Michael

The ones i see are:

The world isn't warming.

The world is warming, but we aren't doing it. It's natural and there is no impending problem.

The world is warming, but we aren't doing it. It's natural and we should prepare for it.

The world is warming, we're doing it but it's a good thing.

Am I missing any?

I know there are subsets within, that either attack science, scientists, the methods scientists use or organizations that promote human induced climate change.

If we can keep a superconductor super cold, that proves that global warming isn't happening, right? Like, if there is snow in Washington DC, how is the world warming up?

If they don't want government regulation on arms, do they draw the line at guns? Nuclear weapons are still OK to ban? What about throwing stars and double bladed weapons? Why only guns?

If we get rid of organized labor, have everyone running around with fully automatic weapons and have no public education, we would look a lot like those 3rd world countries. Is that the end game?

America is NOT full, we are huge compared to our area. More people = more needs = more jobs.

If we allow immigration reform, we would have more legal immigrants. Farmers would need to pay their workers a fair wage, because they arn't afraid of being arrested for being illegal. They can band together and demand a fair wage.

On the other side, democrats are for legal immigration, no so much because of human rights, but because if more legal immigrants form unions, they would have more votes and power.

Both parties pretend to care about laws/people, but all they care about is themselves. Makes me sick.

So if climate changers all agree on one thing, how come the deniers can't. Some say the world is getting colder, some say it's getting warmer but not human caused. Some say they are faking data, some say the data is fine but it doesn't mean anything. Some say it's all real, but no big deal. Some say extra CO2 is good for us and good for the enviornment. It's all over the place and doens't make sense. The only thing they agree on is to poo on climate science.

This will save tax dollars and get these farmers off of welfare. It's a win/win/win all around. Farmers arn't on that welfare they hate so much, sodas are finally more expensive than water so less people buy them, kids aren't getting obease and the country's healthcare costs drop.

If it's such a big lie, why are all these other countries, some who aren't our closest allies, be working together to find a solution before we flood our coastlines? They aren't relying on US Government funds. It doesn't make sense.

People always say they've done their research so they know global warming is fake. They are just parroting talking points from climate change deniers. That's not research. If you've done research that is on par with climate scientists, why not submit it to scintific journals? And real ones, not the fake ones that publish everything.

It seems that some people tend to trust people paid to promote their own causes more than experts in the field who don't have a financial motive behind them.

People claim scientists have a 'government grant' motive, but they can get grants for all sorts of projects, why choose a lie to get funding when there are all sorts of subjects scientists can get funding for. It just doesn't make sense.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-gl...

Isn't that like saying some of my kids are my enemies if they don't do what i tell them to?

Or is there another line dance that they do?