Bonjouer,

Great clarity of logic indeed. Start from an assumption i.e. that greenhouse effect global warming etc is true and anyone who denies this is either:
a. stupid
b.seeking to be controversial
c.in pay of oil interests
d. some other negative type

Then of course you can build a logical argument to reinforce your position. Logic in no way means your argument is overall correct. This was the whole point of debates in school i.e. the teacher gave you a side of the argument and no matter which side it is you should have an equal chance of winning by using reasoned, logical argument.

How about these for logical points:
1. Global warming theory does not explain historic variations in temperature i.e.the medieval warming period etc, roman times (hotter than the Dark ages)
2. CO2 is only c.5% of greenhouse emissions. It makes little sense to target that as it is vital for heat and is such a small part of the overall problem etc. Water vapour represents the vast bulk of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but is never even queried. Should irrigation in the desert for cultivation and golf courses not be examined?
3. If science can not even tell us when it will rain this week to any level of accuracy (and as mentioned water represents >50% of greenhouse gases), we are expected to believe that scientists can quantify the heating effects of c.5% on the global temperature?

Also, when pro-climate change people use terms such as "denier" e.g. like holocaust denier it sort of shades them in a negative light. Is that really a reasoned,logical approach?

Go Sammy Wilson!!!