The Great Global Warming Swindle

[rickoff]

What next?

Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day.

[Farmhand]

Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day.

Hi rickoff, you uncover a lot of stuff that is interesting. I'm an Aussie and this
"Nigel Leck" makes me angry. Is what he is doing not somehow illeagal ?

Regards.

[Joit]

That is in the Hands and the Terms of the Host to decide that.

[greenliving]

Ive seen the film 2012 its hilarious and close to reality.its scary when you think that ots gonna happen in the future.Global warming also involved.

[Joit]

Make Fear and give little little Hope is allways what they make.
Even at the brainwash industry Hollywood.
Sidenote to "No1 Movie" Who do decide this what is No1.

[Peter Lindemann]

Latest News

Hi All,

Well, winter has hit Spokane early this year. 10 days after the Renaissance Conference, we have 6 inches of snow on the ground. Today, day time temperatures hit only +9F (-12C) at Spokane International Airport, with temperatures around -10F (-23C) last night. 6 to 11 more inches of snow are predicted for the next few days, right through the Thanksgiving Holiday.

So, with that in mind, here is the latest news story about the next Climate Conference in Cancun, Mexico.

BBC News - Modest hopes for climate summit, as gas levels rise

Enjoy,
Peter

[rickoff]

Hi rickoff, you uncover a lot of stuff that is interesting. I'm an Aussie and this "Nigel Leck" makes me angry. Is what he is doing not somehow illegal ?

What you are referring to, of course, is an earlier post that I made, in which I stated,

"Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to wear down his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day."

While Internet spamming is frowned upon, it still is practiced rather widely, and to my knowledge is not strictly illegal unless posting the content constitutes an illegal act. For example, if one person posts something false that is intended to harm someone else's reputation, that could be considered as defamation of character, which is illegal in most places. Unless both the victim and the perpetrator live in the same country, though, that would be difficult to impossible to enforce. And in Nigel's case, he is only posting contrary opinion "answers" to statements posted by climate realists, which really does not smack of illegality. As long as he posts identical answers to spambot captured keywords, though, most forum posters will quickly realize that it is simply repetitive spam, and won't even bother reading or responding to it. I'm sure he realizes that, and if he is good at what he is doing then he probably has worked out multiple answers for a keyword, or combination of keywords. It's all done automatically, so he just sits back and laughs. There really isn't much you can do to combat him, other than perhaps setting up a spambot to answer his posts, lol.

Rick

[ashtweth]

Guys here comes the AUSSIE summer, i would need a carton of beer a day if Peter L was here to keep him cool . On a serious note i bet its going to be an eye opener,HOTTER then ever.. we had a FRESH CHEMICAL TRAIL out side the Panacea head office today

tell me that Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-Engineering is not part of dealing with "climate change" , it may be..tell me why in the HOT Aussie Sun at 30o that you can get an "ice crystal" as such low altitude.

[rickoff]

Re: Un Climate Conference in Cancun Mexico

I echo the sentiment expressed in this Cfact article:

"Can you imagine the pain we'll be forced to bear if President Obama agrees to transfer hundreds of billions of our dollars to fund climate payoffs to carbon profiteers and corrupt Third World dictators at the same time his domestic spending spree is adding trillions to our national debt at home?

If this conference succeeds where Copenhagen failed, it could cost the global economy trillions of dollars, promote global poverty – even mass starvation – and destroy millions of jobs here in the United States, while doing nothing to affect the world’s climate.

While a more responsible Congress will convene in January, President Obama will seek to bypass our elected representatives and order EPA and other agencies to adopt massive new regulations on carbon dioxide that will hobble the economic recovery at home and prevent us from leading the recovery abroad." -Cfact.org

[aussieaussieaussie]

Guys here comes the AUSSIE summer, i would need a carton of beer a day if Peter L was here to keep him cool . On a serious note i bet its going to be an eye opener,HOTTER then ever.. we had a FRESH CHEMICAL TRAIL out side the Panacea head office today

tell me that Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-Engineering is not part of dealing with "climate change" , it may be..tell me why in the HOT Aussie Sun at 30o that you can get an "ice crystal" as such low altitude.

