Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax


By Elmer Beauregard

The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.

I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.

1. Record Ice

In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica  in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

2. Record Snow

2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

3. Record Cold

In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving

You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback

A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

  • Whacky

    I think we should just CHANCE it. If it gets all screwed then WHO CARES it’s not us who have to pay the price, but just our kids and who gives a crap about them? Also better be sorry than safe. Safe is for TREEHUGGERS. Must have more oil and BURN that shit. Also, the ECONOMY because MONEY and REASONS.

  • Whacky

    Because Climate is NOT MAN MADE we can safely mess with it. If the world burns then it’s not our fault so we can just feel all good and WARM and fuzzy about it as our children burn in an endless desert.

  • L – Moderator #3541

    Dumb fucks by the way… all of your points are reflecting on how climate change is real…

  • Kara Hill

    *clears throat* I see the arguments you have made, and I’m in no place to reject them, but I thought you might benefit from looking at this:
    I am trying not to fall into confirmation bias by only looking at things that agree with my opinion, so I read this article. But the link I presented has stopped my doubts, and I suggest you read what is contained there. Thank you.

  • Sojourner

    They demonized CO2 so they can tax the gas that comes out your butt.
    It should be called a Butt Tax. Americans want you to pay your fair share.
    So, bend over.

  • Kevin Frasier Sr.

    Santa,easter bunny,Jesus, now climate change isn’t real either?!!!….thanks for getting the truth out there…always follow the money for the truth.

  • Charlie Chaplin

    You must be fucking retarded. “Climate Change” doesnt doesnt define it as a “bad” thing or “good thing” the point is that the balance of nature is being tampered with like never before. Politically speaking yes they speak of it as a catastrophe, but its the mere fact that humans are tampering with nature to an extent where the balance of nature cannot be restored. You must be voting for Trump.

  • Devan Mcginnis

    Just remember, as long as profit is to be made and liberals exist to help fund and support (green energy) because there so damn thoughtless and naive and impressionable as a whole. Between media, indoctrinizating education, generation to generation people are being taught to only believe there authoritative leaders. When you feel like you can’t question things, think differently, and believe things that go against the establishment, things like global warming become cash cows, rights such as your second amendment, vanish and you become a Soave to your own doing.

  • Dhanyasri Maddiboina

    You can’t just say there’s been no global warming in the past 18 years. First of all, there has been a SLOWING down of surface heating, but only since 2001 (which is actually just 15 years), but this is such a small time scale to be looking at. Also, using IMHO makes this shady article shound even less credible. This isn’t reddit.

    • ET234 Gtt5456

      Good grief, yes 2001 to present is such a small time scale to assume, temperature is decreasing or leveled off, correct. But 1980 to 2000 is not to small a time scale to say Co2 is causing that short and small amount of warming? See the contradiction?

  • Athn Affgb

    Hahaha, I love the onion! What a funny article from a funny website. … … … Wait, this is real, you actually believe this, and you haven’t been diagnosed with a learning disorder? Are you sure?

  • nope nada

    The one who wrote this article and the majority of those in the comments below still fail to see the difference between weather patterns and climate. Sad.

    of course they don’t do their own research, unless you call reading conspiracy theories research….

    again sad

  • 2019Auden W348

    Dear, Elmer Beauregard
    Many of these arguments are entirely invalid. Your reason 2 is actually in support of global warming, because it is predicted to effect storms and weather patterns. In reason 4 you say the ocean is on track to rise a foot by 2100. If the earth has not warmed at all, (as you state in your reason 9) than why is the ocean on a trajectory to rise at all? Shouldn’t the polar ice caps be accumulating if “in 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records”(reason 3), therefor sea levels would be falling. There is zero evidence or argument whatsoever is reason 5. Reason 6 simply says that global warming did not effect the moose population, however it doesn’t make any case pointing towards it being a hoax. In reason number 8, you say nature produces more CO2 than man. Thats true, but that CO2 is part of the natural cycle, and will all go back into the plants, and on earth. The issue with artificial emissions is that we disrupt the carbon cycle. Even if this was a valid point, thats like saying stealing $100 is OK, because the person you stole it from has had bigger things stolen from them before. Your reason 10 makes no sense to me, how can you disprove a theory by accusing advocates for it of hypocrisy?
    People denying climate change altogether are wrong. It is a real issue that is already effecting us, and will surely effect future generations. It does not matter what is causing it, although it is human caused, something needs to be done. Fossil fuels are a limited recourse, so alternative energy will have to become not so alternative at some point anyway. People like you who write articles like this are hurting the future and progression of the human race.

  • Marc Funaro

    Okay, forget what EVERYONE says, on both sides. This graph is all you really need to know:

    Now, it COULD be wrong, or fudged, I suppose. I suppose ALL the scientists who have reached conclusions independent of each other could be wrong, colluding, or whatever.

    But lets just SAY these observed stats are accurate. Humor me.

    Is this sustainable? Is this healthy, for us, OR the planet? If that’s just the CO2, consider all the OTHER chemicals – related to climate change or not – that we’re forcing the planet and those who live on it to bear. Do you believe we can keep doing this, with no regulation whatsoever – as our population grows and grows?

