Thread: Global Warming - the Final Word

Originally Posted by kingwilly

build a couple of addititional fences near those cliffs....

But that would be spending money to prevent something.

i dont mind the concept of spending money on feasible projects...

Furry muff. I read your post as being against spending for spendings sake.

what about some credit for the source of the article ?

The snobbery behind Zac and Dave's tax the plebs plan | the Daily Mail

Daily Mail Richard Littlejohn

eco-loonies who knit their own toilet paper.

I like that line.

^

I like this one:

Once, just once, wouldn't it be a joy to pick up a newspaper or turn on the television to find a complete absence of anything to do with politics?

Because you know it's complete crap. With an absence of politics Littlejohn - and others of his ilk - wouldn't have anything to scaremonger over and call people names.

Great posting, well done DrBob.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

There are thousands of scientists who agree on the problem of global warming yet the people who don't want to believe ignore all of them and fall back on the very few, almost invariably corporate supported scientists who do

Which raises another issue with the article:

... A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares...

Great. More than 500 scientists (501? 510?...) have refuted at least one element. Leaving aside the fact that 500 odd scientists hardly relfects the weight of the scientific community you're left with the fact that refuting 'at least one element' is hardly tantamount to refuting the entire body of work. It would be like claiming 500 people can't agree on all aspects of how an engine works so it must therefore not work.

Further, reading on into the article the magical 'more than 500' suddenly takes a hit in membership and drops to 'more than 300' that are actually refuting a specific 5 points from the entire body of work.

And as DrBob has clearly pointed out you need to check carefully who these people are 'supported' by. Remember, 9 out of 10 dentists recommend 'Brand X' toothpaste*








*Because the 10th wasn't paid to recommend it.

Originally Posted by baldrick

what about some credit for the source of the article ?

The snobbery behind Zac and Dave's tax the plebs plan | the Daily Mail

Daily Mail Richard Littlejohn

eco-loonies who knit their own toilet paper.

I like that line.

I understand that Richard Littlejohn wipes his arse on A4 paper and publishes the resulting shite-stains as his daily column.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I understand that Richard Littlejohn wipes his arse on A4 paper and publishes the resulting shite-stains as his daily column.

Indeed. His work has won him many Poolitzler Prizes.





Yeah, yeah... I know where me hat and coat are!

Fuck. Reading the unutterable bollocks people here and elsewhere come out with on climate change makes me pray that the IPCC have got it all wrong and that it's at least 1,000 times worse than predicted. If humanity is in any way judged by the bovine lowing of people like Dr Zaius and Kingwilly, the sooner we're all lead to the slaughter the better. I mean, quoting that cock Littlejohn and then pretending that you're engaging in some kind of reasoned scientific debate? Jesus fucking Christ. If any of you who think that climate change is all a big leftwing conspiracy really want to have a scientific debate about it, why not join in at RealClimate That's where real scientists (not ignorant little pricks at the Mail) debate these things. See you there.

^

Global warming is a fact and to be realistic we've got to assume that human activities are contributing to some degree.

Credit to Sir Littlejohn for the article.

It seems to me the same people who support this global warming nonsense also find Sir Littlejohn abhorrant, too. This is very telling.

It was said in the beginning that this a class war dressed up as concern for the planet & these guys are proving it to be right with their 'Daily Mail readers, scum they are' attitude. Turns out Sir Littlejohn was right in everything he has said - though they will try & backpedal now when they realise they have been caught out.

I love the way they slate the highest-paid UK journalist off as some sort of idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about, instead relying on a bunch of guys wearing the same clothes for three days on the trot who are too busy fishing for the next research grant into this global warming racket to find time for a shave.

We have seen you coming. We have found out your arguments are bollocks. You declare the end is nigh & when smarter men than those in charge of your propoganda machine - who, thankfully, keep us 'plebs' properly informed - you revert to saying things like "I never said it was 100% likely" as your evidence.

Sir Littlejohn for Prime Minister.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Global Warming is a fact, the causes unknown

NOBODY KNOWS

With all due respect, that's not quite true.

There is general agreement on the causes of global warming, those who deny this are either misinformed or have an agenda of their own to push, this includes such scientific luminaries as George Bush and Michael Crichton.

There are a number of causes. The main cause is a rise in CO2 emissions, this is mainly man made although there is some evidence to show that the rise in CO2 levels has become self-sustaining, see below.

For information on the causes of Global Warming and of other information on it have a look at the following.