HAHAHA, Ash that plane is cruising at 10,000m which means the temperature up there is -60 degrees celsius. I do believe that is a good temperature for ice to form!

The con trail clearly is above the lower clouds which would average 3000m high or approx temperature of -5 degrees celsius

Folks! Read the science of climate change! Don't read the newspaper, especially the opinion section - READ a science journal! Once you do this you realize 10,000 scientists say there IS climate change and 3 scientists paid by big oil say there is no such thing.

I am not saying I agree with carbon taxes etc, but folks if you think there is no such thing as climate change - please pull your head out of the sand!

Thanks,

Ozy

[Aaron]

weather changes

if you think there is no such thing as climate change - please pull your head out of the sand!

Or maybe you need to look at the real science. This is NOT about denying
there are interesting things happening. However, blaming it on human caused
co2 is ridiculous and there is no science to back it.

Go look at all the quotes I posted by scientists including those from IPCC
that openly stated that the co2 claim is a fraud. Only 3 scientists paid
by big oil... yeah right, you've really done your research.

And the height of the flight path leaving trail is irrelevant when it comes
to making an ice trail. If you can think a few steps forward, when those
trails spread out laterally for miles and miles and connect to trails next to
them doing the same thing and then 100% (which is very common) of
the "cloud coverage" is completely from the trails, that is not ice crystals
and it doesn't take much common sense to see that.

Your ice argument becomes a short-sighted opinion up to the point that
it spreads out and obscures the entire sky. There is a tanker base in my
town and they conduct these operations several times a week. Zero
natural clouds, I have plenty of time-lapsed photos showing that
half a dozen trails can spread out and connect to the ones next to them,
then get whisped around by the wind and there is no blue sky left - 100%
created by the plane trails. That is not condensation, period. There is a
bit of condensation in it but when you see streamers dripping out of those,
you know it is not a homogenous mixture of water vapor.

A weakened magnetic field is what lets in more solor radiation than normal
and is responsible for the heating episodes when it happens but for the
most part, there hasn't been any global increase in temp for probably 15
years - meaning the Earth's overall temps are dropping.

I'm not going to argue about what science is what, but casting a plane's
trail automatically as ice just because what you think is about as scientific
and accurate as claiming there are 3 scientists that are against it.

[Aaron]

THOUSANDS of REAL SCIENTISTS are against the co2 SCAM

10,000 says global warming and 3 against - yeah right! The below quotes
are a drop in the bucket, it would take HOURS AND HOURS to post them
all. Any "scientific journal" that says 3 are against it should be used line
bird cages.

In case anyone hadn't heard, there are THOUSANDS of scientists
suing Al Gore for fraud in his fraudulent Inconvenient Truth power point
presentation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton Universityand Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

[aussieaussieaussie]

Getting into a debate with the moderator! I will step lightly

Or maybe you need to look at the real science. This is NOT about denying
there are interesting things happening. However, blaming it on human caused
co2 is ridiculous and there is no science to back it.
Nobody says there are not other variables in the mix but, if you are looking for science to back it up - read any science journal!

Go look at all the quotes I posted by scientists including those from IPCC
that openly stated that the co2 claim is a fraud. Only 3 scientists paid
by big oil... yeah right, you've really done your research.
Latest data on Co2 is here: Atmospheric CO2: Climate's 'Control Knob' : Discovery News Have I done my research? My friend, my wife lectures on the subject for the past 10 years!

And the height of the flight path leaving trail is irrelevant when it comes
to making an ice trail.
Absolutely FALSE - the height determines the temperature, and therefore whether the conditions are there to propagated ice formation.