    Most important… ask yourself if we can really afford to be wrong about this. Set everything aside – consider for just one moment that you might be wrong to deny this is happening. You, reader, are not an idiot. I honor you for your critical thinking. No, we shouldn’t just believe whatever ANYONE tells us. You’re not stupid, and neither am I. I don’t blindly believe just anyone, or jump on the us vs. them bandwagon, i hope you don’t either. You and I, we’re both pretty smart.

    So just for a moment, hold these two things in your brain at the same time, and objectively ask yourself… If I DO believe climate change is just one huge conspiracy, and it turns out that we really ARE impacting this planet in some really bad ways… isn’t that a pretty important error? Haven’t humans been known to make such mistakes before? Chernobyl; Exxon Valdez;Pacific Gyre Garbage Patch; Jilin Chemical Plant Explosions; Castle Bravo;Three Mile Island;Deep water horizon; so many more examples. ALL of these were not intentional (I hope), but they ARE the result of man thinking he knows what he’s doing, overestimating his abilities, and exceeding even his own limits of SELF preoccupation and “success.”

    We have a history with this planet when it comes to the environment, and it’s not a good one.

    So… can we afford the consequences? If “your side” is wrong and “the other side” ends up being right? Are the predicted consequences easy to reverse? By whom? By us? By our children or grandchildren? How long has it taken to “fix” those other environmental disasters? I’ll give you a hint — some of them won’t be “fixed” for millennia, and only then, the PLANET will probably have to do it.

    We CAN have All The Dollarz now, as long as we’re willing to live with the fact that those dollars will be of little comfort to the children and grandchildren as they try to figure out how to keep themselves and the planet alive, if we’re wrong.

    We’re near the end of our era here on this planet. We’ve done more damage in the past 50 years than billions of years of natural disasters and standard climate deviations could have ever done. If we don’t stop… if we all see everything as black and white, us against them, worship the almighty dollar, instead of doing what’s obviously right or just Makes Sense – then we better ALL make our peace with it and go quietly when the time comes, the bees are all dead, the air is unbreathable, and the planet slowly purges us.

    So go ahead, keep blindly following people who are non-scientists, the ones who insist we have a “them or us” situation, the ones who have money to gain by the denial. Just be sure you can sleep at night knowing that if you have chosen “the wrong side”, we are ALL f#$cked.

    We are good at procrastination, and denial in the face of evidence. As a species, we seem to be smart but not responsible with that knowledge. Our history bears this out, over and over again.

    Humans are unsustainable in this condition; perhaps we deserve to get wiped out.

    • John G

      Great points and perspective.

      After hanging out around under news articles for a year or two trying to educate the denier gang, I’ve developed a few uncomplimentary theories about the motivations of people who ignore mainstream science and instead support and rationalize unlimited CO2 pollution. It’s not just that they are lacking information. Polite fact and science-based reasoning will rarely change their minds.

      I’m trying to change my tactics. A few months ago I found Citizens Climate Lobby. Instead of spending our collective time trying to reason with the unreasonable, we will be much more effective in getting the problem addressed by working with the majority of Americans who range from alarmed about climate change to simply cautious about it. And together tell Congress in Washington that we can’t wait any longer for legislative action based on what we know from scientific and economic experts. We should have done this decades ago. We are running out of time and must do something now.

      After learning about all the solutions, I narrowed it down to the one that makes the most sense to me and now I’m working with 40,000 other volunteers who feel the same. Carbon Fee and Dividend is a simple, sensible, equitable, fair, revenue neutral, market-based solution that will greatly reduce GHG emissions, help the economy, and protect our buying power. It will also protect US jobs and companies, while strongly encouraging other countries to follow our lead. All while not growing government power.

      Check it out and think about it. I’ve done that and am happy to try to answer any questions anyone has about it. Talk to your friends and family about it. If you like it, tell your Congressmen you support it and you hope they will too. If you really like it, join Citizens Climate Lobby and get ready to participate in a grassroots movement based on science, with a solution supported by economists, to get a bill passed by Congress in 2017.

      It’s an effective response to get past the manufactured debate spun up by the fossil fuel interests to delay action, and on to solving the problem.

    • ET234 Gtt5456

      Mark, sir, at the end of that graph, there should show a leveling off of temperature and Co2 Exponentially increasing for 20 years, in the troposphere, where the delta in warming will happen, if it is greenhouse gases. Your graph is non meaningful or accurate.. Take that chart back a few hundred years and notice how temperature is all over the place, up and down, while Co2 is level. What does that tell you?

      • Marc Funaro

        How can you look at the overall trend in this graph, and insist on keeping your head in your butt? If you have an accurate (peer reviewed) graph that contradicts the overall trend line generated by the one I’ve provided, I’m all ears.

        Also, can you afford to be wrong?

        • ET234 Gtt5456

          Peer reviewed by who? paid off stooges like you?

          this graph is not legitimate- please educate me , dunce

          • Marc Funaro

            You’re kidding, right? The UAH studies? You need to go back and do your homework. Gotta hand it to you though, at least you included the cooling trend drivel too… right in line with the other heads-in-the-sand non-scientists.

