Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Froma quote up thread- "Capture isn't sequestration, and at 30euros (~$42USD) per ton capture, we are looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of some 800Gt of carbon that would need to be removed to bring us down to ~350ppm and that would seem to put just the capture portion of this solution at around ~$34TUSD. The numbers I'm more familiar with for capture and sequestration are around $200/ton (USD), which would at least peg another zero on that figure ($170TUSD give or take a few trillion),... "

Umm, do these concepts include an unspoken budget of energy consumption? I would think that a major part of the $200/ton is the energy used- lots of it. And since the worlds largest source of energy is coal burning, is this a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' kind of proposal with no actual net gain? Like the idea of cutting a foot off one end of your blanket and sewing it to the other end , then claiming you have gained 12" ?

Unknown, these figures are based on Furcifer's claims of 30$/ton for CO2 capture and total excess carbon added to the environment over the last couple of centuries. Speaking to the $200/ton (actual figures vary according to the particulars of the system studied, ranging from $100 - $500/ton) . As you state, if you are relying upon fossil fuel energy sources to power such systems you are definitely filling the same tub you are trying to empty. I've got some studies looking at just the energy costs of capture and sequestration, I'll try to post them up sometime later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Trakar]

A fair point. The difference however is that carbon trading is having no measurable effect on that for which it is intended.

you keep saying this, and yet I have yet to see any compelling evidence in support of this assertion. In fact, even a quick superficial search of the emperic studies of the issue seem to contraindicate your supposition:

1. The EU Carbon trading system succeeded in establishing a price on carbon pollution emissions.

2. The price for carbon has helped prompt large investments in Europe’s alternative energy sector.

3. The trial phase (2005-07) led to reductions of between 2 and 5% relative
to what emissions would have been in the absence of the program. Since 2008, the overal cap has been tightened by another 6.5%.

Lessons in carbon trading - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7299/full/465691a.html

despite such modest successes, I do agree that cap and trade schemes are prone to more problems and have more inherent weaknesses than more straight forward carbon pricing/taxation mechanisms as their efficacy is more closely tied to high potential of bad-faith participants and legislative undermining as discussed in the Carbon Trade Watch and Corporate Europe Observatory report titled "Letting the market play: corporate lobbying and the financial regulation of EU carbon trading." They found that:

1. The European Commission adopted a deliberately light touch approach to regulating its Emissions Trading System since its launch in 2005. A series of fraud cases made this position untenable.

2. The Commission has proposed measures to tighten security, which was previously so lax that it was easier to become a carbon trader than to open a bank account. However, the new rules would also cover-up evidence of fraud and gaming by hiding carbon permit serial numbers. The Commission’s intention is to re-issue stolen permits, opening an additional hole in the scheme’s accounting for emissions.

3. The Commission has belatedly identified carbon as a commodity that is susceptible to excessive speculation. Leaked drafts of the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), a set of rules governing European financial markets, are set to be extended to include carbon trading.

4. New regulations on carbon trading have been consistently opposed by financial services lobbyists. For example, in January 2011, the European Commission halted trading on a key part of the carbon market after the latest in a series of large fraud cases was uncovered. Less than a month later and with the suspension still partly in place, the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA, the main carbon trade lobby group) were privately insisting to Brussels officials that “there might be no need to regulate this market.” This report documents how financial sector lobbying has been driven by a desire to find new opportunities for carbon market speculation by whatever means are necessary.

http://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/LettingTheMarketPlay.pdf

So while I certainly feel that it is appropriate to look at the European carbon trading market flaws and failures, and learn from them, it is inappropriate to claim that Europe's cap and trade system, flawed though it was, did not achieve anything. Its accomplishments were limited but not insignificant. Unfortunately, the problems displayed are rather endemic to cap and trade systems, which is why I, and a great many others including most economists, prefer a direct carbon taxation process.

Say what you will about government and how it's run, but there are roads, and bridges and schools.

an interesting manner of responding to statement that said nothing about supporting or rejecting government.

The problem with carbon schemes is they put a figure to what they think it's worth only because the scheme is feasible at that point. Once it dilutes, it's no longer feasible and it hemorrhages money. Despite the best of intentions this pattern is repeating itself over and over again.

I see no indication that what you claim, has or is happening, please support your assertion.

