A fool, a fool! I met a fool i' the forest,
A motley fool; a miserable world!
As I do live by food, I met a fool
Who laid him down and bask'd him in the sun,
And rail'd on Lady Fortune in good terms,
In good set terms and yet a motley fool.
As You Like It,
Act II, Scene 7

I'm curious to know which of the following the climate sceptics disagree with or consider questionable:

* there is a greenhouse effect
* carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
* adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can be expected to cause a warming
* atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen since 1880
* that global warming is anthropological
* global mean temperature has risen since 1880
* a significant fraction of that rise (greater than 50%) over the past 50 years, is due to human activity

The denialists are out in force again. All they seem to be good at is throwing insults. Never a shred of evidence is offered - certainly not on this thread and there are a number of outright lies and concoctions scattered throughout their posts.

One such concoction is the claim that there has been global cooling since 1998. As that was the hottest year ever recorded since civilization began, all years subsequent to it have obviously been cooler. The fact that 1998 was merely the hottest of the 6 or 7 (I forget exactly how many) hottest years on record is conveniently omitted.

Can someone please remind me and the denialists of exactly how many years since the magical 1998 were the hottest on record?

Denialists why not check out the actual science before rushing to conclusions?

* there is a greenhouse effect

False -- see http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/on-the-first-principles-of-heat-transfer-a-note-from-alan-siddons/

* carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

If there is no greenhouse effect then there can be no greenhouse gases.

* adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can be expected to cause a warming

Expected by whom? Not by me, or by most of the respondents here. What you 'expect' depends on what your models say. And the pro-warming models have been wrong for eleven years in succession.

* atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen since 1880

Finally, a fact!

* that global warming is anthropological

Says who? See http://www.sitnews.us/0509news/052809/052809_ak_science.html for instance.

* global mean temperature has risen since 1880

Yes, and fallen since 1066. So what?

* a significant fraction of that rise (greater than 50%) over the past 50 years, is due to human activity

You said this before. It is a mere assertion.

If global temperature rises with CO2, then you need to explain why it hasn't gone up since 1998. 'There must be something else stopping it." OK, what? Until you can identify this Factor X then we know precisely nothing about whether the temperature will go up or down next year, next decade or next century.

My apologies I was wrong its not 0.0043 pa difference but
0.000043C pa difference.

The variables orginally used by Johnathan Lowe on his web site "Gust of Hot Air", were that we in Australian only emit 1.2% of the worlds G/h gases, and if we assume 100% of all warming is caused by these gases, with the world increasing at the rate of 0.6c per 100 years, and we cut or emissions by 60% by 2050,then we would cool the globe by ummeasurable 0.000043c pa.

Of, if you like 0.0043 in 100 years

For this piddling amount the leftists would have us put thousands out of work, and screw up the economy even further.

Only academics and the loony left would ever propose such an idiotic scheme

Dear readers,
I knew Anne during her time at The University of Sydney in my capacity as a chaplain to the university from 1998-2003. We had many discussions on issues of faith, social justice, the environment, politics, ethics, philosophy, social thought, and so on.
I always found Anne to be an original, clear, highly intelligent and a compassionate thinker. Compassionate in trying to really understand others, she was always ready to disspassionately and genuinely consider all points of view, even the ones she sometimes profoundly dissagreed with, before deciding her own mind.
Consequently I think the personal attacks against Anne in a number of the responses above to her article are unwarranted, misguided and unfair. I hold Anne in the highest regard. I would urge all contributors to cease personal attacks and in an effort to respond seriously to an excellent article make reasoned arguments for or against, backing up their assertions with mutually agreed evidence.

Dear Brad

Perhaps you could add to Anne's sterling resume, which you seem to be touting, "does not handle criticism well", and "tends to fly off the handle and start insulting critics".

An example of Anne's behaviour might be included:
"If you want me to take you seriously at all", insulting and condescending,

"you need to get your heads out of the gutter." more insults, prissy attack.

"I think many of you have been totally disgusting", not coping well and negative feedback -

"and discredit your own lame causes." more insults and personal attacks.

So what is it you were saying?

Here's some free advice, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. When you publicly challange and insult people who don't agree with you, be prepared for some knockbacks"

"toughen up princess" - I'm amazed she needs someone to mount his charger and race to her rescue, doesn't bode well for a life as an eco warrier does it?

Not everyone agrees with the AGW belief, it's interesting that you say she was a chaplain, her behaviour makes perfect sense now, thanks.