            I’ll leave it to you to get out of your echo chamber and research the crap graphs you just presented, but I’ll be happy to at least inform you of this: At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature
            using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that
            is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also
            shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

            I’ll even throw in the relevant PDF for you:


            From the very first motherf#$king page of that document:

            “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming… This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”

            Also, you never answered my second question – CAN YOU AFFORD TO BE WRONG ABOUT THIS?

            I’m done here regardless… battle of wits, unarmed man and such.

          • ET234 Gtt5456

            The point is, the temperature trend for the last 20 years has been flat, if it increased – it did by a minute amount, completely inconsistent with the rise of Human produced Co2 during the same period. THAT”S THE POINT THAT YOU CAN’T ANSWER. That’s why your stupid graph stops at 2000, because your cherry picking information- that alone disqualifies you.

            How do show anything going on is out of normal variability? a 20 year sample proves what? how many other factors could have made that change? MANY and how drastic was it? MINOR.

            There are ignorant people reading these blogs that believe your bs- you should be careful about who you are brainwashing, sir.

          • Marc Funaro

            Oh, but I CAN answer.

            However, first let’s define what cherry picking is.

            The data that has been presented to you represents a span of more than 150 years. Don’t like my graph, don’t use it. Grab any global temp chart from any reliable source. Go ahead and hunt down and present here the newer ones since 2000, since it bothers you so much.

            I won’t mind.


            Because you are hoping to CHERRY PICK the last 20 years or so, and use it as a single dataset to counter the clear trend represented by the prior 150 years. That’s textbook cherry picking. No actual scientist in his right mind would take a small dataset and use it alone to refute evidence presented by the body of work as a whole, as you are attempting to do here. So please, pull your head out of your butt at least those few inches.

            Now, on to what the past 15-20 years DO demonstrate, and why they should actually worry you more. I can’t believe this still has to be explained, but even with the information that’s been out for at least two years, I guess people still aren’t getting the message.

            First, as is demonstrated by the datasets from prior centuries, temperatures do not rise or fall in a straight line.

            It is a fact that the first 10 years of this century were the HOTTEST ON RECORD. It is also a fact, as you’ve indicated, that the data for 1998 (an anomaly year, I might add) to 2012, temperatures rose at a slower rate than the long-term rate since since the mid 20th century.

            There could be several reasons for this – natural ones or man-made. This includes oceans absorbing heat (and you’d better ask yourself if they can hold that heat forever… here’s a hint – they CAN’T), the solar minimum (global temperatures have a relationship to this – I’ll leave it to you to find that data as well), and increases in natural and man-made aerosols blocking the sun’s radiation from reaching the surface.

            As deniers so often like to point out, “natural variance! natural variance!”

            Except – and here’s the part you should worry about – the variance isn’t at all like any previous cooling periods. It’s not nearly as big as it should be.

            If we have in fact entered a natural cooling phase, it’s not nearly as strong as should be expected.

            The slowing in the past 15-20 years is really not surprising. We have seen a united front between back-to-back La Ninas, sulphur and soot emissions, and solar minimum.

            Below is a surface temp chart. Take a look at the 20th century… there were some pretty significant cooling trends as a result of volcanic activity, natural and anthropologic aerosols, solar cycle, and natural variability.

            Find all the significant cooling spots.
            — 1880 – cooling trend by .4c.

            — 1945 – cooling trend by .35c.
            — 1962 – cooling trend around .3c.

            These are decade-scale coolings of .3-.4c.

            The most recent period comparable to these cooling spots begins at 1998 – right in that time period you’re blathering on about. Since then, and through that period, temperatures HAVE cooled — by only .03c. Note that extra zero after the decimal point – that’s not insignificant, is it?

            The prior cooling trends of even .3c absolutely marginalize a .03c cooling trend over a similar time period.

            Here’s why this cooling trend you like to so arrogantly point out as “proof” that climate change is a hoax should actually make you piss yourself a little: Given the double La Nina, AND the solar minimum, and the ever higher aerosol emissions, the question is not “what’s up with this cooling trend, huh? HUH!?” but should be “why the fuck didn’t this last cooling trend REALLY cool us like before!?”

            The .03c cooling is statistically insignificant compared to prior “real” cooling trends. It certainly doesn’t upset the cart.

            The radiative forcing that SHOULD have led to cooling instead led us to the warmest decade on record.

            And it’s not like there wasn’t time for a real .3c or .4c downward trend to happen – it’s actually a 15 year period, while the other cooling periods I pointed out were only 10.

            Your cherry pick of the past 20 years does not hold, and actually only further supports the data or perhaps even indicates that we’ve UNDERestimated how sensitive our climate is to the shit we’re doing.

            The “natural variance” upon which your argument is based now appears to be functioning differently – and that should really bother you. Instead, you want to bask in your false sense of security, sipping on your ignorance margarita.

            The next El Nino and more normal solar cycle, combined with countries cleaning up their aerosol emissions, will cause an acceleration of warming that we’ve seen in the data prior to your sacred “past 20 years.” I’d bet my 401k on it.

            So please… try not to disqualify me before you’ve taken care of the issues that more than disqualify you – graphs of datasets long since corrected, the cherry picking of a short period of time to represent the whole, typical uninformed denier “science” and – erhm – common sense that if you dump enough shit into the air we breathe for life, bad things will happen.

