Resisting Climate Hysteria

[jonojpsg]

they are self serving twats perpetuating there own agenda for their own ends... usually power or profit... do yourself a favour... dont read bullsh*t propaganda written by self interest groups riding the carbon gravy train.

buy a bloody thermometer, go to your local library archives and check the temperature & weather patterns in the local paper back as far as their archives go and to get an understanding of local temerature fluctuations and weather patterns. hell if youve got time get on the net and do it for areas all around the bloody world! in our area there are definate cycles.. a 10yr & 50yr continuous overlapping cycle at least..

google the 'climategate' leaked emails and have a read of these 'peer reviewed' scientests who push the AGW theory... and thats all it is a theory...to see what an absolute self serving "i'll scatch your back if you scratch mine" joke they are! go and read some alternative viewpoints like MITs richard lidzen or australias own geology professor Ian plimer for an alternative viewpoint... believe me ive researched both sides before coming to my conclusion.... HAVE YOU???????????????????????

THE MAIN AGW WEAPON "MANNS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPH" HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE BOGUS!!

only sheep follow the leaders bleating blindly without ever questioning it

hey bandicoot, i appreciate your point of view, but as you point out it is quite easy to access information on climate, eg bom.gov.au website, and as I posted back a few pages, the data for cap cities in Aus shows a clear warming of around 0.3 degrees average between 1970 averages and 2000 averages. Obviously the big question that remains to be answered is whether this av temp rise is related to atm CO2 increases (325ppm to 370ppm in the same period).

With 2010 about to close, we'll be able to look at the last decade averages shortly, but I imagine given that about 5 of the hottest years on record were in the last 10, you'll be disappointed if you think there's going to be any drop. Even with some cold and wet weather in the last year or two.

Mann's temperature graph may be discredited, but the CO2 levels have definitely increased significantly since 1850 and at a rate faster than any time in history...whether this makes average temps increase is yet to be proven.

 

[nioka]

only sheep follow the leaders bleating blindly without ever questioning it

And an ostrich puts its head in the sand, the blind lead the blind etc etc.

BUT WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG.

Take the weather forcaster. IF people want rain and he says it will be fine then if he's right then he is right without question. If he is wrong then everyone is happy that he was wrong.
I'll be happy if they are wrong but what if YOU are wrong, will you still be happy.?

 

[bandicoot76]

"the data for cap cities in Aus shows a clear warming"

you've just shot your own argument right out of the water buddy! have a think about it... cities are a man made 'heat bubble'.... the more people concentrated in one area equals more cars, more industry, more concrete, more power use, engine heat, tarmac, even body heat! basically everything in a city creates and stores heat... therefore the more people in one area the more heat created... and whats been happening for the past 25yrs not only in australia but all over the world? regional depopulation and a corresponding increase of people in urban cities! doesnt take a rocket scientist to join the dots mate!

for a true measurement to get a "global mean temperature" the measuring stations should be in regional areas AWAY from cities so as not to get a false reading... if you had done your research you would know this has already been covered in the scientific community by the disqualification of data provided by a chinese scientist collected from their research stations (cant remember the study paper...you'll have to google it) because the measuring stations where originally estabished in a rural area that was overtaken & surrounded by growing urbanisation giving it a false reading of increased temp given off from the city growing around it.

... and frankly no, i dont believe in taking radical action on a theory before it is proven to be fact... to me its like giving a baby chemo treatment just in case it developes cancer when it grows up. at the moment, on the evidence put forward, the cost is not relative to the proposed threat IMO!

carbon IS NOT A POLLUTANT it is the basis of all life on earth, its plant food, the building blocks of life.. we wouldnt exist without it and man made CO2 only makes up 0.02% of the total carbon dioxide released into the earths atmosphere, the rest (99.98%) is natural... volcanoes, decomposing vegetation, even bloody white ants (termites) release more than we do...

whatever... couldnt be buggered arguing... what will happen will happen... i just cant believe people think that the earths climate is a stagnant force that doesnt vary naturally... the earths gone from ice age to tropical countless times before and no doubt will do so again long after our puny race has wiped itself out.... google 'sunspots effect on earths climate' for another competing theory... no less documented than the AGW one.

sweet dreams chicken little cos the skys falling and the emporer has new clothes!

