When do deniers think the whole AGW "hoax / conspiracy thing" started?

Genius summary, great question.

Your brief history of "the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world" says it all. The idea that 90% of the world's climatologists, meteorologists and other earth scientists could successfully get together, regardless of their political views, nationality or religion, and conspire with politicians, fledgling little alternative energy companies, the editors of peer-reviewed journals, and virtually every mass-media outlet with the prominent exception of Fox Noise, to create and perpetuate a hoax of this magnitude... well, it just boggles the mind.

How do deniers think that the Arctic is melting, tropical glaciers have nearly disappeared, other glaciers around the world are rapidly receding, plant species are migrating higher in elevation and farther from the equator, spring is arriving earlier in temperate climates around the world, coral reefs are dissolving in oceans made more acidic by carbonic acid due to increased CO2, permafrost is melting where it has never melted in recorded history, and ocean levels have risen enough to render several low-lying island nations nearly uninhabitable? Is this all an elaborate illusion created by David Copperfield?

Actually, it all started in the 1800's when the first scientist took CO2 in 95% humidity and said that because of the industrial revolution, man was causing a warm up in the environment since he did not know that we were exiting a mini ice age. Also, using a natural occurring weather phenomena as proof of man made climate change is wrong at so many levels.

Finally, how about the United States EPA wanting to put tighter controls on smog when currently half of the Nation doesn't meet existing levels? Sounds more like control for control sake then anything.

I don't know when it started. They were telling me there were killer bees on their way back in 1972. Still waiting on them, BTW.

I saw the first suggestions of global warming theory in the early to mid 70s, but it predated that era.

Of course, in 1978, many global warming theorists, like Carl Sagan, jumped ship to support the notion of a new ice age. Then, a little later, he was back to global warming.

My guess is that the original "theory" started long before I heard of it. Probably in the 1960s, when so many people were on LSD and so many scientists were created by college students trying to stay in school to avoid the war.

Your belief that there were no global warming theorists before 1988 is very wrong.

The hoax hypothesis is not a hypothesis; the emails tell us this is a fact.

Besides, global warming is a lie. If the planet is hotter, why is sea level not rising? Why do you global warming believers keep AVOIDING SEA LEVEL QUESTIONS? It should be 15 inches for every degree Fahrenheit it goes up, until it hits a rise of about 250 feet, when all of the antarctic ice cap is melted. And no, ice melting in the ocean will not affect that by more than 10%, so the north pole melting means nothing in this regard. or Virtually nothing.

We can all speculate about the effects of climate change but at the end of the day it is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, they have utterly failed to do so.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;

5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;

10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

I welcome them to convert me as if I see good science and the answers to the above then I'll be one of the first to believe in AGW just as I support almost all other areas of science!

Well, to competently understand when the AGW fraud began in earnest, we would need to go all the way back to Ancient Greece, in order to be informed as to the battle between the followers of Zeus (the perpetual hater of humanity) and Prometheus (the one who, according to myth, brought science to humanity through the gift of fire). As should be apparent to any properly educated person, this battle still dominates historical dynamics to this day.

However, in the interests of brevity, let us begin in the 18th century, with the degenerate Venetian kook Giammaria Ortes. Ortes was a charlatan in service of the Venetian Empire's ruling finance oligarchy, and was the man who first devised the crackpot notion of "carrying capacity" with regards to the human population, claiming that the maximum human population that could ever be reached was around 3 billion - of course, as a staunch imperialist and servant of oligarchy, and in the same manner as the "environmentalists" of today, Ortes completely discounted the impact of technology and human ingenuity in making his lunatic prophecies.

Ortes' morally and intellectually degenerate "ideas" (if you can even call them that) were later plagiarized by the British East India Company and Royal Society fraudster Thomas Malthus, who asserted the demonstrably false hypothesis that human populations will necessarily increase at an exponential rate, while economic output (specifically, food production) can only increase at a linear rate. This fraudulent assertion, based on the utterly degenerate view of man as nothing more than a mere beast, has been disproven over and over again by hundreds of years of experience in which food supply and industrial production have increased at a rate significantly exceeding the rate of increase in population.

This is the ideological and intellectual foundations on which the Brutish British Empire relied to justify its mass-murder, mass-looting, mass-genocide, and mass-enslavement of much of the world's population; as time went on, these crimes against humanity later took on the title "eugenics." It is also the foundation on which Adolph Hitler (who, like fellow fascist Benito Mussolini, was initially an agent of the British Empire) constructed his Malthusian, environmentalist ideology of National Socialism, or Nazism.

Needless to say, after the end of World War II and the exposure of the crimes of Britain's Frankenstein monster Nazi regime, eugenics and Nazism weren't too popular. However, a handful of powerful, predominately British, Dutch, and American oligarchs were insistent upon carrying on the Malthusian agenda under the banner of "conservation," or as it was later known, "environmentalism." An important milestone in this period was the founding of the World Wildlife Fund by pro-Nazi eugenicists Prince Philip of Britain (current Royal Consort to London's shrinking little queen), Julian Huxley (president of the British Eugenics Society), and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (a Nazi SS officer during WWII).

Through the WWF and the environmentalist organizations it spawned, the mass-murderous Nazi eugenics agenda was continued. The Nazi WWF won a significant victory in the 1960's by succeeding in banning DDT, a move which led to a holocaust far greater than Hitler's in developing sector nations. The neo-Nazis/environmentalists succeeded in turning the tide culturally in 1968 - the same year which marked the end of net growth in infrastructure investment per capita, and thus the beginning of the physical collapse of many western economies.

As the economy and culture continued to degenerate in the 1970's, this Malthusian Nazi cabal decided that the time was right to launch a more direct assault on technological and cultural optimism, and in 1975, anthropologist, Anglophile, and hater of humanity Margaret Mead organized the first "climate conference." This marked the beginning of "climate change" hysteria.

The earliest I would date global warming's emergence as a political science, rather than as a hypothesis, is the first assessment of the IPCC, completed in 1990.

"Indeed, the great majority of the IPCC authors were, on the one hand, not climate

scientists and were, on the other hand, pre-approved by their governments in a political

process (this is a pattern followed by the CCSP reports as well.)"

"A fundamental notion contained in the IPCC and CCSP reports ... isthat climate models are capable of producing “facts” when in fact they cannot. They are models – which means they are the sum of the assumptions and prejudices of the organizations building the models (and do rather poorly when measured against the real world ....)"

And what is proposed as the solution? Why, or course! Have the United State agree to keep its production capacity and energy consumption low while paying trillions of dollars to other developing nations (including China). In this environment, isn't it more rational to have skepticism?

When funding started pouring into peoples pockets to prove man was responsible for global warming.

Huh? Amazing you forgot about Keeling, most alarmist don't bother with history. Facts seem to be a inference to agenda. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Kfunds.htm

It wasn't until 1975 that climate change scientist decided to step out of the closet. Raise their heads and declare themselves as climatologist. Most were nerdy statisticians and a renewal of science and government funding prompted a renewed interest (military concerns) in climate science. Really most skeptics know 1000% more then the best GW proponents. So get your facts in a line and stop looking foolish.

People just don't handle facts very well, what can I say.

Man, that is just a great question, and well said. But of course we know we'll get the same answers... "when the liberals decided to give all our money to china", or "when Al Gore invented it".

According to about half of them, everything you said is a lie, and Al Gore invented global warming circa 2006. About half of them, therefore, are stupid beyond all hope.