            Oh, and you still haven’t answered the fundamental question – Can You Afford To Be Wrong? Because when we get 30-50 years out from here and have all of the problems that go with heating up the joint, it’s not like we can just reverse course and everything will be alright. If we can even do it at all, it will take millennia to reverse the damage – damage we could be slowing or preventing altogether right now.

            But Nah. Let’s make sure those oil companies keep getting our cash though, because that’s more important. I know they have our best interests in mind, so it’s all going to be okay.


          • ET234 Gtt5456

            Marc- sir, please listen what I have to say. Please be rational and logical. Your probably young and have been indoctrinated, but believe me , what we are taught in life is often more about what the teacher wants us to believe than what is the truth. The Co2 increase that could have effected the atmosphere, started after the economic boom 1940, not 150 years ago. The trend of Co2 proxy data is flat as a pancake, please be sensible. That’s number 1, number 2 NO the oceans did not eat the global warming, oceans don’t eat global warming, warm means warm and cold means cold, the climate has been driven by the lack of solar activity, Co2 is irrelevant. By any measure the effect of Co2 on our climate, is insignificant to non existent, and as more Co2 builds up in the atmosphere the less per volume it has a greenhouse effect, because of the characteristics of it’s saturation point, which is consistent with past times in earths history when we had 3 times 10 times and 20 times as much Co2, without correlation to the climate.

            Yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and the more of it in the atmosphere causes energy to be retained in the atmosphere- but the concept it is a driving event or even partially significant is unsupportable. Remember the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere, comparable to 20 feet – to 10 miles, and 5 of those feet are from Co2.

            The increase of temperature since the end of the LIA, is what the general present warming trend is all about- with an upward influence from Co2 but by any measure insignificant.

          • Marc Funaro

            “oceans don’t eat global warming, warm means warm and cold means cold”

            There it is. That, right there. That comment is why I’m not wasting any more time with you. Holy fuck, you have NO god damned CLUE what you’re talking about.

            You and the absolute, arrogant, unbridled stupidity of people like you will be our ultimate demise. Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge, “SIR.” You have gathered up pseudoscience instead of facts, and claim it to be as good as what thousands of very smart people have learned.

            And like every fucking denier I have ever encountered, you STILL, even NOW, won’t answer a simple question… CAN YOU AFFORD TO BE WRONG?

            You don’t answer because you don’t like to think about it. You don’t answer because you’re afraid that you’ll realize that you can’t, that our children can’t. You don’t answer because you’re unwilling to meet ANYONE smarter than you on this topic even halfway. And if you should ever actually try to answer, it’ll be some bullshit related to the almighty dollar, or the “big government conspiracy.” (Fun fact: our government sucks at cover-ups on the scale of what you idiots propose. SIR.) Thanks, but i’m out of tinfoil after all the hats you all try to make us wear.

            There is not an ounce of actionable, peer reviewed science in anything you just said, and yet you spew it as fact. It’s your truth, and you aren’t budging. That’s what internet arguments are all about, of course. But since you haven’t answered the fundamental question, I’ll do it for you (just like the rest of the rational world will start making decisions for you, because you’re clearly gonna hurt yourself eventually).

            No. No, no, no. You CANNOT afford to be wrong. Not even a little. Unless you’ve got some other magical “science” that can scrub the air of the shit we’re doing to it, DAILY, once we cross that threshold, we’re finished. There’s no going back. Once species are eliminated from the earth (which I’ll assume you think is only 6,000 years old or so, since you’re making assumptions about age too, wise ass), they don’t come back. Once a resource is gone, it can never be found again. Once you’ve poisoned the air, the water, the soil, mother earth will eventually take over – starting by eliminating the scourge of humanity, followed by thousands and thousands of years of slow recovery.

            You cannot afford to be wrong about any of this, but you’re willing to let your lack of actual knowledge guide you in your decisions. And for what, exactly? Seriously, what is worth defending so much that you’re willing to bet an entire planet on it? An entire generation of children, or 2, or…?

            I will never, EVER say the science OR the solutions OR the plans are perfect, and that there aren’t opportunistic charlatans on BOTH sides. But fuck the hell out of you if you think you can afford to ignore the actual problem, wish it away with your “beliefs.” Science doesn’t give a fuck what you BELIEVE. We are stewards of this planet, and we’re fucking it up.

            You truly ARE making “Idiocracy” an actual fucking action guide for humanity.

          • ET234 Gtt5456

            If you want people to take you serious, you may want to cool it on vulgarities and profanities – it’s sign of someone that doesn’t have facts or have sell unsupportable bs.

            The oceans are the reason, for the falsey of the movement, but before 2000, the oceans played no part all Co2. Can’t you see how the logic is not rational?

            And as far as your contention about post-Y2k hiatus in warming, that would have been much more cooling- but no for Co2. And you use precedence of 120 years and solar activity to prove- even you know there are hundreds of primary factors always effecting the climate, and the fact that post Y2k predictions have falling flat on their face BIG TIME points to the fact that, you cannot look at a single factor proclaim it’s the cause- you have no idea, any legitimate scientist would first explain , how so much is not known. And as far as empircal evidence, there is not much change to talk about- early 1700s had much more warming than today, how many SUVs were around then?

