How to build a Global Currency

From The Economist

Seventy years ago the Indian rupee was often found a long way from home. After India gained independence from Britain, the currency remained in use in sheikhdoms across the Arabian Sea. Until as late as 1970, some employed the Gulf rupee, a currency issued by India’s central bank.

Today the picture is rather different. The rupee accounts for less than 2% of international-currency transactions, even though the Indian economy is the world’s fifth-largest. Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, would like to see the currency span the globe once again. Speaking at the 90th anniversary of the Reserve Bank of India on April 1st, Mr Modi told the central bank’s policymakers to focus on making the rupee more accessible. Historically, however, national leaders have been a lot more likely to express enthusiasm for the idea of making their currency a global one than to enact the reforms required to do so.

Although the American dollar is the undisputed king of currencies, there are many with a global role of their own. The euro, the British pound, the Swiss franc, and the dollars of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore are all examples. These currencies are found in foreign reserves and private portfolios worldwide, and used for both trade and financial transactions. In theory, there is no reason why the rupee should not join the illustrious group.

Having a widely used currency brings sizeable benefits. Demand from overseas investors lowers financing costs for domestic companies, which are no longer compelled to borrow in foreign currencies. Such demand also reduces exchange-rate risks for exporters and importers, who do not need to convert currencies so often when trading, and enables the government to reduce the size of its foreign-exchange reserves.

Some of the foundation stones of an international currency are being laid in India. The country now has assets that foreigners want to buy, making the rupee a potential store of value overseas. In September JPMorgan Chase, a bank, announced that it would include Indian government bonds in its emerging-market index. Bloomberg, a data provider, took the same decision last month. The explosive performance of the country’s stocks, which are up by 37% in dollar terms over the past year, has piqued global interest.

The rupee is also increasingly a unit of account and a medium of exchange for foreigners. Banks from 22 countries have been permitted to open special rupee-denominated accounts, without the usual exchange limits. In August India made its first rupee payment for oil, to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

Yet China shows how far India has to go. Although Chinese policymakers have been trying to make the yuan a global currency for more than a decade, it still accounts for less than 3% of international trades made via swift, a payments network, outside the euro zone, despite the fact that China accounts for 17% of global gdp. Moreover, 80% of such international yuan transactions occur in Hong Kong. China’s relatively closed capital account, which prevents investments from flowing freely across its borders, is the main obstacle to wider use of its currency. India’s capital account is less closed than it once was, but is still far more sheltered than that of any of the countries with a global currency.

Japan provides a better example. In 1970 it accounted for 7% of global gdp—more than the 4% it does now—and its companies were beginning to make a mark abroad. But the yen was a nonentity. That changed over the following decade: in 1970, 1% of Japan’s exports were invoiced in yen; by the early 1980s, 40% were. In 1989 the yen made up 28% of all foreign-exchange transactions. It still accounts for 16% today.

To make the leap to global-currency status, Japan’s leaders had to transform the country’s economy. They allowed foreigners to hold a wide range of assets, deregulated big financial institutions, and peeled back controls on capital flows and interest rates. These changes disrupted Japan’s export-oriented economic model, and undermined the power of the country’s bureaucrats.

Changes just as far-reaching—and uncomfortable—will be required for any country that now wants to join the top table. Few seem to have the stomach for them at present. Indeed, without American pressure and the threat of tariffs, Japan itself might not have made such reforms. America is not about to lean on India in the same way. The desire for change will have to come from within.

A Quick Run Through of Modern Indian History: The Dilemma of an Indian Liberal by Gurcharan Das

 

Inside Tony Blair Inc.

 

A history of global reserve currencies

Michael Pettis in The FT

The US dollar, analysts often propose, is the latest in a 600-year history of global reserve currencies. Each of its predecessor currencies was eventually replaced by another, and in the same way the dollar will eventually be replaced by one or more currencies.  

The problem with this argument, however, is that there is no such history. The role of the US dollar in the global system of trade and capital flows is unprecedented, mainly because of the unprecedented role the US economy plays in global trade and capital imbalances. The fact that so many analysts base their claims on this putative history only shows just how confused the discussion has been.  

It’s not that there haven’t been other important currencies before the dollar. The history of the world is replete with famous currencies, but these played a very different role in the flow of capital and goods across international borders. Trade before the days of dollar dominance was ultimately settled in gold or silver. A country’s currency could only be a “major” trade currency to the extent that its gold and silver coins were widely accepted as unadulterated or, by the 19th century, if the convertibility of its paper claims into gold or silver was highly credible.  

This is not just a technical difference. A world in which trade is denominated in gold or silver, or in claims that are easily and quickly convertible into gold and silver, creates very different conditions from those today. Consider the widely-held belief that sterling once ruled the world in much the same way the dollar does today.  

It simply isn’t true. While sterling was indeed used more than other currencies in Europe to settle trade, and the credibility of its conversion into gold was hard-earned by the Bank of England after the Napoleonic wars, whenever sterling claims rose relative to the amount of gold held by the Bank of England, its credibility was undermined. In that case foreigners tended to reverse their use of sterling, forcing the Bank of England to raise interest rates and adjust demand to regain gold reserves.¹ 

This does not happen to the US dollar. Trade conditions under gold- or silver-standards are dramatically different from those in a dollar world in at least three important ways. First, trade imbalances in the former must be consistent with the ability of economies to absorb gold and silver inflows and outflows. This means that while small imbalances were possible to the extent that they allowed wealthier economies to fund productive investment in developing economies, this was not the case for large, persistent trade imbalances — except under extraordinary circumstances.²  

Second, and much more importantly, as trade imbalances reverse, the contraction in demand required in deficit countries is matched by an expansion in demand in surplus countries. That is because while monetary outflows in deficit countries force them to curtail domestic demand to stem the outflows, the corresponding inflows into the surplus countries cause an automatic expansion of domestic money and credit that, in turn, boosts domestic demand. Under the gold- and silver-standards, in other words, trade imbalances did not put downward pressure on global demand, and so global trade expansion typically led to global demand expansion. 

And third, under gold and silver standards it was trade that drove the capital account, not vice versa as it is today. While traders chose which currency it was most convenient in which to trade, shifting from the use of one currency to another had barely any impact on the underlying structure of trade. 

None of these conditions hold in our dollar-based global trading system because of the transformational role played by the US economy. Because of its deep and flexible financial system, and its well-governed asset markets, the US — and other anglophone economies with similar conditions, eg the UK, Canada, and Australia — are the preferred location into which surplus countries dump their excess savings. 

Contrary to traditional trade theory, in which a well-functioning trading system might involve small, manageable capital flows from advanced, capital-intensive economies to capital-poor developing economies with high investment needs, nearly 70-80 per cent of all the excess savings — from both advanced and developing economies — is directed into the wealthy anglophone economies. These in turn have to run the corresponding deficits of which the US alone typically absorbs more than half. As I have discussed elsewhere, this creates major economic distortions for the US and the other anglophone economies, whose financial sectors benefit especially at the expense of their manufacturing sectors. 

