Is it plausible that scientists are faking global warming?

People can get away with a lot if they are politically well connected.

Micheal Mann found a hockey stick that wasn't in his raw data, prehaps intentionally or perhaps by a programming error on his part. Finding this hockey stick seems to have done more good than harm to his career and his peers have rushed to his defence claiming that despite any shortcomings in his scientific technique, he got the right answer (apparently by pure luck).

The other problem with climate science is that the processes are not transparant. Case in point are the numbers that the IPCC use for equivalent radiative forcings for various factors. The 500 pages or so of each IPCC report does not include a detailed explanation of where these numbers come from.

I think it is accurate to say that most scientists believe humans have added to the warming trend. That is a long way from saying that most scientists believe we are causing catastrophic or significant warming.

Since we are talking about science and not an English essay, we have to precise on what your question is. I notice that alarmists prefer to keep it vague so that they can exaggerate and cherry pick. So what is global warming to you? Is it just the warming caused by humans? We don't know how much that is so GW under that definition is an undefined unknown quantity. Is it any warming? Is the warming in the last 100 years, the last 40 years, or the last million?

I think there appears to be some instances of faking such as exaggeration of warming in the Himalaya, the usage of stations in warm inhabited areas to extend warming into areas without stations, cherry picking climate proxies that show a hockey stick, etc.. These sort of things have been discovered.

I still think it has warmed over the last 100 years. There is an incentive (monetary and fame) to show increases. Those scientists that show warming are rewarded with more funding. Those that don't aren't. This isn't anything new with science. It was the same way in 1960 in geology. Anyone that thought continents drifted couldn't get published in most geology journals. In 1968 anyone that thought otherwise couldn't get published. There is a tendency for theories, whether right or wrong, to be favored by the scientific establishment.

No. It is not plausible that "scientists are *faking* global warming."

The Earth's lower atmosphere did warm from 1976 to 1998. Surface temperature and satellite temperature agree on this. It probably warmed up until 2003. The Earth's lower atmosphere has generally warmed since 1600 AD.

It is plausible that the scientists who comprise the so-called consensus are wrong about what the climate has been doing since 2003. It is also plausible that they are wrong about the degree to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to climate change over the last 150 years. It is also plausible that they are wrong in their assertion that the warming of the late 20th century was anomalous.

The only fakery on the part of the scientists who comprise the so-called consensus revolves around the Hockey Stick, "Mike's Nature Trick" and "Hide the Decline." However that fakery does not negate the real global warming that occurred from 1976 to 1998-2003.

People like Al Gore engage in fakery all of the time... But Al Gore is not a scientist. He's a con artist.

It's pretty much certain, and the equation goes like this.

"I'm hiring scientists to work with me on my global warming theories."

"I think global warming is a bunch of BS based on the evidence that we have."

"Well then, we have no use for you..... next!" A new guy sits down in the interviewer's chair. " I'm hiring scientists to work with me on my global warming theories."

"Global warming is a huge threat to mankind! I can't wait to work on that...."

"You're our man!"

The first guy gets a job somewhere doing something productive, and is then not called a "scientist" by the "scientist" working in the global warming lab...

Highly unlikely that anyone on the planet questions the correlation between warming and GHG's. Every scientist I'm acquainted with does question the dynamics, plausibility, and long term outcome.

pretty hard to fake the historical & geological record of the past 11,000 years that shows an over all upward temperature trend during the holocene.

but claiming that slight recent variations in that continuing trend that are well within the boundary's of "noise" or margin of measuring error are UNPRECEDENTED!!! & CATASTROPHIC!!!!! is nothing but political sensationalism.

this kind of blatant hucksterism is common on carnival midways & used car lots but does nothing good for the public perception of main stream science.

it just reduces science to the same sub basement level as politics in the mind of John & Jane doe & they both vote on where their tax money gets spent.

If the government is paying scientist to push the AGW theory , the scientist blew it. They just announce that a lot of oil from the BP spill was lurking undewater in the Gulf. I guess that the government will cut off funding to the scientist now and the truth about AGW will come out!!!

Makes about as much sense as the worlds scientist collaborating on a world-wide conspiracy!

Since most of them want to price carbon They "Divine " Man made Global Warming

and Jumble up the numbers to apply to a graph . And the Computer models are

faked because of chaos factor . You can run the same numbers in a model and the

results are different each time. The download the most worst and scary one .

It is the new boogie man to terrorize children.

Well you would think that it would be hard to get hundreds and thousands of scientist to fake data but if you look at the survey where 97% of the climate scientist think GW is man made you will find that the 97% came from 79 climate scientist. So there aren't hundred and thousand of scientist involved the number of climate scientist is around 79. That is a pretty small number. A much more realistic number to be involved in fudging the numbers to support AGW if for no other reason that to keep getting government grants for more AGW studies.

It's not really plausible at all. Why would scientists want to fake global warming? How could scientists from all the countries in the world get together to put out the fake data about global warming. It would have to the greatest conspiracy of all time, and if there is some reason why governments and scientists should want to do this its frightening to think what that reason might be.

No.

There is no money in faking science. They would be caught to easily. Vast conspiracy theories don't work except in the movies.

The legit scientist that are on the other side of the debate argue a) global warming is not man-made (for example sunspots or natural variations) b) it is is not as bad as made out to be (over reach with data), or c) human will adapt, and maybe do some geoengineering to mitigate. None believe the global warming side is faking, or that there is a conspiracy.