            The point is, you don’t realize how much work you need to do to put up even a, smidget of a plausible case that is so easily debunked, this should set of warning signs in your brain that something is array here, like perhaps a preordained conclusions, accompanied by a pitful attempt to backfill it with scientific proof- i stinks from a mile away.

          • Marc Funaro

            Especially when you refuse to provide any peer reviewed evidence (“It’s common sense! It’s common sense!”) that properly refutes the current models using the actual scientific method, absolutely nothing has been “debunked” except your lack of ignorance.

            “Common sense” and what you THINK you know are not the same thing as knowing. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the
            universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat. These things seemed like common sense when they were believed. What changed those beliefs? Actual, real-world science. Science doesn’t care what you believe, or what you believe to be common sense.

            As I said – the fact that you don’t even understand basic concepts like oceanic heat absorption, thermohaline circulation, or clearly even the basics of how the actual scientific method can lead to solid theories about how our universe and our home world works, this discussion with you is moot and really, really pointless. Anything you might actually have a clue about is completely overshadowed by your ignorance. I’ll leave you with the question you refuse to answer…

            CAN. YOU. AFFORD. TO. BE. WRONG?

          • ET234 Gtt5456

            Peer review by whom? the circus that makes they’re living off of the hype? Yeah that means a lot, that really will uncover what the truth is, one way or another lol. You goons of the scam are amusing, with your predictable cliché and one liners about the flat earth- which has nothing to do with subject.
            I’m just an interested party, not a tax payer funded member of the movement. So it doesn’t matter whether I’m wrong or not – you on the other hand will have to work for a living, once the GW frenzy finally collapses.

  • Damir Ljutić

    So, basically you have no friggin idea what is the definition of the climate? In first three points you took just one year as a proof that there is no climate changes (climate is 30 year meteorological period). Therefore, there is really no need to read the rest of the points since this climate changes hoax text is obviously just a hoax.
    P.S. 2014 was globaly warm except of the part of North America and part of Europe.

  • Star

    One side is about money, let’s keep doing these things that are clearly damaging even on small scale. The other side is going for NOT DYING and improvement and going sustainable. How did we get to having oxygen in the first place, you douchdbag?

  • Piggypony

    The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world—including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels—all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.

  • NotaLiberal

    While I may not be a tree hugger, global warming is a reality that we are currently dealing with, and our grandkids, and their grandkids are going to have to deal with too. If you do your homework, you’d realize that current CO2 levels are significantly higher than the most historical highest CO2 levels( Oceans may be rising less than predicted even though arctic ice is rapidly disappearing. However, if you flashback to 7th grade science, you would remember that ice submersed within liquid does not make the water level rise as it melts, it just simply displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight…it isn’t rocket science. So yes the water levels may not be rising as fast as expected but we still have a dilemma on our hands. This is not just the earth going through a natural cycle. Our actions directly affect our environment and unless we take a stand to fix the problem, we will be directly responsible for the disaster that the future holds.

  • Just a fellow science person

    1.Due to these chemicals (that everyone thinks are doing nothing)going up into the atmosphere there are chemical reactions occurring that are breaking down our ozone layer which in turn allows for more UV light to pass through and warm the earth. There is lots of ice because there ice caps in the north are melting and the cold waters are moving south causing the temperature to be colder which in retrospect causes more ice, snow, and overall cold weather.
    2. Polar bears are not thriving at all. Due to icecaps melting the polar bears have had to move south into human in habitated areas where they are being killed for being a danger. It is very rare that a polar bear has a offspring that lives to adulthood because of starvation.
    3. There are more moose because they have moved south. The only reason they don’t get killed other than by hunters is because people believe these animals won’t hurt us and they are a fascination to see.
    4. 90% of the world is covered in water which means there is not as drastic of a raise in water level because it it spread across the Earth.
    5. Plants intake CO2 from the atmosphere and use it in photosynthesis which then releases oxygen. Due to the structure of the plant it can only intake so much CO2.
    6.The “main players” in global warming are actually scientists who have spent years of their lives collecting data. This big shots who own the houses and the Jets are the people that scientists have to ask and beg for money to help spread the world’s problems because they don’t get the money they need to do anything.


    • Sam Hayduk

      so true so true..

  • Stella Sandy

    you guys realise that ice and snow reflect sunlight. Also climate change isn’t global warming. Climate change happens all the time, ice ages are the result of climate change. Global warming is a form of climate change. All this information is based around a single. The weather constantly fluctuates, you can’t point at a snowy mountain and shit about there not being global warming. NASA very clearly shows the change in the earths AVERAGE temperature here, . There is plenty of actual scientific evidence instead of half assed remarks. Almost anything you say about there being no such thing as global warming I can prove you wrong with actual fucking evidence.

  • Smarty

    I haven’t read all comments, so it may have already been mentioned; the earth has a wobble that takes over 20,000 years to make a complete circle. I’m sure we don’t have data to say how that wobble affects the climate on earth, mainly because nobody has been here 20,000 years to either confirm or deny the facts. It’s a waste of life to ponder such activities, when we should just stay with the facts. Have we polluted the earth’s air and water? The answer is yes. Do we need to try to fix those problems? The answer is yes. Let’s don’t argue about things we have absolutely no evidence to back. Everyone knows that there are a lot of scientist out there that will sell you on their idea to further their research and inevitably validate their claims. There just won’t be anyone here to confirm or deny their claims, as their claims stretch over the coarse of several years; much longer than the life expectancy of humans. All there will be is the faint notion that scientist, along with politicians actually tried somewhere back in the past to control people with such a silly premise.

