"I feel like I am being taunted into more Sophistry."
I went through an evolution over my life of how I think about science and religion. I still don't have it down, still evolving. I never believed in religion, but I used to think science was closer to religion because of the biases of the scientists and influence of patronage. I used to be closer to post modernism. Now I think of those biases as human foibles to be avoided when possible. I feel like I still have a very superficial understanding of epistemology. I'm certainly not trying to taunt.

I do not understand the first parts about cute subtle thing or people explaining things. Maybe this forum doesn't have enough space to explain. I feel bad I don't get any of that.

"Appeal to the expert"
I do not consider appeal to authority to be a fallacy unless it's not a bona fide authority. I look thinks up in authoritative texts all the time, including things I am not equipped to figure out on my own.

"your ad hominem"
What ad hominem?

"So would you support jailing of gay people based on "scientific findings" that you don't understand?"
This is an interesting question. What are the finding in this hypothetical?

"I will continue to assign "belief" to it's meaning."
If accept maps to believe, what word maps to accept? This is confusing.

It is a cute, subtle assertion that I sought to reach a desired conclusion. I began this evaluation open-minded, which is more than I have seen from you on this subject to date,

"Outside your field"? Laughable. I learned a long time ago, that if someone can't explain something to me in a way I understand it, they don't understand it either. Appeal to the expert is another fallacy to add to your ad hominem. Logic would be a lot more useful.

So would you support jailing of gay people based on "scientific findings" that you don't understand?

You can use "accept" is you like, and I will continue to assign "belief" to it's meaning.

"The church analogy was because you "believe" what some scientists and a lot of media and most politicians say, but you do not examine the details. "
If you change belief to accept, your statement is correct. I accept scientific findings. If there were a conspiracy among scientists in some field, they could pull one over on me. If they are just wrong, e.g. margarine being more healthful than butter, I would accept something that's wrong. I would have accepted that craniometry wrongly finding people of European descent had more brain volume. I don't call it belief, though, because I'm eager to accept new evidence that contradicts the previous understanding.

If accepting the current scientific understanding is "religion", I'm a "religious" person. If going through papers outside your field looking for a way to reach a desired conclusion is "science", I am anti-"science" and for "religion". I put them all in scare quotes because our definitions of science and religion are differently, almost reversed.

I feel like I am being taunted into more Sophistry.

The church analogy was because you "believe" what some scientists and a lot of media and most politicians say, but you do not examine the details. Belief is religion, not science.

What you continue to claim is science is certainly not science based on the media and politicians, and what is really known among any scientists is far from what most people (seemingly including you) believe it is.

"This is silly. You know precisely what I mean."
I do not get the church analogy. I thought you're casting modern science in the role of the medieval church, and you're casting people who reject the unpopular findings of science in the role of Galileo. Assuming I understand right, you're saying the roles have reversed since the time of Galileo

In any case, we're far from what you asked yesterday, probably because I got confused by the church analogy. You said I have no solution to deal with the costs of global warming. I said you are correct about that. I shared some unscientific gut-feeling predictions.

The church analogy seems 180 degrees reversed, viewing science as a religious/political subject and viewing the political repercussions of science as science.

This is silly. You know precisely what I mean. If you have something to add, add it,
I don't need to banter with an nine year old.

Science is now religion and what's politically desirable is science?

The Church of Zealous Climatologists, grasping at the steering wheel of government, EXACTLY like the catholic church over the years.

huh?

And the church secures its power...

"but you have no case for action to resolve it."
That is correct. I have seen no analysis that breaks down estimated costs of the warming and the costs of reducing carbon emissions. My non-scientific guess is geo-engineering will be the best approach. The reason is even a radical reduction in emission only puts a dent in the anthropogenic component of warming. It obviously does not address the natural cycle of glacial maxima/minima. Suppose human activities account for 60% of global warming and we radically cut greenhouse activities by 60%. That's solves a third of the costs-- not that great. Unfortunately geo-engineering does not exist, so pricing the cost of emissions is all we have. My hope is that efforts to tax this hard-to-quantify involuntary servitude will result in breakthroughs in geo-engineering or alternative energy. I'm fixated on geo-engineering because billions of us living an affluent lifestyle and causing a mass extinction event is bound to incur costs in various forms. Intuitively, I feel like humankind should't be stuck on one planet and dependent on the vagaries of its environment.

