I oppose climate and CO2 taxes. I also oppose government spending on climate change mitigation. We've spent and committed economic disruption in the name of pseudoscience. There's no demonstration, experiment or trial published in a peer reviewed journal for climate change mitigation.Political Opponents? No, Brain, we are you scientific opponents first.
There's almost no consensus for climate change mitigation; some people favor restricting man made carbon dioxide emissions and others favor publicly funded carbon sinks. All favor more research dollars for their own mitigation schemes.
We aren't scientific opponents because we agree experimental tests of climate change mitigation don't exist. We draw different conclusions from that shared knowledge.
Here we disagree; they work badly and underestimate as well as overestimate predicted climate change. Tuning climate models for past weather can be as simple as setting up a historic table of dates and events. The models can do whatever you program them too, except forecast future weather. Get real.The climate models work pretty well. They were tuned to predict past weather, and so work pretty well in the current situation. They tend to UNDERESTIMATE because these times are very different from past warming episodes.
I don't care to label opponents; this is where we differ. I'd prefer to deal with arguments, not personality.I'm looking for an experiment that shows that you are human, and not just another denierspambot.