The only point I see that is even tangentially related to what you claim is what happened in the initial stages of the European carbon market when they allowed many entities to set their own cap levels and these, almost without exception proved to be unambiguously too high.

 

[Trakar]

Nonsense. I said all that can be proven is that some 2500 American climate scientists agree that it's warmed about a degree in the last 1550 years due mostly to human influence.
I would be personally surprised if the rest of the scientific community, that other ~99%, didn't agree with about the same degree of certainty.

I assume that your Physics degree contained at least one upper division Statistics course? How would you frame and analyse the hypothesis test for the population proportion of your above statement?

If only it were true, I could have ducked my student loans.

Please provide the evidence which unambiguously supports and proofs this claim.

I don't know what to tell you just because the American Physical Society says: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)"
doesn't mean the membership agrees. I don't care if the Young Republicans of Denver "Don't think it's happening", that doesn't mean there's consensus among Republicans on Global Warming either.
I said I would be surprised if an overwhelming majority of the scientific community didn't believe that it's warmed in the last 150 years due to anthropogenic CO2. But since I don't have evidence of that claim I don't make it.
Feel free to make the claim, but don't be surprised when it's called out for the lie we all know it to be. That's all I can say about that.

Actually, no. Again, robust statistical analysis of the cumulative results of these statements, polls and surveys of the national and international scientific community would indicate a rejection of the null hypothesis (H_o) indicating that there is enough evidence to support the claim that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports these positions.

If you are going to accuse me of knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting issues please provide rigorous empiric support for your assertions rather than simply employing what, under slightly different circumstances, could easily be mistaken for slanderous rhetoric, in lieu of a substantive argument.

 

[Furcifer]

Furcifer?

How many degrees on the negative side do you imagine separates now from the peak of the last glacial period when Toronto was under a couple of MILES of ice?

Do you know that fact?

It's around six degrees C.

Does not sound like much, does it? But that six degrees melted many cubic miles of ice and raised global sea levels 120 meters, around 400 feet. And it took a long time for that change in average temperature to happen.

So, please tell me again how a three degree change in average global temperature in the course of a single century is no big deal?

It's no big deal because we know there was little to no biodiversity here when it was covered with ice. Cold is the ultimate limiting factor on life here on Earth. Warming just means more area to expand upon.
Technology means that we can facilitate that expansion in conjunction with the warming.
How fast it changes is really irrelevant. It's not like we're waiting for things to happen naturally anyways. Part of what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to terraform the planet. Global Warming or not, it's what we do.

 

[Warmer1]

"Claims of personal achievements are easy to make on the internet, but the proof is in the pudding and so far there is little in what you serve up that compellingly supports your claims and assertions. If you begin basing your arguments upon assertions of personal expertise then those claims of personal expertise should be held to the same standards of evidentiary support that would be applied to any other claim. If you are unwilling to support such claims then you should stop trying to assert that which you are unwilling or unable to provide compelling support for."

Providing few links to valid evidence has gone on for a long time and there has been so much irrelevant spin on the subject that perhaps simply being able to divert people's attention and time away from possible solutions and action is the goal?

 

[Furcifer]

you keep saying this, and yet I have yet to see any compelling evidence in support of this assertion. In fact, even a quick superficial search of the emperic studies of the issue seem to contraindicate your supposition:

1. The EU Carbon trading system succeeded in establishing a price on carbon pollution emissions.

2. The price for carbon has helped prompt large investments in Europe’s alternative energy sector.

3. The trial phase (2005-07) led to reductions of between 2 and 5% relative
to what emissions would have been in the absence of the program. Since 2008, the overal cap has been tightened by another 6.5%.

Lessons in carbon trading - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7299/full/465691a.html

Yes, because burning money produces less CO2 than burning coal.

The marginal decreases are well within the error in emissions reporting. Since it's in that cloud it's indistinguishable from the noise. The other problem is that without every country participating net emissions don't go down.

Carbon Pricing is a complete and utter failure.

 

[Furcifer]

I assume that your Physics degree contained at least one upper division Statistics course? How would you frame and analyse the hypothesis test for the population proportion of your above statement?

A 200 level course populated almost entirely by business students. Calculus and physics are inseparable and taught, stats the just expect you to know.
Determining the population of the "entire scientific community" would be no small task. You'd probably want to establish who belongs in the set and who doesn't, then do a count. (I'm not touching the "are engineers scientists debate)
Does it matter? There's no argument that the 2500 or so participants of this poll represent less than 1% of the "entire scientific community".

