OK here are some points:

China is more than 25% of world CO2 emissions and growing, more than the US. The IPCC is calling for an 80% cut in emissions, so basic math says that instead of growing, China would have to cut at least 20% of emissions. China has shown no intention of cutting, thus any cap and trade policy or carbon tax will be ineffectual at cutting emissions or reducing global warming in any substantial way. It is not just China, but India is at 5%, and will probably overtake the US in a few decades as well. US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Russia, combined are less than 40% emissions and dropping. You can't cut 80% if you only have 40% to start with.

2) To form a hockey stick, Michael Mann used data upside down, in Mann et al PNAS 2008. This paper is the key argument that you can get a hockey stick without tree-rings, yet if you take out the contaminated upside-down data, you get no hockey stick without tree-rings. With tree-rings Mann is using bristlecones that the NAS recommended not be used.

3) Basic physics says doubling CO2 levels produces about 1C of warming. They are getting higher levels from models that assume a positive water vapor effect. However, the IPCC itself has said the effect of clouds has a high degree of uncertainty. If clouds are a negative feedback, then the warming from CO2 will be much less than projected by computer models, and around the 1C level you get from doubling CO2.

4) Negative effects of global warming are overstated, and costs are understated. The latest IPCC EG2 report has taken a step towards reality and says cost of global warming is about .2-2% of GDP while previous Stern Report said 5-20% of GDP. .2-2% of GDP is less than the costs of trying to achieve deep emission cuts, which itself would not stop global warming per 1). So a rational cost benefit analysis says adaptation is the best option, which is indeed where IPCC WG2 is placing an emphasis, substantially increasing the focus on adaptation vs the previous report.

PSST! This is a real scientist.

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Try and prove him wrong. You oblivious, blinded, uneducated information lacking fool. Betcha can't!

Okay first do we know if warming is good or bad

Then scientists say a doubling of CO2 (which might take a hundred years) will increase warming by 3.7 watts per sq meter which equates to 1 degree C (big deal I'm scared) as that is not scary enough they throw in positive feedback melting ice fields reducing albedo ( which is not really happening) see graph http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...

and an increase in water vapor (which is a strong GHG) through Clausius Clapeyron equation. now this is ridiculous because anyone with common sense will realise that if a small warming (not only from CO2) can cause an increase in water vapor which will increase warming and more water vapor, until our climate spirals out of control. will realise this would've happen BEFORE like during the Holocene Optimum. water vapor warms and cools it is a regulator.

They say that the Equillibrium climate sensitivity ECS will be between1.5 and 4 degrees C (not very precise are they) what they don't tell you is to reach ECS will take up to 3000yrs.

It is B.S. because all the science and physics was worked out in the late 1800's but basically ignored because they knew that the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminshes with concentration, (the law of diminishing returns) something they know but don't tell you.

Right get to work, it's going to take a long time to research all that and try to debunk it.

P.S. I am not a conservative

As an occasional visitor to these pages over the past few years, I see the same old arguments from those who deny. By means of carefully selecting the occasional paper from who knows where, (written by who know who and financed by who knows who) and what looks like the same sort of quote mining loved by young Earth creationists, they contrive to reinforce their position if only in their own minds. There are the usual digs at "liberals" but the sneering at Al Gore seems to have died off. The connection to evangelic fundamentalist "Christianity" is fairly obvious, though of course not all deniers are in that camp of know-nothings.

All you need do is read the past few years of Yahoo! Answers Climate Change to get a feeling for what the "conservatives" are saying and what the sock puppets on here are saying as well, and check the fact that those who post realistic or factual answers are usually thumbed down,

.

Conservatives just speak about the facts on what a CO2 rich environment brings. Here are 55 benefits to a CO2 rich environment : http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

Global Warming is a fallacy. Global average temperatures have, in fact, declined to 0.35C above the established Global mean temperature since 1999 while CO2 levels have continued to increase.

Great answer Kano!!!

The stupider ones (such as Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann) just deny it; the slicker ones admit it's happening but say that we need to study it more because it may not be that bad after all. The few that believe it's real get ostracized from their party.

Kano makes his "logarithmic" claim constantly. Something HE never talks about, is that the log function goes to infinity as its argument goes to infinity. He'd like to think that there is an asymptote, so that it stops increasing--but it just keeps going up. He also likes to lump antarctic ice with arctic ice. That way the huge decrease in arctic ice can be hidden because antarctic ice has increased. Does he really expect it to keep increasing as the Earth warms? The argument he makes about the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is also specious. Just because something is a positive feedback does not mean that it's going to cause a runaway condition.

Mike's argument is equivalent to him saying thinks that it's ok if he breaks the law as long as there are worse offenders that won't be caught. He also claims that Mann's "Hockey Stick" has been invalid, but numerous other papers by people other than Mann have produced similar results.

The conservative party line is that global warming is a liberal scam to make money on green energy. And that it can't be real because gawd promised never to destroy the world by flood again.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10...

Good luck on proving any of this wrong.

But the REAL debate is about "man-made" Global Warming --- not global warming, so don't try to sidestep that. It's true there has been a little natural warming over the last several decades but it was NOT caused by human activity.

Man-made Global Warming advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:

1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.

2) Global Warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:

3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.

4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.

5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2013 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.

6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.

7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)

8) Warmists like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.

9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And good science has revealed that no correlation exist to show CO2 drives warming. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.

See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.

Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/2...

Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...

35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenien...

Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...

Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...

Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...

For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:

The Great Global Warming Swindle