Conspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored - far from it.

Cosmic rays
In fact, many of the better arguments seized upon by sceptics have been based on contradictory findings published in prominent journals, from the apparent cooling of the lower atmosphere (see The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming) to the apparent cooling of the oceans (see The oceans are cooling).

Millions will be spent testing whether cosmic rays can form cloud condensation nuclei, even though some regard this as a waste of money (see Cosmic rays are causing climate change).

As for funding, the US spends billions of dollars on climate science and this increased by 55% from 1994 to 2004. However, an increasing portion of this is spent on mitigation technology rather than pure research. Climate scientists point out that if they were after a bigger chunk of that money, their best bet would be to stress the uncertainties of climate change and call for more research, rather than call for action.

Under pressure
As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts is the evidence. And the evidence - that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects - is very strong and getting stronger.

Finally, perhaps the most bizarre conspiracy-related claim is that the journalists covering science have an interest in promoting global warming.

Journalists do have an interest in promoting themselves (and their books), while their employers want to boost their audience and sell advertising. Publicity helps with all these aims, but you get far more publicity by challenging the mainstream view than by promoting it. Which helps explain why so many sections of the media continue to publish or broadcast the claims of deniers, regardless of their merit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

What if,,,, conspiracy theories are all part of a huge conspiracy to keep people in fear of each other so that they wont unite to overtake the man,,,,,lol

Yep the evidence.

The only evidence I see is the weather outlook, which is unusually cold and early snow.

Some people will scream global warming, while freezing there arse off.

I wish there would be a global warming, because I'm damn cold.


Here is some evidence for you :

The North Pole in 1959 (USS Skate)



The most recent visit of the USS POGY (submarine) a few months ago. Same location (The exact North Pole)

link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdkAxo6UUzI

Global warming doesn't mean we will be overly hot all the time.

What temperature the globe supposed to be?

Let's plan to totally wreck the world economy based on 150 years of data comprising about .000000000000000001% of the earths total existence and computer models that cannot predict the path of a hurricane over a 24 hour period.

Sounds real logical..

Oh yeah, some big whig on the UN council for climate change, a company that he is heavily invested in close down their company to gain cap and trade credits laid off 1200 workers in England.

You-tube? LMAO geezzzz,,,
97.4% of all scientist agree, human activity is causing climate change, and we get you-tube.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/259333

First sentence says it all.

"If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you."

It could say,

If you believe what an amatuer you-tube video says over science, then you most likely believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, and nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you."


You're mind is locked.

The term global warming is deceitful. Global warming does not mean the surface stays warmer than before all the time. It means that the warmer ocean temperatures cause problems world wide.

YES!

Therefore they now refer to the more accurate term Climate Change.

Really, the definitions are quite simple;

glob·al audio (glbl) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

1. Having the shape of a globe; spherical.
2. Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide

warm (wôrm)
adj. warm·er, warm·est
1. Somewhat hotter than temperate; having or producing a comfortable and agreeable degree of heat; moderately hot: a warm climate.
2. Having the natural heat of living beings: a warm body.
3. Preserving or imparting heat: a warm overcoat.
4. Having or causing a sensation of unusually high body heat, as from exercise or hard work; overheated.
5. Marked by enthusiasm; ardent: warm support.
6. Characterized by liveliness, excitement, or disagreement; heated: a warm debate.
7. Marked by or revealing friendliness or sincerity; cordial: warm greetings.
8. Loving; passionate: a warm embrace.
9. Excitable, impetuous, or quick to be aroused: a warm temper.
10. Predominantly red or yellow in tone: a warm sunset.
11. Recently made; fresh: a warm trail.
12. Close to discovering, guessing, or finding something, as in certain games.
13. Informal Uncomfortable because of danger or annoyance: Things are warm for the bookies.
v. warmed, warm·ing, warms
v.tr.
1. To raise slightly in temperature; make warm: warmed the rolls a bit more; warm up the house.
2. To make zealous or ardent; enliven.
3. To fill with pleasant emotions: We were warmed by the sight of home.
v.intr.
1. To become warm: The rolls are warming in the oven.
2. To become ardent, enthusiastic, or animated: began to warm to the subject.
3. To become kindly disposed or friendly: She felt the audience warming to her.
n. Informal
A warming or heating.

What's so mysterious?

They even changed it to climate change.

Every year, the climate changes.

Some folks even have 4 whole seasons.

Some have fewer.

Nothing for Gore to go screaming, the sky is falling. Ain't Mahattan supposed to flood over?? If so, why did he just rent him a big a$$ office space there. He don't even believe what he's spewing. What a joke!!

Conspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored - far from it.

Cosmic rays
In fact, many of the better arguments seized upon by sceptics have been based on contradictory findings published in prominent journals, from the apparent cooling of the lower atmosphere (see The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming) to the apparent cooling of the oceans (see The oceans are cooling).

Millions will be spent testing whether cosmic rays can form cloud condensation nuclei, even though some regard this as a waste of money (see Cosmic rays are causing climate change).

As for funding, the US spends billions of dollars on climate science and this increased by 55% from 1994 to 2004. However, an increasing portion of this is spent on mitigation technology rather than pure research. Climate scientists point out that if they were after a bigger chunk of that money, their best bet would be to stress the uncertainties of climate change and call for more research, rather than call for action.

Under pressure
As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts is the evidence. And the evidence - that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects - is very strong and getting stronger.

Finally, perhaps the most bizarre conspiracy-related claim is that the journalists covering science have an interest in promoting global warming.

Journalists do have an interest in promoting themselves (and their books), while their employers want to boost their audience and sell advertising. Publicity helps with all these aims, but you get far more publicity by challenging the mainstream view than by promoting it. Which helps explain why so many sections of the media continue to publish or broadcast the claims of deniers, regardless of their merit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

Backyard climate sceptics!
Please read! LOL

i believe the new conspiracy theory floating around is that the tiger woods story is a ruse to get the media off the healthcare debate