If you can think a few steps forward, when those
trails dissipate laterally for miles and miles and connect to trails next to
them doing the same thing and then 100% (which is very common) of
the "cloud coverage" is completely from the trails, that is not ice crystals
and it doesn't take much common sense to see that.
Ok, this 'event' you are describing - is not shown in these pictures from ASH. Completely understand what you mean though, I have checked out atmospheric data for the few days after 9/11 - very interesting! but is not evidence for chem-trails only contrails... These 'clouds' would increase temperatures on the ground and be a variable for Climate change - but of course this is man made variable... see?

Your ice argument becomes a short-sighted opinion up to the point that
it spreads out and obscures the entire sky. There is a tanker base in my
town and they conduct these operations several times a week. Zero
natural clouds, I have plenty of time-lapsed photos showing that
half a dozen trails can spread out and connect to the ones next to them,
then get whisped around by the wind and there is no blue sky left - 100%
created by the plane trails. That is not condensation, period. There is a
bit of condensation in it but when you see streamers dripping out of those,
you know it is not a homogenous mixture of water vapor.
Cool, sounds like an interesting phenomenon - maybe you should post some pics so we can analyze and rule out any simple answers.

A weakened magnetic field is what lets in more solor radiation than normal
and is responsible for the heating episodes when it happens but for the
most part, there hasn't been any global increase in temp for probably 15
years - meaning the Earth's overall temps are dropping.
Ok, sorry have to stop you there - the Earths average temperature has risen by 0.13 degrees celcius per decade in the past 50 years- PROVEN FACT! Please if you are going to debate this, we must use real scientific evidence and not opinion pieces!


I'm not going to argue about what science is what, but casting a plane's
trail automatically as ice just because what you think is about as scientific
and accurate as claiming there are 3 scientists that are against it.
Ash claiming that it's a chemtrail has no evidence to back up his claim! My claim that it's a contrail is based on current scientific understanding and Occams razor. As for your pics well, I don't comment on evidence I haven't seen.

For those of you still in denile, I suggest a healthy read of this article:
"Climategate" and Other Nonsense : Discovery News

The article is in simple layman terms, if you want actual proof check out any science journal - they all seem to agree - THERE IS NO DEBATE!

Thanks, I hope you have learned something here today.

Ozy

[aussieaussieaussie]

Nice report, but it was paid for by big oil...

After reading your quotes carefully, I find that many of them are not denying man made climate change - they are simple objecting to the current conclusions. More research needs to be done seems to be the average comment.

Also there are some clear false claims in your post many are addressed in this article:

Center for Inquiry Reveals that 80 Percent of ‘dissenting scientists’ in report haven’t published peer-reviewed climate research

Washington, D.C. (July 17, 2009) – The Office of Public Policy, the Washington, D.C. lobbying arm of the Center for Inquiry (CFI), an organization committed to defending scientific integrity, has today dealt a body blow to global warming skeptics by releasing findings exposing the lack of credibility of dissenting scientists challenging man-made global warming. The dissenting scientists are cited in the U.S. Senate Minority Report, a document being hailed by lawmakers opposed to legislation needed to slow global climate change. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla initially released the report through the office of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he is the ranking minority member.

In this Senate Minority Report, almost 700 individuals with implied scientific credentials are offered as evidence that measures to address climate change are premature, and that further research is needed. Sen. Inhofe has used this report to support the claim that there is an ever-increasing international groundswell of scientific opposition to the position of approximately 2,000 scientists whose work is the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Science Report (IPCC) released in 2007. The Center for Inquiry maintains that the Senate Minority report fails to make a credible case that a large number of actual climate scientists take exception to the near-universal consensus of the research community.

“It is beyond question that the work of the U.N. scientists has survived the scrutiny of their colleagues, and that they constitute a significant majority of active researches addressing this problem today. This led us to take a careful look at the broad conclusions of the Senate Minority Report,” said Dr. Stuart Jordan, science policy advisor to the CFI Office of Public Policy and retired emeritus senior staff scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

“As a result of our assessment, Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science.”

After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report, the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project found that:

• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
• Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
• Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

Further examination of the backgrounds of these individuals revealed that a significant number were identified as meteorologists, and some of these people were employed to report the weather.

