Once again you have made no attempt what so ever to make even one valid point supporting your position. Do you even realize this? Let me analyze your latest post to me paragraph by paragraph.
1. I am accused of knowing nothing.
2. You cite the purported consensus.
3. You claim my position is rhetoric.
4. You make another appeal to authority.
5. You claim to have superior knowledge.
In all of your posts you have not made one attempt to present even one rational argument supporting your position. And yet you accuse me of using talking points? I have practically begged you for substance. All that you have provided is insults, repeated reference to the purported consensus, appeals to authority, ridicule and smugness. None of that has any relationship to science at all.
I have repeatedly presented arguments based on observational data. You have not once tried to refute even one of them. I assume this is because you cannot. It is becoming embarrassingly obvious that you have nothing of substance to share. Do you actually have any knowledge of scientific method as you have claimed, or are you nothing more than a rude pompous buffoon?
The process which we are discussing takes place at a much higher location than Free Republic. Places like the White House and/or the Supreme Court
George asked the Academy about global warming and they told him that it was likely and it was likely caused by humans, but to be certain, more study was needed.
Bush got the money appropriated and started handing out lots of research grants to study it. It took a few years but all the dirty commie scientists confirmed that it was underway. And somehow the dirty commies infiltrated the Academy and they told Bush it was underway. The GOP likes to blame Bush for a lot of things that happened, and this is one of them.
About that same time IPCC released their report, the global warming movie was released, and SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant. It was a quadruple whammy.
They decided the best thing to do was to try to shift public opinion so all the NGOs got involved by setting up their PR campaigns to do that. All of it is funded by dark money from Donors Trust.
Since SCOTUS told EPA to regulate, everybody thought it might be better if Congress pre-empted EPA and enacted legislation to regulate CO2. That was a big debate but they all agreed in 2008, but when Congress convened in 2009, the dems controlled the presidency, the House, and a 60 vote majority in the senate.
But they went thru the motions and the House passed the carbon cap and trade bill, leaving it up to the senate.
Meanwhile, after Obama became the Head Negro in Charge, the Teaparty movement exploded onto the scene, and the NGOs found great success in their opinion shifting efforts.
So even tho the GOP had won the debate on regulating CO2 in 2008, at the end of 2009 and 2010, they decided to walk away from it.
They knew that Obama would move forward with EPA using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 because SCOTUS had ruled that way. But they knew that they could delay Obama with a lawsuit, which would give them time to co-opt the tea party, and ride it back into to power in 2010 and 2012.
2010 worked out OK for the GOP and they won the House back. But in 2012 Obama beat Romney and the GOP lost one seat in the Senate.
Then, in 2014, SCOTUS ruled for Obama on the lawsuit, so Obama's first set of CO2 regs are in place, approved by SCOTUS. Obama would also release his second set of CO2 regulations in 2014, which is known as the Clean Power Plan. And of course, the GOP sued to delay Obama until after the 2016 elections.
Know one can predict how SCOTUS will rule, but since there are only 8 justices, it could be decided by the DC Court of Appeals, which is why the DC Court decided to hear the case with a full panel.
And it is even more of a problem with Trump winning the GOP nomination because he might favor a carbon tax, and his advisor has said he could tolerate a "small" carbon tax. And on top of that, it could be that Hillary wins. And the Dems could possibly retake the senate.
You can take it up with the court but you have no standing. Nor do the sources of authority that you use have standing before the courts.
The courts give high authority to the Academy, the federal agencies, Natl Research Council, EPA Advisory Board, IPCC, Universities and such.
If you want to, you can submit testimony to congressional committees. All you need is a word processor and fax machine. You can also submit comments to EPA when the comment period is open.
You can also submit at the state level. Even though Obama's Clean Power Plan is tied up in court, the state eviro agencies are moving forward in setting up their state's plan to conform to the regulations.
Good Luck!