Start with this, the IPCC Report on Climate Change - lots and lots of information on the causes, detailed, cross-referenced, verifiable, and illustrated

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report 2007
IPCC FAQS on Climate Change
IPC Report 2007 Chapter 9 Causes of Climate Change

Here's a little summary of causes, the reasons why these are the causes are explained in the report above.

Causes of Global Warming

“As human-caused biodiversity loss and climate disruption gain ground, we need to keep our sights clear and understand that the measure of a threat is not a matter of whether it is made on purpose, but of how much loss it may cause. It's an ancient habit to go after those we perceive to be evil because they intended to do harm. It's harder, but more effective, to "go after," meaning to more effectively educate and socialize, those vastly larger numbers of our fellow humans who are not evil, but whose behavior may in fact be far more destructive in the long run." (Ed Ayres, editor of Worldwatch magazine, Nov/Dec 2001)

Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants
In 2002 about 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. Coal accounts for 93 percent of the emissions from the electric utility industry. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Executive Summary p. 10

Coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil. Natural gas gives off 50% of the carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, released by coal and 25% less carbon dioxide than oil, for the same amount of energy produced. Coal contains about 80 percent more carbon per unit of energy than gas does, and oil contains about 40 percent more. For the typical U.S. household, a metric ton of carbon equals about 10,000 miles of driving at 25 miles per gallon of gasoline or about one year of home heating using a natural gas-fired furnace or about four months of electricity from coal-fired generation. Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars

About 20% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps).US Emissions Inventory 2004 Vehicles with poor gas mileage contribute the most to global warming. For example, according to the E.P.A's 2000 Fuel Economy Guide, a new Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle (with a 5.9 liter engine) that gets 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of carbon dioxide over a distance of 500 city miles. In other words for each gallon of gas a vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air. [21] A new Honda Insight that gets 61 miles to the gallon will only emit about 161 pounds of carbon dioxide over the same distance of 500 city miles. Sports utility vehicles were built for rough terrain, off road driving in mountains and deserts. When they are used for city driving, they are so much overkill to the environment. If one has to have a large vehicle for their family, station wagons are an intelligent choice for city driving, especially since their price is about half that of a sports utility. Inasmuch as SUV's have a narrow wheel base in respect to their higher silhouette, they are four times as likely as cars to rollover in an accident. [33]

The United States is the largest consumer of oil, using 20.4 million barrels per day. In his debate with former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, Senator Joseph Lieberman said, "If we can get 3 miles more per gallon from our cars, we'll save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the (Arctic National Wildlife) Refuge at its best in Alaska would produce." If car manufacturers were to increase their fleets' average gas mileage about 3 miles per gallon, this country could save a million barrels of oil every day, while US drivers would save $25 billion in fuel costs annually.

Carbon Dioxide from Airplanes
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation causes 3.5 percent of global warming, and that the figure could rise to 15 percent by 2050.

Carbon Dioxide from Buildings
Buildings structure account for about 12% of carbon dioxide emissions.

Methane
While carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, methane is second most important. According to the IPCC, Methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Levels of atmospheric methane have risen 145% in the last 100 years. [18] Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. Most of the world’s rice, and all of the rice in the United States, is grown on flooded fields. When fields are flooded, anaerobic conditions develop and the organic matter in the soil decomposes, releasing CH4 to the atmosphere, primarily through the rice plants. US Emissions Inventory 2004

Nitrous oxide
Another greenhouse gas is Nitrous oxide (N2O), a colourless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odour, commonly known as "laughing gas", and sometimes used as an anaesthetic. Nitrous oxide is naturally produced by oceans and rainforests. Man-made sources of nitrous oxide include nylon and nitric acid production, the use of fertilisers in agriculture, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter. Nitrous oxide is broken down in the atmosphere by chemical reactions that involve sunlight.
Deforestation

After carbon emissions caused by humans, deforestation is the second principle cause of atmospheric carbn dioxide. (NASA Web Site) Deforestation is responsible for 25% of all carbon emissions entering the atmosphere, by the burning and cutting of about 34 million acres of trees each year. We are losing millions of acres of rainforests each year, the equivalent in area to the size of Italy. [22] The destroying of tropical forests alone is throwing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. We are also losing temperate forests. The temperate forests of the world account for an absorption rate of 2 billion tons of carbon annually. [3] In the temperate forests of Siberia alone, the earth is losing 10 million acres per year.
City Gridlock

In 1996 according to an annual study by traffic engineers [as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle December 10, 1996] from Texas A and M University, it was found that drivers in Los Angeles and New York City alone wasted 600 million gallons of gas annually while just sitting in traffic. The 600 million gallons of gas translates to about 7.5 million tons of carbon dioxide in just those two cities.