It is only because the US and, to a lesser extent, the anglophone economies, are willing to export unlimited claims on their domestic assets — in the form of stocks, bonds, factories, urban real estate, agricultural property, etc — that the surplus economies of the world are able to implement the mercantilist policies that systematically suppress domestic demand to subsidise their manufacturing competitiveness. This is precisely what John Maynard Keynes warned about, unsuccessfully, in 1944. He argued that a dollar standard would lead to a world in which surplus and deficit countries would adjust asymmetrically, as the former suppressed domestic demand and exported the resulting demand deficiency. 

The point is that dollar dominance isn’t simply about choosing to denominate trading activities in dollars the way one might have chosen, in the 19th century, between gold-backed franc, gold-backed sterling, or Mexican silver pesos. It is about the role the US economy plays in absorbing global savings imbalances. This doesn’t mean, by the way, that the US must run permanent deficits, as many seem to believe. It just means that it must accommodate whatever imbalances the rest of the world creates. 

In the fifty years characterised by the two world wars, for example, the US ran persistent surpluses as it exported savings. Because Europe and Asia at the time urgently needed foreign savings to help rebuild their war-torn economies, it was the huge US surpluses that put the dollar at the centre of the global trading system during that period. 

By the 1960s and 1970s, however, Europe and Asia had largely rebuilt their economies and, rather than continue to absorb foreign savings, they wanted to absorb foreign demand to propel domestic growth further. Absorbing foreign demand means exporting domestic savings, and because of its huge domestic consumer markets and safe, profitable and liquid asset markets, the obvious choice was the US. Probably because of the exigencies of the cold war, Washington encouraged them to do so. Only later did this choice congeal into an economic ideology that saw unfettered capital flows as a way to strengthen the power of American finance. 

This is why the end of dollar dominance doesn’t mean a global trading system that simply and non-disruptively shifts from denominating trade in dollars to denominating it in some other currency. It means instead the end of the current global trading system — Ie the end of the willingness and ability of the anglophone economies to absorb up to 70-80 per cent of global trade surpluses, the end of large, persistent trade and capital flow imbalances, and, above all, the end of mercantilist policies that allow surplus countries to become competitive at the expense of foreign manufacturers and domestic demand. 

The end of dollar dominance would be a good thing for the global economy, and especially for the US economy (albeit not, perhaps, for US geopolitical power), but it can’t happen without a transformation of the structure of global trade, and it probably won’t happen until the US refuses to continue absorbing global imbalances as it has for the past several decades. However it happens, a world in which trade isn’t structured around the dollar will require a massive transformation of the structure of global trade — and for surplus countries like Brazil, Germany, Saudi Arabi, and China, this is likely to be a very disruptive transformation. 

1. Nor was sterling even the leading trade currency in the 18th and 19th centuries. More widely used in much of Asia and the Americas were Mexican silver pesos, whose purity and standardisation were much valued by traders and so formed the bulk of trade settlements. 

2. One can argue that the closest comparison to today was 17th century Spain, when Spain ran large, persistent trade deficits, but of course these were the automatic consequences of huge inflows of American silver, and Spain didn’t accommodate foreign imbalances so much as create them, to the benefit especially of England and the Netherlands. In a recent conversation George Magnus also noted how the famous sterling balances of the 1940s illustrated another — very different — example in which the structure of trade could not be separated from the use of its underlying currency.  

The world lacks an effective global system to deal with debt

Rebeca Grynspan in The FT

There is an alarming tendency among the international community to regard debts in the developing world as sustainable because they can, after some sacrifice, be paid off. 

But this is like saying a poor family will stay afloat because they always repay their loan sharks. To take this view is to overlook the skipped meals, the foregone investment in education and the lack of health spending that forcibly make room for interest payments. This sort of debt trap is a social catastrophe in the making. Ten years from now, the debt may be repaid, but the family will be ruined. 

This is the dilemma facing many developing countries, both big and small. The pandemic, cost of living crisis and rising interest rates have brought them to a point where they can only pay their debts by way of austerity or foregone investment in the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Their debts are sustainable in that they can be repaid, but unsustainable in every other way. 

Furthermore, this full-blown development crisis with debt distress at its core also threatens a new lost decade for much of the world economy. 

The repeat of a 1980s-style debt crisis that could in turn threaten global financial stability is perceived to be marginal. But the public debt of developing countries, excluding China, reached $11.5tn in 2021. By some accounts, serious debt problems are largely confined to a small share of this figure, owed by highly vulnerable low-income countries such as Chad, Zambia or Ethiopia. 

But the situation is deteriorating rapidly. During the pandemic, government debt ballooned by almost $2tn in more than 100 developing countries (excluding China), as social spending went up while incomes froze due to lockdowns. Now, central banks are raising interest rates, which exacerbates the problem. Rising rates have meant capital flight and currency depreciation in developing economies, as well as increasing borrowing costs. These factors have pushed countries such as Ghana or Sri Lanka into debt distress. 

In 2021, developing countries paid $400bn in debt service, more than twice the amount they received in official development aid. Meanwhile, their international reserves declined by over $600bn last year, almost three times what they received in emergency support through the IMF Special Drawing Rights allocation. 

Foreign debts are therefore eating an ever-larger piece of an ever-shrinking national resources pie. As inflation rises, natural disasters become more frequent and food and energy imports rise in price, countries need more, not less, contingency planning assistance. 

A much bolder approach is needed. Recent efforts by the international community to agree on large-scale emergency debt measures have faltered. This is despite important efforts at the G20 through the now-discontinued Debt Service Suspension Initiative, and the Common Framework for Debt Treatments, which is in need of crucial improvements, such as suspending payments during negotiations and an extension to middle-income countries in debt distress. 

The failure of these efforts has revealed the complexity of existing procedures, characterised by creditors who refuse to engage in restructuring with extraordinary powers of sabotage. Crisis resolutions are often too little, too late. The world lacks an effective system to deal with debt. 

An independent sovereign debt authority that engages with creditor and debtor interests, both institutional and private, is urgently needed. At a minimum, such an authority should provide coherent guidelines for suspending debt payments in disaster situations, ensuring SDGs are considered in debt sustainability assessments, and providing expert advice to governments in need. 

Furthermore, a public debt registry for developing countries would allow both lenders and borrowers to access debt data. This would go a long way in boosting debt transparency, strengthening debt management, reducing the risk of debt distress and improving access to financing. Progress on both these fronts could begin with an independent review of the G20 debt agenda: India’s presidency may bring a historic opportunity to succeed where others have faltered. 

Tackling the current global debt crisis is not only a moral imperative. In a context of growing climate and geopolitical distress, it is one the biggest threats to global peace and security and financial stability. Without supporting countries to become sustainable, their debts will never be realistically repayable.

