1. Poison is certainly not the correct term, in high enough levels it is harmful to us simple because it triggers respiratory responses i.e. rapid hart beat and breathing, claims of the effects on humans seem to be a denier invention as humans are pretty happy in average levels up to 5000ppm (current levels are just under 400ppm)

2. Clearly if deniers ever read any actual science on the subject they would know that scientists have said repeatedly that a number of other things drive and affect the climate from solar activity, to volcanoes to cycles like the PDO and ENSO to name a few as well as longer term effects like the movement of continents affecting both albedo and ocean currents. Sadly as is now quite obvious denier are not getting their info from scientists.

3. This one is quite funny given many of the same scientists (deniers tell us we can't trust) also researched the detail on paleoclimate clearly showing past natural change, the very periods deniers try to use i.e. the MWP or the LIA actual come from many of the same scientists deniers try to discredit, but that's denial for you

4. Much of what we now use as fossil fuel used to be in the atmosphere, then we had no ice caps and the planet was ~10c warmer with sea level ~65m higher than today, very different but hardly Venus.

5. A pretty classic attempt to scare, usually associated with catch phases like we will have to live like cavemen or cowboys and as usual utter nonsense, few are calling for the total stopping of fossil fuels, but certainly a reduction while replacing the 'energy' with other sources, probably a combination of wind, solar and geothermal as well as existing hydro and nuclear.

6. A perfect statement demonstrating how little deniers really understand science, no scientist would make such a claim, scientists know we know only a little and want to constantly learn more, that is true of all fields of science not just climate.

If we look today at the peak of technology say an American Super Carrier and compare that to a Viking long ship most would say the first is far more advanced with the benefit of 1000 years of technology, a scientists would probably wonder what we might compare that Super carrier to in another 1000 years, when it would be considered as antiquated as the Long ship is now.

7. Co2 in the atmosphere has a number of sources the primary natural one is volcanoes and based on current activity humans produces 100x the Co2 volcanoes do, of course this has not always been the case in the past volcanic activity has been far far more active than it is now. Deniers also like to try and use the massive number associated with plant respiration and de-comp but this is a pretty shallow trick as while these are very large numbers the two processes balance each other in a continual cycle.

8. I've seen this one a few times and invariably it comes from a denier, nobody with even a vague understanding of the atmosphere or how it affects life would make such a claim, but as I said it's deniers making the claim.

9. Is just a reworking of 5.

Not sure these need a source as anyone who has done even high school level science should understand that most of these denier claims are fiction.

I have seen deniers make most of the above claims many times and I have also asked them for sources, to which the usual response is "we don't need to supply sources" which I take as denier code for "we don't have one"

The source for current Human vs Volcano Co2 is NOAA

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/arch...

On any site like this you are going to get trolling and my guess is that runs both ways some deniers pretend to be alarmists and visa versa to try and make the other side look silly, of course what is said in forums and blogs has no real effect out in nature, sea level is still rising and ice is still melting and temperatures are still in the top ten range.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

"I have seen people claim that if we don;t stop burning fossil fuels Earth will end up like Venus. But these type of people are not the scientifically minded realists most appear to be in this category. Rather they are the type of people that believe every little bit of propaganda they hear about about what bad things will occur in a warming atmosphere."

How exactly did you determine that we will not have runaway temperature increase? I bet you cannot show me actual equations.

Ironically, you claim that anyone who thinks we will have a catastrophic runaway situation must be influenced by propaganda, when in fact your belief is not based in science but rather in you not having heard people tell you runaway increase could happen.

I can answer some:

1.

Warmist Rant: Bad Astronomer says carbon dioxide is a poison; ‘Tie a plastic bag over your head and let me know’ | JunkScience.com

http://junkscience.com/2013/05/23/warmis...

2.

... humans was not made because the substance is harmful to breathe. The ruling was upheld by

the Supreme Court because C02 emissions drive climate change and climate change threatens human health.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/r...

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

... and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part

of the empirical evidence that C02 is causing the warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirica...

3.

Wasn't the Hockey Stick curve an attempt to do just that?

Mann et al 1999 Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public...

4.

The sobering warning for us is obvious: we have to be extremely concerned about processes such as burning of fossil fuels in large volumes that might (we don’t know for sure because the scientific questions are complex) have the potential to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and produce on the Earth atmospheric conditions such as those found on Venus.

A Runaway Greenhouse Effect?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/...

5.

Here’s the problem: The only way we can actually roll back global warming in any real way, at this point, is to stop burning fossil fuels, immediately, across the globe.

Fossil fuel companies have sabotaged all political efforts to stop global heating. Governments have been corrupted and stopped from really trying. : worldnews

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/commen...

6.

In testimony to Congress about global warming, Al Gore declared that “the science is settled” and he was right. The fact that CO2 heats the atmosphere absolutely is settled science. The fact that the amount of CO2 that humans have already emitted is causing warming at an unprecedented rate is also settled, and the longer we continue emitting CO the worse it will get.

The Science Is Still Settled

http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com/

Also, consider the three 97% surveys. Aren't they an attempt to convince us that 97% of scientists agree on all the main points?

Doran et al

Zimmermann et al

Cook et al

7.

Global C02 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning Rise into High-Risk Zone

Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Rise into High-Risk Zone: Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...

The article does not claim that all CO2 comes from fossil fuels. It just does not mention any other source.

Carbon dioxide (C02) ― Fossil fuel use is the primary source of C02. The way in which people use land is also an important source of C02, especially when it involves deforestation. Land can also remove CO2 from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other activities.

Global Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...

8.

Bill Gates Ted Talk - Innovate to Zero