See the link for a thoroughly documented debunking of each of the numbered myths.

buche - "Baaaaah!"

Now, now, children. Play nice.

And how much have you done for global warming? I bet I have done more things that they say will prevent global warming than 99% of the global warming alarmists here have done.

That's great to hear, n2sooners. As for me, I probably haven't done enough. But, since you asked, I recently sold my Nissan Maxima and bought a new Honda Fit, which gets more than 10 more miles per gallon. I replaced all my incandescent and halogen light bulbs around my apartment with fluorescents. Later this month, I'm moving out of Phoenix to an urban area, where my A/C usage will be lower. My new apartment will be within walking distance of my office, and almost right across the street from a Metro stop.

Aside from that, I'm probably wrong, but I like to think that going online on Web sites like this, and advocating for science against propaganda might make a difference. Sigh.

Hey, Buches,
As far as I could expect, with the line of your CO2/T alarmism and consensus, you would change your Maxima for a bicycle. But you still back up oil companies you hate so much. Why don't invest the money into windmill industry instead? Too much expensive energy? So what do you expect from CO2-emission cut? I see the picture would be sad: a bike instead warm Maxima, a windmill in your backyard, no wind, and temperature lowered because of CO2 deficit in the sky.

amgumen, I mean denialll,

Your agenda is clear, and you are posting misleading assertions and false accusations.

I never said I "hate" oil companies. I don't. I do, however, find it unethical for members of such companies to choose to fund a disinformation campaign to convince their customers that use of their product is not causing a highly increased risk of catastrophic changes in the environment.

Many geologists certainly have a large vested interest on those
companies that regularly employ them. Therefore, they would be more
likely than others to fall to the "dark side" and lie to the public and
increase their wealth.

OK, sorry, you love oil companies very much. Even so, do you find your tone ethical?

But again, if their product causes environmental risks (along with the rest of industries) why do you still consume this dangerous product and contribute to that risk?

amgumen, I mean denialll, you're making the simple fallacy of a false dichotomy. The choice is not between unlimited consumption of fossil fuels, and elimination of every industry. I'm advocating a reduction in fossil fuel usage, which is what I'm trying to do.

And the quote of mine from our earlier conversation (you remember the one, where you were telling me how few geologists have an interest in petroleum companies, and then I looked at your Web page, and noticed you're a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) is not evidence I "hate oil companies." It's evidence of precisely what I said above: that conflicts of interest can get in the way of ethical behavior.

Okay, genius, help me out.

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

a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only
options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which
have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often,
though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of
such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate.

What's wrong with my usage?