Svein Tveitdal, Managing Director of the Global Resource Information Database (GRID) in Arendal, Norway, a UNEP environmental information center monitoring the thawing of permafrost, told a meeting at the 21st session of the United Nation's Governing Council in Nairobi, Kenya on February 7, 2001: "Permafrost has acted as a carbon sink, locking away carbon and other greenhouse gases like methane, for thousands of year. But there is now evidence that this is no longer the case, and the permafrost in some areas is starting to give back its carbon. This could accelerate the greenhouse effect." (83)

In a December, 2005 study climate models at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that climate change may thaw the permafrost located in the top 10 feet of permafrost, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. According to the NCAR press release (December 19, 2005) permafrost may contain 30% of all the carbon found in soil worldwide. In areas to a depth of 11.2 feet climate models (assuming business as usual scenarios) show permafrost presently in an area of 4,000,000 square miles shrinking to 1,000,000 square miles by 2050 and 400,000 square miles by 2100. With a scenario of low emissions (assuming a high degree use of alternative energy sources and conservation) permafrost is still expected to shrink to 1.5 million miles by 2100.........In a USA Today (December 26, 2005) interview David Lawrence says, "If that much near-surface permafrost thaws, it could release considerable amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that could amplify global warming," ….."We could be underestimating the rate of global temperature increase."

In a study reported in the journal Science June 16, 2006 (see San Francisco Chronicle article) researchers say that thawing permafrost may add to the buildup in atmospheric greenhouse gases significantly, stating that present climate models do not include releases of Siberian carbon dioxide from permafrost. Dr. Ted Schuur of the University of Florida traveled to Siberia and secured samples of permafrost soil up to 10 feet in length, maintaining it in a frozen state until arriving back in his laboratory, where the thawing soil was attacked by microbes, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. The frightening scenario that scientists, Sergey A. Zimov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ted Schuur and Stuart Chapin III of the University of Alaska, paint is one of hundreds of billions of tons of greenhouse gases entering an already destabilized atmosphere this century, spurring yet more warming in a positive feedback syndrome. Extend this scenario to Alaska, Canada and Scandinavia, where permafrost underlies much of these regions and there's no other way to describe it. We're in trouble.

Tundra
A name very suited to the environs of the arctic and subarctic, tundra means 'treeless plain' in Finnish. The tundra is a biome (a major segment of a particular region having distinctive vegetation, animals and microorganisms adapted to a unique climate), home to about 1700 kinds of plants, including shrubs, mosses, grasses, lichens and 400 kinds of flowers.

About 50 billion tons of carbon are estimated to be held in a frozen state in the tundra, and now the tundra is beginning to become a source of carbon dioxide. In the 1970's University of California biologist Walter Oechel studied carbon dioxide emissions in the tundra, which until this time had been thought of as a carbon sink. Doing further tests in the 1980's, Oechel discovered that this was no longer the case, that warming temperatures had changed the tundra to a net emitter of carbon dioxide. Says Oechel, " We found to our great surprise that the tundra was already losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So that by the start of these experiments, which was in 1982, the tundra had already warmed and dried enough, that its historic role as a carbon sink had reversed and changed. It was now losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That was totally unexpected."

Global Warming: The Causes

Here are some link to the chapters dealing with causes of climate changes in the IPCC's 2001 report;



12. Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes

Contents

Executive Summary
12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 The Meaning of Detection and Attribution
12.1.2 Summary of the First and Second Assessment Reports
12.1.3 Developments since the Second Assessment Report

12.2 The Elements of Detection and Attribution

12.2.1 Observed Data
12.2.2 Internal Climate Variability
12.2.3 Climate Forcings and Responses
12.2.3.1 Natural climate forcing
12.2.3.2 Climatic response to natural forcing
12.2.3.3 Anthropogenic forcing
12.2.3.4 Climatic response to anthropogenic forcing
12.2.4 Some Important Statistical Considerations

