Why do people think global warming is a hoax?

Because it is. Because of anti-scientific methods of Mann, et al. Because of heavy-handed "concensus" claims and supression of further research. Because of scare tactics.

What the Hell is a credible scientist? There were scientists that once believed eugenics and horrible racial theories that were deemed credible. I believe in GW however our impact as humans is low compared to things like volcanoes. I think humans naturally have to feel or touch something for that something to be believed and really, there is nothing wrong with this. Do the research, do the leg work and use thousands of pieces of info. We can't believe two or three sources especially when people stand to make so much money or both sides have turned this into a style, posturing to play the part to fit a social group. People don't believe in GW simply because they have either been steered in that direction or better, they are skeptics, which we all should be until we put down others books and do the research ourselves. We should be weary of people in positions of "authority" and study for ourselves to develop our own ideas. Until we personally know those scientists that "don't gain" from their beliefs are they to be trusted, truly? They could be scumbags. How do we know? Because they wrote a paper or have a college degree? People don't believe in GW because the last vestige of hope of humanity is being skeptical. Perhaps through study and research some people that think GW is a hoax now will eventually believe in it however no human should be a rubber stamp. People don't believe in it because they aren't idiots like the rest of us that confuse emotion with skepticism.

Calling AGW a hoax is another way to explain the fact there is no scientific evidence it exists. If you simply disagree with the theory, you have to explain why you' and most climate scientists are right and politicians and algore are wrong, why the theory is not supported by fundamental physics, why the sun explains the recent warming and not CO2, etc. etc.

Opponents to AGW are faced with no scientific evidence that they're wrong but overwhelming religion style fanaticism. The easiest way to explain AGW is with conspiracy theories. The reason 97% of climate scientists don't agree that humans are causing global warming is because they're just saying so to get Big Oil money! Or they just want to destroy the environment and make oil companies rich!

You see, if you can dismiss all the scientific evidence as nothing more than a hoax, you don't have to explain scientifically where it's wrong. It's a cop-out for the many people who don't understand basic climate science, but who are true-believers of man-made global warming, usually for political reasons.

You're trying to discredit the logic of logical people.

I don't know much about global warming, but it seems to me that man isn't responsible. But im willing to listen to other arguments. As far as Horner being on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, I don't know that he is, but the scientists you quote are probably on the payroll of someone like greenpeace, everyone has a salary my friends. They don't do it for free. I do know that for every scientist that says it's caused by man, another doesn't think so. That report the left always likes to quote, some of the scientits on it sued to get their names taken off of it, because they didn't agree with the summary, only the part they had written.

Gore says there is a layer of CO2 in the atmosphere that gets thicker with more CO2 and that makes it trap more heat. That simplistic model is total distortion of reality. CO2 absorbs most of the heat it can absorb from the ground in the first 10 meters. Essentially all of the heat from the ground is absorbed in the first few hundred meters. Gore is certainly not a scientist but he presents his simplistic distorted presentation as scientific and much of it was invented by scientists obviously for propaganda purposes. Is that distortion a hoax or just gross incompetence?

Water is a much more important greenhouse gas and absorbs the heat in less the distance. Heat from the ground also conducts directly to the atmosphere and is transferred by movement of molecules or convection. When you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, all you do is compress the range at which they absorb the bands to extinction. You still have the convection spreading the heat so that is mitigated. Activists and their computer generated models say that increasing CO2 will increase water vapor and that will make it warmer. They have to ignore the fact that greenhouse warmth from CO2 and water is the same. It is just slightly faster molecular movement in the air that defines heat. If their fantasy was true, warmth from water vapor would increase the capacity to hold more water vapor and there would be a spiraling cycle or runaway warming. You don't have to be a genius to realize that has never happened so there are obviously feedback mechanisms. Is that a hoax or just gross incompetence?

They try to say there will be warming higher in the atmosphere because there is less water up there so the CO2 will absorb more. All that happens is that what CO2 would have absorbed before gets absorbed in a correspondingly shorter distance. Nothing new gets absorbed until you get to the point where it isn't absorbed to extinction. That is a pathetically small amount. There are frequencies that are black or opaque to light where CO2 absorbs. The only increase possible is a tiny amount on the shoulders which is hardly enough to worry about. If CO2 absorbed more than 8 percent of the bandwidth it might absorb something statistically significant. Using that as evidence of significant warming is either stupid, ignorant to the point of incompetent or intentionally deceptive which rises to the level of hoax.

There are certain things that can be easily show their assumptions are nothing but virtual facts that only exist in their computer models. They predict increased warming in the mid troposphere relative to the ground. It hasn't happened. They predict that radiation leaving the atmosphere will be less because it is causing warming. The radiation leaving the atmosphere is increased. Ignoring that fact is either grossly ignorant, stupid or an intentional distortion and thus a hoax.

