So here is an index of links to common topics:
Is Climate Change man made?
January 2010 disproves AGW!!
Prove it to me!
Isn't it all down to the Sun?
What about the warm period in the 1940s?
What about the Mediaeval Warm Period?
What about the fact that CO2 levels lagged behind the temperature rises in the Ice Ages? (pt 3 on link)
The Hockey Stick is broken!
Don't the East Anglia emails prove that all the data is fiddled?
What about the polar bears?
Mars is heating up too!
What about hurricanes?
The computer models are not valid!
Isn't water vapour the most important greenhouse gas?
Isn't the atmosphere saturated with CO2 as far as infra-red absorption is concerned?
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
Don't call us deniers!
It's all due to the Urban Heat Island effect!
CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a fertiliser!
CO2 is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere!
Himalayan glaciers will not melt!
The Amazon forest is not under threat!
It's a trick!
Global warming has stopped since 2000. (Despite 2009 being the warmest year on record)
This list is not complete. If there are other points that readers want, try searching (top left) and if still not there, put it in the comment slot.
If you prefer to get your information from videos, click here for the excellent Potholer 54 series.
Got more questions? Here is a superb set of brief, then referenced, responses to 119 climate skeptics' questions, by John Cook of Sceptical Science blog.
And here is John Cook's Empirical Evidence for AGW.
Just seen this post on today's Energy Pulse:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2238
Cites an IPCC table to claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions only account for about 11ppm of the observed rise. A variant on "it's natural", and ignores the large increase over the 280ppm historical level seen in Vostok core et al. But would benefit from your lapidary analysis and rebuttal.
Thanks Steve.
ReplyDeleteThere is a detailed explanation of how we know that the new CO2 is man-made here.
Ashworth argues that the CO2 line does not match the temperature line, which is ironic, since he is expecting temperature to follow CO2 alone, whereas the models integrate all known factors, including the natural variation so beloved of the deniers.
Green World: "Canvassing climate change deniers".
ReplyDeleteAn excellent article which I am going to find very useful.
I usually refer deniers to the very accessible MetOffice webpage:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/
but your article is very succinct.
Thanks