1. 

Swank. Just say I'm too swank of r that to even be in my realm of reality

There are none, just look at the calibre of denialists on this site, pitiful, You're obviously a mental defective

These are mine in no particular order:

1.) The entirety of the climate sensivitiy is based upon interpretation of surrogate of surrogates. If you believe the paleoclimate data to the point of agreeing with the cliamte sensitivity, then you MUST also beleive that periods in the past that were warmers and had more CO2, also had more lush plant life. With plant life serving as the basis for any environments life cycle, clearly global warming would ahve a positive affect.

2.) The data as been fudged. Looking at the US records from 1999 we find no warming. Look at 2000, though, all of a sudden there are many "corrections" and warming is found in the US. Now whether or not you believe the corections were nefarious in nature, you still run aground at the problem that "corrections" can make this much of a change to the most well-kept records in the world. So what certianty can you truly place on the temp data from the past 100 years???

3.) The climate modeling. Currently they are assuming large positive feedbacks that are only justified by extremely questionable data. Ice core data and tree rign data may be giving a generally correct view, BUT pretending they are certain and basing your future models on them being certian is silly. Further, they are trying to model out a chaotic system 100 years with many unknown factor or unmeasurable factors. Any claimed certainty from such modeling practices is nothing but a facade. Sure, you can take it as a guess and then TEST your model's accuracy, but you DO NOT base expensive public policy on untested guesses.

4.) The nature of the warming. Currently the models have all failed at predicting. If they would have been linear models, they would have been much more accurate. This claim of exponential warming does not match with the past warming and has not been useful in predicting warming. Linear is far more applicable. In fact, the warmers so little believe their exponential models that they ALWAYS model their past warming with linear regression. While a 1-1.5 degree warming over the next 100 years, as would be suggested by a linear model, is of concern, it is certianly nothing to panic about.

I doubt you can destroy their view, but I look forward to hearing what you have to say. This crap logic of "science is settled" and " it is a proven fact" as if any theory in science can be a proven fact, is extremely silly. These people obviously have not read anything by Karl Popper.

Edit:

Of note, none of my 4 are proof that CAGW cannot be true, but they are concerns that I feel have not been adequately addressed and certainly NOT to the point of proposing costly and difficult solutions. I do not require this level of certainty to propose good economical solutions. The more burdensome a solution is though, the greater the burden of proof. Warmers frequently forget this point.

If you can show me that this $10,000 spent will save a life, I am all for it. You say it may save a life, now you have me concerned. You say this $10,000,000 can save a life, I say NO. Not because I don't value life, but because I know that the $10,000,000 can save more lives if applied to other areas. I would hope that the gov't would not spend $10 M to save my life, that was being used to save 100 lives. Now while I would still spend ALL of my money to save my child, that is MY money, not OUR money. Given what can be done with the hundreds of billions already spent and the trillions proposed, warmers seem to strongly underestimate their burden of proof, IMO.

Edit:

Then again if you really want to show how wrong they are, point to their answers here. They are going on about deniers being dumb. They have not sold their view to MOST of the US. They can make a pretense of elitism all they want, but that is a difficult sale with the people attempting to pull off the elitism. Bottom line, they are trying to sell us what they believe to be a trillion dollar problem. If I am going to buy a trillion dollar car, I am going to check every crack and crevice of that car. If that makes me an idiot in their minds, so be it.

Skepticalscience dot com [1] keeps a list of the more common claims and debunks each and every one of them.

Most of the arguments here are that it is a conspiracy by thousands of scientist publishing their papers in order to institute a tyrannical one world government and/or to persuade politicians to raise taxes on every one, including the scientist.

Once in a while you will see some funny ones here on Y.A.. Some have claimed that humans can not do anything that affect the climate because their god controls the weather. (One of them, a religious extremist, went as far as to claim that his god has his hand on the thermostat, even suggesting that his god fries children if their parents do not bow deep enough or give sufficient money to his god)

You can see from the first few answers, that the believers have just swallowed what they have been told without even thinking about it, most global warmers are not able to think for themselves

The physics behind global warming has been tested and proven.. Whether global warming is occurring isn't a debate.

Reality proves it wrong the Computer models are as trusty as crystal balls or a fortune teller .

Your horoscope might be more accurate even though newspapers dont agree with each other on that .

Just ask the founder of The Weather Channel :