[ivankirigin]

It should be more often observed that the only reason we see this call for consenus (and opposition) is that they demand government action.

This is a very statist mindset, and that grinding sound you hear is statism running up against science.

In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side.

Environmentalists would do more good by abandoning statism and focusing on private action.

There is nothing stopping people from supporting research into alternative energy themselves. Farmers could be paid by private citizens to slow burn their biomass turning it into stable sequesterable charcoal. The roofs of private buildings could be painted white.

Once those that care about the issue realize their methods and not necessrily their ideas are why they get a lot of resistence, more people will come to their side.

[gustavo_duarte]

I'm all for private action, but you cannot take the government out of this issue. After all, whether to build the third runway in Heathrow is not a private decision. Likewise, it's hard for private parties to deal with externalities.

[ivankirigin]

Unorganized private action can easily outweigh government action.

With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated.

Cap and Trade solutions for climate change are, say, 5 orders of magnitude more costly. With that comes added demand for certainty. The more rigorous the demands for certainty, the greater the indication that a single governmental solution is inappropriate.

A third runway at Heathrow _should_ be a private decision, by a private company that owns and operates an airport. Runways are also completely irrelevant in this discussion.

[jshen]

"Unorganized private action can easily outweigh government action.

With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated."

This seems to be a contradiction.

[WilliamLP]

> In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side.

Uh, have you ever read Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Leonard Susskind, and Lubos Motl?

[ivankirigin]

The complete statement should have read "impassioned pleas for one side ... for government action"

Strong opinions are healthy. Strong opinions mandating an end to discussion in order to take collectivist action are not.

[WilliamLP]

Again, have you read anything by Lee Smolin or Peter Woit?:)