 

[bandicoot76]

and a "question everything" attitude is hardly having ones head buried in the sand! and acting without proven justification is plain foolhardy

 

[derty]

*europe in a deep freeze[
*america experiencing coldest consequtive winters in years....

Even with the current cold snap, 2010 will likely be one of the three warmest years since 1850 - globally it has been a warm year.

*coldest australian november in 35yrs
*biggest rainfall on aus east coast since 1900

As I'm sure you are aware there is currently a strong la Nina in force, a similar situation was last seen about 35 years ago, that also coincided with the last time widespread rainfall and flooding of this magnitude was witnessed on the eastern seaboard. La Nina also sees more cloud cover and onshore winds that reduce temperatures, evaporation of rainfall also reduces the temperature too.

And why is a high intensity rainfall event an argument against global warming?

THE MAIN AGW WEAPON "MANNS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPH" HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE BOGUS!!

The work by McIntyre was one of the first to find issue with Mann's work, and that issue was not with the data, but with the methodology he used with the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) statistics he used. They claimed that the PCA used produced the hockey stick from the noise that was the tree ring data. Analysis of McIntyre's work and the highly plagiarised Wegman report to US Congress largely based on McIntyre's work have some questions being asked of them e.g., e.g.

This aside, assuming that Mann's data AND statistics are wrong, why do all these other studies using many different palaeo datasets and different analysis methodologies all show the same upturned trend? Is the hockey stick shape always the shape of the wrong answer?

carbon IS NOT A POLLUTANT it is the basis of all life on earth, its plant food, the building blocks of life.. we wouldnt exist without it and man made CO2 only makes up 0.02% of the total carbon dioxide released into the earths atmosphere, the rest (99.98%) is natural... volcanoes, decomposing vegetation, even bloody white ants (termites) release more than we do...

Actually the man made CO2 is around 3-4% of the global CO2 exhalations. The natural CO2 cycle is in equilibrium, a state it has managed to find over a very long period of time where the CO2 sinks take up CO2 at the same rate that it is emitted. Now we have upset that in two ways, 1. we are releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere and 2. through deforestation and land use we are degrading the carbon sinks.

Here is an analogy for you. Say you have a 2000 litre water tank with 1000 litres in it. It has a hole in the bottom that drains water at 1 litre per hour and a tap runs into it adding 1 litre per hour. The water level in the tank will remain constant, right? Now what happens if someone gives the tap a nudge so it is now running at 1.1 litres per hour and at the same time a leaf falls into the tank, settles to the bottom and partially obscures the hole so it only leaks at 0.9 litres per hour?

True, we wouldn't exist without carbon, it's ability to form long chain organic molecules is why it is the molecular backbone of life on Earth. But too much of a good thing isn't always a good thing. It's a bit of a double edged sword. Plants have two methods of fixing carbon, the C4 method (~25% of the food crop) is optimised and increasing CO2 has no real benefit whereas the C3 plants (~75% of food plants and includes wheat) have a less efficient method of fixing carbon and will benefit in both productivity (though recent trials have shown the increase is less than was expected) and as the stomata have to be open less to acquire the necessary CO2 the plants will require less water too. One of the negatives of increased atmospheric CO2 is that nitrogen intake is inhibited and as a result the nutritional value of the plant declines. This has the obvious consequences for humans in addition to both livestock and plant pests having to eat more to achieve their nutritional requirements.

At the end of the day atmospheric CO2 is rising at relatively significant rates, there is no escaping this. There is also no escaping that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[basilio]

Actually the man made CO2 is around 3-4% of the global CO2 exhalations. The natural CO2 cycle is in equilibrium, a state it has managed to find over a very long period of time where the CO2 sinks take up CO2 at the same rate that it is emitted. Now we have upset that in two ways, 1. we are releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere and 2. through deforestation and land use we are degrading the carbon sinks.

Here is an analogy for you. Say you have a 2000 litre water tank with 1000 litres in it. It has a hole in the bottom that drains water at 1 litre per hour and a tap runs into it adding 1 litre per hour. The water level in the tank will remain constant, right? Now what happens if someone gives the tap a nudge so it is now running at 1.1 litres per hour and at the same time a leaf falls into the tank, settles to the bottom and partially obscures the hole so it only leaks at 0.9 litres per hour?