The richest 10% produce half of greenhouse gas emissions. They should pay to fix the climate

This is not simply a rich versus poor countries divide: there are huge emitters in poor countries, and low emitters in rich countries writes Lucas Chancel in The Guardian

‘At current global emissions rates, the carbon budget that we have left if we are to stay under 1.5°C will be depleted in six years.’ Photograph: Friedemann Vogel/EPA 


Let’s face it: our chances of staying under a 2C increase in global temperature are not looking good. If we continue business as usual, the world is on track to heat up by 3C at least by the end of this century. At current global emissions rates, the carbon budget that we have left if we are to stay under 1.5C will be depleted in six years. The paradox is that, globally, popular support for climate action has never been so strong. According to a recent United Nations poll, the vast majority of people around the world sees climate change as a global emergency. So, what have we got wrong so far?

There is a fundamental problem in contemporary discussion of climate policy: it rarely acknowledges inequality. Poorer households, which are low CO2 emitters, rightly anticipate that climate policies will limit their purchasing power. In return, policymakers fear a political backlash should they demand faster climate action. The problem with this vicious circle is that it has lost us a lot of time. The good news is that we can end it.

Let’s first look at the facts: 10% of the world’s population are responsible for about half of all greenhouse gas emissions, while the bottom half of the world contributes just 12% of all emissions. This is not simply a rich versus poor countries divide: there are huge emitters in poor countries, and low emitters in rich countries.

Consider the US, for instance. Every year, the poorest 50% of the US population emit about 10 tonnes of CO2 per person, while the richest 10% emit 75 tonnes per person. That is a gap of more than seven to one. Similarly, in Europe, the poorest half emits about five tonnes per person, while the richest 10% emit about 30 tonnes – a gap of six to one. (You can now view this data on the World Inequality Database.)

Where do these large inequalities come from? The rich emit more carbon through the goods and services they buy, as well as from the investments they make. Low-income groups emit carbon when they use their cars or heat their homes, but their indirect emissions – that is, the emissions from the stuff they buy and the investments they make – are significantly lower than those of the rich. The poorest half of the population barely owns any wealth, meaning that it has little or no responsibility for emissions associated with investment decisions.

Why do these inequalities matter? After all, shouldn’t we all reduce our emissions? Yes, we should, but obviously some groups will have to make a greater effort than others. Intuitively, we might think here of the big emitters, the rich, right? True, and also poorer people have less capacity to decarbonize their consumption. It follows that the rich should contribute the most to curbing emissions, and the poor be given the capacity to cope with the transition to 1.5C or 2C. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening – if anything, what is happening is closer to the opposite.

It was evident in France in 2018, when the government raised carbon taxes in a way that hit rural, low-income households particularly hard, without much affecting the consumption habits and investment portfolios of the well-off. Many families had no way to reduce their energy consumption. They had no option but to drive their cars to go to work and to pay the higher carbon tax. At the same time, the aviation fuel used by the rich to fly from Paris to the French Riviera was exempted from the tax change. Reactions to this unequal treatment eventually led to the reform being abandoned. These politics of climate action, which demand no significant effort from the rich yet hurt the poor, are not specific to any one country. Fears of job losses in certain industries are regularly used by business groups as an argument to slow climate policies.

Countries have announced plans to cut their emissions significantly by 2030 and most have established plans to reach net-zero somewhere around 2050. Let’s focus on the first milestone, the 2030 emission reduction target: according to my recent study, as expressed in per capita terms, the poorest half of the population in the US and most European countries have already reached or almost reached the target. This is not the case at all for the middle classes and the wealthy, who are well above – that is to say, behind – the target.

One way to reduce carbon inequalities is to establish individual carbon rights, similar to the schemes that some countries use to manage scarce environmental resources such as water. Such an approach would inevitably raise technical and information issues, but it is a strategy that deserves attention. There are many ways to reduce the overall emissions of a country, but the bottom line is that anything but a strictly egalitarian strategy inevitably means demanding greater climate mitigation effort from those who are already at the target level, and less from those who are well above it; this is basic arithmetic.

Arguably, any deviation from an egalitarian strategy would justify serious redistribution from the wealthy to the worse off to compensate the latter. Many countries will continue to impose carbon and energy taxes on consumption in the years to come. In these contexts, it is important that we learn from previous experiences. The French example shows what not to do. In contrast, British Columbia’s implementation of a carbon tax in 2008 was a success – even though the Canadian province relies heavily on oil and gas – because a large share of the resulting tax revenues goes to compensate low- and middle-income consumers via direct cash payments. In Indonesia, the ending of fossil fuel subsidies a few years ago meant extra resources for government but also higher energy prices for low-income families. Initially highly contested, the reform was accepted when the government decided to use the revenue to fund a universal health insurance and support to the poorest.

To accelerate the energy transition, we must also think outside the box. Consider, for example, a progressive tax on wealth, with a pollution top-up. This would accelerate the shift out of fossil fuels by making access to capital more expensive for the fossil fuel industries. It would also generate potentially large revenues for governments that they could invest in green industries and innovation. Such taxes would be politically easier to pass than a standard carbon tax, since they target a fraction of the population, not the majority. At the world level, a modest wealth tax on multimillionaires with a pollution top-up could generate 1.7% of global income. This could fund the bulk of extra investments required every year to meet climate mitigation efforts.

Whatever the path chosen by societies to accelerate the transition – and there are many potential paths – it’s time for us to acknowledge there can be no deep decarbonization without profound redistribution of income and wealth.

On Indian Universities

 

Moaning about bad returns on your savings? Stop complaining – it's your fault that interest rates are so low

Ben Chu in The Independent

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be”, warned Polonius. But should he have added “saver” to that list?

The Bank of England’s latest cut in its base rate has piled even more downward pressure on returns offered by banks on cash balances. Santander this week halved the interest rate on its “123” account, one of the few remaining products on the market that had offered a decent return on savings. And there is talk of another Bank rate cut later this year, perhaps down to just 0.1 per cent. Will it be long before furious savers march on the Bank’s Threadneedle Street headquarters with pitchforks and burning torches in their hands?

They should put the pitchforks down.

------Also read

Ever-lower interest rates have failed. It’s time to raise them

-----

There are a number of serious misconceptions regarding the plight of savers that have gone uncorrected for too long. The first is that “saving” only takes the form of cash held on deposit in current accounts (or slightly longer-term savings accounts) at the bank or building society. The truth is that far more of the nation’s wealth is held in company shares, bonds, pensions and property, than on cash deposit.

Shares and pension pots have been greatly boosted by the Bank’s low interest rates and monetary stimulus since 2009. House prices have also done well, also helped by low rates. Savers complain about low returns on cash, yet fail to appreciate the benefit to the rest of their savings portfolios from monetary stimulus.

