10. This hoax argument is used by very few people, and should be essentially laughed at. However, it’s undeniably true that Al Gore stands to profit (and has already) by creating carbon exchanges, etc. This has little bearing on the actual facts of the argument either for or against. It’s kind of like the arguing that because some study is sponsored by Big Oil, it must be discarded. Al Gore and Big Oil could be right despite also having an agenda.

9. This is usually offered as the counter-argument to “Look how hot it is” which was used by the pro-AGW for years. Weather is not climate, and records are relatively meaningless since accurate records only go back a couple of hundred years at the maximum. There is plenty of available evidence to support the fact that is has been much hotter in the fairly recent past (re: settlements in Greenland) and there is also proxy evidence that is was much hotter in the far past. Records are made to be broken, aren’t they?

8. With any changes, there will be good and bad. More people (by far) currently die each year from cold than heat, but that could change if things heat up severely.

7. Climate change is indeed part of the natural cycle. The key to AGW theory is how much can be attributed to humans. More to the point, is AGW leading to a tipping point of a positive feedback loop. One can easily accept the fact that man has some impact on the climate (this is obvious if you study urban heat-island effect, the San Juaquin Valley, and Florida, but local effects aren’t necessarily transferred to the upper atmosphere – i.e. there is no currently visible hot-spot).

6. Take a look at the error bars for temperature data. Graphs for this are available. In many cases the error bars dwarf the signal. Also take a look at how proxy data is generated. I’m not sure how anybody can seriously say the temperature record is accurate when we are generally looking at values in the tenths of degrees to signify warming/cooling.