http://www.holology.com/warming.html

As far as I've heard climate change caused by humans is a fact. But I don't know how to respond to the article in this link on warming. This person thinks that:

1. Panic, fear, and emotions are guiding the debate negating objectivity and impartial analysis
2. That because regular weather predictions aren't that accurate means that anything more in the future would be less accurate
3. That computer model predictions are too varied to be of consideration
4. That water and clouds warm the earth more than CO2 acting as a more potent greenhouse gas
5. That cloud behavior makes it too difficult for any predictions
6. A 1 or 2 degree warming would not be negative but help life flourish
7. That rising sea levels is not a problem because the revealed land near the poles would be enough to compensate
8. That climate change is not all bad
9. Climate variations have happened in the past so this warming is just normal
10. That carbon dioxide is not strong enough to have much of an effect and there is too many factors to disentangle it from
11. That burning fossil fuels is not correlated with rising temperatures because its too early in the cycle
12. That its all psychological manipulation being sold to the public
13. That because some scientists reject it must mean its not right
14. That soot is responsible for glaciers melting
15. There is so much pollution its not worth stopping
16. Natural causes are worse
17. Global cooling
18. Its all a lie not based on evidence
19. Its all exaggerated ideology and more.

So, is this guy crazy, or do I need to do more research?

Climate change deniers always come up with the same old arguments. You will find excellent rebuttals on skepticalscience and realclimate. On youtube, I highly recommend the videos of greenman3610 and potholer54. Have fun!

Wow! I never heard number 15 before. What a stupid fucking argument.
Probably the one the rest of the denier arguments hang off now that I think about it.

The real panic, fear, and emotions guiding CC deniers is the realization that great profits cannot be made if raping mother earth and her resources should suddenly come to an end.

You'll probably find almost all those points rebutted at http://skepticalscience.com/

Going through this list:

1. Panic, fear, and emotions are guiding the debate negating objectivity and impartial analysis

This is correct for the popular press. It´s not correct for the scientific community. It turns out that the latter has both a track record of getting things rather right and the overwhelming majority of it supports a particular view. There are some that diverge from this in either direction, but they are a minority and could sway the majority if they could show that they were right with their data.

2. That because regular weather predictions aren't that accurate means that anything more in the future would be less accurate

That´s absolutely correct for weather. But climate isn´t weather, it´s averaged weather. Now, if I flip a coin it´s hard to predict, 50% chance of getting heads, 50% chance of getting tails. But if I were to flip a coin 10,000 times I can predict that it will land on heads 4850 to 5150 with a probability of more than 99%! The more coins, the more accurate my predictions get and the same is true for averaging weather in time and space. So if somebody predicted the noon temperature in new York on June 15th 2092 they´d have a very large margin of error (and that´d make it no more than a wild guess), but predicting the average temperature over the entire globe and a year is far more accurate (still comes with error bars).

3. That computer model predictions are too varied to be of consideration

Computer models don´t put out predictions, but scenarios. Key components of scenarios are the input variables: How much CO2 emissions by humans are there? Will their be major volcanic erruptions? The computer models are vetted by their ability to replicate past climate where we know the input. Sure, assuming that we end burning fossil fuels immediately and yellowstone blows up shrouding earth in aerosols will have drastically different effects then running a scenario where we increase our emissions exponentially. The whole point of this is to help us decide which scenario we want to occur, after all emissions are something we have control over.

4. That water and clouds warm the earth more than CO2 acting as a more potent greenhouse gas

Clouds don´t warm the earth at all. But yes, water vapour is a more potent GHG than CO2. But the humidity in the atmosphere is controlled by the temperature (if it´s colder, the water vapour will form condensation nuclei - i.e. clouds - and then rain off). Water vapour acts as a feedback: if there´s warming, there´ll be more water vapour and thus more warming due to its greenhouse effect. But it doesn´t itself act as a forcing, it doesn´t increase in concentration unless it gets warmer.

5. That cloud behavior makes it too difficult for any predictions

See #2.

6. A 1 or 2 degree warming would not be negative but help life flourish

Possibly. If spread out in time. The issue isn´t that it´s getting warmer, the issue is that it´s getting warmer quickly. A lot of plants have rather tight requirements for local climates, they grow in particular areas. If the climate changes, they migrate, basically some seeds will be able to grow a bit further north, while the southern end of the range goes down. If that process is spread out over some time they can keep up with this and yes, there´s a correlation of biodiversity with climate that says that in the long run warmer temperatures help life flourish. But if it happens fast, the migration rate for plants is too low, leading to extinctions. In their wake specialist animals that are associated with those plants die off, too.
Also note that a 2 degree warming is what we currently aim to curtail climate change to. As long as the political talks fail to move us to scenarios where we get there, we are headed for more.

7. That rising sea levels is not a problem because the revealed land near the poles would be enough to compensate

Possibly, though moving people there might be tricky. Relocating the Netherlands to Antarctica may be an idea the people of the Netherlands are averse to...

8. That climate change is not all bad

Sure. But if you look at the effects the negatives overweigh the possible positives by a great deal.

9. Climate variations have happened in the past so this warming is just normal

Climate variation have happened in the past. But the current rate is rather unprecedented. We have scenarios that give us 6 degrees of GMAT within a century. The Permo-triassic boundary had 6 degrees warming in 80,000 years (and killed off more than 90% of animal species).

10. That carbon dioxide is not strong enough to have much of an effect and there is too many factors to disentangle it from

Well if there were no feedbacks CO2 wouldn´t be strong enough. But you increase temperature by a bit and there´ll be more water vapour and thus more of an increase. If your ice caps are melting the highly reflective white snow is replaced by either water or rock, both of which don´t refelct as much radiation back, etc. These feedbacks mean that releasing CO2 won´t just increase temperatures directly through the greenhouse effect of the CO2 but also indirectly through changes brought about by this change.

11. That burning fossil fuels is not correlated with rising temperatures because its too early in the cycle

That´s not clear, but it could refer to the lag between CO2 and temperature at the end of glacial cycles. And that´s correct, it got warmer, then CO2 increased and then it got warmer some more. The reason for this is that water can´t dissolve as much CO2 at higher temperatures as at cooler temperatures. So in the glacial cycle CO2 released from the oceans acted as a feedback, not a forcing (though it still contributed to the warming). Today we can check whether the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, simply by checking how much there is dissolved. And it turns out that the ocean isn´t realeasing CO2, but actually taking up more, because we emmitt so much. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is lower than our emissions because of this.

12. That its all psychological manipulation being sold to the public

Nope.

13. That because some scientists reject it must mean its not right

A lot more scientist reject the idea that it doesn´t occur.

14. That soot is responsible for glaciers melting

In part, yes. But the momentum from somlight hitting the rear view mirror is also in part responsible for the way your car moves...

15. There is so much pollution its not worth stopping

We´re going to hit a wall there. If we step on the break we´re going to hit it at 20mph. Let´s not step on the break and hit it at 80mph, it´s not worth doing anything since we´ll crash either way...

16. Natural causes are worse

Because of #11, our emmissions account for more than 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2. What exactly are the natural culprits there?

17. Global cooling

Aerosols.

18. Its all a lie not based on evidence

Apart from the vast amount of data at hand.

How are aerosols cuasing global cooling?

edit: nvm...

Aerosols

Human activity — mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land use changes — increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the solar radiation reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei.[7] In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971), below. As a result of observations and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely; current scientific work indicates that global warming is far more likely. Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of better theory and the observed warming, aerosols are believed to have contributed a cooling tendency (outweighted by increases in greenhouse gases) and also have contributed to "Global Dimming."

source, wikipedia