There’s no denying that annuity rates (products offered by insurance companies that turn your pension pot into an annual cash flow) are at historic low thanks to rock bottom interest rates. Yet, since last year, savers also have the freedom not to buy an annuity upon retirement thanks to former Chancellor George Osborne’s regulatory liberalisation. People can now keep their savings invested in the stock market, liquidating shares when necessary to fund their outgoings.

There has been talk of the latest cut in Bank base rate pushing up accounting deficits in defined benefit retirement schemes to record levels, clobbering pensioners. But this is another misunderstanding.

Yes, some of these schemes, run by weak employers, could fail and need to be bailed out by the Pension Protection Fund. And this could entail reductions in pension pay outs. Yet the larger negative impact of rising pension deficits is likely to be felt by young people in work, rather than pensioners or imminent retirees.

Firms facing spiralling scheme deficits and regulatory calls to inject in more spare cash to reduce them, might well respond by keeping downward pressure on wages or by reducing hiring. In other words, the bill is likely to be picked up by those workers who are not benefiting, and were never going to benefit, from these (now closed) generous retirement schemes.

Perhaps the biggest misconception about savings is that low returns on cash deposits are somehow all the fault of the Bank of England. This shows a glaring ignorance of the bigger economic picture.

Excess savings in the global economy – in particular from China, Japan, Germany and the Gulf states – have been exerting massive downward on long-term interest rates in western countries for almost two decades. To put it simply, the world has more savings than it is able to digest. It is this global 'savings glut’ that has driven down long-term interest rates, making baseline returns so low everywhere.

It’s legitimate to wonder whether further cuts in short-term rates by the Bank of England will have much positive affect on the UK economy. But the savings lobby seems to believe that it’s the duty of the Bank to raise short-term rates, regardless of the bigger picture, in order to give people a better return on their cash savings today. This would be madness.

Yes, the Bank of England could jack up short-term rates – but the most likely outcome of this would be to deepen the downturn. And for what? It would mean a higher income for cash savers, but survey research suggests most would simply bank the cash gain rather than spending it, delivering no aggregate stimulus to growth.

Share and other asset prices would also most likely take a beating, undermining the rest of savers’ wealth portfolios. Do savers really believe a 10 per cent fall in the value of their house is a price worth paying for a couple of extra percentage points of interest on their current accounts?

Moreover, the Bank of England’s responsibility is to set interest rates for the good of the whole economy, not for one interest group within it. As Andy Haldane, the Bank’s chief economist pointed out at the weekend, keeping rates on hold (never mind increasing them) would considerably increase unemployment. And the people who would suffer in those circumstances would probably be those who have not even had a chance to build up any savings.

No sensible policymaker or economist wants low interest rates for their own sake. They are a means to an end: to help the economy return to its potential growth rate. When growth has hit that target it will, in time, necessitate higher short-term rates to keep inflation in check.

So for short-term rates to rise, the economy needs to pick up speed. That’s what the Bank of England has been trying to achieve since 2009. Yes, the process has been frustratingly protracted, like jumpstarting an old banger with a flat battery, but the situation would have been worse without Threadneedle Street’s efforts.

If savers are frustrated with low deposit returns they should focus their anger on the global savings glut and the failure (and refusal) of governments in Asia and Europe to rebalance their domestic economies. Other legitimate targets are excessive domestic austerity here in Britain, from the coalition and current governments since 2010, which have delivered a feeble recovery since the Great Recession, and also the Brexit vote which has forced the Bank of England into hosing the economy down with yet more emergency monetary support this month.

And if they voted for the latter two – austerity and Brexit – then savers might care to look in the mirror if they want to see one of the true causes of their frustration.

Doomsday clock for global market crash strikes one minute to midnight as central banks lose control

China currency devaluation signals endgame leaving equity markets free to collapse under the weight of impossible expectations

 

It is only a matter of time before stock markets collapse under the weight of their lofty expectations and record valuations. Photo: Reuters

By John Ficenec in The Telegraph
 

When the banking crisis crippled global markets seven years ago, central bankers stepped in as lenders of last resort. Profligate private-sector loans were moved on to the public-sector balance sheet and vast money-printing gave the global economy room to heal.


Time is now rapidly running out. From China to Brazil, the central banks have lost control and at the same time the global economy is grinding to a halt. It is only a matter of time before stock markets collapse under the weight of their lofty expectations and record valuations.


The FTSE 100 has now erased its gains for the year, but there are signs things could get a whole lot worse.



1 - China slowdown


China was the great saviour of the world economy in 2008. The launching of an unprecedented stimulus package sparked an infrastructure investment boom. The voracious demand for commodities to fuel its construction boom dragged along oil- and resource-rich emerging markets.


The Chinese economy has now hit a brick wall. Economic growth has dipped below 7pc for the first time in a quarter of a century, according to official data. That probably means the real economy is far weaker.


The People’s Bank of China has pursued several measures to boost the flagging economy. The rate of borrowing has been slashed during the past 12 months from 6pc to 4.85pc. Opting to devalue the currency was a last resort and signalled the great era of Chinese growth is rapidly approaching its endgame.

Data for exports showed an 8.9pc slump in July from the same period a year before. Analysts expected exports to fall only 0.3pc, so this was a huge miss.

The Chinese housing market is also in a perilous state. House prices have fallen sharply after decades of steady growth. For the millions who stored their wealth in property, it makes for unsettling times.


2 - Commodity collapse

The China slowdown has sent shock waves through commodity markets. The Bloomberg Global Commodity index, which tracks the prices of 22 commodity prices, fell to levels last seen at the beginning of this century.


The oil price is the purest barometer of world growth as it is the fuel that drives nearly all industry and production around the globe.

Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, has begun falling once again after a brief rally earlier in the year. It is now hovering above multi-year lows at about $50 per barrel.


Iron ore is an essential raw material needed to feed China’s steel mills, and as such is a good gauge of the construction boom.

The benchmark iron ore price has fallen to $56 per tonne, less than half its $140 per tonne level in January 2014.


3 - Resource sector credit crisis

Billions of dollars in loans were raised on global capital markets to fund new mines and oil exploration that was only ever profitable at previous elevated prices.

With oil and metals prices having collapsed, many of these projects are now loss-making. The loans raised to back the projects are now under water and investors may never see any returns.



Nowhere has this been felt more acutely than shale oil and gas drilling in the US. Tumbling oil prices have squeezed the finances of US drillers. Two of the biggest issuers of junk bonds in the past five years, Chesapeake and California Resources, have seen the value of their bonds tumble as panic grips capital markets.


As more debt needs refinancing in future years, there is a risk the contagion will spread rapidly.


4 - Dominoes begin to fall

The great props to the world economy are now beginning to fall. China is going into reverse. And the emerging markets that consumed so many of our products are crippled by currency devaluation. The famed Brics of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, to whom the West was supposed to pass on the torch of economic growth, are in varying states of disarray.

The central banks are rapidly losing control. The Chinese stock market has already crashed and disaster was only averted by the government buying billions of shares. Stock markets in Greece are in turmoil as the economy grinds to a halt and the country flirts with ejection from the eurozone.

