Global Warming is a Scam

Realclimate website is a fraud for one thing. You still are not understanding. There has been a huge change in sunspot activity since the little ice age. The ocean doesn't just warm up overnight; it takes time. Since we have been on the higher sunspot activity regimen, the ocean has been warming steadily and so have air temperatures. Theres hasn't been a change in sunspot activity since 1950 and there doesn't have to be. It has steadily been preventing extra tropospheric cloud cover since then and so water vapor has been allowed to increase unchecked. When water vapor is in the form of clouds, it increases albedo. When water vapor is not in the form of clouds, it acts as a greenhouse gas. Shortwave radiation is reflected and absorbed by the ocean surface just like any surface. Clouds absorb and reflect shortwave radiation as well. If you doubt this, just notice how the temperature stops rising during the day when the sky becomes totally cloud covered.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I am slightly suspicious of this, because of course a logarithmic function doesn't have an upper limit.Also it conflicts with my intuition, but then stuff sometimes does that.Could I see some sources?

No, it wasn't. Their cockamamy theories say it was caused by man but they have no proof. It is junk science at best.

You do know that logarithmic function can grow either exponentially or have their growth be limited logarithmically? The amount of heat trapped by carbon dioxide drops by at least half for every doubling of carbond dioxed concentration. You are right about the limit but each increase is infinitesemally smaller as you go to the right on the x axis.

This is what evidence looks like... Now do you still want to stand behind your statement?Where is the huge change?

Ok the little ice age lasted from 1560 to 1850, we dont have sunspot data from 1560 but we do have some sunspot data from 1750 and onwards And i dont see any major changes in sunspot activity from that date to now. Now tell me how do you know sunspots where the cause of the little ice age and are the cause of today's climate changes if there is relatively no change and we dont have any records of changes?You accuse scientists making up evidence about global warming but you dont even provide any evidence for your assertions.So fare numerous possible culprtis could be responsible for the little ice age1. solar activity but its mainly pinned there because we dont understand the corealations between sunspot activity and raising and lowering of temperatures.2. More probable vulcanic activity douring that period the earth had an increase in vulcanic activity and THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN to cause cooling periods.3. Orbital cycles there was a long term trend of cooling caused by the earth's orbital cycles causeing a rough 0.2 degree cooling per century, well except in the last century when we started to warm things up with a blanket of CO24. Ocean conveyor slowdown possiby slowed down do to the warming period before the littl ice age5. Decreased human populations yea we had an impact back then too mainly by cutting down trees and douring that period an a little before it there was a huge decline in human population meaning no agriculture and a whole lot of CO2 could have been reabsorbed in to lovely treesEdited by frako, : No reason given.

It really is simple.The BEST CASE scenario is that global warming is the result of man produced products.If the cause is not man made we will have to not just stop all man made pollutants but also try to find a way to reduce the natural produced causes.Think.

I think that this is the central point that is ignored in the climate change "debate". The denialists seem (at least to me) to be taking a position that if it can be shown that human activity is not a major contributing factor then we can ignore the consequences.As you have pointed out the changes in global climate ARE having an effect on where and how much water we have access to, where and how we can grow crops, where and how we can build our 'monkey hives', etc. This is regardless of the reason behind the climate changes. As I have said before on this issue, I think the following quote sums it up best: "Only a fool fights in a burning house"

No, just that we can't do much about them, which would be fair enough. What should we be doing right now, if we can't help global warming? Moving to higher ground? Whereas if it is anthropogenic, then there is something we could do now.Their last-ditch effort, then, is to try to argue that it's not anthropogenic and that therefore there's nothing we can do.As Sir Humphrey Appleby explained, there are three stages of government inaction:(1) There is no problem.
(2) Maybe there's a problem, but there's nothing we can do about it.
(3) Maybe there was something we could have done about it, but it's too late now.The denialists are unwittingly or semi-wittingly or halfwittedly attempting to get us from stage 2 to stage 3. Being a bunch of right-wing loonies, their greatest fear is that the government might do something. Anything. Since global warming can only be tackled by government action, and, even worse, international government action, they need to deny that anything needs to be done, since the corollary of: "something should be done" is, in this particular case: "governments should do something".