True, we wouldn't exist without carbon, it's ability to form long chain organic molecules is why it is the molecular backbone of life on Earth. But too much of a good thing isn't always a good thing. It's a bit of a double edged sword. Plants have two methods of fixing carbon, the C4 method (~25% of the food crop) is optimised and increasing CO2 has no real benefit whereas the C3 plants (~75% of food plants and includes wheat) have a less efficient method of fixing carbon and will benefit in both productivity (though recent trials have shown the increase is less than was expected) and as the stomata have to be open less to acquire the necessary CO2 the plants will require less water too. One of the negatives of increased atmospheric CO2 is that nitrogen intake is inhibited and as a result the nutritional value of the plant declines. This has the obvious consequences for humans in addition to both livestock and plant pests having to eat more to achieve their nutritional requirements.

At the end of the day atmospheric CO2 is rising at relatively significant rates, there is no escaping this. There is also no escaping that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Really excellent post Derty.

Particularly like your link with the numerous other studies which clearly demonstrated that Global temperatures are going up very sharply. Isn't it curious that these other measures of global waming arn't mentioned ? But I wouldn't be holding my breath for a Road to Damascas conversion...

 

[sails]

Really excellent post Derty.

Particularly like your link with the numerous other studies which clearly demonstrated that Global temperatures are going up very sharply. Isn't it curious that these other measures of global waming arn't mentioned ? But I wouldn't be holding my breath for a Road to Damascas conversion...

I am sceptical because of carbon taxes and the attitude of those promoting such taxes. There may be a problem, but I don't see that those promoting carbon taxes are one bit concerned about their own carbon footprints. Al Gore is a classic. Julia Gillard didn't seem bothered when she flew the breadth of Australia for some back slapping on climate change. (Link was posted some time ago on this thread).

So there are probably two separate issues. IF there is a problem with GW (and I'm not convinced), it should not be used as an excuse for further taxes which also further escalate our living costs. And it is doubtful whether carbon taxes from Australia will actually do the slightest bit of good.

IF there is a problem, there would have to be more sensible ways to deal with it other than lining government and other people's pockets with unnecessary taxes.

 

[Logique]

http://greensmps.org.au/content/med...mate-india-and-china-leaving-australia-behind
Greens Deputy Leader Christine Milne:
...China is powering ahead of Australia in closing polluting industry and investing in renewables and efficiency.
"As developing countries, neither China nor India should be expected to act before Australia does, and yet they are both leaving us far behind them...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-reactor-builders-risk-know-how-for-cash.html
Bloomberg News:
According to Michael Kruse, consultant on nuclear systems for Arthur D. Little, the Chinese are ready to spend $511 billion to build up to 245 reactors.
“The market is being driven by the construction of new reactors, and it is no secret that most of those are right here in China,” says Fletcher T. Newton, an executive vice-president of Uranium One, a mining company.

The SBS show last night said the 171m long submarine USS Pennsylvania had been running for 21 years on a piece of uranium the size of a fist.

 

[derty]

cheers basillo

I am sceptical because of carbon taxes and the attitude of those promoting such taxes. There may be a problem, but I don't see that those promoting carbon taxes are one bit concerned about their own carbon footprints. Al Gore is a classic. Julia Gillard didn't seem bothered when she flew the breadth of Australia for some back slapping on climate change. (Link was posted some time ago on this thread).

So there are probably two separate issues. IF there is a problem with GW (and I'm not convinced), it should not be used as an excuse for further taxes which also further escalate our living costs. And it is doubtful whether carbon taxes from Australia will actually do the slightest bit of good.

IF there is a problem, there would have to be more sensible ways to deal with it other than lining government and other people's pockets with unnecessary taxes.

It's a tough one Sails. Just looking at the numbers required, any substantial action of the problem will involve huge changes and most likely a huge reduction in the standard of living. Action like that will surely be political suicide for any that attempt it and literally may incite revolt. You can see the effect that merely adding a tax is having on public opinion and those actions are piddling in their proposed effect on reductions. People are adverse to change, noika sums it up well:

From the tone of most posts on the topic it is evident that a lot of non believers are non believers because they fear that believing will cost them money. Just because some opportunists are using "believing" to cash in on the business of prevention does not prove the case one way or the other.