According to government sources, the number of scientists increased from 150,000 to 2,685,000 between 1950 and 2001, while the number of engineers increased from 400,000 to 2,122,000.1 By 2001, scientists and engineers accounted for more than 23% of the professional labor force​

The ridiculousness of the statement is easy to demonstrate without stats.

Please provide the evidence which unambiguously supports and proofs this claim.

Provide the funds and personal information required to have a sealed copy of the official school transcripts (approx $75 for 3 sets from 2 Universities and 1 College) mailed to a 3rd party of your choosing for verification.

Actually, no. Again, robust statistical analysis of the cumulative results of these statements, polls and surveys of the national and international scientific community would indicate a rejection of the null hypothesis (H_o) indicating that there is enough evidence to support the claim that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports these positions.

Nonsense. At best the only conclusion that can be drawn is that these memberships supports these positions, not the actual members themselves.

If you are going to accuse me of knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting issues please provide rigorous empiric support for your assertions rather than simply employing what, under slightly different circumstances, could easily be mistaken for slanderous rhetoric, in lieu of a substantive argument.

And it's been proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that there's no evidence "the entire scientific community" is represented by the less than 1% of scientists polled in the aforementioned study. The remedy is to admit to the hyperbole and clarify the statement, not compound the problem with more hand waving and denial.

 

[Trakar]

It's no big deal because we know there was little to no biodiversity here when it was covered with ice. Cold is the ultimate limiting factor on life here on Earth. Warming just means more area to expand upon.
Technology means that we can facilitate that expansion in conjunction with the warming.
How fast it changes is really irrelevant. It's not like we're waiting for things to happen naturally anyways. Part of what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to terraform the planet. Global Warming or not, it's what we do.

Nonsense, environmental change is a function of life, and is inherent to life processes. The difference (supposedly) between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom is that we have the intelligence to perceive and recognize the nature of our interactive impacts and the ability to consciously and deliberately restrain and redirect our interactions so as to minimize and limit those impacts,...only time will tell, whether or not we are wise enough preserve and restore that which we are currently in the process of destroying.

Arctic Biodiversity in a Global Context
http://www.uarctic.org/bcs/BCS311/mod12.pdf

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch10_Final.pdf

Arctic Species trend index 2010
http://www.asti.is/images/stories/asti report april 20_low res.pdf

Arctic Biodiversity Symposium discussion re: The State and Trends of Biodiversity Science in Canada: A Council of Canadian Academies Report
http://download.isiglobal.ca/cmn/2010-11-18-en.html - click on "Release of The State and Trends of Biodiversity Science in Canada: A Council of Canadian Academies Report"

Closing Remarks—Arctic Biodiversity Symposium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGy_Nsmq_0M

 

[Trakar]

...The marginal decreases are well within the error in emissions reporting...

Support this assertion with compelling evidences

...Carbon Pricing is a complete and utter failure.

according to what supporting evidences?

 

[Furcifer]

Nonsense, environmental change is a function of life, and is inherent to life processes.

Nobody said otherwise.

The difference (supposedly) between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom is that we have the intelligence to perceive and recognize the nature of our interactive impacts and the ability to consciously and deliberately restrain and redirect our interactions so as to minimize and limit those impacts,...only time will tell, whether or not we are wise enough preserve and restore that which we are currently in the process of destroying.

I was going to agree but I think it misses the point somewhat. We weigh the effects and make decisions, but that certainly doesn't mean that's what we do. It depends on how it benefits us.

Arctic Biodiversity in a Global Context
http://www.uarctic.org/bcs/BCS311/mod12.pdf

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch10_Final.pdf

Arctic Species trend index 2010
http://www.asti.is/images/stories/asti report april 20_low res.pdf

Arctic Biodiversity Symposium discussion re: The State and Trends of Biodiversity Science in Canada: A Council of Canadian Academies Report
http://download.isiglobal.ca/cmn/2010-11-18-en.html - click on "Release of The State and Trends of Biodiversity Science in Canada: A Council of Canadian Academies Report"

Closing Remarks—Arctic Biodiversity Symposium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGy_Nsmq_0M

I'm trying to find the quote, but there's something like 1000 times the species in the average square acre of the Amazon than their is in the entire Arctic.

