SuperFreaks Question Man-Made Global Warming On Charlie Rose

11/11/09: Appearing on the Charlie Rose Show, SuperFreakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner question the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Transcript:

Most of the people who aren't thrilled about what we said about global warming aren't talking about what we actually said. I mean what we said is not even very controversial. We're not denying the earth has gotten warmer. It has gotten a lot warmer over the last one hundred years . . .

ROSE: And it's man created.

LEVITT: I-i-i-i-it's harder to know whether it's man created. It's always harder to know whether it's some -- you know, why something happened than whether it did. But that's not our question.

...

DUBNER: Can I give one more example of the law of unintended consequences? The efforts to clean up the air in general and get heavy particulate pollution out of the air. All the sulfur, all the acid rain from coal plants and so on, in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s.

It's now thought -- there are new studies, NASA, a bunch of scientists have been doing this -- it's now thought that removing the particles from the atmosphere is what's led to the warming, in large part.

In other words, carbon dioxide may not be remotely as large a villain as many people fear, because what's happened is that by being good environmental stewards and trying to clear up the air -- we did clear up the air a lot, but all that junk in the air was blocking a degree of sun. And now with the removal of it, we've seen more warming. And so that will be a line of research we'll be hearing of a lot more.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• SuperFreakonomics
• Freakonomics
• global warming
• deniers
• climate change
• Levitt
• Steven Levitt
• Stephen Dubner
• Charlie Rose

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

"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]

"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.

[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?

[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.