I'll refute all your "arguments".
1.The cartoon tries to impress the idea, using humor that climate change is belief without evidence, like a religion.
Science is a process by which personal biases are limited. One can do all the experimentation and observation needed, independently and inexpensively to get to the conclusion that the earth is warming.
The science demos date back to the 1850s and the idea that humans were going to cause a shift in the climate was voiced in the 1890s.
So basically in 2018, only a person who is scientifically illiterate will doubt that climate change is one of the biggest problems we're facing.
2. A list of people with irrelevant credentials, with a political agenda is useless. I don't trust people just because they have a PhD. I've seen way too many PhDs attached to scams and shams and ridiculous projects.
What is relevant is first of all the evidence, the observations, climate models with predictive capabilities.
Your second argument is fallacious, like the first. It's an argument from Authority and feigned concern. I hate these arguments. Would somebody think of the children? Would somebody think of the poor starving people in Africa that you would be helping if you hand me over your money. Sincerely FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO MAKES THAT SHITTY ARGUMENT.
3. A video about the aforementioned list, 16 minutes, Since I already refuted this I don't need to watch it.
4. A 30 minute video titled: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore" that has all the promise of conspiratorial garbage, I'll watch a little just to refute it. I'm getting the vibe of a paid of conference of speakers with dirty coal money stuffed in their pockets. Same people that said smoking doesn't cause cancer and will make your dick hard. There's always paid whores out there and this is a very old trick. Trying to co-opt scientifically sounding names and paying off sad failures to channel people into their shitty arguments. I never cared about Greenpeace. The name Dr Patrick Moore means nothing to me. But he is important sounding. They'd never publish the same video without adding Dr before his name or the word Greenpeace and I don't think anyone is dumb enough not to know why.
So these guys are propped up by the heartland institute. The bias here is palpable.
Here is a real lolcow from the Heartland institute from the wikipedia article, with source and all:
Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.
Source: Tesler LE, Malone RE (July 2010). ""Our reach is wide by any corporate standard": how the tobacco industry helped defeat the Clinton health plan and why it matters now". American Journal of Public Health. 100 (7): 1174–88. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. PMC 2882403. PMID 20466958.
They are also the same people behind that list, so we've just been seeing the same argument over and over.
5. Yikes, It's the same shit. But I don't want to visit this sketchy site again.
I don't know what to say, this was a mountain of shit. Compare this to a mountain of evidence for Climate change and it's impacts.
Starting with increased rates of sea level rise.
and
A Net loss of Glaciers.
These two can be observed by anyone.
It takes an incredible amount of heat to actually melt ice. To get from 0C Ice to 0C water it takes the same heat as taking 0C water close to boiling.
In fact to melt just 50 grams of ice you need 4000 Calories or 4 kcal.
So when more ice is melting then forming you know that the climate of a local place is changing.
I don't even need to look it up, I know the evidence will be there. Let's look at Glacier National Park.
Here is what I got off the Internet. I bet a deeper search would just point out to the same conclusion: "At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today."
And this is my argument.
Also try and refute this, as a source or as a list of arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg