It's not intended to be an "argument" -- it's primary documentation from the perp's themselves.
No one told you to read 75 pages. You were told to read page 75.
"How about" scrolling back in this thread and reading "some exact quotes" posted from the primary documentation itself?
1) OK if you give me a source and say "so and so is part of the Illuminati" than that is an argument. Arguement "A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
2) Okay I misread your post and did not notice that you said only read page 75. However, I've become rather skeptical again because I'm beginning to doubt whether or not you read the full pdf. I have not read it and there are many times when you do not have to read an entire book to understand the meaning of one passage. That is only when the passage is dependent upon other parts of the book which i represent below.
3) Anyway you posted this “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,”
The full paragraph states
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill
. (1)In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention,
(2) in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,”
Now that the missing parts are included the "perp" has a fair trial. By the way I suggest not using the word perp as it has many negative connotations and leaves the debate much less open.
"we came up with the idea... would fit the bill" This does not mean that they invented global warming. This just states these problems would fit the bill of a common enemy. If they did "come up with the idea" than that would mean pollution, famine, watershortages, etc are all made up too. In fact on page 36 Robert Redford in Greenhouse glasnost confirms global warming to be real, so do the authors. There are also countless other affirmations to global warming in the book. (1) Shows that there is a concern about a threat and it requires "everyone's" help. Also leading to the point about what causes the symptoms. (2) Points out dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes which leads to "the real enemy, then, is humanity itself". Of course humanity is the main cause of pollution if it is caused by human intervention. I'll admit this may seem a little tyrannical, but it can also be very pro environment, pro people, etc.