Anything whatever to evade having to discuss — much less debate — content.
For example, for the purpose of smearing and discrediting the Petition against AGW signed by over 30,000 scientists with university degrees in various scientific disciplines, about 9,000 of those having earned Ph.Ds, the Warmers sent in fake names, of which one slipped in, and then immediately pointed that one out after publication. They also picked out people with names like Perry Mason and Michael Fox and claimed they were fake, but they are real scientists whose names happen to match a famous fictional character and a well-known actor, respectively.
The principal statement regarding that Petition and the beliefs of the signers is this: "From the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not 'skeptics.' These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
At this date there are 15-times the number of Ph.Ds who have signed the Petition than are involved with the UN-IPCC. Stick that majority in your pipes and smoke it — Warmers.
The work listed here is the major work behind the charges against AGW by the Petition signers and other groups, and it successfully challenges and refutes each and every one of the Warmers' claims.
I have read this work, and I found that I enjoyed Chapter 7 the most: "Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enrichment." Which tells us that, even if these deceitful ideologues are correct about the earth's warming (and they most certainly do not know and are most likely wrong because they've been wrong since the 1960s in their extremely negative predictions), we will be better off in respect to food production than we are at this point.
The study of soybeans under higher C02 conditions is most interesting. You will find conclusions and statements such as these in Chapter 7: "Under all environmental circumstances studied, enriching the air with an extra 300 ppm of CO2 increased the total isoflavone content of soybean seeds. In addition, the percent increases measured under the stress situations investigated were always greater than the percent increase measured under optimal growing conditions."
"In conclusion, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, soybeans will likely respond by displaying significant increases in growth and yield, with possible improvements in seed quality; these beneficial effects will likely persist even if temperatures rise or soil moisture levels decline, regardless of their cause".
Being a lover of strawberries, these studies about strawberry growth at higher C02 levels I particularly like: "In the open-top chamber study of Bunce (2001), strawberry plants (Fragaria x ananassa) exposed to air containing an extra 300 and 600 ppm CO2 displayed photosynthetic rates that were 77 and 106 percent greater, respectively, than rates displayed by plants grown in ambient air containing 350 ppm CO2. Similarly, Bushway and Pritts (2002) reported that strawberry plants grown at atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 700 and 1,000 ppm exhibited photosynthetic rates that were consistently more than 50 percent greater than rates displayed by control plants."
In addition, Bushway and Pritts (2002) reported that a two- to three-fold increase in the air's CO2 content boosted strawberry fruit yield by 62 percent.
As the air's CO2 content continues to rise, strawberry plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production, which should lead to greater fruit yields.
Remember, the wild-eyed, fanatical Warmers have claimed that if we don't stop spewing C02 into the atmosphere, the earth will begin to lose its wheat crops and that will disable us from being able to make pasta. So then, they warn, if you love pasta, you better get behind legislation to stop polluting the atmosphere with C02.
BUT SEE HERE:
"In one study, Dijkstra et al. (1999) grew winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in open-top chambers and field-tracking sun-lit climatized enclosures maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ambient and ambient plus 350 ppm CO2 for two years, determining that the elevated CO2 increased both final grain yield and total above-ground biomass by 19 percent. In another study, Masle (2000) grew two varieties of wheat for close to a month in greenhouses maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 900 ppm, finding that the CO2-enriched plants exhibited biomass increases of 52 to 93 percent, depending upon variety and vernalization treatment."
"Based on a plethora of experimental observations of this nature, many scientists have developed yield prediction models for wheat. Using the output of several such models, Alexandrov and Hoogenboom (2000) estimated the impact of typically predicted climate changes on wheat production in Bulgaria in the twenty-first century, finding that a doubling of the air's CO2 concentration would likely enhance wheat yields there between 12 and 49 percent in spite of a predicted 2.9° to 4.1°C increase in air temperature."
NOTE: Notice that these researchers use the predictive temperature models designed by the Warmers at the UN-IPCC — which have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. That's using your opponents' own exaggerated claims and still besting them — which makes for a powerful argument.
And this conclusion on the Warmers' glacier melting claims: "Global data on glaciers do not support claims made by the UNIPCC that most glaciers are retreating or melting."
The Warmers who have taken the "consensus" view of science seriously and the theoretical predictive models from the UNIPCC as absolutes (and most have) — and have run with these as if "consensus" is the only science and all else is quackery, and that their predictive theoretical models are accurate forecasters, must read Chapter 1, "Climate Models and Their Limitations."
You will find statements such as this one: "In 2007, Armstrong and Kesten C. Green of Monash University conducted a 'forecasting audit' of the UN-IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Green and Armstrong, 2007). The authors' search of the contribution of Working Group I to the UNIPCC 'found no references ... to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods' and 'the forecasting procedures that were described [in sufficient detail to be evaluated] violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.'"
After this and other non-publicized crushing blows to their theoretical predictive models, the UNIPCC immediately claimed that it now has "greatly improved methods of predicting future climate" — and then shortly stated that their new theoretical predictive models came up with the same predictions as the old ones that contained so many "critical violations" of "forecasting procedures."
It's very difficult at this point in the Hoax for the Warmers to get out of the sludge they've piled around themselves without stinking up the whole scientific community. That occurs when dogma trumps reason and truth. So they have to pretend they get the same results no matter what method or data they use. Expect more distortions from these fanatics.
AND THEN THERE'S THIS:
"[Study results show that] forecasts by scientists, even large numbers of very distinguished scientists, are not necessarily scientific forecasts."
"One principle of scientific forecasting Green and Armstrong say the UNIPCC violated is 'Principle 1.3: Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.' The two authors write, 'this principle refers to keeping the forecasting process separate from the planning process. The term 'politics' is used in the broad sense of the exercise of power.' Citing David Henderson (Henderson, 2007), a former head of economics and statistics at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), they say 'the UNIPCC process is directed by non-scientists who have policy objectives and who believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and a danger.'"
In other words, their models and their predictions are purely political — as every unbiased, non-dogma-driven person who has studied the issue already knows.
"The forecasts in the UNIPCC Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts' predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainty and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."
The above is a small sample of what you will find that convicts the Warmers for their political, non-scientific dogma — and condemns their baleful predictions as bunk.
The study contains citations and source notes from hundreds of scientific studies and scientists (respectively) from around the world. It is carefully written. So, if you want to see every claim the Warmers have made successfully challenged and refuted, be sure to read it for yourselves, and enjoy, because it's clear and easily readable.