 

[not_so_new]

In other news....

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

 

[Reality Check]

More pseudoscience from the global warming pseudoscience sites,....

I will skip your repeated and still unsupported assertion that the Skeptical Science blog is 'pseudoscience' and point out that this is a climate science blog citing real world economics in this article:
A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs

There is is also analysis of other schemes on that and other web sites. You seem to be making the same mistake (as your previous costs only citation indicates) as mentioned in
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Despite the economic benefits of addressing this market failure, many skeptics argue that putting a price on carbon emissions will cripple the economy. Such arguments generally focus solely on the costs associated with pricing carbon while wholly ignoring the benefits. For example, a Heritage Foundation analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill proposed in the US House of Representatives in 2009 concluded that the legislation would cost the average American family $1500 per year – a figure 10 times higher than any non-partisan economic analysis (see below).
The reason the Heritage estimate was so high is that it evaluated the costs of a carbon cap, and then ignored the distribution of those funds. When a price is put on carbon emissions, it creates a revenue stream. The funds which are generated from the carbon price can be distributed in any number of ways – usually through reductions in other taxes, investment in research and development of 'green' technologies, funding of energy efficiency programs, etc.
The Heritage Foundation report effectively assumed that the generated funds would disappear into a black hole. Their analysis was the equivalent of doing your household finances by adding up your expenditures while ignoring your income. It sure looks bad, but tells you nothing about your overall finances.

(my emphasis added)

You should ask yourself whether seeming to ignore the actual analysis of the US bills by many different organizations is the action of a skeptic or an alarmist or a denier?
Energy Information Administration (EIA) analyzed this bill
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyzed the bill
analyzed by the EPA
EIA
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
CBO
EPA
EIA
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
Peterson Institute
EPA
EIA

What about ignoring the Google analysis?

An analysis done by Google.org using McKinsey & Company's US Low Carbon Economics Tool evaluated the economic impact of various scenarios involving strong investment in green technologies, 'clean policy', and/or a price on carbon emissions from the power sector of $30 per ton.
...
The Google.org analysis found that investment in green tech and carbon pricing would actually dramatically increase GDP. In fact, the study found that delaying significant investment in green tech by 5 years could cost the USA $2.3 to $3.2 trillion in GDP (Figure 2).

(my emphasis added)

 

[Trakar]

A 200 level course populated almost entirely by business students. Calculus and physics are inseparable and taught, stats the just expect you to know.

Well, first, most Bayesian inferences and probability statistics involve in strong calculus foundation. Secondly, the Physics' curricula I am aware of in the US (which is admittedly limited to a few examples) requires at least a two semester upper division statistics course. How are you expected to analyze and describe your studies and research without the statistical tools to perform such analyses?

Here is a paper that may help you a bit, at least with understanding some of the basics, but nothing can substitute for a good fundemental grounding provided by at least a couple of upper division Statistics classes.

"Teaching statistics in the physics curriculum: Unifying and clarifying role of subjective probability" - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/9908/9908014v2.pdf

Determining the population of the "entire scientific community" would be no small task.

Requires a bit of research, but nothing ground shaking or requiring of extensive effort.

You'd probably want to establish who belongs in the set and who doesn't, then do a count. (I'm not touching the "are engineers scientists debate)
Does it matter? There's no argument that the 2500 or so participants of this poll represent less than 1% of the "entire scientific community".

According to government sources, the number of scientists increased from 150,000 to 2,685,000 between 1950 and 2001, while the number of engineers increased from 400,000 to 2,122,000.1 By 2001, scientists and engineers accounted for more than 23% of the professional labor force​

I find it interesting that the study cited to support this (oft repeated, and more often misapplied) statement is curiously dated to 1979.
(U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Statistical Abstract, 1979; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Vol. 37, No. 1, Table 39.) http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/analyses/2002_sci_eng.htm

Regardless, I believe the AAAS pegged the global figure at around 6,000,000. A random population sampling [to find an 80% confidence in finding whether or not >/= 80% majority supports the primary components of AGW, with a margin of error equal to or less than 1%] can be relatively small sample size.

The ridiculousness of the statement is easy to demonstrate without stats.

feel free, but I'd prefer something a little more substantive, supported with valid cite or reference and devoid of the rhetorical fallacies that seem to make up the bulk of some arguments and positions.

