The glaciers are shrinking, temperatures are rising. Witness these glaciers for yourself instead of believing in so called "research"

Conspiracy theorist continue to push their nonsence because some people actually buy it.

"There's a sucker born every minute." - P. T. Barnum

Well for starters ,When a large group of this so called researches have been busted for fraud and miss use of funds , it is no longer a conspiracy , but a federal bust . The hoax was on all of us . And glaciers do move , and the ones by the oceans , they end up in the ocean sooner or later . The ice caps should grow at a rapid rate under your green house , worm water + cold air = snow , snow makes the ice caps . and the air in eather cap is still very cold .

The AGW scientists also say that more warming will create more clouds through evaporation which in turn will cause cooling with the formation of more cloud cover (clouds reflect solar radiation back into space). What part of the "hoax" do you not understand?

Forget about the conspiracy theorists. It′s easier to teach a turtle to fly than making them use their brains.

All you have to do is take a look at sagebruh′s contributions and you know what I′m talking about

You do realize that you go to Central Park in NY City and see scrapes on rocks that are from glaciers 15 thousand years ago were thousands of feet high. Glaciers are always melting and growing. That is what they do. Glacial extent wasn't static before humans came along. You are a perfect example of the effects of the propaganda of alarmists who pretend to have science on their side. They don't and you don't.

If glaciers are, in fact, shrinking that could be due to things other than temperature.

The earth's temperature is not rising:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

This was taken from raw data and I kept it far enough away from El Nino so that you will not see that influence.

Phil Jones and James Hansen, two top proponents to AGW have had to admit that the earth is not warming.

So conspiracy theorists, in this case are right, along with many many scientists.

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.”

Even proponents of AGW admit there is no scientific evidence of it.

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Jeff M: You were the one who said my chart wasn't right, about a year ago. The reason, you said was the 1998 El Nino. Other scientists on both sides have agreed. The averaging computations were all over the place due to the particular abnormal gyrations of that year. It is not El Nino's fault but our scientists are not quite sure how the averaging computations should work. There are some questions on both sides. However, I don't want to get into that controversy and I stay away from it, entirely by putting some years between that abnormal El Nino year. I am trying to prove that there is no sleight of hand. Why you are trying to find fault with that is beyond me.

Jeff M: (Again) Ha! Ha! Just because you show me another one of your corrupted charts, you expect me to just believe you. Ha! Ha! Fool me once and you know the rest. I lived out in California and I personally experienced the effects of El Nino and La Nina. They are not constant and El Nino, in fact, can be quite devastating at times, as actual history shows. The fact is, that they give it a name, and the Spaniards who previously occupied gave it that name long before Al Gore, because it is unusual weather. Notice, UNUSUAL WEATHER! Doesn't that tell you something? Get a life and learn something. Stop listening to Al Gore and James Hansen, they have both been proven to be liars.

This question seems to beg the question: Are there conspiracy theorists that think climate change is a hoax?

The sceptics I know all think that the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Some alarmists seem to think it has been changing only since about 1750 at the earliest. It makes you wonder who the real deniers are.

The hoax part is, and I think you'll agree, the power grab associated with climate change.

Fossil fuel companies have trillions of dollars of future revenues at stake if their rape of the planet is blocked by action on climate policy (such as a carbon tax).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...

http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/sc...

Although these companies (including many of the world's largest multinationals) are not hugely profitable because they themselves are ignorant of or deny science, an efficient way for them to prevent action against their rape has turned out to be for them to funnel a relatively trivial percentage of their gargantuan profits into the campaign coffers of their half-wit politician tools, such as Senator James Inhofe.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/s...

Inhofe (once a lone kook, but -due largely to Democrats being towering cowards on most issues, including climate- more recently joined by most Capitol Hill Republicans) has found that there are votes in pandering to mostly ignorant middle-aged and older constituents who, for one reason or another hate or mistrust science, but are comfortable with at least some of the anti-science myths available in the smorgasbord proffered by science-denying politicians and a small army of con artist and crackpot bloggers. (The most pitifully feeble-minded dupes of these anti-science bloggers are over-represented on Yahoo Answers, including this very page).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/opinio...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

It's not that they believe the earth isn't heating up, they just don't believe that it is carbon gases that are affecting the heating.

They believe it is a natural cycle in the earths climate and that would explain why we have had two previous ice ages.

A less than 0.015% change in the atmosphere by additional CO2 doesn't constitute an entire change of our climate system!

It's scientists making mountains out of mole hills!

I guess you didn't read about Al Gores $500 million sale of his Global Warming TV station and a more Government control over carbon emissions.

You've been duped!

There are limits of CO2 warming. : http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/201...

Let's also not forget that most all of science has concluded that the entire planet warmed on its own by 1C during the Super El Nino Period of 1997-1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1...

"ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Ni?o events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[80]

El Ni?o affected pre-Columbian Incas [81] and may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[82] A recent study suggests a strong El-Ni?o effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[83] The extreme weather produced by El Ni?o in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[84] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[85]

The glaciers are shrinking, temperatures are rising. Witness these glaciers for yourself instead of believing in so called "research"

Sagebrush? The El Nino Southern Oscillation occurs throughout the year. To get a reliable temperature trend that takes out the ENSO cycle you are going to have to take out both the positive and negative phases of this cycle.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

Luckily this has already been done for you.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/...

Sagebrush: why not actually learn what the El nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) actually is? I have given you the sources to look it up numerous times and the strength of the oscillatory cycle. The ENSO cycle follows the PDO closely. Anyone who is aware of this will find fault in what you posted and what you claim. I posted the strength of the ENSO cycle above. Note: This is not temperatures it deals with the strength of the cycle. To take the cycle out of the equation you're going to have to do a whole lot more than pick a year after 1998. I gave you the link above to show you.

Also note I am very tired of having to try and explain this to you. I do it with almost every post with responses to you now as you continue stating exactly the same nonsense. I can't help you if you do not want to understand.

it's more fun than learning complicated science. There are still people who believe the moon landings were faked.

You mean like: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/ghost-gla...

You need to get up-to-date. There is no man-made Global Warming.

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle