I don't know jack about global warming

i-6b05b145a9c5c51765f7ce9edb5a0792-the_weather_girls.jpgIf you're a regular reader of this blog I'm sure you've realized by now that we never post on global warming. It's not because we don't care.. we do! I promise. It's just that I really don't know anything about the debate at all. Someone could tell me that we had an ice age 29 years ago and I would believe them (well maybe not believe them - but I couldn't refute their argument). I tend to support my fellow bloggers here at Sb's against the global warming denialists but that isn't because I know anything - I just trust their judgment. So when I saw a special report from BBC about the top ten arguments for global warming denialism and why they are full of shit I was pretty excited.

Here's a good example:

Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.

Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.

Check out the other nine.

More like this

Professor David Karoly of the University of Melbourne's School of Earth Sciences is an expert on climate change, so like every other scientist who has read Ian Plimer's error-filled book, he was appalled at how bad it was. His review: Now let me address some of the major scientific flaws in Plimer'…
Real science is about the gathering of multiple lines of evidence, bulding on previous research that built on research before that. One of the hallmarks of denialism is choosing a single study or dataset out of a multitude simply because it is an outlier that confirms their prefered viewpoint. On…
The climate change denial gang is so predictable. Even when the science as written, and as covered by reputable science journalists, makes it clear that the new evidence bolsters the general consensus, there are those who will give the findings the opposite interpretation. Today's topic is sunspots…
As well as Chapman's silly ice-age article, the Australian published a news story about it, treating it as if it was a legitimate paper and failing to get comments from climate scientists. The ABC acted like a real news organization it its report: DAVID KAROLY: This is not science. EMILY BOURKE:…