SuperFreaks Question Man-Made Global Warming On Charlie Rose

[jmitterii2]

Particulates in the air causing sun reflection also known as cloud albedo would imply we are getting less cloud albedo. But cloud albedo has actually risen. Smog pollution has never been apart of that much albedo (reflection of sun back into space). In fact, clouds and therefore cloud albedo in the first place actually help keep heat in at night. They're logic is flaws about pollution albedo decreasing that is causing temperatures to rise. There are many factors causing warmer temps. Lots.

[jmitterii2]

@jmitterii2 Therefore I realize, these two are just trying to pawn a books. Make some cash by sensationalizing something, no legit data to find here. Darn. Was hoping to learn something of true significance not some dog and pony show.

[Kaidelong]

Well the particulates are known to cool the surface but the fundamental problem of the greenhouse effect is still more important since it reduces the rate at which heat escapes, and unlike particulate matter greenhouse gases don't get removed from the atmosphere at a particularly quick rate. What isn't controversial is that global warning is caused by human activity, it is pretty easy to see the connection between the recent greenhouse gas spike and industrialization.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Their next book is going to be called super dooper batshit crazy 'cnomics: Flat Earth, Dry water and getting to the sky by traveling downwards.

May they rot in hell for this disgusting antiscience idiocy. Billions are predicted to be killed and displaced and they are deliberately? confusing action on the issue - can someone tell me if there is anything more evil these people could do?

[wideshutuk]

No the anti-science freaks are the UN scientists that deliberately skew data, completely bastardizing what science should be. About the facts not politics!

[ScatterShot09]

The anti-science freaks are those who know nothing about science yet think they "know" the subject and have a handle on the alleged "real" data some corporate think tank fed them. "Climategate" is a hoax:

/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

When you can find a chron in earth's history where CO2 jumped 107ppm and the global temperature rose 1 degree Celsius in 250 years or a source that puts out more than 26.4 Gigatonnes of CO2, the amount put out by humans annually, then we can talk.

[wideshutuk]

You're making me laugh "a corporate think tank fed them". The whole idea of global warming was brought about by corporate think tanks, globalists and so on. Research the Club of Rome, Maurice Strong...the list goes on.

You science guys just can't except that you've been lied to.

I'm not against science, I'm not one of those Christian Darwin bashers. I'm actually begging for science to be used credibly.

[ScatterShot09]

"The whole idea of global warming was brought about by corporate think tanks"

AGW/climate change has been a theory since the 50s. It has nothing to do with corporate think tanks as most Energy Lobbies are opposed to the idea.

"You science guys just can't except that you've been lied to"

Us science guys demand the supposed "real data" if you're going to claim global warming is not happening. Or that something else is the source. Show another source which puts out more CO2 than humans.

[MMGWsceptic]

The onus is on the AGW brigade to prove MMGW - not on the sceptics to disprove it.

The null hypothesis is that climate varies naturally dues to variations in the sun and ocean cycles. You say it's all caused by man. Prove it.

If you want the public to pay $trillions in new taxes you'll need more than some unrelated stats about tiny 0.01% increases in the CO2 content of our atmosphere & temperatures which haven't increased this century and have been higher in the recent past.

[ScatterShot09]

The skeptics claim it's incorrect so the onus is on them to show what is supposedly incorrect. Given that this is simple greenhouse effect it's not controversial. At least not among scientists. Only among ignorant laymen.

"climate varies naturally"

At no point in Earth's history has atmospheric CO2 composition gone up 107ppm in 250 years. This just goes to show you have no clue what you're talking about.

[MMGWsceptic]

No, the sceptics aren't proposing a massive change in energy policy, lifestyle and taxes. The AGW proponents are. Therefore the onus is on the AGW proponents to prove there's a problem which requires such drastic action. And further, to prove that the proposed action will actually remedy the problem.

The AGW alarmists have failed on both counts - despite billions in tax-payer funding.

[ScatterShot09]

"the sceptics aren't proposing a massive change in energy policy"

Exactly, they're promoting the status quo which is more price gouging by OPEC and the oil and coal oligopolies.

"The AGW proponents are"

Like who other than Al Gore? The IPCC, NASA, the EPA, the IAE, NOAA, etc. don't have an official stance on what policies to use to reduce pollution.

"AGW alarmists"

If scientific facts "alarm" you I'm sorry but that's too bad. We shouldn't ignore reality because it might be scary.

[ScatterShot09]

It's interesting you call them "alarmists" when AGW is scientific consensus. This isn't a controversial theory. The only controversy among scientists is exactly how fast it's happening and how long would it take to reverse it.

