Why do people lie and claim there is such thing as man made global warming?

Because...

FACT: The sun is more powerful than the fizz in soda pop.

FACT: The temperature of the earth has been significantly warmer in the past, during human history.

FACT: CO2 increases AFTER temperatures rise, not before.

FACT: Many often quoted AGW "scientists" are notorious liars.

FACT: Earthly temperatures track sunspots.. the correlation is solid... and sunspots are unexpectedly as low as they can get.

Yes it has become a religion and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.Think of how much money certain groups will make off of the hype.Think of all that government money going to "research".Besides there is only so much you can do ,after all whoever controls the weather controls the world.Fear is the best political motivator. Climate change is part of the nature of the planet.Common sense is to have clean energy but until there is a buck in it all that happens is talk,talk and more talk.Government regulations,fines and penalties(gotta get that bailout money somewhere) We certainly need clean air and water .I am the original recycler and I don't waste energy just like many other people.I use energy and don't go for the "guilt" trip of doing so. I have a problem with Gore the guru who flies around a fuel guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a bigger one to fly back and forth to California.Remember her saying she wants to save the planet,yeah she flies we walk.We can all start by using the new energy saving light bulbs. Oh I forgot they are the ones with mercury in them.Oh,well seems like a good idea at the time. I guess you all heard that some genius politician wanted to tax cow farmers for any that own more than 100 for emitting "methane gas" yeah it's true.Can we bottle it instead?Or on second thought send some from the bull to that politician as he knows the B.S. when he sees or smells it.

No, actually they referred it to climate change because they believed it to be more accurate. They were referring it as climate change before 1998, so there goes that argument... I don't want to make a big ordeal about this to explain how many ways your argument is flawed, cause that takes too long. I will say one thing though. That carbon that nature produces, that water vapor... Yeh, that's NATURE. It's a cycle and is regulated by natural processes. You can call that a constant if this was a scientific experiment. It wouldn't take much for humans to do to disrupt that natural balance.. Also you are forgetting about the thousands of square miles of trees we cut down. Trees take up CO2. That contributes too. For calling yourself a "scientist", you sure like to ignore a lot of science when making your argument.

Who is this "they" who changed the name? The IPCC has always called it Climate Change.

And there are no climatologist who are predicting cooling. The sun is in a minimum right now, more quiet than over the past century and the cooling did not happen. It got hotter this year. That debate is settled.

You give a link to John Christy but you claim he his wrong. Christy does not believe there is no such thing as AGW. Look at the most recent paper on his own website:

"However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback."

He believes AGW has been over-hyped, but he believes it is real -- and he's on the extreme side among climatologists.

John Martin very much believed Global Warming was real, very real -- and this was back in the 1990s before we had as much strong evidence as we do now. John Martin's hypothesis was that we can seed the ocean with iron and make plankton grow. The plankton would absorb the CO2. The statement that he could cause an ice age was a joke, but his point was that mankind can and does affect climate.

So you might not have realized how much your statements conflict with the experts you believe are credible. I suggest you go back to the writings of Christy and Martin. These are people you seem to believe in. Try to reconcile your non-belief with their certainty. Whether you are a scientists are not, you should understand the climatoligists believe AGW is real -- including the two guys you cite as experts.

I checked out CO2 science.org. I couldn't believe they actually suggest there really was a medieval warm period. What next, will they suggest the Roman Empire also existed? Only an ignoramus would deny the MWP yet for some reason there are people out there that take these MWP deniers seriously.

The name change from global warming to climate change was initiated by the PR company that the Bush administration hired to obfuscate the issue and defuse the emotions involved in the debate. It is very strange that so much of the general public has assumed that the change in terminology was from the environmentalists when in fact it was from the deniers. Note that the PR company hired is the same one that prolonged the tobacco debate and the scientists used by the PR group to deny global warming are the exact same scientists used with the tobacco debate.

There is very little doubt amongst most of the scientific community that global warming is occurring and no one doubts that it could happen. Of course there are much debate about many of the specific issues being observed but it's ridiculous to cite them as definitive evidence one way or another. Causal relationships such as global warming to occurrences of hurricanes have only been hypothesized and are still being modeled and indeed very little is known of hurricanes to begin with, citing hurricane trends in modern history is purely subjective anecdotal support for either side and wouldn't even be considered as being relevant except to sensationalize an opinion. There's also a great deal of conjecture on what the possible effects on us as a civilization will be but none of that is pertinent to the question as to whether or not it's occurring.

As a scientist, you should realize that the scientific process is about hypothesis, experimentation and observation. Terms such as "facts" are misplaced in science as the term presumes an absolute. In science, only an infinity of debate would result in a "absolute". This is also why scientific evidence is only considered as an opinion in legal systems even DNA evidence must be represented as probabilities in light of the number of possible variations and not as conclusive supporting evidence hence is more valuable as negative evidence rather than positive evidence.

Global Warming is indeed a politically motivated entity (I won't even call it a theory since theories at least have scientific data to back them). Extremist ecologists apparently have a lot of lobbying power.

.

Simple there is a LOT of money to be made . just a small example " Carbon Credits" . and that list could go into the Terabytes . If you look well enough .

Real research scientists do not hang out at CO2science.org which is dedicated to denying global warming. Its president Craig Idso participates in phony science conferences sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

I notice you didn't name a scientist who thinks we are going into a little ice age. No climate researcher thinks so.

In real life I really AM a scientist. I occasionally had to read crackpot papers. Yours looks like them.

It always makes me laugh when people who can't even get the basic facts right think they've disproven a theory supported by tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies, and tens of thousands of climate scientists.

I recommend you read the link below.