Earlier this year, investors flocked to the safe-haven currency of the Swiss franc but as a €1.1 trillion quantitative easing programme devalued the euro, the Swiss central bank was forced to abandon its four-year peg to the euro.


5 - Credit markets roll over

As central banks run out of silver bullets then, credit markets are desperately seeking to reprice risk. The London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), a guide to how worried UK banks are about lending to each other, has been steadily rising during the past 12 months. Part of this process is a healthy return to normal pricing of risk after six years of extraordinary monetary stimulus. However, as the essential transmission systems of lending between banks begin to take the strain, it is quite possible that six years of reliance on central banks for funds has left the credit system unable to cope.



Credit investors are often far better at pricing risk than optimistic equity investors. In the US while the S&P 500 (orange line) continues to soar, the high yield debt market has already begun to fall sharply (white line).




6 - Interest rate shock

Interest rates have been held at emergency lows in the UK and US for around six years. The US is expected to move first, with rates starting to rise from today’s 0pc-0.25pc around the end of the year. Investors have already starting buying dollars in anticipation of a strengthening US currency. UK rate rises are expected to follow shortly after.




7 - Bull market third longest on record

The UK stock market is in its 77th month of a bull market, which began in March 2009. On only two other occasions in history has the market risen for longer. One is in the lead-up to the Great Crash in 1929 and the other before the bursting of the dotcom bubble in the early 2000s.



UK markets have been a beneficiary of the huge balance-sheet expansion in the US. US monetary base, a measure of notes and coins in circulation plus reserves held at the central bank, has more than quadrupled from around $800m to more than $4 trillion since 2008. The stock market has been a direct beneficiary of this money and will struggle now that QE3 has ended.


8 - Overvalued US market

In the US, Professor Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price earnings ratio – or Shiller CAPE – for the S&P 500 stands at 27.2, some 64pc above its historic average of 16.6. On only three occasions since 1882 has it been higher – in 1929, 2000 and 2007.

It's time for a global companies to pay a Global Profit Tax

Ben Chu

The cascade of revelations in recent months showing multinational companies doing a huge amount of business here and yet paying virtually no corporation tax has provoked widespread public demands for something to be done. But people tend to be rather hazier on what that "something" should be.

To define a solution we first need to grasp the nature of the problem: a global tax loophole. In our age of liberalised cross-border trade and free capital flows, multinational companies find themselves with a considerable level of freedom to choose where they pay tax on profits.

With some sophisticated planning from their accountants, many of these corporations (especially those whose commercial value is derived from a piece of intangible intellectual property such as a search engine algorithm or a drug patent) are able to register their profits in tax havens.

Here's how it works. A multinational typically registers its intellectual property in a subsidiary company based somewhere like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. This subsidiary then charges another subsidiary operating in a big customer market, such as Britain, a massive fee for the right to use that intellectual property. So any trading surplus resulting from activities in the large market is offset by the cost of the fee. And then the profits accumulate in the tax haven.

National governments could and should try to put a stop to this egregious "profit shifting" on their own. But a unilateral approach is plainly second best.

The natural solution is to secure an agreement by all the world's governments to tax the profits of multinational firms collectively and to divide up the revenues fairly between them. This division could be based on the amount of business done by the multinational in their various territories as revealed by their turnover and number of employees.

It sounds complicated, but American states have long operated a system designed along these lines known as "apportionment". Another name used is "unitary taxation". Those names are a bit of a turn-off to the layperson. What's required is a reform banner that the general public can easily understand. I suggest: "Global Profit Tax". After all, doesn't it make sense that global companies should be compelled to pay global taxes?

