To give any kind of credence to their ravings is to support them in their insane quest. They must be disavowed, for their intent is evil beyond any previous human example of evil.
There is some strong consensus science behind the greenhouse effect and the rise of CO2 causing some beneficial warming. Even the Stern report, heavily biased towards all forms of speculative catastrophe admitted that warming has short run net benefits. What the leftists refuse to admit is that mankind will flourish in the long run without their help regardless of any climate change or not; and mankind will wither away if they are put in charge of anything. I refuse to let the leftists define the debate with their tactics (equating skepticism with denial, etc), but I also refuse to ignore science which is very well established.
“...but I also refuse to ignore science which is very well established.”
There is no way to separate science from ethics, though it is very tempting to try to do so. But far worse is agenda driven pseudo-science.
Trofim Lysenko is the best example. He created scientific theories based on Marxist philosophy, that disputed the real science before it. And because it was backed by the Soviet government, because it supported their philosophy, Lysenko was able to suppress real scientists who knew what he was doing was fake.
Sound familiar? The biggest clue that the theory that *man* is responsible for climate change, is a fraud, is that they adamantly refuse to provide a “negative case”. That is, some situation, any situation, in which their theory is *not* taking place.
Say you have a theory that if you hit a fresh chicken egg with the hammer of a claw hammer at 10 mph, putting its force into the egg, it will damage the egg. Lots of very specific criteria there. The negative case would be if this is done and it does not damage the egg.
Is that so hard? Yet they refuse to give any situation that would disprove the MMGW theory. “If ‘x’ happens, then GW is *not* man made”.