That's a lot of guessing, hopes, and feelings. I am not aware of a solid plan of action. I suspect the difficult nature of it is what leads people to deny the problem.

Absolutely right. It is getting very bad.

Unfortunately is an understatement. The worst thing that can happen to a system of laws is for the judicial branch to become legislators in their own right. Impeachment exists with the intent that Legislators jealously guard that duty and responsibility, but with the delegation of so many things to bureaucracies, it is no wonder that the Judiciary is trying to get in on it as well.

Involuntary Servitude was a Milton Friedman construct to address things like pollution, noise pollution, littering, etc in an open market, Libertarian manner. The point was if someone pollutes, it compels others to servitude, involuntarily. Because it does I agree with, your concept of taxing or trading, when the damage is clear and defensible.

There is NO Physics-based cause-effect between human emissions and global warming. You are pointing out that there is warming (which is lowing considerably), but you have no case for action to resolve it.

Never happen with the present congress, unfortunately.

"The "Involuntary Servitude" approach works"
What does this mean? By its sound, that phrase is the very opposite of what I'm saying.

"the hypothesis that measurable warming is attributable to human emissions."
It's gone well past hypothesis and into theory. We don't know how much change and when, but we know it's significant. To deal with it, we have to quantify the effect and the the costs, and then amortize those costs back to a present value. We don't have numbers for any of that, just probability distribution functions of what the numbers might be. We don't even know what interest rate to use in the amortization calculation. The costs of avoiding the emissions isn't fixed either. They will decrease in unpredictable ways as the technologies mature.

And related to your point, there is always the chance that surprising new discoveries will come along and show we made the changes for nothing, similar to when people switched from butter to margarine only to find out later that butter is more healthful.

Same thing as for any other Impeachment proceeding: Impeachment in the House by 2/3 and Conviction in the Senate by 2/3. And then they are barred from public service for life - it would end their legal career as well.

Emissions tax is a reasonable way to let the market address greenhouse gasses if they are a problem. The "Involuntary Servitude" approach works, which is what you are describing.

Where you and I depart is the hypothesis that measurable warming is attributable to human emissions. There just is no physical evidence, only circumstantial correlation. The first order greenhouse effect from any of these gasses is simply far too low to cause what people assert the warming is. This is a measurable, calculable effect Any climate scientist will eventually acknowledge this, perhaps begrudgingly. The only way this is attributable to greenhouse gasses is if there is another multiplicative effect that we don't know, such as CO2 causing water vapor to form, ALL models correlating to the temperature outcome include such an effect. However, none of this is anything but gross hypothesis. The physics behind it is totally unknown.

The article doesn't explain it well, and I'm not knowledgeable. I don't get whether it's Congress's job or the agency's. My naive view is Congress should make the law and agencies under Exec branch should enforce them. I am concerned with Exec branch getting more powerful by Exec over reach and Congress turning over decisions, e.g. to go to war, to the Exec branch to avoid political fallout. I want the justices to figure all this out in a blind way.

I think greenhouse grasses are an important property rights issue. There needs to be some legal vehicle to make people pay for their emissions, as surely as they're responsible for anything else they do on their property that decreases the value of their neighbors' property. The vehicle, though, obviously shouldn't rest on breaking the law. The justices need to obey the law. People need to elect representatives who will take global warming seriously, not as a artifice to promote socialism or to get rednecks fired up, but actually tax emissions in a revenue-neutral way so the market finds a solution.

Seems kind of quiet from here...

Let's!

Let get rid of them

With you there. What does it take to impeach an Apeals Court judge.

Amen to that!