to Vegas, leave your Tesla at home — it won't get you there. Not even close. And if you think Teslas are bad in Los Angeles, imagine how well they work in Wyoming where they may need to do more than just get you from point A to point B. They may also need to heat your windshield enough to melt the ice off of it. Plus, electric batteries don't charge when they're cold. The liquid in them freezes. Of course, you don't need to know all of that. All you need to know is what's contained in the price. That's why most people drive a gasoline-powered engine. It's cheaper and more efficient. When electric cars are cheaper and more efficient, I will immediately know that because the prices will tell me. When that happens, I'll be the first to buy such a car — not before. Now your question is: How can you know whether to handle something now or whether to kick it down the road? The answer is simple: Price. There's this magic thing called an "interest rate" that lets you know whether you should buy that TV on your credit card now or whether you should save up for it and buy it in a year. You see, everything has a price and money is no different. The price of money is called an interest rate — you can have money now and pay for it later. The purpose of this price is to keep borrowed and saved money in equilibrium. If you have too many borrowers and not enough savers, then the price will change so that more people will save and fewer people will borrow. It's not magic — it's the free market. Similarly, you can know what the risk of an earthquake is along the San Andreas fault by simply getting a quote for earthquake insurance. You can know the likelihood of a car accident by getting car insurance. In a free market, flood insurance would work the same way. However, the US doesn't have a free market. Insurers do not offer market-driven flood insurance. All flood insurance in the US is sold through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That means that State Farm can literally write its own policy, pocket any profit, and unload any losses onto the taxpayers at the prices established not by real information but by bureaucrats in Washington DC. So, with the incentives that exist, people are still building along the seaside of Miami. Prices tell them to do so. Until prices tell them otherwise, they will continue to do so and all the scare mongering you can muster will not dissuade them.
Yes, you have. It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You see, no one knows exactly why this happens, but we have observed that heat spontaneously flows from hot places to cold places. If you do not believe this, try holding onto something hot. The heat will flow out of the object and into your hand. Similarly, if you grab an ice cube, the heat will spontaneously flow out of your hand and into the ice cube. The Sun is very, very hot — so hot that it radiates yellow-frequency electromagnetism at us. The Earth also radiates electromagnetism, but since the Earth isn't really that warm, the energy it radiates is not visible to us. Said energy falls in the infrared spectrum, and our eyes are not configured to detect radiation in that band. Now, when the amount of energy flowing into an object exceeds the amount of energy flowing out of an object, said object will accumulate energy. As the amount of energy increases, the amount of energy it radiates also increases (all things being equal). So, as the Earth continues to warm, it will continue to radiate more and more energy out into space until it eventually reaches equilibrium. Currently, a good deal of the Earth's energy is going into the ocean. This is because the oceans are cooler than the atmosphere and so heat spontaneously flows into the oceans. I'm sorry that you didn't know this. Might I recommend a remedial science class? You can always drop by CSUN and get hooked up. Yes, the Sun is indeed the source of the energy input to the Earth. You have already admitted that. So why are you bringing it up again?
I seriously doubt that you have good reading comprehension. You know, I teach reading comprehension. I might be able to hook you up. Send me a private message, and we'll get to work on that problem of yours.
Global warming lost all credibility when proponents of the carbon tax were discovered to be behind it. The carbon tax is biggest scam to come along since religion and feudalism. They even share many elements.
Proponents of a carbon tax didn't postulate global warming though it's very likely proponents accept the hypothesis otherwise it won't make sense to support a carbon tax in the first place. Global warming was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896. He was not political nor a liberal or Democrat. He wasn't even an American. Global warming has a 120+ year history. It didn't really get political or a matter of public interest until the 1980's or 80 years later. A carbon tax in principal and if levied fairly is no different than many other taxes that put the burden of environment damage on those that cause the damage and in proportion to the magnitude of the damage they cause. I will concede that some proposals levy the tax unfairly and in such a manner that are forced to bear a disproportionate share of the tax. And for the record, I'm mostly agnostic to carbon mitigation policies because I don't know a lot of details about all of the proposals out there right now.