    • atb9454

      Except we do have evidence. More CO2= warmer climate. Lots of hard work has proven this, and as a young person it scares me.

  • Snuffles

    i see here Global warm conspiracy theories made by oil owners.

  • Douglas Cave

    If you don’t have the education to understand the issue, you’re very likely to deny it out of personal discomfort.

  • Norris Allen

    Washington D.C. was built at sea level .
    We have occupied the city for two hundred years no rise in the ocean to speak of .

  • James Bartsch

    If in your first article, you had even read what what it actually said, you would have found that Antarctic and Arctic ice are two different things and the increase in is ice is in Antartica is insurmountable compared to the loss of Ice in the Arctic.

  • luzandrob

    The arrogance of man is so unbelievable. The idea that the things we do can control the climate is laughable. This suggestion is right up there with the idea that a Big Bang could somehow align the elements into the fragile balance that allows life, let alone explain life itself. Why can’t we see the world for what it really is? God created the earth. He created all things including man. He is in charge. If global warming were a problem, God would fix it.

  • Jan Edvinsson

    The Devastating Effects of Pollution in China (Part 1/2)

  • Jan Edvinsson

    Masdar: The City of the Future | Fully Charged

  • Sara Olson

    This issue is not whether or not climate is changing. Climate is always changing, and that is the nature of climate.

    The issue is that man is NOT CAUSING these changes.

    There is not one shred of scientific evidence that man can change or control either climate or weather. And collecting a Carbon Tax will do NOTHING except make us poorer. True science does not require a “consensus.” True science conduits experiments, and repeats these experiments to confirm results, etc. That is the scientific method. And this has never been done to prove we can control or change climate. Climate change is the biggest hoax of our time.

    • Sam Hayduk

      what are you thinking… you do not think that we can control the climate, the greenhouse effect… co2 acts like a miror to heat. just look at venus. the only reson it is like 400 degrees is becuse natraly it has pockets that realease co2. factorys on earth act like tothe volcanic pockets but they are man made.

    • atb9454

      Sorry to disappoint, but man is causing these changes. There is a scientifically proven correlation between CO2 emissions by humans and a warmer climate. Look at the two graphs side by side–it’s really scary, especially for me, since I will be growing up in this warming world. Hope this helps.

    • Jason Evans

      My goodness. You are demonstrably wrong on everything said in your post except your point that the climate is always changing. Yes, it is always changing. Otherwise, it is like you are repeating something you saw on some Right-wing website and that repeating it with conviction makes it true. It is not true.

      There is enough evidence to reach to the moon that we are changing the climate. Denying that such evidence doesn’t exist is like denying that there is no sky. Google “IPCC AR5 Technical Report”. Read that summary of the science and make sure to duct tape your head together so it doesn’t explode while reading it. You have been seriously deceived. After you have read it, refute it. And in order to refute it, you must use science.

      And, your understanding of how science works is about as wrong as you can get. Science works by the weight of evidence. One study/experiment does not reveal truth. The cumulative weight of evidence over time shows the truth. I am a scientist in evolutionary genomics and I work to create antibiotics. All of that medical work is based on the cumulative evidence that shows a truth over time. Consensus is the community of scientists detecting that ample evidence has been collected for something so as to show a clear path. All of this is also demonstrated through mathematics in the calculation of error with sigma deviation.

      There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is occurring and is driven by man. If you are going to try and deny this, you must provide evidence to the contrary – and lots of it.

  • Jan Edvinsson

    Fastest change in climate in 65 million years…could that be a sign for something!?

  • Sam Hayduk

    its not a hoax. its called climate CHANGE.. this is becuse what hapens is we realease co2 wich causes huge precipitation followed by drought. 2015 was that drought.

  • atb9454

    As a young person in America, this type of article TERRIFIES me. If you don’t know why, look at this graph by NASA:

    Climate change is real, and it scares my generation!

  • Maiden of Opichiuchus

    I believe you. And ill tell you why.

    I believe climate change is real, but man made? No.

    Can we stop it? No.

    Can we predict it? No, its random.

    Will man kind survive?


    Why? Because we are badass.

    Also, its going on as we speak. If you are reading this, congratulations you have survived

    • Sam Hayduk

      no its actuly very predictible. the fact that you are dening it mkes you a coward like person. we can become a bad*ss by rising up and producing more clean fuel (jet fuel is now 50% biofuel!) and than we can use the oil that we have so little of for space travel. the only reson why we have been the second hottest rize in tempetre is becuse the dinosoars got killd by a huge rise in temputre. It roze to about 500degrees in about an hour. and im srry for these spelling mistakes but i am cruently typing on a phone.

