Global Warming is a hoax?

Note that this person is a journalist, not a scientist.

May you provide a link to the article this journalist wrote?

He was a journalist quoting The Science, and the science back in 2000 was predicting that snow would soon become a thing of the past,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Serious scientists of the subject have never confused long term climate trends with short term fluctuations in weather - that definitely isn't what 'the science was predicting in 2000' as you put it. I could cite numerous articles from science publications that talked about long term trends and specifically denied that local and short term weather effects were strongly indicative.

However, putting that to one side, it is worth noting that the winters of the 90s and 2000s were regularly amongst the mildest and wettest on record - this was broken in 2008-10, but time will tell if that was a blip. The weather trend has in some ways been corresponding to predictions for the impact of AGW on the UK made as far back as the 1980s - that our winters in particular would be warmer and wetter.

There are too many variables involved in climate to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy that x will equal y. Scientists, (especially scientists from the discredited Climate Research Unit) have displayed an enormous amount of arrogance in their predictions because for a long time they lived in a self-reinforcing bubble of academia insulated from the real world. Articles like the one I posted just go to show how wide of the mark they are and I really enjoy seeing their predictions proven false, hopefully these timely reminders will inject a bit of reality into a discourse that has been monopolised by doom-mongers and eco-professionals dependent on 'climate change' for a living.

The Climate Research Unit has not been discredited, the reverse is true. All of the allegations made by sceptics surrounding the stolen emails have proven to be false or exaggerated. The CRU is still very much in business and long after all the sceptic nonsense has been utterly forgotten, it will hopefully still be doing useful work.

You aren't making serious points, you are just mouthing empty phrases from sceptic websites.

On the contrary, I'm the one who's consulted and provided a link to the source material to prove how out of touch the scientists from the CRU are.

Climate change is almost certainly happening as it has done from the dawn of time, but erecting giant windmills and getting the local council to fine people for putting their refuse in the wrong coloured wheelie bin won't solve it (not that it can be solved of course), it just transfers yet more power over to the state and lines the pockets of big business.

You are just repeating bogus ideas from 'sceptical theory' without factual basis.

For people who want to read for themselves about the so-called 'CRU scandal' (actually just a massive set of largely irrelevant smears aimed against hardworking and underpaid scientists by a massively funded oil-industry backed sceptical lobby), I recommend the excellent Wikipedia article which has hundreds of sources listing all of the investigations into the CRU, which totally and systematically cleared it of any scientific malpractice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The fact is CO2 makes up something like 0.002% of atmospheric gases. Even if we are contributing to global CO2 (and I'm pretty sure it exists anyway) we're responsible for a tiny fraction of the gases that make up the atmosphere. Global warming isn't a hoax, but it's been widely used by a group of left-leaning ideologues to scare the population into submission while big business and bit government enrich themselves off the proceeds, case in point being David Cameron's father in law who earns £1000 per day from the wind-turbines sited on his land. Nice work of you can get it!

"The science has been settled". Has it? [...]

There are too many variables involved in climate to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy that x will equal y. Scientists, (especially scientists from the discredited Climate Research Unit) have displayed an enormous amount of arrogance in their predictions because for a long time they lived in a self-reinforcing bubble of academia insulated from the real world. Articles like the one I posted just go to show how wide of the mark they are and I really enjoy seeing their predictions proven false, hopefully these timely reminders will inject a bit of reality into a discourse that has been monopolised by doom-mongers and eco-professionals dependent on 'climate change' for a living.

I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"

I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"

I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"

I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"

You didn't read the article I linked to did you? The one where Dr David Viner, a senior researcher from the CRU said back in 2000 that "children just aren't going to know what snow is" thanks to global warming. These sort of predictions do discredit the CRU regardless of what went on during the climategate scandal.

You are slightly getting into abstract questions about science - are theories that are widely accepted 'true'? They can be widely taken to be true, but yes, they are still theories. It isn't wise for scientists (or books) to claim that things are "100% true" - but I would be interested to know what book you were reading? I doubt that it says that.

Yes, human-induced climate change is a theory, but it is a theory that has a great deal of pretty convincing evidence behind it.

Unfortunately, there are also some corporations who make money from greenhouse gas emissions (mainly oil and coal) that want to deny this, so they spend a lot of money seeking to distort the facts and influence people that the science is wrong. A lot of the arguments they come up with have been repeatedly shown to be false, but they continue to repeat them and invent new ones, often based on small errors made by climate scientists, or by things that sound like they should be true, but aren't.

This makes it confusing, but thousands of reputable scientists are convinced that the theory is broadly correct and that makes it a good working theory. Not '100% truth', but a good working theory.

That doesn't mean anyone is telling you not to think about it, or to challenge ideas. It's just that you have to be wary about all the lies that are circulated by those wealthy corporations I mentioned. They have a lot of friends on the political right, because some right-wingers have decided that it is all a left-wing conspiracy to deny them their big cars and expensive lifestyles. It is a threat to some of those things if the world doesn't change and we will have to change our lifestyles in different ways if we take it seriously. That's difficult for some people, but it doesn't make the theory wrong, just because some people are loudly complaining about that.

Find the published study where he makes these predictions with confidence intervals, p-values, or, you know, any scientific backing. A quote in a newspaper article is not "the science". If you want to assess the credibility of the science coming out of the CRU you look at its academics' publication records, not what one of them said over the phone to a journo from the Independent one time.

Oh, and saying "regardless of what went on during the climategate scandal" rather than acknowledging that all charges of scientific misconduct were thoroughly dismissed by every investigation doesn't make it any less true.

If, as an expert he didn't believe that snow was going to disappear due to global warming why did he go on record to a journalist from a national newspaper claiming that snow would soon be a thing of the past? Is it ok for a professional who's livelihood depends upon accurate meteorological predictions to get it so hopelessly wrong? Not in my opinion, no: it's an embarrassment to science. But this isn't and has never about been the science, global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty and hand more power over to the state. Global warming is just the vehicle to help achieve this goal.

If, as an expert he didn't believe that snow was going to disappear due to global warming why did he go on record to a journalist from a national newspaper claiming that snow would soon be a thing of the past? Is it ok for a professional who's livelihood depends upon accurate meteorological predictions to get it so hopelessly wrong? Not in my opinion, no: it's an embarrassment to science. But this isn't and has never about been the science, global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty and hand more power over to the state. Global warming is just the vehicle to help achieve this goal.

It's conceivable that he was guilty of hyperbole, but frankly it's more likely that he was quoted out of context. But for the sake of argument, let's assume he's guilty of gross distortion of the facts and move on. The next question would be... does your misunderstanding of the science rest on anything other than what one scientist (out of thousands) may or may not have said many years ago? And how do you defend your claim that "global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty"? Perhaps you are confusing the science (the proposition that "the earth is warming and we are responsible" is pretty much settled) with the differing opinions about what we should do about it?