Let's suppose I am lazy (I am, most of the time) but that I actually did read every single slide (I did). What do you find wrong with my analysis? "Sorry, but.

Let's suppose I am lazy (I am, most of the time) but that I actually did read every single slide (I did). What do you find wrong with my analysis? "Sorry, but..." is just an excuse to be rude and not feel guilty about it. You don't have to sugar coat it. If you don't want to be rude then don't say rude things. Just say what you mean and get on with it. The only statement closely resembling a premise is the question on slide 7: "Is 'Climate Change' just another over-blown scare?" The other 91 slides go on to support his foregone conclusion. He offers few, if any, citations. No counter-evidence. He sketches on blurry graphs without explaining his data or methods. He takes quotes from other people to prove his point without giving the context from which they were taken. He even quotes himself a few times. He uses an imaginary taxonomy of Alarmists and skeptics -- guess which one is virtuous? Rutan may be a brilliant aviation engineer but he is not persuasive in his arguments against climate science. The problem climate "skeptics" have is not one of a dominant conspiracy. It's over-whelming evidence.