  • Joe Mommar

    My opion is who gives a rats ass…………… With Libtards like Barack Hussein Obama giving the Iranians the ability to make nuclear weapons this big ass 3rd rock from the sun gonna be cooling off real fast in the following nuclear winter. But according to Owl Gore the biggest threat to mankind is C02 emmisions……yeah only if the build up too quickly in your fallout shelter. Climate Change or seasons as we call it in New England is another Libtard money and control grabbing scam

  • GlobeTrotter

    HAHA this author has no concept of logical and scientific reasoning. Typical of all climate change deniers. Lets go through the items together.
    1. There is substantial evidence that the method to calculating the ice is flawed. This was based on a single peer reviewed paper by NASA and there are now many questions to their methodology.
    2. Record snow fall for a particular year has nothing to do with long lasting global climate change. You can not use data for a single year at a particular location and use this anomaly as a representation of the entire globe. It is like saying here in California there is a drought but in one day we got a record rainfall, so that means we do not have a drought.
    3. Nonsense, the article he linked is also nonsense. It proves nothing.
    4. This is hilarious. His biased opinion of Gore should have nothing to do with facts, then the author links as to the tide pattern of the Bay Area which is you look closely actually shows some increases lately. But again, his comment is subjective. In fact, average sea level has increased 1 inch per decade since 1900 and 1.2 inches per decade recently.
    5. Stupid is what stupid does. So he takes a single small population of polar bear in a single location and applies this to all polar bears. Bad extrapolation procedures. And it does not tie into the fact that ice sheets are low. It even says in the article despite the fact summer ice sheets were low this particular polar bear population in this particular location are doing ok.
    6. LOL Minnesota and moose. Moose are not that sensitive to climate changes. And again taking a single particular data and extrapolating it is bad science.
    7. LOL that petition is definitely biased and my daughter could sign it. Petitions are not peer reviewed and double checked for authenticity.
    8. ERRR so what? Nature has over billions of years found a balance even after catastrophe. CO2 levels pre industrial age were completely nature based and is required so that we as humans can live without freezing to death. But now human input of CO2 to the atmosphere has upset that balance. Yeah nature produces more CO2, of course, but now there is too much CO2.
    9. Again you uninformed lack the understanding of weather and climate. Climate is a much larger data set over time of short them weather patterns. You can not take a single year at a single location on the globe and extrapolate it to the rest of the globe for every other year. For example, if the climate says on average that LA gets 12 inches of rain a year for the last 100 years. But then take a single year that says, wow LA had 15 inches this year, BUT forget that last year it was 1inch and the year before that was 4 inches and next year it is 5 inches. etc… In those 4 years 4, 1, 15, 5 means rainfall has averaged 8.25 inches no 12inches. duhhhhhhhhh
    10. Political biased in science makes this author lack any credibility. In fact, I could talk to the other side and hear them say, well the existence of powerful oil and coal corporations are desperate to hold on to their existence using their current powerful influence and vaults of money to make people believe it is a hoax. It is obviose the future means no more energy from coal or oil and they are willing to pay some unethical scientists, foxnews, rush limbauh and whoever to lie for them. The logic of special interest for the green tech world boggles my mind. They have no political clout at all. They have no power to pay the mojority of scientists who say global warming is man made. The oil and as business could but they can not bribe all the scientists to be unethical.

    I will say this. Instead of looking to prove yourself right, look to see why you may be wrong. Look at both sides. Oh and do not get your information for just a few sources, keep away from TV news and use the billions of sources elsewhere. Look for objective unbiased news and science. Because denying climate change could mean that you are contributing to the demise of humanity. Think of your children because you want to be right on this one. Forget your political affiliation. It doesn’t matter if half of Florida will be underwater in our lifetime. That mexico is going to war with the US because they are hungry.

  • Oskar

    To begin with: It’s not global warming – it’s climate change. And yes, there will be record low temperatures as well as record high temperatures. The correct term should be “Climate Destabilisation”.

    Why is climate destabilisation not good?
    Because extreme wheather destroys harvests, causes draughts and destructive mega storms.

    But that’s not where it ends:
    Too much carbon dioxide in the seas changes the chemical composition of sea water and it happens so fast, that corals and fish can’t adapt quick enough and so go extinct.

    And to start with:
    Why should climate change be a “hoax”?
    And how come that is propagated as such nowhere else in the world than in oil producing countries?

    As it seems the end of big oil has come one way or the other. “Climate sceptic” Trump is not going to change that. Even if he managed to suppress solar energy in his own country: Europe and China are only going to smile and watch the US stay behind while their economies will be stable and independent from oil.

    Their citizens are going to drive cheap and clean Tesla Model 4 cars powered by solar energy from their own roofs – while americans will still have to line up at gasoline stations buying expensive gasoline made from oil imported from an increasingly politically and economically destabilising Saudi Arabia at $55 a barrel.

    The end of big oil is near.
    Not because we believe in the “lies of a global climate warming conspiracy”, but simply because there is no money in it any more.

    When big investors start runnung away from an unstable industry with skimpy profit margin outlooks for the future, and instead start putting their money into the development of newer and cleaner technologies – that’s when things are going to change – irreversibly.

    Shale oil and fracking got pretty much killed because the Saudis want to keep their market share. Indeed oil prices are expected to stay low for a long time. And it doesn’t seem to deter the Europeans from going solar.

