All of those statements include verifiable facts, and when those facts are checked they do not support the opinions expressed. So none of them are tenable positions for rational people to hold.

Temperatures would be declining without human activity, so we are entirely responsible for the increases. The temperature 10,000 years ago was lower than today's temperatures. There's no no known mechanism for why temperatures would cool off. We know that we're adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere in massive quantities. Logic says if you turn up the heat, it will get warmer, not colder.

Not really. Most often one side or the other in an argument is actually correct. I'd say it's actually fairly unusual for both sides to be equally wrong.

Correct.

Not according to any the historical temperature graphs that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.

Seems plausible. It's often noted that the difference between a mile of ice in Northern United states and today is about 4 degrees.

Only if by "massively faster" you actually mean "about the same". The worst case scenario is about 3.5 degrees by the year 2100. The expected rise is between 2 and 6 degrees by 2400. So human warming is maybe a little more, maybe a little less than the end of the last glacial period.

There was a paper published by Easterbrook, I think, that made that claim, but he goofed on the "present" date. He thought the last temperature in his data series went up to 2010, when it was actually 1855 (the last entry was 95 years before the "geological" present which is 1950). So while the end of the last glacial period was warmer than 1855, when you adjust for his misunderstanding of current temperatures (ie, you don't use 1855 as your benchmark for 21st century temperatures), you find that the end of the glacial period is actually somewhat lower than present day temperatures.

Not actually true unless you use some bizarre definition of "man made co2". Human contributions have raised the the CO2 level from around 280 ppm to around 400 ppm. That's 120 ppm, the human contribution of the last 18 years is about 36 ppm. Which means the last 18 years represent about 30% of our total contribution and a little less than 10% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

You mean these?

Looks like there's a definite trend, with a pronounced rise since the start of the industrial revolution.

To start with your understanding is wrong. Herd immunity is a state where the percentage of members in the herd who are immune to a disease is high enough that when an outbreak occurs, the outbreak ends and the disease becomes no longer present in the herd again.

Secondly for your natural Darwinian system to work, the disease would have to have to become the dominant selective pressure that determines which individuals are able to pass on their genes. In practice that would involve a close to 100% mortality rate on the unprotected population, because genetically inherited resistance to the disease has to become the most important selective pressure. Do you really think it's good idea to let the majority of the human population (probably including you) die from a disease over and over again over multiple generations to get "natural herd immunity" because you aren't a fan of the "artificial" process?

In most cases, you'd lose that bet. For example, at the Disneyland measles outbreak, 54 people became infected, 48 of them were unvaccinated, 6 of them were vaccinated. Now given the general vaccination rate of around 92% that means roughly 8% of the people exposed would be unvaccinated. If we assume that measles was 100% effective in infecting the unvaccinated and that the exposed people were vaccinated at roughly the average rate, that would mean that roughly 594 people didn't catch measles because of the vaccine as a primary effect (48 is 8% of 600) and would indicate the vaccine was roughly 99% effective. In addition, because they didn't get measles those 594 also didn't risk infecting other people.

This is what herd immunity is, with a high level of vaccination the outbreak doesn't spread and doesn't become a self-sustaining disease. Instead, the outbreak dies out.

No, not really. Clearly requiring students be Christian to attend public school would be a violation of the separation of church and state, and the intent would be to create an advantage for a particular religious group. The difference here is that there is a reasonable, compelling, and evidence based argument that requiring children to be vaccinated is good for the children and the public. There must be limits to the reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs, and this is not a controversial position. For example, we don't allow people to murder consequence-free in the name of religion, and almost everyone agrees that's a good thing. The problem is that when your personal religious beliefs start to endanger the health and safety of your fellows, then you religious freedoms may be curtailed because your rights don't trump the rights of other people, and some people seem to have trouble accepting that other people also have rights and freedoms.

That's not what the law says or does. You still have the freedom to leave your children unprotected from crippling diseases, however, they are will not be allowed in the public school system, where your parental negligence would endanger other children. Frankly, if you reframe the issue to "Should the state be able to set admission requirements for public schools?", the controversy goes away because the answer is obviously yes. Of course, I think that's actually the correct way to looking at this. The whole "violating my freedom" angle is bullshit. No SWAT team is going to break into your home, hold you down, and inject the measles vaccine into you, so it is clearly not a question of forced injections.

The problem is too many people want to use religion as an excuse to avoid doing something that they don't want to do and then use it again to escape any consequences for their actions.

I would be very reluctant to blame the incompetence of your co-workers on Agile. It seems like that they were incompetent before Agile came along.

So... There's no global warming because you start your graph on a unusually warm year, use a satellite derived value, and one that measures the estimated temperature of the lower troposphere?

That's three strikes against your example graph already, and I barely had to look at it.

If we look at the surface temperature average, like HADCRUT4, there's clearly warming even if we start with your cherry-picked start point. The trend is much more pronounced if we use a 30 year graph.

Heck if we use a 30 year RSS graph the trend is pretty clear there too.

So, who are you trying to fool?

Do you have any proof that he "wants to micromanage everyone's lives"?

No, it isn't. Skepticism is reserving judgement on an issue until sufficient factual evidence has been provided to actually make an informed decision.

Of course deniers don't ignore all evidence, they only ignore the evidence that is contrary to their position and accept unquestioningly anything that supports their position.

Hmm... So you're saying the top result is right?

So, is there anything more credible to support this position than a notoriously unreliable scientist faking a discrepancy between the models and the data?

The modest carbon tax in British Columbia has cut emissions in that province by 16% while emissions grew in the rest of Canada by 3% (a rate that likely would have grown higher still if Ontario and Quebec weren't also working to reduce emissions). A carbon tax, by itself, might not reach a 50% reduction, but it could spur changes in consumer behavior. For instance, now that gas prices have fallen again, sales of SUVs are increasing again after declining during our last period of high prices. That's probably a missed opportunity to reduce emissions.

Without a carbon tax, the United States is aiming at (and currently looks like it will hit) a target of 20% below 2005 levels. If a carbon tax had been added to the policy, the United States might have been able to hit 40% below 2005 levels, which is not that far from 50%.