1. 

Somewhere in between, I believe there is global warming but that is very minor.

Elizabeth says why would climatologists lie when they would be faced with the same taxes and price increases, simple if you have a well paid research job, you can afford to pay the taxes, not that I am saying they are lying, many believe as it's hard to disbelieve in something which is to your advantage.

As to the 99% or 97% scientists believing in climate change, well it depends on how you frame the question, well you would have to class me as one of them, even though I am a skeptic/denier because yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause some warming, will it change the climate and cause global warming NO.

I don't think it is a hoax but I do think that a good many people from scientists and governments to ex-politicians are using the the possibility of anthropogenic global warming for their own ends.

Is it true? Well, just at the moment it is not true. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

The earth has warmed and cooled before by quite large amounts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/w...

About that 97% figure. The data for the most recent paper (Cook et al) contains other information. For instance: only 65 out of the 12000 plus papers said that man was over 50% responsible for AGW. To express this in another way, nearly 99.5% of the papers did not claim that man was mainly responsible. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-...

As for: "Why would thousands of scientists in National Academies lie to the public?" ask yourself: "How many of those scientists were canvassed for their opinion? I suspect the answer is close to zero. The bureaucrats in the institutions made the pronouncements - probably at the request of their governments - not the scientists.

Why do people claim they are only believing the scientists? This is somewhat disingenuous. They are also choosing between Professor Lindzen and Professor Hansen, for instance.

It's a theory that humans are causing the planet to warm due to fossil fuel emissions of added CO2 to our atmosphere. The problem with the theory is that a change of 0.012% of the atmosphere (CO2 - 280ppm to 400ppm = 0.012% change) does not cause a radical change. The minimum CO2 level is 150ppm for plants to grow.

Considering that research clearly shows that the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended in the mid 1800s and lasted over 500 years one can clearly see that much of the warming is a natural rebounding of temperatures. It has been less than 170 years since the LIA ended.

The Global Warming Scare started in the late 1980s (1988 to be exact) when the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (The IP CC) was formed to prove CO2 emissions were causing the Planet to warm. This has been the mission of the IP CC since its inception. The current head of the IP CC is a well-known socialist and environmentalist named Rajendra Kumar Pachauri. He has been the head of the IP CC since 2002. It's no wonder why the IP CC is an environmentally biased organization.

It's not a matter of my opinion. It is a matter of scientific evidence. Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

As far as whether we want to belive James Hansen or Richard Lindzen, if we listen to James Hansen, the worst thing that will happen is that we will be using clean energy. If we listen to Richard Lindzen, every thing that James Hansen warns about could happen, and even if they don't, we will still need to replace fossil fuels when we run out.

I took a basic community college logic and philosophy course and even I can tell you one thing about people who do not believe in climate change.

The only evidence they have is the appeal to motive fallacy, ad hominem attacks, and a few radical ex scientists.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

Go there if you want proof of global warming.

If it's a hoax, then it's business as usual. If it's true, then it will be an exciting few years ahead. Anybody who thinks it is a tool to instill fear is a PUSSY!

Look, ask yourself this. Why would thousands of climatologists lie to the public? Why would thousands of scientists in National Academies lie to the public? What's in it for scientists?

Before you answer, remember, scientists are people. They live in houses, have families, take holidays, drive cars, use electricity, use air conditioning, burn fossil fuels, pay taxes, pay insurance, and all the other things people do. Why would they deliberately lie to us to 'raise taxes' when, in fact, it's their own taxes they'd be raising?

So, the answer to your question is that the scientific community believe our planet is warming and we're responsible. It would be idiotic for me to second-guess that conclusion. I have never measured atmosphere pressure. I don't even own a barometer. Why on earth would I think I am qualified to assess the work of those scientists? If I thought I was qualified to assess their work, then that would imply I know more about the climate than they do. Which would be arrogance on a breathtaking level. I accept what they say because I trust them. I see no reason to distrust them.

Who do I distrust, if not the scientists? Well, I distrust anonymous deniers who have no experience, training, education, experimental or analysis skills in climatology. The skeptics and deniers seem to argue against the scientific community in favour of a belief that the products produced by multinationals can't be harming our planet. That hasn't been our experience ... profit has usually trumped environmental and health concerns in the past. I distrust politicians. I distrust multinationals with multi billion dollar profits and huge influence politically and economically.

Additional: Kano's argument is the age-old nonsense that is perpetually peddled by the deniers/some skeptics. Most researchers work for universities. When scientists look for research funding, that funding typically doesn't include their salaries because that is paid by the university. In fact, if the university is publicly funded, the pay scales are publicly available and fixed. So why would scientists lie about climate change if their salaries are fixed by universities and are utterly independent of the research funding? What difference to their salary would it make to agree or disagree with AGW?

Secondly, research funding is allocated on the basis of a proposal, not the suspected end result of the proposal. In other words, scientists can't apply for funding on the basis that 'I will add more proof to the theory of AGW' but instead on 'such and such a mechanism is currently not well understood and here is my proposal for how to study it'. Whether that study will support or deny AGW at the end of the study cannot possibly be included at the beginning of the study, otherwise there would be no point in the study if you knew the answer before doing it! So, the point is, there is no reason why scientists should favour AGW in terms of research funding because the funding is granted at the beginning of the process and not at the end when conclusions are published.

Finally, the scientific community is in agreement. Climatologists are the people studying our climate and doing that research. But it is national academies, representing scientists in all fields, who are supporting that position. I have yet to hear an explanation for why these organisations would support AGW considering that the climate science community would represent a tiny faction of their overall membership. What's in it for the theoretical physicists or genetic engineers who agree with their climatology colleagues, unless, of course, they actually think the science is correct?

you really should take a few science courses and decide yourself. It's not a popularity contest unlike politics.

It's a hoax like the moon landings.

The sun is cooling.

It must be warming.

Hoax or truth?

AGW is a reality and 97% of climatologists (who actually study climate) agree that it is caused by human greenhouse emissions. There is really no reason for debating because @99% of all real scientists worldwide accept GW but the DA deniers argue that is is not by humans. Unfortunately The first thing deniers are full of is hot air and lame arguments and links. The second thing they are full of.........well you know.

It is a hoax perpetuated by dishonest people to get the taxpayer's dollars and gain control over the masses.

This is the basic plan.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ― and hence clamorous to be led to safety ― by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

And proponents of AGW openly admit it.

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."

And nobody can deny that they are redistributing our money. For example, Al Gore is now a billionaire.

Real scientists know that AGW is a bunch of bunk.

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

He is not alone by far:

Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."

Many many other scientists now know that AGW is a hoax:

the money trail and it tells a story."

Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”



It is indisputable that many charlatans are getting rich by promoting global warming.

its a serious problem for our earth