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.
You need to publish your paper in a peer reviewed journal, like everybody else does. But as I have already pointed out to you, your paper will probably be rejected because they won't publish "talking points".
But if somehow you become successful with you published paper, then you can offer your opinion to presidents, congressional committees and judges.
Good Luck!