The Express are idiots - here are 5 reasons why (there are more probably)

OK, by now most people would have seen yesterday's piece in the Express saying anthropogenic climate change is a myth (if someone can post a link, I would be grateful, I can't seem to access the Express website) and it is all a natural process. Whether you agree or not with this stance (and I do not as it goes), I think most people welcome debate on topics such as this; it is a contentious issue. However, the piece detailing 40 reasons why climate change is natural that appeared in the Express was, to put it mildly, rubbish, though not for the reasons you might expect:

1. Repetition - Several of the 'reasons' are repeated, for example one explaining how the 0.7 degrees Celsius is within normal ranges appears as numbers 7 and 16;
2. Irrelevance - Quoting Peter Lilley MP as saying 'fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our government and our political class are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country.' If anyone can explain how this 'reason' makes climate change natural rather than man-made (other than by a process of wishful thinking) you are cleverer than I am;
3. Further irrelevance - 'Reason' 15 says '...wind farms will do very little or nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.' This maybe true, I have heard tell that turbines take a lot of carbon to manufacture, but why this is a 'reason' for natural climate change is, again, beyond me;
4. Confusion - At one point, the piece tries to argue that while the IPCC expected a 0.2 degree C rise in temperatures between 1998 and 2008, it actually experienced a rise of .7 degrees C +/- .7 degrees C. Now, forgive my maths but .7 is a bigger number than 0.2, isn't it? And even +/- .7 means that it could have risen by as much as 1.4 degrees or as little as zero degrees, so what exactly are they getting at?
5. Out-of-date - apparently climate change is natural because there was a petition signed by scientists called the Heidelberg appeal, given to politicians in June 1992. Now, I am no scientist, but that seems an awfully long time ago now. Back then there were no mobile phones, no Internet, heck John Major had not even won the election that was to be held that year. Is it too much to ask that they might want to publish more up-to-date information?

I am sure cleverer people can find many more holes in the piece than I have, and indeed there is a general debunking doing the rounds, courtesy of the New Scientist that can be found here, but these were issues that occurred to me when I first read the article yesterday.

Again, I am for vigorous debate, however the Express piece in question is ridiculous. To the casual reader, it might seem like there are 40 distinct reasons why climate change is man-made, and it still might be. However, that is not what the Express published yesterday, instead resorting to irrelevant, dated and confused reporting that does nothing to further the debate, merely muddies the water.

N.B. I have tried to write this piece without resorting to my prejudices in favour of a belief in man-made climate change, as I wanted to discuss the journalism displayed by the Express.

P