No. That's not my position at all. First, there is

No. That's not my position at all. First, there is a fundamental difference between "known contributor," and "suspected contributor," and even the latter is highly suspect in the face of the empirical evidence. You can make a computer model output whatever you want. Being able to make accurate hindcasts is one thing, but when your forecasts are nearing 100% failure and often wrong in both sign and magnitude, it's time to rethink your 99% certainty claims.

A better example is someone tells you that there water running down the side of your house and you can pay them to fix it for you. You go out and look, but it's been raining, so you can't really tell. After the rain stops and the house dries, you still don't see anything. The person then tells you that the reason you don't see anything is because it's behind the wall. You want to be extra careful, so you pay them to tear off the wall so you can see. When there is no water to be found, they tell you - no no no, it's not behind that wall, it's up on the second floor and you will need a ladder to see it. Not to worry. They just happen to sell ladders too. Are you going to listen to them and spend more good money on the remote possibility that they may be right even though there is absolutely zero observational evidence that they are and they have been wrong about everything so far?

So no, I don't think it's a good idea to create $4 trillion/year in new taxes to fight a problem that at best we suspect exists but have completely failed to demonstrate despite 30+ years of research at a cost of $100B+. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/clim...63376.html

Pulling out of the Paris agreement is not the economy killer - staying in it would be.