re: #1 Obdicut

I love how often AGW-deniers link to papers that, if you actually read them, are consistent with AGW.

Or they link to a scattered collection of denialist arguments that disprove each other more than global warming.

The climate is stable and has a very low sensitivity to forcing… look how extremely variable it has been in the past.

There’s a conspiracy to keep skeptics out of the peer-review process… here’s 500 peer-reviewed papers debunking global warming.

The temperature record is invalid and a global conspiracy… until we need to cherry pick from it.

There is no warming… and the warming is due to the sun.

There is no warming… and warmer is better.

The raw data contains inhomogeneities… you’re not using the raw data, so you’re faking the data.

That reference isn’t peer-reviewed… here’s a random nonsensical blog post.

There’s an error in part 2, page 493 of your report, therefore 100 years of climate research is invalid… just ignore the thousands of errors we’ve made.

I know most of the science is unfortunately a little too impenetrable for the average voter to reach an informed decision, but once you strip back the smear campaigns, politics, and bizarre world government conspiracies that every scientist in the world is supposedly in on, one side is left with very little in the way of scientific arguments, and the scientific arguments that remain generally take Google and two minute’s free time to debunk.