Is There Any Good Way to Generate a "free Market" Response to AGW?

Is there any good way to generate a "free market" response to AGW?

Your first fallacy in your question is the claim of AGW itself. This is a claim that is erroneous in its general history. You always forget where the extremely biased IP CC came from and who motivates them. The original idea of "proving" AGW came from Margaret Thatcher because she wanted energy security for the United Kingdom and did not want to have to deal with the oil cartels and the coal miner's union of the UK. Alarmists always omit this fact along with many other facts about human impact. Climate Realist reminded me of another aspect of added CO2 to our atmosphere when he tried to say that skeptics use the argument that Glaciers are growing. Anyone who understands Glacier research knows that they are shown to be retreating and exposing carbon sinks. Glaciers grow and retreat over time and it's a natural process. The second fallacy (as Hey Dook points out) is that a Carbon Tax is revenue neutral. Oil companies make far less money than our own Government makes off of fossil fuels and a Carbon Tax only raises the price of energy which is very detrimental to the poor. I think my table is "shape-shifting" again. Must be because I am answering your ill-informed question. DaveH gives an interesting rhetorical question. Although I am for science research being paid for by our Government, I do not appreciate biased research. Biased research is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Our Government seems to be following the IP CC which is biased because of its original intent.

— — — — — —

Why are many Republicans for the free market, but against evolution?

Some religious conservatives do not believe in evolution. This includes people who are both Democrat and Republican. Regardless, the two issues are not related, so this question has no point. One deals with the creation of the human species and the other with the attainment of wealth. Edit: When looked at in the context of how you are trying to compare them, my answer is certainly much more accurate than that absurd premise you are trying to pass off. Since species other than humans do not practice wealth accumulation, they are not applicable to this particular discussion. I see you are also one of the tough guys who insult people from the privacy and anonymity of a computer. How brave.

— — — — — —

Is the free market system inherently stable or unstable?

It is quasi-stable. But there is a lot of noise and a lot of fluctuation. The most important thing for a free-market to have is not freedom, but trust, confidence and transperancy. One needs to know that A. milk does not contain melamine. The product is as advertised. B. If you sell something, the bank draft you receive is good, As Dumbledore points out, supply and demand are offsetting curves. So you will have microeconomic stability. Also that you have externalities, which are costs such as pollution, which need to be taken into account. But the big thing to remember it that the free market is built on "faith," i.e., trust and confidence. If people lose faith, it will cause a severe contraction. Supply and demand will get out of kilter. Inefficiencies will happen as people react to the new situation. ********* As an aside, I have built a spreadsheet which ranks American College Football teams. It simply inputs how well you do against your schedule (average points you win or lose per game). Your strength of schedule is determined by the rank of the teams you play. It ends up being a nasty mess of equations, which eventually get solved. And it is surprizingly accurate in predicting future performance (and also the odds on a game). The reason I say this is that you can build an economic model on the same premises. It ends up being fairly stable. A crisis in one area will affect other areas, but it will all balance out and cause little overall damage. But if you hit the system with a sweeping monetary or environmental catastrophe, then you can be in alot of serious trouble. ******** I just listened to a very good radio show on the crisis on "This American Life." I forgot this little fact. There are approximately 5 trillion in bonds, but 60 trillion in credit default swaps on those bonds. (The GDP of the US is 14 trillion, and the world 70 trillion). All of the big dealers in cds are networked, i.e., they guarantee each other -- all hedged. The problem is that if one fails, then all of the others become vulnerable. These traders did these swaps without reserves, giving them tremendous leverage and huge profits and salaries. But the risk of one failing can cause a domino effect. This is inherently unstable.