12.3 Qualitative Comparison of Observed and Modelled Climate Change

12.3.1 Introduction
12.3.2 Thermal Indicators
12.3.3 Hydrological Indicators
12.3.4 Circulation
12.3.5 Combined Evidence

12.4 Quantitative Comparison of Observed and Modelled Climate Change

12.4.1 Simple Indices and Time-series Methods
12.4.2 Pattern Correlation Methods
12.4.2.1 Horizontal patterns
12.4.2.2 Vertical patterns
12.4.3 Optimal Fingerprint Methods
12.4.3.1 Single pattern studies
12.4.3.2 Optimal detection studies that use multiple fixed signal patterns
12.4.3.3 Space-time studies
12.4.3.4 Summary of optimal fingerprinting studies

12.5 Remaining Uncertainties
12.6 Concluding Remarks
Appendix 12.1: Optimal Detection is Regression
Appendix 12.2: Three Approaches to Optimal Detection
Appendix 12.3: Pattern Correlation Methods
Appendix 12.4: Dimension Reduction
Appendix 12.5: Determining the Likelihood of Outcomes (p-values)

References



Here's some other useful links, answers to the usual malarkey we hear from the sceptics;
Stages of Denial

1. There's nothing happening
   1. Inadequate evidence
      • There is no evidence
      • One record year is not global warming
      • The temperature record is simply unreliable
      • One hundred years is not enough
      • Glaciers have always grown and receded
      • Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
      • Mauna Loa is a volcano
      • The scientists aren't even sure
   2. Contradictory evidence
      • It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
      • Antarctic ice is growing
      • The satellites show cooling
      • What about mid-century cooling?
      • Global warming stopped in 1998
      • But the glaciers are not melting
      • Antarctic sea ice is increasing
      • Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
      • Sea level in the Arctic is falling
      • Some sites show cooling
   3. No consensus
      • Global warming is a hoax
      • There is no consensus
      • Position statements hide debate
      • Consensus is collusion
      • Peiser refuted Oreskes
2. We don't know why it's happening
   1. Models don't work
      • We cannot trust unproven computer models
      • The models don't have clouds
      • If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
      • Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
   2. Prediction is impossible
      • We can't even predict the weather next week
      • Chaotic systems are not predictable
   3. We can't be sure
      • Hansen has been wrong before
      • If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
      • The scientists aren't even sure
      • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
3. Climate change is natural
   1. It happened before
      • It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
      • The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
      • Greenland used to be green
      • Global warming is nothing new!
      • The hockey stick is broken
      • Vineland was full of grapes
   2. It's part of a natural change
      • Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
      • Mars and Pluto are warming too
      • CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
      • The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
      • Climate is always changing
      • Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
      • The CO2 rise is natural
      • We are just recovering from the LIA
   3. It's not caused by CO2
      • Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
      • Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
      • There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
      • Mars and Pluto are warming too
      • CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
      • What about mid-century cooling?
      • Geological history does not support CO2's importance
      • Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
      • It's the sun, stupid
4. Climate change is not bad
   1. The effects are good
      • What's wrong with warmer weather?
   2. The effects are minor
   3. Change is normal
5. Climate change can't be stopped
   1. Too late
      • Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
   2. It's someone else's problem
      • Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
      • The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
   3. Economically infeasible
      • Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster

Scientific Topics

1. Temperature
   • There is no evidence
   • The temperature record is simply unreliable
   • One hundred years is not enough
   • Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
   • What's wrong with warmer weather?
   • It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
   • Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
   • The satellites show cooling
   • Global warming stopped in 1998
   • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
   • Some sites show cooling
2. Atmosphere
3. Extreme events
   1. Temperature records
      • One record year is not global warming
      • It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
   2. Storms
   3. Droughts
4. Cryosphere
   1. Glaciers
      • Glaciers have always grown and receded
      • But the glaciers are not melting
   2. Sea ice
      • Antarctic sea ice is increasing
   3. Ice sheets
      • Antarctic ice is growing
      • Greenland used to be green
5. Oceans
   • Sea level in the Arctic is falling
6. Modeling
   1. Scenarios
      • Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
      • Hansen has been wrong before
   2. Uncertainties
      • We can't even predict the weather next week
      • Chaotic systems are not predictable
      • We cannot trust unproven computer models
      • The models don't have clouds
7. Climate forcings
   1. Solar influences
      • Mars and Pluto are warming too
      • It's the sun, stupid
   2. Greenhouse gases
      • Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
      • Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
      • There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
      • CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
      • CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
      • What about mid-century cooling?
      • Geological history does not support CO2's importance
      • Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
      • Mauna Loa is a volcano
      • The CO2 rise is natural
      • Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
      • The US is a net CO2 sink
      • Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
   3. Aerosols
      • What about mid-century cooling?
      • If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
8. Paleo climate
   1. Holocene
      • It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
      • The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
      • Greenland used to be green
      • The hockey stick is broken
      • Vineland was full of grapes
      • We are just recovering from the LIA
   2. Ice ages
      • CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
      • Global warming is nothing new!
   3. Geologic history
      • What's wrong with warmer weather?
      • Geological history does not support CO2's importance
      • Climate is always changing
      • Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
      • If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
9. Scientific process
   • Global warming is a hoax
   • There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
   • There is no consensus
   • The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
   • Position statements hide debate
   • If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
   • The scientists aren't even sure
   • Consensus is collusion
   • Peiser refuted Oreskes