Provide the funds and personal information required to have a sealed copy of the official school transcripts (approx $75 for 3 sets from 2 Universities and 1 College) mailed to a 3rd party of your choosing for verification.

So you are refusing to provide the evidences to compellingly support your assertions?

Nonsense. At best the only conclusion that can be drawn is that these memberships supports these positions, not the actual members themselves.

mem·ber·ship   /ˈmɛmbərˌʃɪp/ Show Spelled[mem-ber-ship] Show IPA
noun
1.the state of being a member, as of a society or club.
2.the status of a member.
3.the total number of membersbelonging to an organization, society, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/membership

Memberships only make up a portion of the evidences offered, there were also surveys, polls and reviews. Well more than the number required to establish a strongly representative population sampling.

And it's been proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that there's no evidence "the entire scientific community" is represented by the less than 1% of scientists polled in the aforementioned study. The remedy is to admit to the hyperbole and clarify the statement, not compound the problem with more hand waving and denial.

Then I'd suggest you lay off the hyperbole, quit waving your hands and stop denying reality.

 

[Furcifer]

Well, first, most Bayesian inferences and probability statistics involve in strong calculus foundation. Secondly, the Physics' curricula I am aware of in the US (which is admittedly limited to a few examples) requires at least a two semester upper division statistics course. How are you expected to analyze and describe your studies and research without the statistical tools to perform such analyses?

It's University, it's expected that if you don't know something you grab a book and learn it. Stats isn't that difficult. Here's the degree requirements:

http://web4.uwindsor.ca/units/registrar/calendars/undergraduate/Fall2011.nsf/982f0e5f06b5c9a285256d6e006cff78/554c1e8252fbce8685257722006d2694!OpenDocument

No stats course listed (stats is denoted by the 65 prefix). Which somewhat surprising, the calendar I fell under required us to take the equivalent of 65-250. Most of which was a refresher from high school. Perhaps they don't teach it in high school in the US?

I find it interesting that the study cited to support this (oft repeated, and more often misapplied) statement is curiously dated to 1979.
(U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Statistical Abstract, 1979; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Vol. 37, No. 1, Table 39.) http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/analyses/2002_sci_eng.htm

Really? Most people familiar with ongoing commissioned studies would immediately realize Employment and Earnings was first commissioned in 1979 and this is the 37th volume of this report.

Regardless, I believe the AAAS pegged the global figure at around 6,000,000. A random population sampling [to find an 80% confidence in finding whether or not >/= 80% majority supports the primary components of AGW, with a margin of error equal to or less than 1%] can be relatively small sample size.

Sure, whatever. This is a lot of hand waving instead of just admitting the poll we are talking in no way comes close to representing "the entire scientific community". It's such an absurd statement.

feel free, but I'd prefer something a little more substantive, supported with valid cite or reference and devoid of the rhetorical fallacies that seem to make up the bulk of some arguments and positions.

I think it's been demonstrated here that citing papers doesn't go over very well because most people are incapable of discerning them on their own. I prefer to explain things the first time and then cite papers and studies if I feel people can understand them.

So you are refusing to provide the evidences to compellingly support your assertions?

You may want to read that again for comprehension, it clearly states otherwise. I have no problem indulging you in your fantasy, but at your time and your expense.

mem·ber·ship   /ˈmɛmbərˌʃɪp/ Show Spelled[mem-ber-ship] Show IPA
noun
1.the state of being a member, as of a society or club.
2.the status of a member.
3.the total number of membersbelonging to an organization, society, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/membership

Memberships only make up a portion of the evidences offered, there were also surveys, polls and reviews. Well more than the number required to establish a strongly representative population sampling.

Nonsense. In fact, in this very thread we've cited letters from long standing members of similar organizations who have expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with the organization for supporting the pseudoscience from the climate change camp.

 

[Furcifer]

I will skip your repeated and still unsupported assertion that the Skeptical Science blog is 'pseudoscience'

Nonsense, it's been shown numerous times that these websites clearly meets the definition of both "cargo cult" and "pseudoscience".

and point out that this is a climate science blog citing real world economics in this article:
A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs

Did you read it? They're attributing the savings in increased efficiency to carbon trading. The mistake here being it isn't sustainable, once the measures are implemented there's no room to improve and the scheme fails. Wrong means to the right ends.