I think the fundamental premise of humans significantly contributing to warming is sound. As for how to realistically address the problem, I am at a loss. As I mentioned before the required effort will be monumental (see my post #1105) and needs to be globally coordinated. While there is a lot of noise in global politics about action, it really has failed to translate into anything tangible. And that probably won't really change.

I see the problem something akin to stopping an asteroid hitting the Earth. If it is detected early enough you only have to exert a small amount of energy to alter the path, the longer you leave it the more and more energy you will need to apply to affect a change. Until it gets to the point that you do not have the energy at your disposal to prevent the collision.

I too am sceptical of the global carbon financial market/economy that is currently attempted to be set up. Those behind it and the first movers probably stand to make a poultice. This is the same with most markets and financial instruments. Another way of looking at it is that nothing is going to happen unless there is big bucks involved and a carbon economy may provide the financial incentive for the big money players that globally can make a difference to become involved (caveat: I may be totally speaking out the top of my hat here).

I'm a bit pessimistic, I don't think there will be the will to address the problem before we lack the means to.

 

[ghotib]

Then there's this from Business Week. Munich Re is one of the world's largest reinsurance companies.

One of the new risks Munich Re is tracking is climate change. The company has the world’s most comprehensive database on natural disasters, with information going back centuries. It shows that the frequency of serious floods worldwide has more than tripled since 1980, while hurricanes and other severe windstorms have doubled.

“Global warming is real, and it affects our business,” says Peter Hoppe, who heads the company’s climate-change research.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...risk-in-natural-disasters-human-behavior.html

The first place I ever saw reference to climate change was in reports from reinsurance companies some time in the late 1980s. I thought it was quite funny then; I wish I still did. I wish even more that it was a scam or a fraud or a conspiracy by insurance companies to increase premiums. However, to date I've found that every suggestion that global temperature is not on a rising trend has turned out to be incorrect, and every explanation for the rise except that human activities have rapidly and greatly increased atmospheric carbon has turned out to be insufficient or incorrect.

Fortunately most of us can lower our carbon emissions as an unintended consequence of cutting costs or improving our lives in other ways. Turning stand-by power appliances off at the wall can make a startling reduction to power use: as power prices rise the dollar savings get greater. Walking or biking have fitness and financial advantages over driving. Home grown food beats supermarket vegetables for flavour, freshness, and variety, partly because most people try to build up the living and organic matter in their soils and incidentally create myriad little carbon cycles.

Ghoti

 

[derty]

The SBS show last night said the 171m long submarine USS Pennsylvania had been running for 21 years on a piece of uranium the size of a fist.

Yeah it's great stuff when handled properly. There is a US group that sells small contained reactors about 1.5m across that cost about $50M and can power about 20,000 homes for 7 to 10 years.

 

[Julia]

Fortunately most of us can lower our carbon emissions as an unintended consequence of cutting costs or improving our lives in other ways. Turning stand-by power appliances off at the wall can make a startling reduction to power use: as power prices rise the dollar savings get greater. Walking or biking have fitness and financial advantages over driving. Home grown food beats supermarket vegetables for flavour, freshness, and variety, partly because most people try to build up the living and organic matter in their soils and incidentally create myriad little carbon cycles.

Ghoti

Go and tell that to all the people on pensions, and other very low incomes, who are already doing all they can to stem their rising electricity bills.

How is some 80 year old who can't walk far, certainly can't toss bags of garden mulch etc around going to fare? People who live in apartments who obviously can't have a garden?
And then if you live in some parts of the country a vegetable garden is impossible due to pests and diseases, counter-productive in terms of cost.

We have old people using torches to get round their homes at night because they can't afford to turn on the lights, and a single portable gas burner because they can't afford the stove or oven. They are going without essential medication to buy food or keep a beloved pet. They simply do not have the level of choices you are implying.

Go and talk with a few welfare agencies, Ghoti. Allow them to describe to you the distressed people who come to them for assistance, reluctantly with pride damaged. All very well for middle class Australians who have an unassailable belief that putting a price on carbon will make some magical difference to climate change, the anthropogenic component of which is yet to be established. But spare a thought for those less fortunate.

