What makes some scientist think global warming is fake?

Some scientists don't think Global Warming is fake. Almost nobody thinks it is FAKE, even the alleged deniers of John Christy, Ph.D. (who does balloon and satellite atmospheric temperature measurements BTW) Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T., and others mostly feel that the political stances taken today are misleading and grossly exaggerated as to how much is human-related, or that the approaches are flat out wrong.

I agree on that fact given that the climate has fluctuated on its own throughout history, and the IPCC needs be demanded on how they derived the statistical data of human CO2 emissions being anywhere from 150-200 billion tones of CO2 per year. There is also the need pushed for updating the computer models to continually improve the accuracy. That is what Richard Lindzen is doing.

As for John Christy, he argues that with advancement, many nations would become far more eco-friendly because they've advanced through stages of development in developing metallurgy and electrical power, which are the backbone of building any of these renewable energy sources (Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal, Nuclear all rely on either process of metallurgy, mining, and an already existent metallurgy industry and electrical power grid to be developed) John Christy also states that the measurements shouldn't be taken to make prophecies on Earth's overall climate just yet: we should continue our study of history in progress rather than rely solely on our attempts to predict it with limited computer simulations, nor should we dismiss any attempts to study it further so that only one model of the Earth is favored by politics and science, there's so much more about our atmosphere and climate that we don't fully understand, and could still study more of.

Thirdly, the fact remains that adaptation and climate change always happens, and that nature always is there as a powerful force in evolution of all species, with humans as no exception. Building durable homes out of low-altitude areas should begin happening, because the climate will change faster than we can really reduce our GHG emissions to counter it GHG stay in the atmosphere for a LONG time, and our emissions alone won't change it in that period of time, then again, we could just be living through history, and learning new principles about how the Earth works.

Some facts even are to be had that the argument exists about some benefits to the environment from a warmer climate, especially agriculture. This warmer climate was part of Europe's decent agriculture during the Mideval times before 1400s when Greenland actually was green and could be cultivated for a time.

WHAT you should know about science is that it is always, in true form, open to and exchanging skepticism about it's facts and figures, even small and numeric ones. Even more precise measurements come up now and then. This constant skepticism and reproof has been the main reason why knowledge has advanced through all of these thousands of years in which man has been on the Earth, people were always willing to claim and be challenged in their facts and figures. Anytime someone treats their scientific information as absolute, or treats it as an absolutely resolved truth, often it's pseudo-science or politics, in which the fears or views get incredibly monopolizing or intimidating, and are a hindrance rather than a progress, to mankind's understanding.

First off, there are not "some" scientist that think it is fake. There are thousands, and more growing every day.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explode...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/06/th...

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=50

The reason I think they do not believe (as I can not speak for them) is the fact that no scientific study currently supports the theory, while many studies debunk it. The only supporters of the theory "prove" their point by using "models" to simulate what they think may happen. But even they readily admit that their models are primitive in comparison to the actual world. But, they claim they know enough to get a good idea of what will happen, so they run their models to try and get more wild claims than the previous guy (this gets them published). Mean while, the scientist in the field are doing experiments which disprove the theory over and over again. Thus, the AGW loonies are left with personal attacks as they have nothing else to fall back on.

Don't forget that warming is a good thing except to an alarmist that pretends to know that it is going to continue warming to catastrophic extents. In fact they don't know that. If CO2 were the primary driver of temperature, there wouldn't have been cooling in the 1970s. The truth is we are in a very warm time naturally. We have been warming since 10 thousand years ago since we came out of the last period of glaciation with some minor ups and downs. The last major down was 300 years ago and is known as the little Ice Age. We have warmed generally about half a degree a century since then. Global warming is real. What is exaggerated is the potential effects of human emissions of CO2 IMO.

I continuously go back over the material that is posted in support of AGW and I am sorry but it all has the smell of week old fish left out in the sun to rot. It just does not line up with what I have observed in my lifetime or the historical records of earlier times I have studied. But the whole AGW pogrom does match up with typical Ponzi scam cons almost point for point and so it becomes very obvious that it is just another money making numbers scheme.

The temperatures were higher only 70 years ago than they are currently. They were also warmer in the 1600s for a short spell and from the early 700s through the early 1300s it was noticeably warmer than even 1934. The whole problem is the model that Hansen and the IPCC are using predicts higher temperatures while in actuality they are dropping. The disconnect comes in the early 80s when some how current temperatures were recorded world wide 5 to 10 degrees hotter than they really were.

James E wrote: "The temperatures were higher only 70 years ago than they are currently"

Why do continue to repeat posting this error, even after you've been corrected with solid evidence?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007...

To answer the question, it's important to specify what scientists you are referring too who think global warming is "fake". In general, most people who think that (scientists or not) are simply not knowledgeable in the field of climate science. A zoologist is a scientist, but they don't necessarily have any more knowledge of climate science than your average non-scientist.

The truth is, there are very few (if any) actual practicing climate scientists who would say "global warming is fake". Some would say things like "it's not a serious problem" or "we are not sure about it's effect on hurricanes", etc., but I doubt you'd find any real climate scientist say it's "fake".

They (AGW proponents) are making a determination based on, not evidence, but a lack of evidence. Because they don't nearly understand the earth's climate control mechanisms, they jump to conclusions that don't match real world observations. CO2 is the scapegoat for a lack of knowledge.

I don't think there are any scientists who think global warming is not happening or a myth.

Some scientists dispute what the main cause of the recent warming is. For example, some think that galactic cosmic rays play a bigger role than human CO2 emissions (see link below for an explanation). Other scientists think the results of global warming won't be as bad as most agree.

But scientists don't call global warming a myth or a hoax. The only people who do that are conspiracy theorists who don't know what they're talking about.

Because there are thousands of years of history that the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles - long before we had cars and smokestacks belching stuff into the air. Volcanoes contribute alot more to air pollution, globally, than we do.

It is a lie propagated by Gore, to make money. The temperature data is giving a results that is less than the accuracy of the data.

I think part of it was they did not have enough information about the past climate changes and they believed it was just the pattern of things.

I read or heard somewhere that it snowed in texas I think it was Corpus Christi and it has not snowed there in a while let alone how much it snowed that year.