In the case of AGW, right-wing loons are faced with these propositions: (a) all government action is bad (b) only government action can protect us from AGW (c) it would be good to protect us from AGW if it exists (d) the scientific evidence shows that AGW exists.These propositions are incompatible. So what to do? They could deny (a), only then they'd have to abandon their ideology. They could deny (b), only that would be extremely difficult. They can hardly deny (c), since we don't want drought, famine, and floods. How about (d)? Well, if creationists have taught us anything, it's that with sufficient stupidity and cunning you can deny anything, no matter how incontrovertible. And AGW is nowhere near as incontrovertible as evolution, because hey, what is?A similar phenomenon can be seen with their attitude towards homosexuality. Being Americans, they have at least somewhat assimilated the idea that you shouldn't discriminate against people for things that they can't help. Being halfwitted bigots (or "Christians" as they call it in their bizarre and inaccurate argot) they want to hate on gay people. How to square the circle? By denying all the evidence available to us, and insisting that "homosexuality is a choice".A third example: they think that God wants abstinence-only sex education. On the other hand, they would agree with me in principle that it would be desirable for sex education to reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and STDs. How to square the circle? By maintaining that abstinence-only sex ed works.Creationism is another example. They agree with me in principle that our children should be taught science in science class. They also think that children should be taught creationism. What to do? Insist, of course, that creationism is scientific, over the loud outcry of actual scientists saying: "no, no, it isn't"; or at the very least insist that evolution isn't scientific over the chorus of scientists explaining that it is.Now, someone who really tries to construct a system of ethical principles tries to make a system that works under any given set of circumstances --- where by "works", in this context, I merely mean "is self-consistent": a working system of ethics will not tell us even that under some purely hypothetical set of circumstances the same thing is simultaneously right and wrong.But there is another way. You can construct a system which would break down under certain circumstances, but also deny that these circumstances ever arise. And you can go on denying that even when we are living slap in the middle of that set of circumstances. Because it turns out that for certain people it is easier to deny the facts than it is to reverse one of their principles.

Given that in America you can sue somebody over anything in say 10 years time when shit really hits the fan and half of the world is thirsty the other half is starving, and there is no question any more about global warming would it be possible to sue the global warming deniers for hindering us while we where trying to stop the tragedy.

Probably not, or not in most cases.It was possible to sue tobacco companies when (a) they sold tobacco (b) they had themselves accumulated evidence that smoking was harmful (c) they lied about this and concealed the evidence.It would be an unconscionable act against free speech if you could sue someone just for being an idiot.

Im not talking about the idiots who bought in to the whole global warming is a scam thing but the people who invented it, the guys who made documentaries using incomplete graphs and outdated data and made up data to support their claim there is no global warming and then went on a money making tour preaching this all over the world.But since you mentioned tobacco companies what about oil companies could one sue them they have the data that their product is damaging our environment and climate.

But if human activity isn't the major cause of the warming, it just means that we have to do even more to fix the problem.If there is a natural increase in carbon gasses that is primarily responsible for the warming, then we have to cut human emissions to zero and figure out a way to get rid of the gasses that are being produced naturally.Whereas if the cause is mostly anthropogenic, then we only have to worry about cutting emissions, as that should let the problem clear up.So as jar said, the best case scenario is a case where global warming is entirely caused by humans, because it requires less sacrifice and less effort on our part to fix than the alternative.Jon

Are they insincere? I think many of them are asincere (a word I made up to parallel the distinction between immoral and amoral) but are they insincere?In the end, I suppose that freedom of speech is good. But I would say: if it is not, then let us be wiped from the face of the Earth. Let us not merely suffer the inconveniences and tragedies attendant on global warming, let us become extinct if this is so. If the one quality that distinguishes us from the other animals is wasted on us, if it is harmful to us, if is is harmful to the whole Earth and to all species --- then let us die. For if so, we do not deserve to live.We, alone, have the power of speech. We, alone, use this power to determine our political destiny. We are not compelled, like the ants, to have such-and-such a polity no matter what any ant says: even if the ant could think it, the ant could not say it. Nor are we naked mole-rats, nor bees. We have constructed the ultimate eusocial society on the basis that we can talk to one another. If that must be destroyed, then we must be destroyed, and we would deserve destruction.