And thanks, as always, to Derty for retaining some objectivity and honesty in this debate. So much appreciated.

 

[sails]

Derty, yes thankyou for your reasoned response and acknowledgement of my concerns re the global carbon financial market/economy issues....

I understand your analogy of the asteroid hitting the Earth if it detected early enough. With so much controversy regarding GW and whether it is actually something preventable or something that happens in nature over long periods of time, it is difficult to know if this is actually a fixable problem.

We could make life near impossible for many people (as Julia has pointed out so clearly and realistically) and still only achieve a relatively insignificant contribution to the problem. Or we have made people's lives unbearable for normal cyclic temperature movements.

I think if it were proved without doubt that there is a problem that we can fix and that a small contribution from everyone would fix that problem, I suspect the electorate at large would be more willing to participate.

But with the promises of "no carbon tax" pre-election to now pushing ahead for it, it leaves people like myself becoming quite skeptical that it is no more than a money grab that has the potential to hurt many people that can least afford it.

 

[Smurf1976]

We have old people using torches to get round their homes at night because they can't afford to turn on the lights, and a single portable gas burner because they can't afford the stove or oven. They are going without essential medication to buy food or keep a beloved pet. They simply do not have the level of choices you are implying.

Go and talk with a few welfare agencies, Ghoti. Allow them to describe to you the distressed people who come to them for assistance, reluctantly with pride damaged. All very well for middle class Australians who have an unassailable belief that putting a price on carbon will make some magical difference to climate change, the anthropogenic component of which is yet to be established. But spare a thought for those less fortunate.

Totally agreed there. There's nothing at all unusual about finding a pensioner with a $750 power bill (for one quarter). Not unusual at all and it is the reality of the situation.

The outright mismanagement of the energy industry in this country disgusts me as it is, without adding a carbon tax to the problem.

Smurf's solution? I'll give you a hint. (1) Engineering is about doing things in an efficient manner (2) engineers historically have tended to be somewhat more socially conscious than money-obsessed CEO's (3) reducing CO2 emissions is by its very nature an engineering problem.

I'm not a qualified engineer by the way. But it seems ridiculous that we no longer have such people running the likes of electricity utilities, them having been replaced by highly paid CEO's and boards who have sent costs through the roof, pushed the system to a knife edge technically and failed to achieve any progress on the CO2 issue.

PS: Due to the rising cost of grid electricity, I've spent much of today looking at equipment prices etc for solar. I've already got a few panels on the roof, but it seems that adding more is just about viable financially for me now, assuming I source the equipment directly and use my own free (but properly licensed) labour to put them up. And power prices are going up again next year, and again the year after that...

 

[noco]

The SBS show last night said the 171m long submarine USS Pennsylvania had been running for 21 years on a piece of uranium the size of a fist.

Logique, here is a further link where Spain has proved wind farms are a dead loss. There are now over 500 nuclear power plants around the world. Have you heard of any problems apart from the Chernobal distaster years ago?

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...eens_are_right_china_indeed_shows_us_the_way/

 

[So_Cynical]

Totally agreed there. There's nothing at all unusual about finding a pensioner with a $750 power bill (for one quarter). Not unusual at all and it is the reality of the situation.

That's just not true...households with $3000 annual power bills would be most certainly deemed to be unusual, in fact i would think it very unusual, especially households occupied by pensioners.

I would be interested to know if anyone on this forum has ever paid $3000 over a 12 month period for power....i just cant imagine a situation where its possible without a 2000w radiator in every room running 24/7 for 10 months of the year.

 

[Logique]

Yeah it's great stuff when handled properly. There is a US group that sells small contained reactors about 1.5m across that cost about $50M and can power about 20,000 homes for 7 to 10 years.

Great research Derty. A very cool (and carbon free) energy solution. At 0.10 per kWh, the price is cheap, although I guess there'd be amortization of the installation cost to add to that.

Dear Gillard Federal Govt, can I have one in my neighbourhood please, just let me know where to BPAY my $2,500.

I knew there was a reason why the Australian Govt employed Ziggy Switkowski. If we can export uranium, why not use it ourselves?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hyperion's_Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors (Thanks to Derty for the link.)
Costs
10 cents per KW hour. Each neighborhood plant will cost $25 million USD for 10,000 household or $2500 per household.

