Wisdom from Julian Sanchez:

At a higher level of abstraction, a purist libertarian position is arguably quite radically green.  That is, assuming the harm from climate change is demonstrable, every affected property owner gets a veto over “aggression” by carbon emitters, at least on a strict Rothbardian type of view.  That’s rather too strict for my taste, but I just mean to point out that the conflict with “libertarian beliefs” here isn’t really at the level of principle or theory. If climate change is actually going to be profoundly harmful, then it’s precisely the sort of problem libertarian principles say the state ought to be trying to solve.

This makes sense to me. Even the idea that the cost of state intervention outweighs the benefits of reduced emissions makes sense to me as an argument, though I think it’s not a very good argument. What doesn’t make sense to me is: 1) saying one is interested in honest debate while misrepresenting the content of academic research, 2) saying one is simply trying to treat the science skeptically while embracing any published paper, no matter how transparently foolish, which supports one’s preferred position, and 3) saying government intervention would be costly, to the economy and to liberty, while employing folks who think that a system of land-use and transportation based on massive subsidies and heavy-handed regulation is somehow an efficient outcome of the free market.