Brief me about the global warming hoax?

Question

I've just read up about a global warming hoax on www.globalwarminghoax.com

I don't really understand this truly and I'm not sure if I have enough time since I need information about this by tomorrow.

So could someone brief me about it?

Answer 1

Please don't be duped into believing the propaganda about global warming being a hoax. It's real and it's bad.

Answer 2

If you mean "what is it"?

Global warming is the rise in temperature of the earth's atmosphere.

It's said that by the time a baby born today is 80 years old, the world will be 6 and a half degrees warmer than it is now.

Answer 3

Global warming is not a hoax.  What you've read is simply nonsense from the "denier movement".  They're kind of like people who say the Earth is flat, or 600 years old, or that NASA faked the Moon landings.

Read about them here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/sit...

Answer 4

The "fact" is that the number of skeptical scientists is tiny and shrinking.

The scieintists are wholly independent of Al Gore.

The "fact" is that the only scientists who have been known to take bribes are the skeptics, who took the $1,000 bribe for a speech and the $10,000 bribe for a paper. These were offered by the Heartland Institute and the American

Enterprise Institute, neither of which is a scientific organization, and both of which are propaganda mills, funded by the oil industry.

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....

The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""-

William Connolley Ph.D.

"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of

grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.

"The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money. They are asking you to fix the problem."

"There simply isn't a lot of money in science

Then there is the argument that scientist are doing this only because controversy or the IPCC pays well. Again, these people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living. Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay."

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money.... The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""- William Connolley Ph.D.

"There are far better ways of getting grant money

If they wanted more money they would say "hey we aren't sure, we need to study this more because of potential dangers." That is not what the National Academies of 11 countries that signed the G-8 joint statement are saying. They are saying we know the dangers, it's time to take action. They are not stalling for more funding."

"Scientists are competitive. It doesn't pay to be jump on bandwagons.

Each individual scientist must compete for funding. The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to prove everyone else wrong. It is their job to poke holes in each others arguments. The fact that nobody can come up with a legitimate theory that debunks the consensus on climate change speaks volumes about the strength of the evidence."

"Scientists aren't exactly organized

In order to perform a worldwide consipiracy you would have to organize every individual scientist in the planet. This simply isn't possible given that most research scientists do their own fundraising and the sheer numbers of individual scientists."

"Peer Review works.

Peer review works best when something is highly publicized. The Hwang Woo-suk scandal is one such example of fraud being discovered by peer review. If this was a fraud it would have been exposed by now. Countries around the world are constantly reviewing each others work. If the data was falsified the oil funded scientists would catch it in a heartbeat."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-...

Shows that Al Gore only made a few minor errors in his movie. As do these three sites.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/...

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environ...

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

This is a great website showing the attempts to muddy the waters of scientific debate about global warming

http://www.logicalscience.com/climate_ch...

Skeptics claim there is no consensus on AGW

"People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger. Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies. Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud: "I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%". If still they don't think that sounds silly and they don't start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them. This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate. As Eli Rabbet says "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no d**n climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA". Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."

"Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol."

"This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science."

"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.

Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict."

"Of course, just because most scientists think something is true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong – but later quietly withdrew the claim."

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site enumerating and quoting all the support for the IPCC

Skeptic argument: the IPCC exagerates:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...

And you might want to pay attention to the fact that these are actual climate science web sites, not mass media or propaganda outlets.

"The BBC wants the skeptics to show some evidence of a funding conspiracy.

If there is any evidence of biased funding, the BBC wants to know about it. It is as the BBC says, time to put the "cards on the table".

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The following sources are real climate scientists

Answer 5

I don't think it's a hoax. The earth is changing. It has always been changing. Glaciers melting and earthquakes increasing are signs of a climate change in progress. How rapid of a change no one is for sure. The way we live and how we treat this plantet is affecting it. In what ways I don't think anyone knows for sure. If they do they are not allowed to tell us. Create widespread pandemonium it would. I'm scared of earthquakes more than warming. Destroy us in no time. Not an "if" question either. It's "when".

Answer 6

It is not a hoax, just search the Internet if you want lies.

Answer 7

There is only one thing that can warm our planet.....The Sun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTV...