Hyperion offers a 30% reduction in capital costs from conventional gigawatt reactor installations (from US$2,000 per kW to US$1,400 per kW). Hyperion also offers more than a 50% reduction in operating costs (based on costs for field-generation of steam in heavy oil recovery operations), from US$7 per million BTU for natural gas to US$3 per million BTU for Hyperion. The possibility of mass production, operation and standardization of design for the Hyperion power module allows for significant savings.

 

[bandicoot76]

SSDD on this thread... I'll leave with this cut & paste quote that sums things up pretty well for me:

"The GWPF’s graph, displayed on the GWPF’s homepage masthead, showing that the global average annual temperature hasn’t changed this century, drawn against a nice blue backdrop, is making a few people see red. Why this is I don’t exactly know as their logic, in contrast to their anger, isn’t entirely clear. Perhaps it is because it neatly summarises the uncertainties in climate science as well as common misconceptions (as was the intention) that some commentators find too uncomfortable to address, instead becoming deniers of basic scientific data. It certainly seems a difficult fact for some, but inconvenience is one thing, facts are another.

Those who complain that the graph is wrong, if they are to be fair and consistent, should now target the Royal Society in their sights as it has admitted this in its recent brochure on the science of climate change that the recent spell of warming ended in 2000.

It is not alone. The Journal Science has said the pause in global temperatures is real, as do many refereed scientific papers in numerous journals. Also in State of the Climate in 2008, a special supplement to the August Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, no less, confirmed that in the past ten years the HadCRUT3 temperature data (there are problems with this data set regarding its reliability and how it calculates averages but it is probably the best we’ve got) shows no increase whatsoever.

Their analysis showed that the world warmed by 0.07 deg C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 deg C expected by the IPCC. Corrected for the large 1998 El Niño event (that made 1998 the hottest year on record) and its sister La Nina, the last decade’s trend is perfectly flat. There were even comments in the so-called Climategate emails along the lines of the temperature not increasing and “it’s a travesty” that we can’t explain it."

 

[Logique]

Logique, here is a further link where Spain has proved wind farms are a dead loss. There are now over 500 nuclear power plants around the world. Have you heard of any problems apart from the Chernobal distaster years ago?
[urlhttp://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/greens_are_right_china_indeed_shows_us_the_way/[/url]

Cheers Noco, no I haven't. The linked article(s) also made the point that wind and solar have been a dead loss financially.

Something else I saw about 4th Gen reactors:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/reactors.html
A new, fourth generation of nuclear reactors””the General Atomics GT-MHR and the South African PBMR””is ready to replace the standard reactors that have been producing power for 40 years. These new high-temperature reactors are almost 50 percent more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors, and supersafe.

 

[Julia]

That's just not true...households with $3000 annual power bills would be most certainly deemed to be unusual, in fact i would think it very unusual, especially households occupied by pensioners.

I would be interested to know if anyone on this forum has ever paid $3000 over a 12 month period for power....i just cant imagine a situation where its possible without a 2000w radiator in every room running 24/7 for 10 months of the year.

I assure you that it happens all the time. Why would you doubt what Smurf says? Where in the entire existence of this forum have you ever found Smurf to be other than completely factual and reasonable in what he says?

Perhaps you live in an area where power prices have not risen as they have throughout most of the country. Perhaps you are at work all day, and don't need to keep warm at home. Perhaps you exist on take away food and don't need to use cooking appliances at home. Perhaps you don't have little kids and need to do the laundry every day. I don't know what you do, So Cynical, and care less. But please do not impugn the honesty of what has been stated.

And fyi I regularly pay more than $3000 per year. That's OK. I can afford it.
And no, I am not going to detail to you the reasons why.

There are thousands of people already doing it really hard. We have hundreds of thousands of Australians living in poverty. Why should they be further marginalised and discriminated against because of some unproven zealotry which has determined that a price on carbon is necessary?

I keep having a vision of the history books a hundred years hence.
They will, in somewhat of a tone of bewilderment, note that a few countries of the world wrecked their economies and put their most disadvantaged citizens into intolerable situations because of something that turned out to be the biggest con ever.