It is fine for you to be a Libertarian and champion 'the market' as the solution to all problems but when you are challenged as I did on the post you cherry pick a portion of my response and you fail to respond there on the original post but instead initiate this new post- giving your arguments 98% of the post and a small cherry picked and now out of context slice of my response.

That is devious and dishonest avoidance of reasoned, sequential and in context debate.

Respond to the comment I made where I fucking made it, in full context to what I was responding to- not by re orienting the entire narrative as you have done here.

Now to deal with some of this new narrative you have started here- 'Also, I hate this "science" idea... which science? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists ignore the insights of economics so what's your point? (That makes it a draw; let's go back to drawing board and argue about reality instead of mudslinging).'

It is not a role of climate scientists to address economic questions. It is their role to study and assess climate science.

As an economist commenting upon climate science however you need to become urgently aware that the problem of climate change cannot logically be addressed by free markets - because the drivers of climate change are not regulated by market forces as the producers and users of climate change inducing fuels and activities do not face any immediate or direct market response as a consequence of their use of fossil fuel and other climate change drivers. The responses are considerably delayed and delivered to future generations without discretion. This is what climate science tells us.

So a market forces favouring economist faces a dilemma when considering climate change- they face a problem that their market forces are incapable of fixing. In response what is required is firstly recognition that market forces do not solve all problems and that his knowledge of economics does not extend to climate science. Ignoring the results of climate science and ridiculing climate science is not a logical rational or honest solution. If he goes on to ignore the reality that market forces cannot be used to respond logically to climate change then he will be undermining his own credibility as an economist.