    The question is: For how long will the US stay behind?
    Answer: As long as big oil has the money to buy enough Senators to suppress clean energy, electric cars and TV prime time to advertise “climate scepticism”.

    But how long will that be with profits and investors gone?
    I predict, that climate “sceptic” Trump will either change to “climate believer” or is simply going to be forced to step down when US exports hit rock bottom.

    I for myself have decided that my next car will be electric.
    It’s going to go 150km/h (90 m/h)
    It’s going to have a range of 1,000 km (600 miles)
    I won’t have to change oil ever again – or buy a muffler – or a gas filter.
    The money I will save in fuel costs I am going to spend in restaurants.
    And it will cost me $25,000 – new!

    Don’t believe me?
    Well, you are going to eat my dust – suckers!

  • Pranicfrequency

    You are stupid

  • Daehkcid
  • Michaelspowell

    1. The sun has a warm cycle and a cold cycle and recently went into a cold cycle.
    2. When co2 is generated on earth, it takes 200 years for it to show up in the
    3. Believers have been brainwashed, they are beyond help at this point.

  • Chelsea

    EXACTLY! UGH! And dont forget “ClimateGate” with all the emails leaking that it was fraudulent propaganda!

  • Danica Burke

    Your ignorance of the bigger picture is astounding. ‘Global Warming’ is a misleading term. Climate Change is directly correlated to mans presence with and interferrance of natures natural weather and ecosystems. We are pushing natural patterns into extreme expressions and out of their natural rythymn – on the caps the winters are shortnening, in the deserts get hotter for longer. Storms are more severe and frequent. You want a real conspiracy? Look into all the corporations that profit while the planet suffers. The officials that get paid off while vulnerable communities suffer. Watch before the flood. YOU are part of the hoax.

  • HobNobBob

    I am a climate change denier (in that I don’t think climate change is much due to mankind’s activities, and in any case it won’t be as harmful as asserted by the alarmists), but there are a number of problems with the arguments on this page.

    First, the ice creation and snowfall and temperature for any one year is not relevant. One must look at trends, so items 1-3 fail. 4 is relevant, but 5-6 imply that warming would harm these animals, and that has not been proven.

    7 is clearly in error, as it compares two unrelated lists. I think that most scientists agree that warming has occurred, but differ in their conclusion as to the causes, and whether such warming is harmful.

    Regarding 8, the issue isn’t who makes the most CO2, but whether man’s contribution leads to the total amount in the atmosphere increasing over time. Plant life adds and deletes CO2 on regular cycles in large amounts that tend to balance out, but the amounts added by man tend to only increase atmospheric CO2.

    9 makes the false assumption that if global warming were true, every year would be warmer than the preceding year, and that also would not be true. What is relevant is that for about 16 years, there has been no real warming, which shows a trend.

    Finally, regarding 10, the lifestyle of a person has no bearing on whether they speak truth or lies.

    Hence, overall, this is a very poorly reasoned article when there are so many better arguments against climate change being an issue that are available.

  • Sugarsail1

    What is lacking in this discussion is a serious address of the religious psychology of mankind. History is replete with examples of cults that believe the sea levels will catastrophically rise to punish mankind for his sins. Only some type of repentance can save humanity. Building an ark, boarding a UFO, sacrificing one’s material belongings, constructing rafts, climbing a mountain, buying a Prius…all ascribed modes of salvation by some prophet that people pay mindless obedience to. All of these cults cite the authority they put faith it, be it the spirit in the tree, alien-communication, revelation from god, or climate science. All of of these cults were 100% certain they were correct and all were 100% delusional. Last time I checked science is based on repeatable observable data. Well, the religious behavior of Apocalyptic Flood Cults is both observable and repeatable, thus the only conclusion one can draw is that climate change believers are members of a prophetic cult.

  • Faustin

    Even without climate change, I’d still chose an electric car over a gaz-powered one. It’s stinky!

  • RMcampbell

    Those who believe in God have Genesis 8:22. As long as the earth remains, there will be seasons, cold and hot, seedtime and harvest…..GOD

  • spric

    A hoax is a hoax of course of course unless of course the hoax is the global warming hoax.

  • badactor

    Do yourself a favor and observe the NASA data for yourself.

  • Dread Pirate Bob

    That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

  • Cheyenne LaRance

    This is in response to your 4th point on the list regarding polar bears. Polar bears are certainly not “thriving”. Since 2006, polar bears have been categorized as “vulnerable” on the scale of extinction. This is mainly due to their loss of habitat. Research even shows that if the arctic ice continues to melt at the same rate, polar bears could be extinct by 2050. Thats less than 35 years away. A species considered to be thriving wouldnt still be under the Endangered Species Act. I would be interested to see what proof you have that shows polar bears are thriving in today’s climate.


  • David Goodspeed

    Fossil fuels more or less comes from decayed dead dinosaurs right?

    Were they not extinct would that be a good thing?

    Come on a lot of you environmental wackos would say “YES” and you know it even if you would never care to admit it…

    Okay then would a long dead dinosaur weigh less than alive and give off less CO2?

    I REST MY CASE….On empirical reasoning alone I have just debunked so called Al Gore and Michele Gorbachev global warming.


  • cbjester24

    Did you even read the Nasa article?

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.