Global Warming is Just a Hoax

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.


Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. On top of that list, see also this joint statement [PDF] that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, a statement issued by

  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Bazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academie des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

You can also read this one that includes all of the above signatories plus the following:

  • Australian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  • Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Irish Academy
  • Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  • Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing?

  • Exxon-Mobile, the largest oil company in the world has this public statement:

    The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

  • Chevron, a bit less non-commital, says:

    At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) — mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane — in the earth’s atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

  • 18 CEO’s of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

    Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the EnviroNazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power on top of infiltrating the UN, the science academies of the major nations and the top research institutes of North America? Somehow, I think that is just not too likely.

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

“Global Warming is Just a Hoax” was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.

255 thoughts on “Global Warming is Just a Hoax

  1. “I can see total refusal to read the sources provided by me”

    Nope, they were read and answered elsewhere on this site.

    That sensitivity relies on the change needed to enter or exit an interglacial being 3 degrees C rather than 5 degrees C. Therefore the climate is more sensitive to temperature (by 60%) changes, and the temperature change less sensitive to CO2 changes (by 10%). That still means we’re 50% worse off if that paper (one single paper) is right.

    The BBC link was a repeat of the same report. Why is that needed to be read if the paper itself has been dealt with?

    And the paper is from Lindzen, a well aired denier and the paper is 14 years old. It hasn’t turned out to be correct (see the BEST results, proving temperature changes of 1.1C).

    Here is a rebuttal:

    Try your own model.

    > Another uncertainly not discussed in paper is cloud nucleation by cosmic rays


    Do you see those uncertainty bars?


  2. “…I can see total refusal to read the sources provided by me….”

    When you source your information from a reputable scientific journal rather than an opinion based advocacy group, I will read them. Did you notice that I read the two papers you linked to? That would be obvious to even the most retarded reader by the fact that I commented on them and provided quotes from one of the papers. I guess it wasn’t obvious to meghal though.

    “…..Given this stubbornness, I guess mandas (the moron) was born from sex between Michael Mann and a Monkey…..”

    So I see you know even less about biology than you do about climate science then. Given the genetic differences between humans and monkeys, it is not possible to conceive an offspring from such a union. But you know that don’t you meghal? That’s why you never use birth control when you are in bed with your simian spouse.

    “….I find your sources to be left wing front groups, and staunch liars….”

    I wonder what meghal is referring to here, since the only sources I have provided to him are an on-line recipe site and reputable science journals. It must be the recipe site, because meghal has also linked to a science journal, and unless he is a complete hypocrite, he wouldn’t link to something he thought was a left wing front group. But then again………

    “…..The first four lines of second paragraph you quoted is quite self-explanatory (at least for me). Therefore, I do not need to explain it. If you still cannot understand, you are too dumb for my taste….”

    Yes, it is self explanatory isn’t it? That’s why I am surprised that you linked to it as supposed proof that climate change is all a lie. I mean, the quote very clearly states that the analysis in the paper is not complete (“….Our uncertainty analysis is not complete…..”), that it doesn’t take into account a number of important considerations (“….and does not explicitly consider uncertainties in radiative forcing due to ice sheet extent or different vegetation distributions….), and their model is only limited (“…Our limited model ensemble does not scan the full parameter range, neglecting, for example, possible variations in shortwave radiation due to clouds….”). So tell us all again. Why did you link to a paper with so many limitations – limitations that are pointed out for everyone to read?

    “…..Another uncertainly not discussed in paper is cloud nucleation by cosmic rays; it is not discussed in any climate models so far….”

    Oh god! Not this zombie argument again? Leaving aside the obvious point that it isn’t discussed because it has nothing to do with the subject of the paper, there is the more telling point that it is a stupid argument made by deniers in a desperate attempt to find something – anything – other than CO2 to blame for the observed global energy imbalance.

    “…Another thing this paper ignores is cooling by sulfur emissions from coal fire plants, which was published by your beloved man Michael Mann (Though I doubt those results too)….”

    Really? You doubt the results of a study you haven’t read on a subject you don’t understand? Wow colour me surprised! I would never have thought someone with such a dynamic intellect as meghal would form an opinion based on a complete lack of evidence. Surely you would want to use your brain before you draw a conclusion, wouldn’t you meghal? So here’s your chance. Here is some information on sulphur emissions. How about you tell us what’s wrong with it and why you doubt it:

    Click to access PNAS_SI_Apendix_Final.pdf

    “….Finally, if you had been more civil and less vile, I might have avoided writing the first paragraph in my post…..”

    No – go ahead. If you think you have somehow insulted me then you know even less about me than you do about biology and climate science. Your opinions and views on climate science are worthless, so why should I care what you either think about me or call me? And if you think I am going to be more civil with you, then you have an even poorer grasp of reality than you have displayed to date.


  3. “In last century, deaths by severe weather have gone down by at least 90%.”


    “In recent years heat wave induced casualties have some what increased. Abnormally high temperatures were observed during April 2002 across the country and a prolonged heat wave over northern regions of India from mid-April through the third week of May caused more than 1000 fatalities … During 2003 pre-monsoon months, heat wave brought peak temperatures in May of between 45oC and 49oC. This years heat was particularly harsh, with a death toll of at least 1500 people.”

    De, Dube and Prakasa Rao (2005) Extreme Weather Events over India in the last 100 years, J. Ind. Geophys. Union. Vol.9 pp 173-187

    “The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures … Here we review the growing evidence that climate–health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world.”

    Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway & Foley (2005) Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature, Vol. 438 pp310-317


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s