A theory that is not refuted by observation could be correct. So why does the global "warming is a hoax" scam continue?

The earth has spent many years warming and cooling without our help. So even if it is warming now that does not prove anything either way.

By the way, what is the temperature increase of the ocean? Any answer that has lots of noughts after the decimal point needs to be qualified by the accuracy with which we know the average temperature of the ocean.

The "scam" epithet is still used because we can see lots of rich people getting richer on the back of all the climate scares.

"The raw data shows even more warming." Really, have you seen the NOAA correction curve? It says that the raw data shows less warming. Also, look at the Karl et al "pause buster" paper. The original temperature data showed a pause, even the alarmists say there was a slowing down, but after the data had been Karlized the pause was no more. The upward slope was only present after the new corrections.

You forgot about the satellite data, Bruce, which shows NO WARMING. I know it is easy for you to forget things, being a lib and all. I don't see much warming in the ocean, either. Perhaps you could find a link to mean ocean temperature over the last 20 years. I don't trust surface temperature data. If you take out all the upward adjustments, it is not nearly as scary. Why did the NOAA make such dramatic upward adjustments since 1970? Why have they reduced the number of monitoring stations by 2/3?

Your question is a straw man. Almost nobody believes "global warming is a hoax." We are simply arguing over the magnitude of warming. Will CO2 cause warming to accelerate and spiral out of control? Based on the trends over the last 15 years, that's a difficult argument to make.

Even if the actual rise in the temperature and eventual increase in the level of ocean water might seem hardly ever an ultimate truth the entire theory has a lot of useful points to create guidelines for issues that usually loose importance in the public mind. The crowded planet's outraage against the way human beings have treated nature over millenia is evident always when an explanation for the cruelty of floods, storms and the tide are needed.

Okay it is not refuted by observation, but neither is it confirmed either.

A theory needs to be confirmed by experiment or observation, this has not happened.

The oceans are warming??? how can we know that, the oceans have an average depth of 14,000ft and cover 70% of the globe, while we only have a few thousand measuring stations and very very few deep measurements, how do we know that the warming is not from natural circulation.

Because it is a money maker and power broker.

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

All about wealth distribution and very little about environment.

Well, I would say that the claimers of "hoax" refer to the outrageous claims of "facts" and "proofs" that do not actually exist as the reason for judging it a "hoax". The failure to refute is not ever a source of hoax. It is claims of non-existent proof that are a hoax. The hoaxers are not saying it could be, they are saying it IS, and to do so they appear to manipulate facts.

"Catastrophic Warming" caused by CO2 rise is the HOAX!

Nobody refutes the idea that 'CO2 is a greenhouse gas and helps to keep the planet warm'.

The refutation comes from whether or not a 40% increase in CO2 levels (0.028% to 0.04%) is pushing atmospheric temperatures into dangerous "tipping point" levels and that "CO2 enrichment to the overall carbon cycle is also detrimental".

In both cases this is far from being proven, unless you believe in biased research projects sponsored by BIG GOVERNMENT environmentalist scientists.

In reiterating my point of the issue I will say, "An overall atmospheric change of Earth's atmosphere of 0.01% in over 350 years of human industrialization (fossil fuel use) is not having catastrophic effects on the entirety of the Planet!"

The "THEORY" is based on many inferences and innuendos that can't possibly be proven scientifically, mathematically, or with any "empirical" evidence. Using temperature anomalies as evidence is an ignorant interpretation of what "Global Warming Science" is trying to prove, especially after science has already proven that we have just evolved from a Little Ice Age that was caused NATURALLY. We evolved from that Ice Age less than 150 years ago, and temperatures have barely risen 1C above the established minimum temperature of that Ice Age.

"Global Warming" hasn't even risen to pre-Little Ice Age levels according to many astute, intelligent, and prolific climate scientists! Many of the REAL alarmist scientists believe that current Global average temperatures are merely 10ths of a degree higher than what happened during the MWP (Medieval Warming Period), and they also understand that there will be even more NATURAL warming until it starts to fall again.

Global Warming is on again & its melting ice & filling the oceans. As is oceans have billions of gallons of freshwater on top of saltwater. Its no scam. Global Command.

Because you have complete fools like "Gary F" and his alter-ego "James" who believe in it.

you either want it warm or cold, like warm.