For Climate Change Skeptics

Skeptic Rebuttal One Liners

	Skeptic Argument	One Liner	Paragraph
1	"Climate's changed before"	Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.	Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
2	"It's the sun"	In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions	In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
3	"It's not bad"	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.	The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.
4	"There is no consensus"	97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.	That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
5	"It's cooling"	The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.	Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.
6	"Models are unreliable"	Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.	While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
7	"Temp record is unreliable"	The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.	Numerous studies into the effect of urban heat island effect and microsite influences find they have negligible effect on long-term trends, particularly when averaged over large regions.
8	"Animals and plants can adapt"	Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.	A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.
9	"It hasn't warmed since 1998"	For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.	The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
10	"Antarctica is gaining ice"	Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.	While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
11	"Ice age predicted in the 70s"	The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.	1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.
12	"CO2 lags temperature"	CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.	When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
13	"Climate sensitivity is low"	Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.	Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.
14	"We're heading into an ice age"	Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.	The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.
15	"Ocean acidification isn't serious"	Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.	Past history shows that when CO2 rose sharply, this corresponded with mass extinctions of coral reefs. Currently, CO2 levels are rising faster than any other time in known history. The change in seawater pH over the 21st Century is projected to be faster than anytime over the last 800,000 years and will create conditions not seen on Earth for at least 40 million years.
16	"Hockey stick is broken"	Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.	Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
17	"Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy"	A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.	While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their 'suggestive' emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
18	"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"	There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.	It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.
19	"Al Gore got it wrong"	Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.	While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.
20	"Glaciers are growing"	Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.	While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
21	"It's cosmic rays"	Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.	While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.
22	"1934 - hottest year on record"	1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.	1934 is the hottest year on record in the USA which only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005.
23	"It's freaking cold!"	A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.	Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. However, weather imposes its own dramatic ups and downs over the long term trend. We expect to see record cold temperatures even during global warming. Nevertheless over the last decade, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows. This tendency towards hotter days is expected to increase as global warming continues into the 21st Century.
24	"Sea level rise is exaggerated"	A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.	Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.
25	"It's Urban Heat Island effect"	Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.	While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.
26	"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"	Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.	While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
27	"Mars is warming"	Mars is not warming globally.	Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.
28	"Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"	Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.	Arctic sea ice has been retreating over the past 30 years. The rate of retreat is accelerating and in fact is exceeding most models' forecasts.
29	"Increasing CO2 has little to no effect"	The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.	An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
30	"Oceans are cooling"	The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.	Early estimates of ocean heat from the Argo showed a cooling bias due to pressure sensor issues. Recent estimates of ocean heat that take this bias into account show continued warming of the upper ocean. This is confirmed by independent estimates of ocean heat as well as more comprehensive measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres deep.
31	"Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions"	The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.	The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.
32	"IPCC is alarmist"	Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.	The IPCC lead authors are experts in their field, instructed to fairly represent the full range of the up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, the IPCC reports tend to be cautious in their conclusions. Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions.
33	"Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas"	Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.	Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
34	"Polar bear numbers are increasing"	Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.	While there is some uncertainty on current polar bear population trends, one thing is certain. No sea ice means no seals which means no polar bears. With Arctic sea ice retreating at an accelerating rate, the polar bear is at grave risk of extinction
35	"CO2 limits will harm the economy"	The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.	Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per day, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%.
36	"It's not happening"	There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.	There are many lines of independent empirical evidence for global warming, from accelerated ice loss from the Arctic to Antarctica to the poleward migration of plant and animal species across the globe.
37	"Greenland was green"	Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.	The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon.
38	"Greenland is gaining ice"	Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.	While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice. Overall Greenland is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. From 2002 to 2009, the rate of ice mass loss doubled.
39	"CO2 is not a pollutant"	Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant	While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
40	"CO2 is plant food"	The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors	The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
41	"Other planets are warming"	Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.	There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.
42	"Arctic sea ice has recovered"	Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.	Arctic sea ice has been steadily thinning, even in the last few years while the surface ice (eg - sea ice extent) increased slightly. Consequently, the total amount of Arctic sea ice in 2008 and 2009 are the lowest on record.
43	"There's no empirical evidence"	There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.	Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
44	"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"	Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming	The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.
45	"There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"	There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.	Even during a period of long term warming, there are short periods of cooling due to climate variability. Short term cooling over the last few years is largely due to a strong La Nina phase in the Pacific Ocean and a prolonged solar minimum.
46	"It cooled mid-century"	Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.	There are a number of forcings which affect climate (eg - stratospheric aerosols, solar variations). When all forcings are combined, they show good correlation to global temperature throughout the 20th century including the mid-century cooling period. However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.
47	"CO2 was higher in the past"	When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.	When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.
48	"It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low"	Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.	Early 20th century warming was in large part due to rising solar activity and relatively quiet volcanic activity. However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975. Solar activity has been steady since the 50's. Volcanoes have been relatively frequent and if anything, have exerted a cooling effect.
49	"Global warming stopped in 1998,1995, 2002,2007, 2010, ????"	Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.	2007's dramatic cooling is driven by strong La Nina conditions which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature. It is also exacerbated by unusually low solar activity.
50	"Satellites show no warming in the troposphere"	The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.	Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropical data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concludes the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.
51	"It's aerosols"	Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise.	The global dimming trend reversed around 1990 - 15 years after the global warming trend began in the mid 1970's.
52	"It's El Niño"	El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming.	The El Nino Southern Oscillation shows close correlation to global temperatures over the short term. However, it is unable to explain the long term warming trend over the past few decades.
53	"2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells"	A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.	The cold snap is due to a strong phase of the Arctic Oscillation. This is causing cool temperatures at mid-latitudes (eg - Eurasia and North America) and warming in polar regions (Greenland and Arctic Ocean). The warm and cool regions roughly balance each other out with little impact on global temperature.
54	"It's a natural cycle"	No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.	A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
55	"Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use"	Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.	Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier is complicated and not due to just global warming. However, this does not mean the Earth is not warming. There is ample evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence.
56	"There's no tropospheric hot spot"	We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot".	Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.
57	"It's not us"	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.	The human fingerprint in global warming is evident in multiple lines of empirical evidence - in satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation, in surface measurements of downward infrared radiation, in the cooling stratosphere and other metrics.
58	"It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation"	The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.	PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend, while temperature shows a long term warming trend. When the PDO last switched to a cool phase, global temperatures were about 0.4C cooler than currently. The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth's climate system is increasing due to an energy imbalance.
59	"IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers"	Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.	The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance, providing drinking water to half a billion people. Satellites and on-site measurements are observing that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing at an accelerating rate.
60	"Scientists can't even predict weather"	Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.	Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.
61	"Greenhouse effect has been falsified"	The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.	The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder.
62	"2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory"	The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.	The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder.
63	"The science isn't settled"	That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.	Science is never 100% settled - science is about narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of certainty. For example, we have a lower understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high understanding of the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Poorly understood aspects of climate change do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is well understood.
64	"Clouds provide negative feedback"	Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.	Although the cloud feedback is one of the largest remaining uncertainties in climate science, evidence is building that the net cloud feedback is likely positive, and unlikely to be strongly negative.