The "skeptics" are about as much of a presence in the scientific community as Creationists and IDers.

Let me know when you find a cycle where 107ppm of CO2 was released and global temperature rose an entire degree in less than 300 years.

[ScatterShot09]

"If you want the public to pay $trillions in new taxes"

More proof you don't know what you're talking about. AGW =/= Carbon taxes

Because humans influencing the climate does not mean we need carbon taxes or that carbon taxes are the only way to deal with the problem. That's like saying erectile dysfunction isn't a real condition because there's a cottage industry of pills for it.

If you like jacked up oil prices from the oil industry you get your "skepticism" from fine.

[ScatterShot09]

"tiny 0.01% increases in the CO2 content"

A jump from 280ppm to to 387ppm is not a 0.01% increase.

Like I said you have no clue what you're talking about.

[MMGWsceptic]

280ppm = 0.028%

380ppm = 0.038%

Difference = 0.01%

[ScatterShot09]

"Difference = 0.01%"

You said a 0.01% difference in CO2. That's a 0.01% difference in total atmosphere.

This also shows you know very little about this subject because it doesn't take a whole lot of CO2 to change climate. CO2 is a relatively powerful (or at least abundant) GHG. All it takes to increase the global temperature 1 degree is an increase of about 100ppm. If it increases to 500ppm it traps enough heat to melt the polar caps and cause flooding and extreme weather.

[wideshutuk]

I'm aware that it was a theory since the 50s, but it took politically charged activists, money hungry UN representatives and criminals like Al Gore to take it to the level of "the world is going to die any day now, pay us money now!". It was the green lobby, the globalist think tanks and believe it or not big oil that turned it in to alarmism. Social issues are attached to your data, you better be 100% certain it's right. Many scientists and those that see through political BS aren't.

[ScatterShot09]

"criminals like Al Gore"

How is Al Gore a criminal? No more so than ole Monckton who gets money from Exxon-Mobil.

Scientists have been talking about global warming since the 60s. Neither NASA, nor the EPA, nor NOAA, IAE, IPCC, etc. have an official position on what policies to use to solve the problem. Trying to link them to Al Gore is bullshit.

Scientists are not saying the earth is going to die. You have no clue what you're talking about.

[ScatterShot09]

"Social issues are attached to your data"

Social issues and political issues are attached to your alarmism about carbon taxes and your anti-scientific bent. I'm just interested in the data. I have no position on policy other than we need to change our current policies.

"Many scientists and those that see through political BS aren't"

Over 90% of scientists believe the AGW theory. It's about as "controversial" among scientists as Evolution. You sound like a Creationist.

[MMGWsceptic]

I should also point out that the CRU have admitted the emails are genuine so it's certainly not a hoax. I recommend you read a few emails for yourself - nevermind about the ones highlighted in the media - just dive in anywhere - you don't have to be a climate scientist to get the drift: the stench of corruption is over whelming. Not to mention the arrogance and smug group think. They're like nothing I've read in 20 years working in science & research.

[ScatterShot09]

What I mean by it's a hoax is that "hide the decline" does not mean what denialists claim it means. "Decline" refers to the decline in temperature from mid to low latitude tree ring proxy data. During the out-of-context emails in question they were discussing the tree ring divergence problem.

"I recommend you read a few emails for yourself"

I have. They were talking about tree ring proxy data. Tree ring proxy data hasn't been used for a while because it has a divergence problem.

[MMGWsceptic]

This was not some obscure technical discussion. It refers to hiding the post 1960 decline in the tree-ring temp graphs. A decline which calls into question the validity of the key graphs in the IPCC reports.

This was done to fool policy makers into thinking the graph was from a single reliable proxy - not an unreliable proxy with real temps grafted on to hide an inconvenient decline. The aim was to fool the public into believing recent temp rises were unprecendented - when they're not.

[MMGWsceptic]

Re the potholer54 video:

Rather than addressing the calm & precise criticisms of sceptics like McIntyre & McKitric - he instead focuses on the ill-informed comments of clowns like Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh.

He then makes the irrelevant observation that the 'decline' was in tree-ring derived temperatures (so what?). The aim was to fool policy makers with a graph that appeared to prove recent temps were unprecedented. In reality the graph was a bogus hack job with key portions hidden.

[ScatterShot09]

"he instead focuses on the ill-informed comments of clowns like Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh"

Of course because they're the ones taking the ball and running with "Climategate".

"so what?"

So what? That's what this email is about. There's no decline in global temperature according to any measurements in the world except for low latitude tree ring proxy data. Tree rings are used much less these days because of the divergence problem.

"fool policy makers"

Fool them with what?