There is is also analysis of other schemes on that and other web sites. You seem to be making the same mistake (as your previous costs only citation indicates) as mentioned in
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

(my emphasis added)

You should ask yourself whether seeming to ignore the actual analysis of the US bills by many different organizations is the action of a skeptic or an alarmist or a denier?
Energy Information Administration (EIA) analyzed this bill
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyzed the bill
analyzed by the EPA
EIA
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
CBO
EPA
EIA
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
Peterson Institute
EPA
EIA

What about ignoring the Google analysis?

(my emphasis added)

Who cares about analysis when it fails in application?

 

[uke2se]

In other news....

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

I find my respect for Muller returning. He was actually a true skeptic. He held a null-position when unequipped with the facts and went were the evidence took him. Global Warming denialists have a lot to learn about skepticism from Muller.

The rise and fall of "Muller the Denialist" was eye-opening to say the least; lauded as the next Gallileo by denialists the world over until he saw the evidence and changed his mind, now he's being thrown to the hounds by the anti-science brigade.

 

[BenBurch]

I find my respect for Muller returning. He was actually a true skeptic. He held a null-position when unequipped with the facts and went were the evidence took him. Global Warming denialists have a lot to learn about skepticism from Muller.

The rise and fall of "Muller the Denialist" was eye-opening to say the least; lauded as the next Gallileo by denialists the world over until he saw the evidence and changed his mind, now he's being thrown to the hounds by the anti-science brigade.

It is my opinion that this denial is rooted in a rejection of science that is itself a rejection of the modern world. They want to have the Middle Ages back.

 

[lomiller]

I find my respect for Muller returning. He was actually a true skeptic. He held a null-position when unequipped with the facts and went were the evidence took him. Global Warming denialists have a lot to learn about skepticism from Muller.

Note quite, he held the position that the people who had actually studied the issue were part of a conspiracy until he got a university to spend large amounts of money to give him a team to help him study the data himself.

It's good that he changed his mind at that point, but what this implies is that for every scientist must personally repeat the entire process of reconstructing the earths temperatures for the last 130 year before they are convinced the world is warming. Skepticism does not demand we become paralyzed in this way with each person going to this extreme before they are convinced of what the mainstream science already says.

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense, it's been shown numerous times that these websites clearly meets the definition of both "cargo cult" and "pseudoscience".

Nonsense, you have not shown even once that these websites clearly meet the definition of both "cargo cult" and "pseudoscience".

Did you read it? They're attributing the savings in increased efficiency to carbon trading. The mistake here being it isn't sustainable, once the measures are implemented there's no room to improve and the scheme fails. Wrong means to the right ends.

Obviously I have read A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs.
I have even read the source: Investment of Proceeds from RGGI CO2 Allowances (PDF)

They're taking the money they get from carbon allowances and spending it on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. They find that creates "$3-$4 in savings for every dollar invested" and is projected to create "create nearly 18,000 job years – that is, the equivalent of 18,000 full-time jobs that last one year".

The success here has actually been been measured in the real world!

I agree with you - as the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries mature, the rate of job creation will decrease and the returns will less. That is true of most maturing industries. The schemes will continue to succeed but just not as much.
Right means to the right ends: Decrease carbon emission by funneling carbon pricing income from the state into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and get a return on your investment.

Who cares about analysis when it fails in application?

Everyone who wants to look at options for the future cares abut the analysis done on proposed legislature. In this case especially in the USA.
That is me (for NZ legislature). I do not know about you or whether you care about your country's legislature.

You have forgotten about the success in application:
A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
You even sort of imply that it is a success above (just that the benefits will decrease with time as in most maturing industries).

 

[Trakar]

I find my respect for Muller returning. He was actually a true skeptic. He held a null-position when unequipped with the facts and went were the evidence took him. Global Warming denialists have a lot to learn about skepticism from Muller.

The rise and fall of "Muller the Denialist" was eye-opening to say the least; lauded as the next Gallileo by denialists the world over until he saw the evidence and changed his mind, now he's being thrown to the hounds by the anti-science brigade.

Muller is still a denialist, he simply has confirmed that the science was relatively rigorous with regards to global temperature increases. He has not recanted previous statements nor endorsed the mainstream science findings aside from a general concurrence regarding the global temperature increases since 1880 or so.