69, the “Pascal’s Wager” argument. But even that’s phony, because of the logarithmic nature of Arrhenius’ law. Pick any feedback factor, it doesn’t matter, the result still is that knocking 10 or 20% off of emissions won’t make a measurable difference. And that’s not even taking into account the increases from India and China.

The truth is that if this is an actual problem, cap’n tax is a joke as an answer. I actually find myself agreeing with the most radical environmentalists on one very narrow point: if we do have a real problem, this is pissing in the wind.

So no, this isn’t even Pascal’s Wager. This is more like buying a bridge.