Dr. Ronald A. Lindsay, the Center for Inquiry’s chief executive officer, is concerned about the falsehoods and half-truths being uttered by lawmakers now arming themselves for a major fight over legislation addressing climate change. Said Lindsay, “Sen. Inhofe and others have had some success in conveying to the media the impression that the number of scientists skeptical about man-made global warming is swelling, yet this is demonstrably not true.” Lindsay points out that Inhofe’s office had misleadingly claimed in a press release that the number of dissenting scientists outnumbered by more than 13 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the 2007 IPCC. “But those 52 U.N. scientists were in fact summarizing for policymakers the work of over 2,000 active research scientists, all with substantially similar views on global warming and its causes. This is the kind of broadside against sound science and scientific integrity that we at CFI deplore,” asserted Lindsay.

Dr. Paul Kurtz, the founder of the Center for Inquiry, stressed that “It is essential that the government base its policies on the best scientific information we have and it is a preponderance of scientific judgment that global warming poses a dire threat to the future of humanity on the planet.”

After painstakingly taking the time to vet many of the scientists now serving as “consensus busters” Jordan says that it is difficult for him and his colleagues not to conclude that “this is one more effort of a contrarian community to block corrective action to address a major—in this case global—problem fraught with harmful consequences for human welfare and the environment.”

The complete Center for Inquiry Credibility Project was released to the public at a press conference held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on July 17, 2009.

[Aaron]

global cooling

my wife lectures on the subject for the past 10 years!

And the height of the flight path leaving trail is irrelevant when it comes
to making an ice trail.
Absolutely FALSE - the height determines the temperature, and therefore whether the conditions are there to propagated ice formation.

Sounds like you're intimately involved with the global warming belief on a
number of levels.

You obviously take my comment out of context. The next sentences were:
"If you can think a few steps forward, when those
trails dissipate laterally for miles and miles and connect to trails next to
them doing the same thing and then 100% (which is very common) of
the "cloud coverage" is completely from the trails, that is not ice crystals
and it doesn't take much common sense to see that. "

Meaning, just because it is at a height where ice crystals form does NOT
automatically mean it is simply water vapor turning into ice crystals. That
is why I'm saying it is irrelevant that it is at those altitudes since you
use altitude as the premise to base your argument that it must be ice
crystals.

Yes, there IS a debate and always will be. And those quotes revolve
heavily around the fact that there is no real evidence to show manmade
global warming is a reality. So it went from 3 paid scientists to all of those
numbers, which is still a drop in the bucket.

Also, using a little more critical thinking, just because oil has a vested
interest in not wanting their parade to be rained on doesn't mean that
science compiled by scientists that do not believe in manmade global
warming are a bunch of liars. Those distinctions are crucial to see things
for what they are I believe.

I could say the exact same thing about you. You said you're not for the
co2 tax either but I could turn that into meaning you are an oil company
agent because of your belief in that and leave out everything else you say
to take it out of context. The motive of one doesn't have
to be the motive of another just because they are saying the same thing.

I think it is a completely irrational conclusion to dismiss what they all say
just because it happens to strengthen the oil industry's side. That is one
of the most popular, irrational, illogical and meaningless arguments that
the pro global warming crowd uses.

I'm not for the co2 tax either as it is a scam on par with the what the
federal reserve has pulled but it doesn't automatically mean I want to
keep burning oil.

You can look at NASA's own admission when they were FORCED to
reanalyze their data, the warmest it has been was about 15 years ago.
And the COOLEST it has been was about the same time. In any case,
temps over the last 15 years simply have not risen and only manipulated
and cherry picked data has shown that it has.... meaning that all the
objective data, separate from all agendas and emotions, is that the Earth
is cooling.

You should take a look at Hamaker's model with glaciation because IF
there is any global warming tied to co2, it inevitably means we are moving
to an ice age and not the other way around. This is backed by MILLIONS
of years of evidence and not Al Gore's fake hockey stick.