Is global warming a hoax?


Doug Craig over at recently published an article covering the abbreviated history of research regarding greenhouse gases and the history of our scientific understanding of them. He naturally skipped those researchers and scientists that discuss the cooling affect of aerosols.

Mr. Craig’s article is pretty typical of the problem in this debate for both sides. His article is filled with references to “hoax” in this discussion. Hoax is a word that is often referenced by some that doubt global warming predictions (or more precisely, the efforts to reverse the influence). In this case, Mr. Craig is making fun of it with the natural assumption that he thinks such people are fools for thinking it is a “hoax.”

Is global warming a hoax?  Hardly. According to a hoax is:

hoax (hks)


1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es

To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

Does anybody really think that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? Is anyone really saying that CO2 doesn’t have the chemical and electrical properties that allow it to absorb certain wavelengths of energy? I don’t think so. There is no disputing the properties of CO2. The discussion is about its relative influence on the rest of the atmosphere and the cost to treasure and life.

Mr. Craig makes the following opening statement:

Whenever I hear someone say that Global Warming or Climate Change is a hoax, I wonder if they realize this “hoax” is nearly two centuries old.

Mr. Craig is linking scientific discovery of the physical properties of gases with political discussion of reversing industrial production. Mr. Craig is alluding that because there is good scientific understanding of the nature of a molecule that there is good scientific understanding of the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. Mr. Craig is challenging some that may believe that “fixing” carbon dioxide production with our current industrial knowledge may condemn millions to a life of less wealth and possibly death.

Of course, if people on both sides of the issue continue to use words like “hoax” then we will never have a real discussion of the issues. Mr. Craig appears to be a fairly-well educated individual – it is too bad that he is fanning the flames of confrontation rather than a true discussion on both sides of the issue.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

7 thoughts on “Is global warming a hoax?”

  1. Tom says:


    The word ‘hoax’ shares an attribute with the word ‘conspiracy’. The fulcrum point for both words is intent.

    If a group of people plan and implement a course of action that results in harm befalling others but their intent was to ‘do good’ for people rather than to do harm to people, then their planning does not qualify to be called a conspiracy.

    The same is true with ‘hoax’. If a true believer convinces others to believe that which they believe and what they believe is what Will Rogers termed “things that people know that aren’t really true” then the person is not guilty of perpetrating a hoax. They purveyed inadvertant misinformation rather than purveying intentional disinformation.

    There are members of the nation’s media who have forged inadvertant careers because they know the sound bites but are clueless about whether the sound bites are supported by facts.

    There are other commonly used words that could apply, perhaps to all parties concerned. I won’t supply those words since I’m sure that you already know them.

    I’ll paraphrase, but that Mr. Rogers was referring to “all of the problems that are caused by things that people know that aren’t really true.”

    He was referring to Congress in particular and to politicians more generally but to gullibility of human beings as a generic bunch.

    So…..I have now looped the loop and returned to the starting point.

    There is one thing that we should never overlook or discount: THE HUMAN MIND IS THE ONLY THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE THAT IS ABLE TO OPERATE IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER.

    Think on that one for just a bit.

    With regards,


  2. tim maguire says:

    I think, or like to think, that “hoax” is a way off calling out the people say one thing and live another. As Glenn Reynolds puts it, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”

    And it’s a valid point, if judged solely by their personal behavior, it would be fair to conclude that, worldwide, roughly 10 people believe in AGW. The skeptic’s favorite punching bag Al Gore has one of the largest carbon footprints of any private citizen on the planet.

    It would be nice, however, as you are always calling for, if we could separate the scientific debate from the public debate so that those interested in unvarnished information could more easily get it.

  3. tim maguire says:

    I’m wondering if you yet have an opinion on the East Anglia scandal. Do you think it’s as devastating as it appears to be? Or are the skeptics gloating a little too much a little too soon.

    If it is that devastating, it may have the long-term positive effect of rolling back the advance of politics into science, not only but especially into climate science. But it will do so by the slash and burn method, ending a lot of careers and freezing funding for a while. So the short term will be very bad for science, not only but especially climate science.

  4. admin says:

    I am planning a couple posts on the subject. Check back soon!

  5. Scientific Doomsday Mania
    Amitakh Stanford
    22nd November 2009

    There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.

    Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.

    If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.

    People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.


    Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?

    To demonstrate the absurdity of the current “green” position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly. The nuclear proponents do not seem to care about the disposal of nuclear waste from these sites. This means that they are presenting an extremely short-sighted solution, which is not really a solution at all. Besides, the proponents of expanding nuclear power want to tremendously restrict who can and who cannot use nuclear power. For instance, Iran and North Korea are presently being ostracized for, among other things, having nuclear-power programmes. This is a glaring instance where part of the real agenda of the ruling elite shows through; the nuclear proponents are not as concerned about global warming as they are with political dominance.

    As indicated earlier, humans are only marginally responsible for global warming. The hotter sun is undeniable, and it is the main reason for global warming.


    This would be all well and good if it could be believed that scientists are acting in the people’s best interests. But, since when have scientists been assumed to be altruistic? Why is it accepted that they will only act in the best interests of humans? And why should it be accepted that the scientists are correct about human causes of global warming?


    The carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the ruling elite’s scientific doomsdayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will change the lives of people for the worse.

  6. Amused says:

    admin says — “Does anybody really think that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? Is anyone really saying that CO2 doesn’t have the chemical and electrical properties that allow it to absorb certain wavelengths of energy?”

    The answer is yes.

    Two German Physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, published a paper in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. They conclude;

    “In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.”

    Layman’s explanation with links to the paper:

  7. admin says:

    Give me a break! The article that you cite has nothing to do with the statements that I made. It is well documented that CO2 has the chemical and electrical properties to absorb certain wavelengths of energy. The article that cite discusses whether the combination of those gases in computer models affects the climate of Earth. That article does not say that CO2 doesn’t absorb energy. In fact, the March 2009 paper even states that CO2 absorbs energy in almost the exact words that I used. I quote from page 92 “The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum”

    Did you read the article that you cited? I doubt it.

Comments are closed.