What is the evidence that global warming is a hoax?

i don't usually answer GW questions because it's such a politicized topic, but decided i would share a couple of things with you that i feel are most telling and suspicious

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...

why would they do this? because they have something to loose

meanwhile, the bush administration -- who we all know is a friend to corporate interests, esp big oil (mr. bush having run his own oil company into the ground) -- has helped the industry by ignoring, suppressing and distorting the findings from their own scientists

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_...

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_...

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_...

so that's all quite sketchy

and i think another point to be made is that, although major shifts in climate HAVE happened in the past, those events were coincided with major extinction events. so to say that "yes it's changing but has changed before" ignores the fact that millions of species died during those times and the human race does not exist in a vacuum on this planet -- we are heavily reliant on our climate staying exactly as it is

time will show the truth of the matter. you can't convince nay-sayers who don't check their sources (or their source's sources -- they get paid, remember). just hope that we take the safe road in the meantime, and don't listen to what those who have the most to loose have to say -- i don't want to go to he.ll in a handbasket for them

Iz, all you did was provide partisan links disguised as scientific fact. Your initial claims to not want to politicize the issue was almost immediately broken by yourself.

It's just not true 'that and i think another point to be made is that, although major shifts in climate HAVE happened in the past, those events were coincided with major extinction events'. There have been numerous shifts in the earths climate that have NOT been associated with extinction events. Most recently, the Little Ice Age is a pertinent example. To confound your post even further, the Little Ica Age was preceded by the Medieval Warming Period. This example spanned approximately AD 1500 to 1850, well before the advent of fossil fuel use.

So, although the use of combustion able hydrocarbons has dumped increased amounts of CO2 and CO into the atmosphere, the truth is that the extent of the effect is not known. In the absence of reliable meteorological data, a scientifically reliable comparison is impossible. Plus, the year 2012-2013 saw numerous record lows over much of the planet and in spite of dire predictions of the polar ice caps vanishing, both regions have experienced an increase in the use sheets.

Clearly, the claims of the GW advocated don't match their own predictions and short term conlusions.

Here's a great documentary to educate ALL " Global Warming or Global Governance"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u81qXOYfKg

They have not established that greenhouse gases are warming the earth. The IPCC is a political organization set up by the United Nations to provide evidence to support the framework convention on climate change, which has been signed by governments; it is entirely political.

Interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so.

It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close.

Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.

Enjoy :)

Peace to All Brothers & Sisters

I hear lots of deniers shouting about hoax's and frauds but I am yet to see them produce any real evidence, it just seems to be lots of shouting. The science guys here Trevor, Pegminer, Dana1981, Antarcticice and Linlyons put a far more rational set of answers and support them with links to genuine infomation.

All this rubbish about marxists and communists is complete crap.

There is no evidence. Most of the deniers of anthropogenic climate change take a he said/she said approach. They point out that the climate has changed naturally in the past and then come to the conclusion that the current climate change is also natural without looking at any data what-so-ever or realizing that there is more than one forcing that can alter climate.

Nightwing: Why do you continue to push your ignorant article by the NOAA? You didn't even read it. All you did was look at the title and say "Well gee maybe I should use that!"

From your link:

"Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found."

This sure doesn't sound like they are attributing growing temperatures to Stratospheric water vapour as you would have us believe does it? Actually they state specifically that an increase in greenhouse gases leads to warming.

And another link: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/climate/Clima...

NOAA fully backs and supports information that shows anthropogenic climate change is real.

Well, I certainly can't give you any evidence that it is a hoax, because it is not and the people that believe that are either ignorant of science or deluded, or both. There is observational, theoretical and computational evidence that it is real, and virtually every legitimate scientific society has asserted that it is real and caused by humans.

But that doesn't stop whackos from mentioning "leftists" and "marxists" every time the subject is brought up. That should be a tip off that the people that talk about it being a "hoax" are simply not interested in science-they are purely political.

EDIT for Portland-Joe: The point is, there is plenty of science behind it, regardless of whether you're a capitalist, business favoritist, socialist, marxist, whatever. All of the world's scientific societies are not dupes to Marxism--we (actual scientists) believe there is real and present danger posed by radically changing the world's atmospheric composition. I have no doubt there are Marxists that believe in it and will try to use to their advantage, just as I believe there are business favoritists (not really capitalists) that will also try to turn it to their advantage. It does not make it a hoax or make the science any less real, however there does seem to be real fraud on the part of people that deny the science for political reasons (e.g., the "geologist").

Al Gore is the biggest evidence of that. You can't be more evident than he is.

He said she said.

I made a bunch of stuff up and told a bunch of people, now a bunch of people believe it.

Now some people are looking for reasons to believe it's a hoax and they latch onto quotes that seam to suggest something entirely different from what they actually do, when you don't look at where the quote came out of.

Like if somebody quotes me saying "she is so hot" and tells everybody and they all laugh at me now, when what I really said was "she is so hot tempered, it's going to get her in trouble one day." Man that makes me mad, because I said it, but in context, it meant something completely different.

They latch onto quotes like:

"Mikes...trick...to hide the decline"

"please delete" yada yada yada

They also like to play numbers games to try and tell the story they want to believe. like, if you look only at this year, and this year, that's a downward trend. When, yes, there are several downward trends, lying within a long term upward trend.

There is no good argument to support the hoax idea. The only thing scientific the deniers can argue about is climate sensitivity. That is, how quickly will the climate change.

So they utterly fail the debate, and you can't really even give them points for effort since their arguments are so obviously wrong, and they keep repeating them, over and over religiously. Like if you say it often enough, and loudly enough, that will make it true. It won't. It might make some people believe it.

That's why their entirely dependent on the ignorance of enough people so they can get support. So throw enough lies out there to hopefully cause enough confusion to keep the ignorance out there.

There is none

I would not say it is a hoax, it is just exagerrated. Unfortunately, too many people use sound bites. It is like climate change. When has the climate not been changing. Are you talking about man-made climate change? How do you distinguish between man-made and nature made? The answer is of course that you can not do either. Warmers are talking about CO2's ability to slightly wamr the atmosphere, but are really talking about multiplying the ability of CO2 by a factor of 3-5 times its ability. So if you are looking for reason to doubt that the world is going to become uninhabitable, then I can provide more than enough info for that. The idea that the polar bears are dying out, is shown untrue by the fac that the pop has increased 5 fold. Choose the exagerration and I can provide info to show it is not true. You want to believe that we should lessen CO2 in the atmosphere, but it will not destroy us, then I agree with that completely and can definately show evidence of this.