"A Cool Look at Global Warming"

This presentation by an Intec executive has been trotted out to such as RSL clubs.   For anyone taken in by this, here is a deconstruction:

Slide 4: CO₂ is non-toxic

Irrelevant and false: 1700 perished when Lake Nyos belched CO₂ in 1986.

Slide 5: Why call CO₂ a pollutant?

Because anything is a pollutant when there's so much of it that it does more harm than good.  Common salt is useful - farm animals need some - but it's a pollutant when it destroys arable land.  If you're drowning, excess water in the lungs is a pollutant.

Slides 6, 7: Relative importance of greenhouse gases

These numbers are simply wrong.  In fact, it is not possible to be that exact for reasons explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses, but a more resonable set of numbers would be 70% water vapour, 25% CO₂, 5% CH₄.
Anyway, the fact that CO₂ is only directly responsible for a relatively small fraction of the effect is beside the point for two reasons:
1. Even that small amount nevertheless represents several degrees Celsius in warming.  With no CO₂ in the atmosphere the world would be plunged into an ice age.
2. The amount of water vapour increases as the temperature rises.  So a little extra CO₂ means there will be more water vapour too.  This amplification is why the level of CO₂ is so critical.

Slide 8: Humanity only adds 3% to total CO₂ emissions

True, but the other 97% just goes around in a big loop, so does not change the overall level over millennia.
Humanity's 3% adds progressively to the total CO₂ in circulation.  Even if it were only 0.003%, carried on over a long enough time would still lead to too much going around.
A dripping tap overflows the bath eventually.

Slide 9:

Clearly something wrong with the numbers here, as it shows more CO₂ coming out of the oceans as going in.
It was probably supposed to be the other way round, but even then we see a nett increase every year in the CO₂ both in the oceans and in the atmosphere.
There's a limit to what the oceans can take, and raising the level of CO₂ there does enormous damage anyway.

Slide 11:

How to lie with maths!  This calculation makes no physical sense.  Some steps are as meaningful as multiplying your car's speed by its number of wheels.
Instead, consider this: even if all other countries went carbon neutral, Australia's current emissions would eventually cause catastrophic climate change - it would just take far longer.

Slide 13:

The post-industrial revolution period is so compressed into the right hand end that it is impossible to see what the graphs say there.
The current CO₂ level is over 380ppm, whereas this graph seems to show it as 280ppm.

Slide 14:

The data are wrong.  Even in 2004 it was half a degree warmer than in the Medieval warm period.
See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Slide 15:

It is patently ridiculous to infer from this graph "cooling since 1998". 
Recent official results show that the last decade was the warmest on record.  (Details)

Slide 16:

It has for some years been admitted that this US satellite data was incorrect.

Slide 17:

The data from which this extract is taken varies too wildly over a mere 10 years ("waves on the beach").
Recently, however, some causes of these fluctuations have been found, e.g., temperatures changing more than guessed in places that were not being measured.
Extra data has led to smoother graphs, and in particular it no longer shows a decline in the last 10 years, but a small increase.

Slide 19:

I don't know why this claims to show no correlation.  There clearly is one, despite the fact that known other influences on temperature that operate over millions of years have not been adjusted for.
This graph over a few hundred thousand years makes an interesting contrast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Slide 21: "CO₂ increase follows temperature increase"

CO₂ is both a cause and effect of global warming.  (Details)

Slides 22, 23: Missing "hotspot"

This is a very technical argument, but it has been adequately debunked.  (Details)

Slide 24:

Some or all models predicted that the antarctic ice cap would grow in thickness in the short term because of increased precipitation.
But now we know that the temperature deeper down is going up, and it's melting faster than expected.

Slide 25: Sea levels are not rising.

Oh yes they are.  See  http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Slide 26: Sea ice is not melting

Oh yes it is, from NOAA's own data: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Slide 27: Cyclones are not increasing.

The models do not predict they will much.  They do predict increased intensity, and that has been demonstrated to be happening:
http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/ElsnerKossinJagger2008.pdf

And so it goes on.