They predict warming and that obviously hasn't happened. They present obvious lies like the hockey stick graph and other data where they cherry pick data and try to revise history. If that doesn't rise to the level of hoax, then nothing will. The IPCC reports aren't written by scientists. They are written by political hacks. They lie when they ignore the scientists that don't agree with the propaganda and list them as authors on their papers. Most of the scientists are probably honest. The same can't be said about the leftist political hacks at the IPCC that write the papers. Many scientists are just stupid or political hacks themselves that are in it for the billions of dollars spent if they phrase everything as alarmist. They are punished for daring to do something honest that might threaten the gravy train like speaking the truth.

Significant human caused warming is a fairytale built on bogus science and leftist propaganda paid for with billions of dollars of taxpayer and special interest money to those willing to distort science and common sense for political purposes. That makes it obviously a hoax. If it were real science, they wouldn't only pay for doomsday idiocy and ignore reality. The vast majority of the warming is obviously natural. You won't get more than a small fraction of a degree of actual warming and that is way below natural variation. It is a hoax by alarmists that distort science and what scientists actually say.

OK, here's a dose of reality.

Scientists are not angels, they are ordinary people employed in a highly political field.

What tends to happen is researchers produce theories which would have important consequences if these theories were proved to be true. The next stage is that they try to gather evidence to support these theories. As we live in the real world, the process of scientific discovery will inevitably be influenced by what's sexy, what's profitable and what's politically expedient,

What AGW alarmism says is we don't care if these researchers find evidence or not. The fact that a number of researchers will get behind this theory is proof enough.

Anthropogenic global warming (much like other theories like life on Mars) was derived from a genuine scientific process of discovery, however just like life on Mars, there's no evidence that significant man made global warming exists and it very likely that we'll never find it no matter how many billions we spend on research. Skeptics aren't the ones who are trying to create a religion here.

I have to challenge pegminers statement that grant funding for AGW under the Bush administration was difficult to come by. All of the post-docs in my lab and over half of the grad students in my department (Including me) are funded by grants (NSF, DOE) investigating the impacts of climate change. And most of the grants are older than the Obama administration.

There is this underlying theme of addressing climate change in *all* funding opportunities now. These didn't pop up in the last 10 months.

What Bush did was to add extra layers of bureaucracy and this false idea of "accountability" which lead to unit and lab directors in the government research institutions shifting their focus onto a CYA mindset.

Calling AGW a hoax is the easiest way to dismiss the scientific evidence. If you simply disagree with the theory, you have to explain why you're right and 97% of climate scientists are wrong, why the theory is supported by fundamental physics, what can explain the recent warming if not CO2, etc. etc.

Opponents to AGW are faced with overwhelming scientific evidence that they're wrong. The easiest way to explain the discrepancy is with conspiracy theories. The reason 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming is because they're just saying so to get grant money! They just want to tax us and make Al Gore rich!

You see, if you can dismiss all the scientific evidence as nothing more than a hoax, you don't have to explain scientifically where it's wrong. It's a cop-out for the many people who don't understand basic climate science, but who are in denial about man-made global warming, usually for political reasons.

You're trying to understand the logic of illogical people.

AGW became a hoax because of the likes of Al Gore. Exaggerating claims from unreliable climate models, fallacies of polar bears drowning in a farce of a documentary, and all this for for the noble cause of making Al richer.

Jacques Chirac-“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,”

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

Der Spiegel Excerpts: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the German government's climate protection adviser, argues that drastic measures must be taken in order to prevent a catastrophe. Schellnhuber is proposing the creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet, regardless whether they live in Berlin or Beijing.

As for the science, it lacks a historical perspective. Paleoclimatology proves that Co2 has little to do with the Earth's temperatures. AGW research is confounded by cloud formation, ignores the Sun's role, ignores the melting ice caps on Mars, and simply focuses on Co2 emissions.

This is why I belive it to be a hoax. AGW turned into a tool for making money and gaining control of the people.

EDIT: Why are you so angry DAWEI? Tell your Momma your underwear is too tight and she will buy you some big boy underwear:)

I'm not saying that AGW is a 'hoax', but I do believe that there has been a tremendous amount of corrupt/manipulated data spewed out to the public as well as the well-meaning scientific community.

Unfortunately, a relatively small number of self-serving individuals looking for fame and fortune, have severely tainted the credibility of science. Even more unfortunate, is the fact that many legitimate scientists have been brow-beaten into 'going along' with the religous rants of AGW, for fear of losing their jobs or research funding.

Until the data is free from manipulation and fraudulent interpretation, the notion of AGW will continue to be just that...... a Notion.

First, what do you mean scientists have no stake in the truth of AGW? They are not outside of human-nature. They will ultimately look out for their own interests just like most of the rest of us. A crisis in the earth's climate means a greater need for studies which equals more funding and more jobs. The difference between having a job and not can foster bias, intentional or unintentional. The reason I think it's a hoax is the politics involved. Liberals, now more than ever are pushing a marxist or socialist agenda. In short, they desire big government and fewer individual freedoms, such as how much energy should one be allowed to consume. AGW is simply a means to this end and is a quite "convenient lie"