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!
So what is false about it? And why isn't it relevant to respond to your nasty, patronizing and nonsensical comments?
1. I am accused of knowing nothing.
in response to: I don't mean to keep pointing the finger at you but your knowledge of this issue is very superficial and limited to the talking points.
2. You cite the purported consensus.
in response to: Scientific and legal consensus has been reached. Political consensus always takes longer to achieve.
3. You claim my position is rhetoric.
in response to: In the meantime it is a rearguard action to delay the inevitable. You need to try to differentiate between rhetoric and reality.
4. You make another appeal to authority.
in response to: Its really just a sequence of identifiable events that began in 2001 when George Bush asked the Academy of Sciences for a report.
5. You claim to have superior knowledge.
In response to: I don't have a lot of time available to hold your hand and lead you thru it, and I certainly didn't take you to raise.
As for your current post. Once again you make no arguments based on any type of data, nor do you make any attempt to refute any of the arguments I have presented or the data that they are based on. You mention politics and a court ruling. All is completely irrelevant to any type of scientific discussion.
I am very disappointed in you. If you have any actually do have any knowledge from any branch of science... you have chosen not to share any of it with those of us who have commented on this thread. You have provided a very good example of a typical conversation with a global warming alarmist. You provide no facts based on observational data. You make constant appeals to the authority of judges, politicians, agencies, activists and anyone you believe might influence the ignorant. That my friend is not a valid argument. But what we hear from you the most is name calling and posing as intellectually superior to others. It is all very sad and very disappointing.
You are either afraid or unable to discuss the actual issues. You appear to be completely ignorant of any of the actual facts and even the details of the “theory” that you believe in. Your ability to form a rational argument seems to be completely lacking as well.