65	"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated"	Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.	Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.
66	"It's the ocean"	The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.	Oceans are warming across the globe. In fact, globally oceans are accumulating energy at a rate of 4 x 1021 Joules per year - equivalent to 127,000 nuclear plants (which have an average output of 1 gigawatt) pouring their energy directly into the world's oceans. This tells us the planet is in energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than radiating back out to space.
67	"IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests"	The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.	The IPCC statement on Amazon rain forests is correct. The error was incorrect citation, failing to mention the peer-reviewed papers where the data came from. The peer-reviewed science prior to the 2007 IPCC report found that up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is vulnerable to drought. Subsequent field research has confirmed this assessment.
68	"Corals are resilient to bleaching"	Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.	On a world scale coral reefs are in decline. Over the last 30-40 years 80% of coral in the Caribbean have been destroyed and 50% in Indonesia and the Pacific. Bleaching associated with the 1982 -1983 El-Nino killed over 95% of coral in the Galapagos Islands and the 1997-1998 El-Nino alone wiped out 16% of all coral on the planet. Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.
69	"Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans"	Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.	Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
70	"CO2 effect is saturated"	Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat.	If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.
71	"Greenland ice sheet won't collapse"	When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.	Satellite gravity measurements show Greenland is losing ice mass at an accelerated rate, increasing its contribution to rising sea levels.
72	"It's methane"	Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.	While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.
73	"CO2 has a short residence time"	Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years	Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.
74	"CO2 measurements are suspect"	CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.	CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend.
75	"Humidity is falling"	Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate humidity is rising and provides positive feedback.	To claim that humidity is decreasing requires you ignore a multitude of independent reanalyses that all show increasing humidity. It requires you accept a flawed reanalysis that even its own authors express caution about. It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback. In short, to insist that humidity is decreasing is to neglect the full body of evidence.
76	"500 scientists refute the consensus"	Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.	Close inspection of the studies alleged to refute man-made global warming finds that many of these papers do no such thing. Of the few studies that do claim to refute man-made global warming, these repeat well debunked myths.
77	"Neptune is warming"	And the sun is cooling.	Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response. Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer.
78	"Springs aren't advancing"	Hundreds of flowers across the UK are flowering earlier now than any time in 250 years.	A synthesis of nearly 400,000 first flowering records covering 405 species across the UK found that British plants are flowering earlier now than at any time in the last 250 years.
79	"Jupiter is warming"	Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling.	Jupiter's climate change is due to shifts in internal turbulence fueled from an internal heat source - the planet radiates twice as much energy as it receives from the sun.
80	"It's land use"	Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate.	Correlations between warming and economic activity are most likely spurious. They don't take into account local forcing agents such as tropospheric ozone or black carbon. Correlations are likely over-estimated since grid boxes in both economic and climate data are not independent. Lastly, there is significant independent evidence for warming in the oceans, snow cover and sea ice extent changes.
81	"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.	'Mike's Nature trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. "Hide the decline" refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the 'divergence problem' where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960, discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995.
82	"CO2 is not increasing"	CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years.	Currently, humans are emitting around 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. Around 43% remains in the atmosphere - this is called the 'airborne fraction'. The rest is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans. While there are questions over how much the airborne fraction is increasing, it is clear that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically. Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.
83	"Record snowfall disproves global warming"	Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter.	To claim that record snowfall is inconsistent with a warming world betrays a lack of understanding of the link between global warming and extreme precipitation. Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.
84	"They changed the name from global warming to climate change"	'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.	There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.
85	"Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun"	The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.	The claim that solar cycle length proves the sun is driving global warming is based on a single study published in 1991. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975.
86	"CO2 is coming from the ocean"	The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result.	Measurements of carbon isotopes and falling oxygen in the atmosphere show that rising carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels and cannot be coming from the ocean.
87	"IPCC overestimate temperature rise"	Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.	Lord Monckton has taken a single equation from the IPCC, used it in an inappropriate manner, and then attributed his results to the IPCC. This is as if I borrowed your car, drove into a tree, and then blamed you. He uses a method that is clearly intended to examine the long-term response of temperature to changes in carbon dioxide, and which is never used by the IPCC (nor should it be) to make predictions about current temperature trends. A slight change in Lord Monckton’s methodology as of July 2010 still does not make his method or attribution remotely appropriate.
88	"CO2 is not the only driver of climate"	Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.	While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.
89	"Peer review process was corrupted"	An Independent Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review.	The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions relating to peer review. In one case, it judged their strong reaction to a controversial paper was not unusual. In another, it turned out the alleged victim had actually been spreading malicious rumours about CRU. In a third, the allegation of collusion fell apart when the full email exchange was examined. The Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and did not threaten the integrity of peer review.
90	"Southern sea ice is increasing"	Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.	Antarctic sea ice has growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.
91	"It's microsite influences"	Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.	Poor weather stations actually show a cooler trend compared to well sited stations. This is due to instrumentation changes. When this is taken into account, there's negligible difference between poor and well sited stations.
92	"Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"	Phil Jones was misquoted.	When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying thereis a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.
93	"Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate"	Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.	Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising by 15 gigatonnes per year. Humans are emitting 26 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans are dramatically altering the composition of our climate.
94	"Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity"	Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.	Lindzen's analysis has several flaws, such as only looking at data in the tropics. A number of independent studies using near-global satellite data find positive feedback and high climate sensitivity.
95	"Dropped stations introduce warming bias"	If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher.	Dropped weather stations actually show a slightly warmer trend compared to kept stations. So the removal of these faster warming dropped stations has actually imposed a slight cooling trend although the difference is negligible since 1970.
96	"It's too hard"	Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.	The argument that solving the global warming problem by reducing human greenhouse gas emissions is "too hard" generally stems from the belief that (i) our technology is not sufficiently advanced to achieve significant emissions reductions, and/or (ii) that doing so would cripple the global economy. However, studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the necessary amount, and that we can do so without significant impact on the economy.
97	"It's albedo"	Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming.	The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years, satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend.
98	"Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960"	This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend.	The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.
99	"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"	Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.	Subsequent comparison of observations with predictions find that Hansen's Scenario B (which most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.
100	"Roy Spencer finds negative feedback"	Spencer's model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings.	Spencer and Braswell's study uses an overly simplistic climate model, their conclusions rely on using one particular data set, and their paper does not provide enough information to duplicate the study. The paper is fundamentally flawed and has no scientific merit.
101	"It's global brightening"	This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.	Global brightening is caused by changes in cloud cover, reflective aerosols and absorbing aerosols. While these changes lead to more sunlight hitting the surface, they also have a cooling effect due to clouds trapping less warmth and absorbing aerosols absorbing less sunlight. The net effect of global brightening is considerably smaller than the forcing from CO2.
102	"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain"	Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.	The Arctic trend is in fact more than three times faster than the Antarctic one. The net result is a statistically significant global decrease of more than a million km2.
103	"It's a climate regime shift"	There is no evidence that climate has chaotic “regimes” on a long-term basis.	A full reading of Tsonis and Swanson's research shows that internal variability from climate shifts merely cause temporary slow downs or speeding up of the long-term warming trend. When the internal variability is removed from the temperature record, what we find is nearly monotonic, accelerating warming throughout the 20th Century.
104	"Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"	This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.	The argument that "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" generally relies on ignoring the factors which have a cooling effect on the Earth's temperatures, and the planet's thermal inertia, which delays the full amount of global warming. When we do the calculations and include all radiative forcings and the amount of heat being absorbed by the oceans, it shows that the Earth has warmed almost exactly as much as we would expect.
105	"Solar cycles cause global warming"	Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming.	A full reading of Tung 2008 finds a distinct 11 year solar signal in the global temperature record. However, this 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend. In fact, the authors go on to estimate climate sensitivity from their findings, calculate a value between 2.3 to 4.1°C. This confirms the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity.
106	"Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming"	Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.	Schulte's paper makes much of the fact that 48% of the papers they surveyed are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject anthropogenic global warming. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).
107	"Ice isn't melting"	Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.	Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.
108	"Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"	The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.	The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.
109	"Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted"	Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable.	Weather is chaotic because air is light, it has low friction and viscosity, it expands strongly when in contact with hot surfaces and it conducts heat poorly. Therefore weather is never in equilibrium and the wind always blows. The climate is mostly explained by equilibrium radiation physics, which puts the brakes on variations in global temperatures. Effects from weather, the Sun, volcanoes etc. currently only causes a small amount of chaotic behavior compared to the deterministic, predictable greenhouse gas forcing for the next 100 years"
