On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:00:35 +0100 someone who may be Alan
wrote this:-

That's because there is no such thing as Global Warming.

Ah, proof by assertion. Very convincing.

I'll stick with the IPCC thank you, unless you are able to debunk
their arguments.

On the contrary arguments, I like the entry for 13/11/07 at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/reporting-on-climate/

"There is an interesting, if predictable, piece up on the BBC
website devoted to investigating whether there is any 'consensus'
among the various contrarians on why climate change isn't happening
(or if it is, it isn't caused by human activity or if it is why it
won't be important, or if it is important, why nothing can be done
etc.). Bottom line? The only thing they appear to agree about is
that nothing should be done, but they have a multitude of
conflicting reasons why. Hmm…

"The journalist, Richard Black, put together a top 10 list of
sceptic arguments he gathered from emailing the 61 signers of a
Canadian letter. While these aren't any different in substance to
the ones routinely debunked here (and here and here), this list
comes with the imprimatur of Fred Singer - the godfather to the
sceptic movement, and recent convert from the view that it's been
cooling since 1940 to the idea that global warming is now
unstoppable. Thus these are the arguments (supposedly) that are the
best that the contrarians have to put forward.

"Alongside each of these talking points, is a counter-point from the
mainstream (full disclosure, I helped Richard edit some of those).
In truth though, I was a little disappointed at how lame their 'top
10' arguments were. In order, they a false, a cherry pick, a red
herring, false, false, false, a red herring, a red herring, false
and a strawman. They even used the 'grapes grew in medieval England'
meme that you'd think they'd have abandoned already given that more
grapes are grown in England now than ever before (see here). Another
commonplace untruth is the claim that water vapour is '98% of the
greenhouse effect' - it's just not.

"So why do the contrarians still use arguments that are blatantly
false? I think the most obvious reason is that they are simply not
interested (as a whole) in providing a coherent counter story. If
science has one overriding principle, it is that you should adjust
your thinking in the light of new information and discoveries - the
contrarians continued use of old, tired and discredited arguments
demonstrates their divorce from the scientific process more clearly
than any densely argued rebuttal."




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54