In writing subsequent installments of this series, I’ve been doing some more research, and I did some very thorough research into the “science” that is contained in the Skeptic’s Handbook.

It is beyond terrible. It is absolutely appalling and moreso because of its blatant and deliberate dishonesty. I don’t know who this Joanne Nova lady is, but she clearly hasn’t the slightest hint of a scientific background and has even less of an understanding of the science behind what she writes about (if that is even possible).

The book should be banned. That it was distributed to schools in the US makes me feel like vomiting. Exposing young minds to controversial viewpoints and opinions is all well and good, but to present incorrect information as true is to do them a great disservice. You might as well teach schoolchildren that 2+2=5.

The fact that you introduced it to me as a presentation of “both sides of the debate” makes me question either your ability to reason, or your motives. In any case, I hope you have learned something from some of the subsequent installments of the Earth Debate series.

I’ve read it and it’s terrible. Admittedly it’s much better than a lot of stuff out there, and there’s really awful stuff out there from all sides. The idea of there being “two sides” to this is interesting and something that I will definitely write about later.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a huge fan of an ETS and think that the idea of a carbon tax is a much better one. Carbon permits however, differ from modern money in many fundamental ways which I will probably touch on in subsequent installments of this series.

Having said that, you rightly point out that a carbon tax would be a very difficult political sell, and I am of the view that doing a little (even if it not hugely effective) is better than doing nothing.

As far as taking action on something about which uncertainty exists, that is another thing I plan to speak on later, mostly concerning the precautionary principle. Even though I am of the view that it’s about 95% certain that humans are causing climate change, I understand very well that many people still believe that there is a large degree of uncertainty.

Global Warming: The Skeptic’s Handbook
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

Correlation isn’t prove of causation, though in general it’s pretty tough to demonstrate causation… quite unfortunate that we don’t have a dozen planet earths to crash test (well, we’re already crash testing ours).

But I like how David Evan’s sums it up here (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=616122)- that this is fundamentally an issue of science, and “no amount of human arguing and can affect the actual effects of global warming”. So as we have more data in the coming decade, we would be able to make a more informed judgment.

In another article, Evans points out that under a carbon trading scheme, carbon emission permits would be similar to central-bank created fiat base currency and modern bank money: “all are created out of thin air by some fortunate folks, get traded profitably by big financial institutions, then sold to the rest of us… Trading (carbon permits) would favour the well-informed and those who can move the market, so big financial firms would routinely plunder the pockets of smaller market participants. The rest of us, one way or another, would be paying for both the emission permits and the trading profits.”

Businesses would have to confront artificial volatility due to fluctuations in the price of carbon permits (and under a fiat monetary system, there’ll probably be ‘booms’ and ‘busts’ in prices). So economically a straightforward carbon tax is much better – businesses would be able to ascertain how much the carbon tax would cost them in advance, and budget accordingly.

Politically though it’s a much tougher sell – everyone knows that a carbon tax is a tax, and ETS scheme however doesn’t sound like one when it is in fact the worst sort of tax.