Types of Argument

1. Uninformed
   • There is no evidence
   • One record year is not global warming
   • One hundred years is not enough
   • There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
   • What's wrong with warmer weather?
   • Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
   • There is no consensus
   • We cannot trust unproven computer models
2. Misinformed
   • It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
   • The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
   • Antarctic ice is growing
   • CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
   • Greenland used to be green
   • The satellites show cooling
   • Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
   • It's the sun, stupid
   • The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
   • But the glaciers are not melting
   • Antarctic sea ice is increasing
   • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
   • Vineland was full of grapes
3. Cherry Picking
   • It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
   • Antarctic sea ice is growing
   • The satellites show cooling
   • Global warming stopped in 1998
   • Antarctic sea ice is increasing
   • Vineland was full of grapes
   • Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
   • The sea level in the Arctic is falling
   • Some sites show cooling
4. Urban Myths
   • The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
   • CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
   • Greenland used to be green
   • Hansen has been wrong before
   • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
   • Vineland was full of grapes
5. FUD
   • The temperature record is simply unreliable
   • Glaciers have always grown and receded
   • Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
   • Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
   • Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
   • Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
   • Mars and Pluto are warming too
   • It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
   • CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
   • There is no consensus
   • Antarctic ice is growing
   • Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
   • We can't even predict the weather next week
   • Chaotic systems are not predictable
   • What about mid-century cooling?
   • The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
   • Geological history does not support CO2's importance
   • Climate is always changing
   • Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
   • Mauna Loa is a volcano
   • Global warming is nothing new!
   • The CO2 rise is natural
   • The hockey stick is broken
   • Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
   • The models don't have clouds
   • Global warming stopped in 1998
   • If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
   • If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
   • The scientists aren't even sure
   • Antarctic sea ice is increasing
   • Peiser refuted Oreskes
   • Vineland was full of grapes
   • Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
   • Sea level in the Arctic is falling
   • We are just recovering from the LIA
6. Non Scientific
   • Global warming is a hoax
   • Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
   • Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
   • Hansen has been wrong before
   • Position statements hide debate
   • The scientists aren't even sure
   • Consensus is collusion
   • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
7. Underdog Theories
8. Crackpottery

Levels of Sophistication

1. Silly
   • There is no evidence
   • Global warming is a hoax
   • One record year is not global warming
   • Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
   • Mars and Pluto are warming too
   • Mauna Loa is a volcano
2. Naive
   • One hundred years is not enough
   • Glaciers have always grown and receded
   • Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
   • It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
   • CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
   • We can't even predict the weather next week
   • We can not trust unproven computer models
   • The satellites show cooling
   • Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
   • The models don't have clouds
   • Global warming stopped in 1998
   • It's the sun, stupid
   • If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
   • The scientists aren't even sure
   • Vineland was full of grapes
   • Some sites show cooling
3. Specious
   • The temperature record is simply unreliable
   • Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
   • There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
   • Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
   • It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
   • The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
   • What's wrong with warmer weather?
   • Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
   • CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
   • There is no consensus
   • Antarctic ice is growing
   • Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
   • Greenland used to be green
   • What about mid-century cooling?
   • The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
   • Geological history does not support CO2's importance
   • Climate is always changing
   • Global warming is nothing new!
   • The CO2 rise is natural
   • Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
   • Hansen has been wrong before
   • Position statements hide debate
   • But the glaciers are not melting
   • If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
   • Antarctic sea ice is increasing
   • Consensus is collusion
   • They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
   • Peiser refuted Oreskes
   • Vineland was full of grapes
4. Scientific
   • Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
   • Chaotic systems are not predictable
   • The hockey stick is broken
   • Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
   • Sea level in the Arctic is falling
   • We are just recovering from the LIA

^
None of which means anything under the discriminating light of truth that is Richard Littlejohn! A man who was probably present for most of his 6th Form science classes - take that you jumped-up bloody left-wing hippies!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

I love the way they slate the highest-paid UK journalist off as some sort of idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about

Eh? Nothing of the sort, Littlejohn knows exactly what he's talking about and that's why he's paid the big-bucks.

