If global warming is a hoax, why does all the available scientific data say it's not?

Because the "evidence" is clearly flawed. In Phoenix for example, they used the same weather station for decades. When they started, it was in the middle of nowhere. Eventually urban sprawl reached the station, and the results became fettered with asphalt streets, car exhaust, massive air conditioners from nearby buildings, and other "urban heat affects" This lead them to "estimate" an adjustment in temps, based on speculation and conjecture.

Other issues that concern me are the quality consistency and accuracy of instruments used in the 1930's 1940's and 1950's juxtaposes with Instruments used today.

We are only talking fractions of degrees, so accuracy is very crucial.

Then when you factor the obvious political agenda and bias of academia, it's entirely too speculative to satisfy a proper objective analysis.

Professional climate "skeptics" use the same PR methods as the tobacco industry used against the Surgeon Generals Report on Smoking and Health. Deny and cast doubt. Relatively easy to throw stones, kinda hard to protect.....

Just last week the Royal Society reiterated their esteemed knowledge on the subject:

"Climate change: a summary of the science, describes how and why the earth is currently warming, and explains the wide range of independent measurements and observations which underpin this understanding. It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earths warming has been caused largely by human activity. It also explains the uncertainty involved in predicting the size of future temperature increases. There are many potentially serious consequences of climate change, so that important decisions need to be made. The guide concludes that, as in many other areas, policy choices will have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge, but that the scientific evidence is an essential part of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area."

http://royalsociety.org/News_WF.aspx?pageid=429497...

Yeah, it's a hoax perpetrated by these pointy head scientists to get rich off of carbon credits, blah, blah......

-Yet the real money being protected is David Koch's and the shareholders of Exxon/Mobil. A lot of money is spent funding those professional skeptics.

___________________________________

“The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of

the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years"

-TOTALLY WRONG, NOT TRUE

"It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years."

http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

Nowhere in this paper, does it state warming ended

in the last 10 years, jeeper_p...

-Please be factual and refrain from making "facts" up.

Really, that's weird.

Since Dr Phil Jones head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia

Who was responsible for maintaining the Instrumental Global temperature record for the IPCC

Stated in an interview earlier this year, that there has been no global waming since 1985

2. The the British Royal Society just issed a report on Climate Change, where they retracted most of the previous statements made about AWG, inclusing this statement.

“The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of

the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.”

There are facts and science on both sides of the argument, and both sides are guilty of spreading misinformation deliberately.

The Economist - You do know that there are multiple definitions to words, right? Well the definition of a Scientific theory is basically this. It's a explanation of an idea, with FACTS, evidence, and data to back it up. Of course it isn't "official" yet that evolution is real, and most scientist and biologist accept it universally because most of them have SEEN evolution in real time.

We've seen evolution in real time with viruses, worms, fruit flies, and etc. We see evolution when we bred the most physical fit animals, DOGS for example.

And the fact that our DNA is 99% the same as other primates such as apes and monkeys is more evidence, not to mention the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals coexisting together! So much evidence is present, literally mountains of it. Human beings and apes share the same ancestors, we didn't EVOLVE from an ape!

tl;dr.

Probably just one of those boring over-done rants about "how global warming is real and how do people deny it".

I've read and seen too many of these questions to care anymore.

I believe it's real and that the world is warming, but I think many people are making it out to be a little bit worse than what it is and will end up being. It won't be the Apocalypse and I doubt the end of time is near.

I've read and watched and heard enough facts to simply not care anymore. From being forced to watch "The Inconvinient Truth" five times, needed to do a few research essays and being stuck with an "Environmental Science" class because it was my only possible option, I'm bored of it.

Even if I bought in to AGW (which I don't), when you pin down the experts, they admit YOU CAN'T GET there from here.

In a July 2009 congressional discussion of Cap and Trade, Cabinet officials trying to make the case for C&T strongly questioned would make any difference.

At an estimated cost of $5.7 trillion from 2012-2035 (The Brookings Institute estimates $9 trillion from 2012-2050), it should be a red flag when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits cap-and-trade won’t work.

EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.

“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented a chart, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

Getting China and India on board with a carbon reduction plan is highly unlikely. Even then, a multilateral approach does not guarantee a successful system or the ultimate goal of global temperature reduction.

Consider the European Union. Emissions targets were set too high. Too many pollution allowances were given away to industry. The value of a carbon credit plummeted. Companies made windfall profits by charging customers more for energy while selling allowances they didn’t need while seeing little (or no) success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm totally behind controlling pollution. We must be good stewards of our environment. But thinking that such efforts will have any impact on global climate change is simply wishful thinking. Global efforts would be better served in finding ways for humanity to deal with these NATURAL cyclic changes.

Global warming is real and so is global cooling. MAN MADE global warming does not have a consensus of independent scientist (there are over 50,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone who have singed a petition stating the same).

Does your answer address why Mars and Venus are heating up along the same trend lines as the Earth? No it doesn't.

Come back when you are able to think for yourself.

Oh and by the way... what is the correct average temperature we should try to keep the Earth at?

it rather is actual. i'm residing in Germany, climate right this is getting further and extra loopy. it rather is relatively starting to be unpredictable. And in simple terms think of approximately who's telling you which ones tale. the adult males that very own a large number of oil are telling you it rather is in simple terms pretend... yet why telling you it replaced into actual if it wasn't? And examine the pictures of mountains... contemporary ones and ones that are 50 years previous or so. you will in many cases see that they contained a lot greater snow interior the previous. and you notice... in spite of if it replaced right into a pretend... What could you lose via believing it rather is genuine? Oh no, we could use ecosystem friendly potential sources that keep the air sparkling... terrible! :P (and what occurred if we theory climate substitute replaced into pretend? ;) we could be enormously screwed... )

There was a consensus of scientists who said that the atom wasn't real, they were proven wrong. There was a consensus of scientists who said that Robert Goddard was crazy for thinking that you could fly to the moon in a rocket, they were wrong too. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as global warming, but just because the scientific community says that it is true, and not all of the scientific community agree on global warming, doesn't make it true. They can be wrong too.

Ah, you have been a busy little bee with Google.

Yes, our globe warms/cools often over the billions of years of existence. However, I don't believe man is to blame for the current warming trend.

To your recent edit:

So Jared you consider something Scientific truth by the fact that no “other evidence exists to counter it”? But then Jared, we could say that those who believed 6 centuries ago that the world was flat were correct. They had no other evidence to counter it otherwise.

May I ask why you think you know it all?