1. 

Let's not forget that the original "Inconvenient Truth" movie was ruled to be propaganda by a U.K. high court. They found the movie to be "alarmist and exaggerated," and they pointed out nine specific lies.

Now the funny part is here on Y!A those same judges would be derided as "anti-science," "creationists," "deniers," and working for the illuminati and/or the lizard people.

Funny thing is, Obama is parroting many of these same verified lies today. Who are the real deniers?

1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

Which no one denies.

2. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

Wrong. Most of the water vapor would not be in the atmosphere without carbon dioxide.

3. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause climate change, and we cannot stop it.

Wrong. Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

4. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

Wrong

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...

5. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

Plants also need water

6. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

Evidence, please, from a reputable source

7. When using unaltered historical NOAA/NASA data, there has been no warming trend the last 130 years.

NASA once got into trouble for using unaltered data.

"From January 2000, NASA were mistakenly using unadjusted data."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hot...

8. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat.

The people of Hiroshima were doing fine on August 5, 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb...

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

Even though point five is a logical fallacy, it is based on the biological role of carbon dioxide, which point nine ignores.

10. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a mental disorder.

Denialist ad hom, with no basis in fact.

I have read critique of Gore's movie, and find some true, and some not.

The main issue is not if some guy is wrong in a movie, but is the whole freakin' planet being messed up with?!!!!!!

All because of global war mining

Potato chips

Yeah sure this my be very convenient to know about the fact.

I'm aware that an adult would have to be inexcusably stupid to take any of that seriously. You can't even define science, huh?

From your source link:

"The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

What a load of ignorance and deception. When food is grown in a field, the plants absorb the same CO2 that humans exhale. Humans growing food, eating it, and breathing has no effect on Co2 levels at all.

And it's the climate scientists who are dishonest?

---------------------------------------...

All areas of climatology are largely tainted with deception but none are as hopelessly contaminated and patholotically plluted with deliberate fraud and lies as the so called science of anthropogenic global warming.

Climatologists, in a frenzied panic to fill the gaping holes in the Earth's climate history, are busy manufacturing models, drawings, artist renderings, and animations on the basis of the weakest evidence imaginable, superficial, conjecturous, and imaginative assumptions, which are then presented to a credulous public as founded on irrefutable scientific evidence and sold as infallible proof for climate change, when in reality no credible evidence for global warming exists at all.

How is this deception perpetuated? Well, just follow the money!

Climate science is funded almost entirely by the government and by special interest foundations with globalist leanings that control the government, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Ford Foundation, The Rothchilds, and many others.

Funding and sponsorship to almost all organizations involved in climate science, such as universities, laboratories, research organizations, and peer review journals etc, is provided on the condition and mandate of maintaining the status quo and producing and supporting evidence supporting the theory of global warming.

These organizations are mandated to recruit only scientists who wholeheartedly support the theory of global warming; they are hired on the condition of being in support of the global warming hoax, and these organizations are headed up and run by individuals that are already deeply stooped and committed to maintaining the global warming propaganda paradigm.

Much of what affects the interests of the globalist agenda depends on maintaining the climate propaganda hoax in the western world.

By now you're probably thinking this sounds like a typical argument against global warming.

Now take the words "climate science" and "global warming", and replace them with "evolutionary biology" and "evolution", and the above is an actual quote from a website disputing the theory of evolution. If climate denialists are using the same arguments, word for word, as people who claim the Earth is 6000 years old, what does this tell you about the validity of such arguments?

The parallels don't end with this one example. Visit some other creationist websites, and you'll see endless attacks on Richard Dawkins, the figurehead for evolutionary biology. You'll see frequent discussion of Piltdown man, a scientific hoax that really did occur, with the implication being that it discredits an entire branch of science. The parallels here are so obvious, I don't even need to explain them. When science isn't on your side, these are the type of logical fallacies you have to resort to.

Not only do climate denialists use the same "arguments" as people denying other settled sciences, but they are dishonest about irrefutable facts. They frequently claim the Earth hasn't gotten any warmer. You can't argue with historical and present thermometer readings, which is why all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed up 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century. It's not up for debate whether thermometers are a reliable way to measure temperatures. If they're going to lie about this, why should you believe anything else they say?

Climate denialism isn't a science, and it uses the exact same "rebuttals" that are used in denying other settled scientific theories. "Climate gate" was made up merely to confuse the general public, and the scientists involved were cleared of any wrong doing. The only truth in this story is that a computer security breach occcurred. No major scientific organization disputes the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Visit a climate change website, and you'll see arguments about greenhouse gasses, radiative forcing, radioisotpes in ice core samples, and tree rings; an attempt to actually educate people. Visit a denialist website and you'll see conspiracy theories, discussions of Al Gore's hypocrisy, and outright lies. You'll never find any rebuttals to the ice core studies because the denialists don't talk about science itself. Climate denialism isn't about science, it's about manipulating public opinion to protect the profits of coal and petroleum interests.

From 2003 to 2010, fossil fuel interests spent $558 million on climate denialism. There is indeed a climate scam occurring, it's just not what you're thinking it is,and it's not what Wall Street wants you to think it is. Climate denialism is itself the only real scam going on. Not only is it funded by big oil and rejected by a vast majority of scientists, big it contradicts what science has known since the 1800's.

In 1896, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first proposed that carbon dioxide caused a greenhouse effect on Earth. He even created a mathematical formula for how many Watts of infrared radiation would be reflected back down to Earth's surface at any given level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is known as Arrhenius' greenhouse law and it is is still accepted as valid science today. In 1906, he used his mathematical formulas to predict that a doubling of CO2 levels would cause a 1.6 degrees celsius increase in global temperatures, a number that is in agreement with modern IPCC estimates. He even correctly predicted that the poles would warm much more than the Equator. Global warming is no hoax. Scientists have been reaching the exact same conclusions for more than a century, and the debate the debate is over.

Permission given to copy this freely with or without modifications. If you found it persuasive, please pass it along. Given the context, excerpt from liveleak is covered under fair use copyright doctrine. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs about the origins of life; the purpose of these analogies is to demonstrate what is and is not considered a valid argument according to scientific methods.

Yes, the hoax is described in brilliant detail in these videos (essential viewing for you):