110	"It's ozone"	Ozone has only a small effect.	Multiple satellite measurements and ground-based observations have determined the ozone layer has stopped declining since 1995 while temperature trends continue upwards.
111	"Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored"	An independent inquiry found CRU is a small research unit with limited resources and their rigour and honesty are not in doubt.	The Independent Climate Change Email Review found the CRU scientists were unhelpful and unsympathetic to information requesters and at times broke FoI laws. However, CRU is a small research unit with limited resources, and they perceived the requesters were not acting in good faith. The same inquiry found the rigour and honesty of the scientists are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers.
112	"The IPCC consensus is phoney"	113 nations signed onto the 2007 IPCC report, which is simply a summary of the current body of climate science evidence	Ironically, it's those who are mispresenting Hulme's paper that are the ones being misleading.
113	"Tuvalu sea level isn't rising"	Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average.	Between 1950-2009 sea level at Tuvalu rose at the rate of 5.1 (±0.7) mm per year. This is almost 3 times larger than average global sea level rise over the same period.
114	"A drop in volcanic activity caused warming"	Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming - if anything, a cooling effect.	A drop of volcanic activity in the early 20th century may have had a warming effect. However, volcanoes have had no warming effect in the last 40 years of global warming. If anything, they've imposed a slight cooling effect.
115	"Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming"	Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.	Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
116	"Renewables can't provide baseload power"	A number of renewable sources already do provide baseload power, and we don't need renewables to provide a large percentage of baseload power immediately.	Although renewable energy does not necessarily need to provide baseload power in the short-term, there are several ways in which it can do so. For example, geothermal energy is available at all times, concentrated solar thermal energy has storage capability, and wind energy can be stored in compressed air.
117	"Ice Sheet losses are overestimated"	A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.	Wu et al (2010) use a new method to calculate ice sheet mass balance. This method, like all new methods will improve and be revised with time. Although, it does not agree well with most other measurement techniques, Wu et al's (2010) estimate is still at the upper end of IPCC predictions for ice losses and shows extensive land-ice losses from both Antarctica and Greenland.
118	"CRU tampered with temperature data"	An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results.	The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data.
119	"Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed"	Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism.	An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don't offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny Peiser to retract his criticism of Oreskes' study.
120	"Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic"	Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic.	Decline in sea ice is the major driver of Arctic amplification. This is evidence by the pattern of atmospheric warming over the Arctic. Maximum warming occurs over the surface during winter while less surface warming is found in summer when heat is being used to melt sea ice. This pattern is consistent with sea ice amplification.
121	"Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup"	By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.	By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
122	"Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures"	Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records.	Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not incorporated in any of the global mean temperature records. In particular, there is no connection to the satellite microwave temperature analyses by RSS and UAH, which use entirely different sensors operating in a quite different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
123	"Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature"	Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations while ignoring the long-term correlation.	Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations. Increasing CO2 causes a gradual long-term warming trend which is smaller than the short-term variations. The long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature is well established.
124	"We're heading into cooling"	There is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future.	Claims have recently surfaced in the blogosphere that an increasing number of scientists are warning of an imminent global cooling, some even going so far as to call it a "growing consensus". There are two major flaws in these blog articles, (i) there is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future, and (ii) many of the listed scientists are not predicting global cooling.
125	"Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural"	Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.	Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.
126	"Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer"	This argument uses regional temperature data that ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began.	This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.
127	"CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration"	That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses.	When CO2 emissions are compared directly to CO2 levels, there is a strong correlation in the long term trends. This is independently confirmed by carbon isotopes which find the falling ratio of C13/C12 correlates well with fossil fuel emissions.
128	"The sun is getting hotter"	The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years.	Various independent measurements of solar activity all confirm the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1978.
129	"It's waste heat"	Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat.	The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.
130	"Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming"	This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse.	The effect from stratospheric water vapor contributes a fraction of the temperature change imposed from man-made greenhouse gases. Also, it's not yet clear whether changes in stratospheric water vapor are caused by a climate feedback or internal variability (eg - linked to El Nino Southern Oscillation). However, the long term warming trend seems to speak against the possibility of a negative feedback.
131	"It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"	The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.	Statistical analysis of the rate of warming over different periods find that warming from 1970 to 2001 is greater than the warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.
132	"An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature"	CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.	Despite the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures, atmospheric CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we dramatically decrease our emissions, global warming will accelerate over the 21st Century.
133	"Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009"	Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.	Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was not a record high - in fact, it was quite average. But more importantly, the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is one of rapid decline. As a result, the planet as a whole is becoming less reflective and absorbing more sunlight, which is accelerating global warming.
134	"Mauna Loa is a volcano"	The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites.	The trend in CO2 at Mauna Loa is practically identical to the global trend because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere. The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and is consistent with independently measurements from satellites.
135	"CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming"	The CERN CLOUD experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements necessary to blame global warming on cosmic rays, and two of the other requirements have already failed.	The CERN CLOUD experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements necessary to blame global warming on cosmic rays, and two of the other requirements have already failed.
136	"Antarctica is too cold to lose ice"	Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans.	Antarctica is losing ice because its glaciers are speeding up. This is due to melt water lubricating the base of the glaciers and the removal of ice shelves which act as a "speed bump" slowing the glacier flow. The ice shelves are thinning due to warming ocean waters.
137	"Positive feedback means runaway warming"	Positive feedback won't lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.	Positive feedback means that a system reacts to a stimulus by reinforcing that stimulus, so the stimulus builds up, and the output builds up, and the stimulus builds up... However, this only leads to a "runaway" instability if the reinforcement is strong enough. If it's not, as in the case with the enhanced greenhouse effect, the feedback can give rise to a definite, but stable, increase over the original stimulus.
138	"Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?"	Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.	The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions as IPCC authors. Official records, Review Editors, and even the emails themselves suggest the CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of the IPCC rules. Anyway, the relevant texts were team responsibilities.
139	"Water levels correlate with sunspots"	This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans.	There seems to be evidence for a link between solar activity and water levels. However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean. Also found was that the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975, hence recent warming must have some other cause than solar variations.
140	"CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician"	The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.	During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
141	"It's CFCs"	CFCs contribute at a small level.	Models and direct observations find that CFCs only contribute a fraction of the warming supplied by other greenhouse gases.
142	"Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising"	The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.	The retracted paper actually predicts a low range of future sea level rise. The retraction removes a lower bound of sea level prediction. This increases confidence in other peer-reviewed research predicting sea level rise of 80cm to 2 metres by 2100.
143	"Warming causes CO2 rise"	Recent warming is due to rising CO2.	Hocker is claiming that his model shows that the long-term upward trend in CO2 is explained by temperature, when his methods actually removed the long-term trend. In today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. Observations show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere
144	"Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"	Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.	Multiple lines of evidence indicate Greenland's ice loss is accelerating and will contribute sea level rise in the order of metres over the next few centuries.
145	"DMI show cooling Arctic"	While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.	While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.
146	"Royal Society embraces skepticism"	The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.	The Royal Society states that "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century" and "The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15 °C warmer than the decade 1990-1999". They are not denying anthropogenic global warming.
147	"It's only a few degrees"	A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.	A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.
148	"It's satellite microwave transmissions"	Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant.	A generous estimate of the energy generated by satellites is around 1 million times too small to cause global warming.
149	"CO2 only causes 35% of global warming"	CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.	The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon) cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling. However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35% of global warming is a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper.
150	"Sea level fell in 2010"	The temporary drop in sea level in 2010 was due to intense land flooding caused by a strong La Nina.	Temporary sea level fluctuations are the result of large exchanges of water between land and ocean in the form of rain and snow. This averages out to zero over time, so it does not affect long-term sea level rise from the addition of melting land ice, and thermal expansion from warming oceans.
151	"Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past"	Current Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years.	While there have been times in the distant past when Arctic sea ice extent was lower than today's, the current sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years.
152	"We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution"	CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago.	Global CO2 emissions during the Industrial Revolution were a fraction of the CO2 we are currently emitting now.
153	"Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming"	Loehle and Scafetta's paper is nothing more than a curve fitting exercise with no physical basis using an overly simplistic model.
154	"Postma disproved the greenhouse effect"	Postma's model contains many simple errors; in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.	Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results. He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature. In no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.