Answer 8

check out the references. are they to proper scientific papers? on reputable sites (e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/ ) they will be.

on this gwh site, the references i found on a typical item (on antarctica) were;

internal links to other articles on the same site ;

links to newspapers, and not reputable ones; the daily mail! the most right wing english paper and one that has been strongly 'denyer';

links to news sites i have never heard of (newsmax? hardly cnn....);

links to other 'denyer' sites

broken links.

and so on.

most of the article is a red herring; showing the winter sea ice as 'an increase' well dur, its called winter folks, you have to look at the long term comparisons at matching times of year. also it deals just on area, when a major concern by real scientists is the thinning of sea ice.

the language used is very emotive, and always a giveaway, lots of exclamation marks....

and i'm not sure the american eagle at the top of the page inspires me with confidence, another blatant attempt at emotional manipulation.

edit; nice one frfl, i knew someone sensible would be along with all the good links :-)

so i just concentrated on the website analysis, a useful skill that really should be taught in school.

Answer 9

Global warming is real. Glaciers once came as far south as Toronto.

The hoax is that people would have you believe that global warming is new and caused only by human activity.

The aim of the hoax is to get politicially active Greens into political power. It's bad because they are lying to gain political office or sway those already in office. People who lie should never be allowed to have any influence on politics.

It's bad because politics is a balancing act for the benefit of everyone whereas the green agenda is single issue politics. Green politics are based on keeping people in ignorance by encouraging the turning out of the lights and freezing in the dark. Its a form of fascism.

Answer 10

Global warming is the reason i am digging out from a major snow storm on April 25. haha

Answer 11

Briefly, it's not a hoax.  The average global temp. is increasing.

Answer 12

Because the temperature of the earth hasn't increased as the politicians told us it would.  Since 1998 there has been NO change, and those who believe in global warming are extremists or lefty university kids who don't know any better.

Answer 13

Basics are wheather patterns change and have consistantly changed over the last 500,000,000 years example at one time the north pole was had tropical reefs,

now people say global warming is about to destroy the world

fact the temperture has risen about 1degree in the past 100 years therefore it should be concluded that global warming is normal temp change and not effected by men

and that lot lot of people and companies are making a large amount of money by scaring people, including Al Gore and other people that put themselves up as experts in the area what is based on pretty dodgey science in fact if the science was correct we should be having global cooling but that is anther story,

Answer 14

if you think its a hoax, u must be very thick

Answer 15

Here's the thing I personally don't understand. Even if global warming is not happening...why can't change our lifestyles slightly and help mother nature out? Wouldn't it be nice to drive around major cites and not breathe in smog everywhere you go. I know would appreciate that...w/e my opinion.

Answer 16

its not a hoax, just take a look at poor people in hot countries, they are suffering more and more, and the ice caps and the polar bears and all the floods earthquakes more violent storms, it snowed here in march for god sake, we never used even get snow in winter!!..

any person who thinks its a hoax is an idiot. the proof is there.

our world was originally covered in forests, happy animals and clean seas.

now its covered in dirty smelly cities and cars and factorys, and most of the trees and animals are gone. the whole natural eco system is destroyed.what the h**l do people expect!?

our planet is just that - a planet - just a small part of a gigantic universe and space, and we just happen to live here.so what makes people think we are immune to the fate of any other planets or stars.

even if it isnt man made global warming, its still global warming, and the sooner people realise this the sooner we can be prepared.

put it simply - if u went into a massive wooden building and over a period of many year, burnt bits of it to the ground and destoyed the inside of it..do u not think it would eventually collapse?

Answer 17

Yes, the Earth's surface has warmed a bit over the past century, but is that warming caused mainly by humans or by natural cycles? And can changes in human activity -- specifically reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions -- have anything more than a tiny effect on temperature? The answers to those questions, which are at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol and other attempts to force cuts in energy use, are simply unknown.

It is the claim of certainty that is a hoax. It's a dangerous one, too, since using global-warming theory as the basis for extreme policy mandates could plunge the world into a long-term recession or even a depression.

The quote on the poster comes from Inhofe's speech during debate over the McCain-Lieberman bill that would have curtailed greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, a measure similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which President Bush rejected in 2001 as "fatally flawed" and which still lacks enough ratifying nations for implementation six years after it was signed. McCain-Lieberman was rejected, too -- in part because of Inhofe's strenuous efforts as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.