If global warming is a hoax, why does all the available scientific data say it's not?

This is a long question, but if you read the whole thing, maybe you'll learn something.

First of all, anthropogenic global warming is a scientific consensus.

But Jared, what's a consensus? Well, a consensus is when almost an entire community of scientists in a particular field are in peer-reviewed agreement with each other. They're almost never falsified, and the available evidence is always overwhelmingly in favor of their proponents.

Now, you may have heard of the IPCC: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Let's study that abbreviation. An intergovernmental panel implies that many governments, working together, are using the climate data from the best and brightest authority figures on the subject from their respective nations.

This data is officially supported by the federal governments of most developed nations, and anthropogenic global warming been a consensus since 2007. Not a single national or international body of officials has had any dissenting evidence since then.

That's why whenever you hear about dissent, it's always from some lone wolf with ties to big oil or other energy lobbyists. Our sensationalist media can't help giving equal time to "both sides", and it's leading to a lot of unfortunate misinformation. Even most of the dissenting researchers have recently jumped on the consensus bandwagon, because demonstrable and observable evidence to the contrary gives them less ground to walk on with each passing day. They can't keep up the charade forever.

They want you to think it's a hoax, or debunked due to "falsified data." The fact that global warming is a reality means that potential legislation (like emissions trading, known more widely as the buzz-term "Cap & Trade"), which will in fact help all of us and increase revenue, will also make a tiny dent in the private sector. Corporate lobbyists understand the science, but they want to rake in profits for as long as we'll allow them to. Money is more important than honesty to them, and it's literally poisonous for America and the world at large.

By the way, don't take my word for any of this. If you still think global warming isn't a sure thing, I strongly encourage you to research it for yourself. We all deserve to know the truth.

2010-10-03T11:18:42Z

"Care to prove the fact known as Evolution too? Most scientists agree that this theory is a fact."

Science is never about proof, but evidence. Evolution is considered true because no alternative evidence exists, and the same goes for anthropogenic global warming.

2010-10-03T11:19:38Z

"Science also says that the world has gone through hundreds of cooling and warming periods."

Yes, but if you don't know the difference between a warming period and our current unparalleled state of climate change, then you have some research to do.

2010-10-03T11:21:04Z

"For God's sake, kid, learn how to think for yourself. Anyone who can open a spreadsheet and perform a basic Pearson's study knows that there is no correlation between time and temperature."

Time and temperature aren't the only factors relating to climate change. You can't oversimplify this, claim victory, and walk away. That's not scientific.

?2010-10-03T11:22:29Z

Favorite Answer

Because the "evidence" is clearly flawed. In Phoenix for example, they used the same weather station for decades. When they started, it was in the middle of nowhere. Eventually urban sprawl reached the station, and the results became fettered with asphalt streets, car exhaust, massive air conditioners from nearby buildings, and other "urban heat affects" This lead them to "estimate" an adjustment in temps, based on speculation and conjecture.

Other issues that concern me are the quality consistency and accuracy of instruments used in the 1930's 1940's and 1950's juxtaposes with Instruments used today.

We are only talking fractions of degrees, so accuracy is very crucial.

Then when you factor the obvious political agenda and bias of academia, it's entirely too speculative to satisfy a proper objective analysis.

?2010-10-05T18:13:33Z

Professional climate "skeptics" use the same PR methods as the tobacco industry used against the Surgeon Generals Report on Smoking and Health. Deny and cast doubt. Relatively easy to throw stones, kinda hard to protect.....
Just last week the Royal Society reiterated their esteemed knowledge on the subject:
"Climate change: a summary of the science, describes how and why the earth is currently warming, and explains the wide range of independent measurements and observations which underpin this understanding. It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earths warming has been caused largely by human activity. It also explains the uncertainty involved in predicting the size of future temperature increases. There are many potentially serious consequences of climate change, so that important decisions need to be made. The guide concludes that, as in many other areas, policy choices will have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge, but that the scientific evidence is an essential part of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area."
http://royalsociety.org/News_WF.aspx?pageid=4294972969&terms=climate%20change&fragment=&SearchType=&terms=climate%20change
Yeah, it's a hoax perpetrated by these pointy head scientists to get rich off of carbon credits, blah, blah......
-Yet the real money being protected is David Koch's and the shareholders of Exxon/Mobil. A lot of money is spent funding those professional skeptics.
___________________________________
“The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of
the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years"

-TOTALLY WRONG, NOT TRUE
"It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years."
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

Nowhere in this paper, does it state warming ended
in the last 10 years, jeeper_p...
-Please be factual and refrain from making "facts" up.

jeeper_peeper3212010-10-03T12:57:00Z

Really, that's weird.

Since Dr Phil Jones head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia

Who was responsible for maintaining the Instrumental Global temperature record for the IPCC

Stated in an interview earlier this year, that there has been no global waming since 1985

2. The the British Royal Society just issed a report on Climate Change, where they retracted most of the previous statements made about AWG, inclusing this statement.

“The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of
the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.”

Anonymous2010-10-03T11:22:44Z

There are facts and science on both sides of the argument, and both sides are guilty of spreading misinformation deliberately.

The Economist - You do know that there are multiple definitions to words, right? Well the definition of a Scientific theory is basically this. It's a explanation of an idea, with FACTS, evidence, and data to back it up. Of course it isn't "official" yet that evolution is real, and most scientist and biologist accept it universally because most of them have SEEN evolution in real time.

We've seen evolution in real time with viruses, worms, fruit flies, and etc. We see evolution when we bred the most physical fit animals, DOGS for example.

And the fact that our DNA is 99% the same as other primates such as apes and monkeys is more evidence, not to mention the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals coexisting together! So much evidence is present, literally mountains of it. Human beings and apes share the same ancestors, we didn't EVOLVE from an ape!

?2010-10-03T11:21:59Z

tl;dr.
Probably just one of those boring over-done rants about "how global warming is real and how do people deny it".
I've read and seen too many of these questions to care anymore.
I believe it's real and that the world is warming, but I think many people are making it out to be a little bit worse than what it is and will end up being. It won't be the Apocalypse and I doubt the end of time is near.
I've read and watched and heard enough facts to simply not care anymore. From being forced to watch "The Inconvinient Truth" five times, needed to do a few research essays and being stuck with an "Environmental Science" class because it was my only possible option, I'm bored of it.

Show more answers (15)