Lying, the left and global boiling

It's natural occurrence, the Earths axis (Obliquity of the ecliptic) rotates at 23.5 degrees, that last time it shifted was March 2021 and found that Earth's axis started shifting drastically in 1995, speeding the movement of the poles and changing its direction. The culprit behind that shift, the researchers found, was melting glaciers.

Now all the Green taxes in the World, electric cars, carbon footprints are not going to stop the 'Earths axis from shifting', you are being fed a lie, the taxes are just a big fat con, no amount of money will stop a natural occurrence.

No the media selectively reports what the scientists publish on their own dedicated peer review supporting sites

Science has progressed because scientists are (usually) free to dispute any theories, check experimental findings and propose new theories. I say "usually" because there have been times when certain bodies (like the Church for example) have intervened to squash theories that were deemed blasphemous (like the Earth orbiting the Sun for example). This held back the science of astronomy. And the reason why the muslims made little contribution to science (since about 1100 AD) is because the imams decided that the printing press was haram so their scientists had little access to scientific papers and books.

We now seem to be in a new era of "censorship" where those scientists who dispute the climate change orthodoxy (and there are many) are shutdown or ridiculed. It's partly caused by the fact that the research into the causes of climate change demands access to a vast number of scientific disciplines and access to highly complex computer systems and supercomputers. This means that no one can peer review the work that comes out of bodies like the IPCC - though fortunately it doesn't need peer reviewing because all their predictions are invariably proved wrong with the elapse of time. In fact most of the scientific papers that Cook reviewed (or googled bits of, to be more accurate) were actually about the consequences of climate change - not the causes - and were therefore irrelevant.

The other thing is, as I've said before, that the IPCC is NOT a scientific body. A scientific body does research (the IPCC does none) and allows scientists to pursue any theories (whereas the IPCC has determined that the accepted hypothesis is that CO2 causes warming). You seem to be under the misapprehension that the IPCC is a scientific body that's pushing the boundaries of science. It's not. The  clue is in the word "Intergovernmental" in its name. It exists to give a consistent view of climate to governments - not to confuse them with competing theories. 

Which of course is the whole point. I do repeat however that the IPCC report makes the ground rules and sets the tone for the media in general to follow. The IPCC is the mouthpiece through which 'the science' speaks. I also repeat that several items, and referenced by Sid,  that were specific lies were from sites and organisations taking their info direct from the IPCC.
The main one is the 97% consensus which is supposed to be what 'the science' believes and that result was produced by a peer reviewed paper and published in the dedicated  journals of 'the science'. 

The whole idea of attempting to promote a scientific theory by saying "97% of scientists" believe it is very strange - and unscientific. Scientific theories are judged entirely on whether they "work", which usually means making accurate predictions. I've never heard of any poll of how many scientists believe the theory of relativity or quantum theory. After all they can't believe both because they're based on entirely different models and often give different results. Basically they're probably both wrong but that doesn't matter because they both work in their own fields. It wouldn't matter if even 100% of scientists believed the CO2 theory when the predictions made by the models are invariably wrong. The CO2 warming theory is therefore wrong. 

BTW only about 30% of the CO2 in the air is produced by humans - that's 30% of the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere. And this 30% makes little difference to the greenhouse effect because the graph is logarithmic, so the more you have the (very much) less greenhouse effect it has. But the extra CO2 does have a marked effect on crop growth and the cooling caused by photosynthesis.      

At the end of the day no amount of green taxes will prevent Natural Phenomena, gravity, tides, moon, sun, volcano's, so on and so on ... it's completely out of our hands, by putting green taxes on our energy bills, fuel bills, ULEZ and anything else they can think of will not stop any of these occurrences, the taxes are just a con, nothing more nothing less, if they were genuine concerned about one major environmental scandal, it would be chopping down millions of trees, which they don't appear to be interested in ... now if they want to 'save the planet' .. that's what they should be focused on.

That we can't prevent natural phenomena doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about what we can address.
  
You call the taxes a con and there's obviously a huge element of them being just using MMGW theory an an excuse but it's a well evidenced fact that taxes do deter use of whatever is taxed.
 
The crux of all this is IF MMGW theory is true why would you not do what you could?  And no one has disproved the theory, very much not.