He's a past master at pandering to the lowest common-denominator and playing off fears (his seminal words on homosexuality and immigrants spring to mind).

Oh no, he knows exactly what he's on about. Kinda like Ann Coulter. With less testosterone.

[Edit]

Actually, did that just really happen!?! Has someone really just put forth Littlejohn as rebuttal of global warming!?

Littlejohn is an entertainer, nothing more, nothing less. He's paid big bucks because he attracts readers to the paper, not because he's some kind of superhuman polymath. Why do some people believe a columnist "who knows what he's talking about" but not believe thousands of professional climatologists? Are we supposed to believe that all those climatologists are fakes, that they've just been kidding, doing it for a bit of a laugh, that sooner or later they're all going to be caught out and have to go back to their real jobs down at Kwikfit and Tesco? Or are they doing it for those mythical huge research grants we hear so much about, unlike Littlejohn who only takes the "big bucks" reluctantly because his first love is the the unvarnished truth? I'd as soon take Littlejohns word on any important issue as I'd let my local butcher perform a heart transplant on me. Remember he's a columnist and a commentator, not even a real journalist.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^
None of which means anything under the discriminating light of truth that is Richard Littlejohn! A man who was probably present for most of his 6th Form science classes - take that you jumped-up bloody left-wing hippies!

Don't forget his great contributions to literature;

• The Essex Girl Joke Book (as Ray Leigh, with Brent Wood, 1991, Corgi Publishing) - a collection of Essex girl jokes, co-written (with "Brent Wood") under the pseudonym "Ray Leigh".

• You Couldn't Make It Up (1995, Heinemann, ISBN 0-434-00238-0) - named after one of Littlejohn's catchphrases, and described on the jacket as "a brilliant collection of liberal-skewering wit and wisdom", this is a book of recollections and opinion pieces on subjects such as political correctness, politicians, corporate "fat cats", the European Union, and the British Royal Family.

• To Hell In A Handcart (2001, HarperCollins, ISBN 0-00-710613-0) - named after another of his catchphrases, this is Littlejohn's first and only novel, based loosely on the Tony Martin case. The book was lambasted by critics for its portrayal of asylum seekers and the stereotypical individuals in the book, notably by The Independent's David Aaronovitch who described it as "a 400-page recruiting pamphlet for the BNP". However, it received positive reviews from some conservative writers such as Frederick Forsyth and Andrew Roberts. This was later the subject of a BBC Radio Five Live discussion with Will Self (see below).

• The Book Of Useless Information (with Keith Waterhouse, 2002, Blake Publishing, ISBN 1-903402-79-4) - co-written with Keith Waterhouse, this "stocking filler" book is a collection of "useless" facts, described on the cover as "all you never needed to know and didn't need to ask."

• The Ultimate Book Of Useless Information (with Keith Waterhouse, 2004, Blake Publishing, ISBN 1-84454-060-X) - another volume of "useless" facts.

I actually enjoy reading him, he's a great polemicist in the grand old English newspaper style - I just fail to understand why people see him as some sort of an authority on everything.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Why do some people believe a columnist "who knows what he's talking about" but not believe thousands of professional climatologists?

Because it's Richard Littlejohn and he's the Voice of the People!(TM) He even calls people semi-amusing names! How can science compete with that!?

Plus it's in the paper so it must be true.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Global Warming is a fact, the causes unknown

NOBODY KNOWS

With all due respect, that's not quite true.

There is general agreement on the causes of global warming, those who deny this are either misinformed or have an agenda of their own to push, this includes such scientific luminaries as George Bush and Michael Crichton.

sorry, my post was badly phrased

I meant nobody knows the reasons for the causes of global warming, not enough evidence to be sure about anything

sorry also my post sent you off on a whirlygig of knowledge

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Global Warming is a fact, the causes unknown

NOBODY KNOWS

With all due respect, that's not quite true.

There is general agreement on the causes of global warming, those who deny this are either misinformed or have an agenda of their own to push, this includes such scientific luminaries as George Bush and Michael Crichton.

sorry, my post was badly phrased

I meant nobody knows the reasons for the causes of global warming, not enough evidence to be sure about anything

sorry also my post sent you off on a whirlygig of knowledge

I don't see the difference, you said "reasons for the causes of global warming". That's exactly what my post was about, reasons for the causes of global warming. You didn't read it. did you?