Reality is that you can't give an example of emissions controls causing any significant damage to an economy.
So the answer is no, you can't provide any examples to back up your accusation about scientists. False. In fact the data is publicly available and any data you wish to have I can provide links to. Corrections are normal in science and have not changed the underlying results. Rather than maligning others, why don't you tell us specifically what data you want. I'll provide it for you and you can post your analysis of it.
I don't need to give an example, it's called common sense. A 21st century system of indulgence taxation dooms us all to decreased productivity and wealth.
Yes, you do need to give an example. The word "common" means that it's typical, common knowledge. Ie. knowledge of something that has happened before. Emissions trading is not taxation any more than trading government bonds is taxation.
You really are a moron, trading of bonds is a negative sum game and yes govt bonds are taxation promises.
Keep on running. Here's the essential problem -- there's a large group of people, you included, who feel that they understand how economics works based on a simplistic, incomplete and outdated model of economics that was overturned decades ago. When asked to give examples to support this Randroid model of reality, they are utterly unable to do so.
The problem is you believe in tooth fairy economics. Tell me the terms of the emissions contract value say per ton of co2 or the penalty for producing co2 without permission.
Actually I believe in Nobel prize-winning economics. Tell me the terms of a typical CBOE options contract.
Are you trying to tell me the emissions contracts will be worthless and no real dollar value for penalty for exceeding limits?
Index said it, common sense. Just like my trading systems numbers are 'publically' available on my website. It's true, it's true! Lol. You don't get it. It's not the end data, it's the means to calculating and arriving at the end data that is in question! But that is the part you choose to see as 'false' and don't give a crap about because the 'publicly available' data confirms your bias. And I guess in your world if it's publicly available, it's the holy grail of truth. As to your 'false' claim, why would Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory say this: That request is nearing the three year mark. You should tell Hess the data is publicly available because it appears he's having a tough time finding it! Also, I'd like the science to show me how it's possible that over the past 5000 years, there were 3 periods where it was warmer than today and the world didn't blow up. Perhaps the SUV's weren't too big back then and people weren't eating as much meat...