I just committed a serious Freeper faux pas - I actually read the article (well, skimmed it, actually - let’s not get crazy). Funny thing, none of the 12 so-called arguments are actually arguments that reality-based people use except possibly for #9 (that fossil fuels have lifted millions from poverty).
Most of their so-called “arguments” actually start from the assumption that “climate change” is a real threat. We are not arguing from that perspective - we are arguing that climate change is a natural part of the world’s complex climate system, more fueled by the great nuclear fusion reactor we are located near than any action on man’s part, and nothing we do can alter it to any significant degree.
Plus all the other arguments not mentioned - that there is little or no discernible correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, that much of the data that shows a correlation has been falsified to that effect, that computer models only predict what the biased men who programmed them told them is important, that a few volcanic eruptions spew out way more CO2 than we do, that sea level has not risen anywhere near what was predicted, that more CO2 means more plant growth and more food, etc. etc. etc.
The person who wrote this either has never argued with someone who knows anything or is being deliberately obtuse.
I stopped reading at “One hundred companies are responsible for 71 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.”
That’s absurd, unless there is some industrial conglomerate I don’t know about that controls the Sun.
How DARE you read the article before commenting!!!! LOL!!!