Does Global Warming alarmism really a Hoax?

Of course it is. Before it was Global Cooling. Next, who knows?

If giving solid scientific evidence that refutes an idea is considered a legitimate rebuttal, then I'd sure like to know what IS.

There is so much evidence demonstrating the effects of global warming that a person could only miss them if they choose not to see.

Much of the damage caused by Hurricane Katherine happened because it was much stronger than than the engineers thought possible.

In my own part of the world, pine beetles are eating millions of acres of pine forest that had been there for tens of thousands of years. Unless the winter gets cold enough to kill the larvae, they live and take over more areas. I can see, literally, from pictures taken over the last few years, how they are moving northward.

As the climate warms, ocean levels are rising. There have been people living on the Maldive Islands for thousands of years, but it's estimated their homes will be submerged by the end of this century, if not sooner.

I don't really understand the discussion of atmospheric humidity in Taylor's article. The paper Spencer published doesn't discuss it in any significant detail - I can't recall it coming up actually, the main focus was trying to disprove the implication by Dessler in his earlier paper that the temperature trend over the past decade was driven by non-radiative forcing.

Anyways, Spencer's simple model has a few flaws in it, perhaps some major ones as could be revealed by more study into their effects: for starters, he assumes a shallow mixed layer depth (25 meters), while a more realistic value would be at least twice as deep, perhaps up to four times as deep. He also assumes a very low climate sensitivity (lambda = 3.0) without giving any sort of justification for it in the paper. You then also have the fact that the model is based off of only a decade of data, and is so simple it doesn't even account for variables we KNOW were important during the past decade, like ENSO. This paper is very far from blowing any holes in anything, or proving any hoaxes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; this paper has none.

"Alarmism" is avoided by real news organizations? Wow, that is a first. I wonder if the real news organizations like NYT and ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, AP etc avoid words like "denier"? I also wonder if those news organizations ever take money from Big Oil (aka Exxon Mobil in alarmist lingo) or Big Tobacco. Throwing contrary evidence at an alarmists apparenlty will elicit the same screaching and head spinning as throwing holy water on Regan in the Exorcist.

I can not tell you specifically yes or no but when the dinosaures where alive no one blamed them for the Ice age. Although, just because there is that chance that it might not be our fault at all it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help reduce our impact on the enviroment.

That article is the Heartland Institute's interpretation of a study by Dr. Roy Spencer that first of all doesn't say anything nearly as sweeping as the Heartland Institute is attempting to claim and secondly promotes the largely debunked theory that clouds are a climate forcing mechanism, not a climate feedback mechanism.

Basically, it's a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of NASA data, and doesn't "blow a gap" in anything:

http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cl...

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/global-warming...

No it's all true.

26 million people have been displaced by climate change: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/... (problem is nobody can actually tell us where)

The Arctic will be ice free in two years time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztz3ZdPbdKo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/10/...

Warmer winters due to global warming:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/99060... (but not where most people live)

Snowfall is a thing of the past:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...

Of course it's all true, the facts speak for themselves.

What a load of tosh.

I admit that this article does tip the scales. And if this is the beginning of a revolution in climatology (possible, but let's say that I am sceptical of this) lots of people will be changing their tune. Personally, I am not yet ready to start driving an 8 mpg monster truck, because the bulk of the evidence says that global warming is happening

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-ind...

And we are causing it

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a...

The truth is that any evidence to the contrary must come from science, and not from conspiracy theories or threats against climatologists or calling people who believe in AGW "socialists" or worse.

If it wasn't for global warming Chicago would still be under a mile of ice.

If you actually read the original Spencer scientific paper, you'll find that it supports the IPCC models:

"We have shown clear evidence from the CERES instrument that global temperature variations during 2000–2010 were largely radiatively forced. Lag regression analysis supports the interpretation that net radiative gain (loss) precedes, and radiative loss (gain) follows temperature maxima (minima).

This behavior is also seen in the IPCC AR4 climate models."

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Spencer has had a long history of not being able to adequately apply modeling to support his undying belief that climate sensitivity is around 1°C.

BTW, if the planet is losing so much heat according to his paper, why are temperatures still going up?