View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Is climate a hoax?

Posted: January 23, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: January 23, 2014 2:00 a.m.

I believe in Gary Morrison’s passion, but not his facts (“Fiddling while climate change damages the Earth” Jan 12 Signal).
What would be gained from a climate hoax? More government control and increased revenue, billions of dollars in carbon taxes and fines, and the sale of “carbon credits” and government dollars to “green” companies run by the politically connected.

The Earth regularly passes through warming and cooling trends. Over the last 100 years there have been two warming and two cooling trends, but no significant overall warming trend.

Ninety-five percent of scientists do not agree on the causes of climate changes. Polar ice has grown 28 percent since 2007. Glaciers are growing in Italy, India, Greenland and the U.S. (see:

The hottest years on Earth occurred between 9,000 and 6,000 years ago, not in the last 10 or even 100 years. As to CO2-driven climate change: CO2 is absorbed by plants which emit oxygen, which humans and animals breathe while emitting CO2.

It is necessary to life, not a toxin.

Approximately 186 billion tons enter the atmosphere annually. 6 billion tons from human sources. If all sources of human carbon “pollution” was halted, the overall decrease would be negligible.

Some scientists opine that moderate warming and CO2 increase would benefit the Earth, making winters less cold and enlarging the areas suitable for farming and more plant life.

The climate change science camp is noted for its symbiotic relationship with governments and big education science grants, often relying on static models and not accounting for things like solar activity, cloud layering, air moisture content, etc.



ricketzz: Posted: January 23, 2014 6:43 a.m.

If I was BB I'd dismiss all this with a wave of my "fascist talking points" hand. (You can always tell the brainwashed, they easily dismiss any rational discussion by proclaiming "talking points" and that covers it, next!)

For not less than 400,000 years global temperatures have been in a narrow channel (Vostok ice cores, calibrated with ocean sediment, tree rings, etc.). There never was a Medieval Warm Period globally. Similarly, the Little Ice Age, was just the northern hemisphere. "Greenland" is from Groene-land and has nothing to do with foliage.

Carbon Dioxide gain from all sources was balanced by trees, plants, etc., locking up the excess gas and everything was in balance until the invention of the steam engine.

Your last paragraph is nuts. NASA scientists are career engineers. They don't live from grant to grant. Somebody's lying to you.

OldReliable: Posted: January 23, 2014 6:48 a.m.

Hey Richard LaMotte, disregard Ricketzzz. Good LTE & thank you for speaking the truth!

BrianBaker: Posted: January 23, 2014 7:47 a.m.

Ricketzz: "If I was BB I'd dismiss all this with a wave of my 'fascist talking points' hand."

That's funny. Here I am to tell you I've never even used that phrase. "SOCIALIST talking points", yes. "Fascist talking points", no.

Maybe you have me confused with Indy (If so, you've actually finally found something that I find insulting). You display your usual lack of grasp of actual facts.

As I've written many times before, ten thousand years ago — a mere blink of the eye in geological time — half the Northern Hemisphere was completely covered with pack ice over a thousand feet thick, extending all the way down to what is now central California. So your babble about 400,000 years of stable temps is just that: babble.

The planet’s climate is an incredibly complex dynamic system, driven by solar forces, planetary, geophysical, meteorological, geological, oceanic, astronomic, and cyclical influences, among many, many others.

Football is a much simpler dynamic, not nearly as complex. How come, at the start of the season, the “experts” can’t tell us which teams are going to be in the Super Bowl, which one’s going to win, and what the point spread will be?

Once they can do THAT, maybe I’ll have some confidence in these Chicken Little “climate predictions”, and their lame attempts to blame mankind for what is in reality a natural phenomenon.

CaptGene: Posted: January 23, 2014 8:18 a.m.

You can always tell the brainwashed, they easily dismiss any rational discussion by proclaiming "Koch Brothers" and that covers it, next!

There, fixed that for you.

dragonsail: Posted: January 23, 2014 8:43 a.m.

I have spent hundreds of hours reading both sides of this debate and lean toward the denial side. So much conflicting information! Each side jumps on whatever the weather is doing as evidence of their that the most recent storm, frigid temperature or the opposite, pictures of receding glaciers etc. Is it true that one major volcano can eject more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankinds contribution since we have walked upright? Have we been cooling? Is the action of sunspots more of a factor than greenhouse gases? Is CO2 really a greenhouse gas? Has the sea level across the globe risen or is the average sea level pretty consistent because it's risen in some areas but dropped in other areas?
Both sides of the debate seem to latch onto whatever anomoly supports their argument.
My opinion is that the debate is not over. How many of the so called 96% of the "scientists" who support the GW side do so to avoid ridicule or a negative impact to their reputation, withdrawal of funding or the loss of their job should they speak out? It would be nice to see respected climatologists step up as whistle blowers with evidence of tampering with scientific facts by ommission or manipulated modeling input or playing loose with "evidence".
What I do suggest is not to legislate mulit billion dollar solutions to a problem that may not exist. It would be a very expensive bandwagon.

projalice11: Posted: January 23, 2014 9:00 a.m.

"It would be a very expensive bandwagon." So be it.

Wars are expensive bandwagons, corporations are expensive bandwagons,
big oil company's are expensive bandwagons, the present Congress is an
expensive bandwagon.

hepnerkid: Posted: January 23, 2014 11:23 a.m.

Watch the Maldives. The Indian ocean, south of India. Average elevation is 4 ft. max elevation is 7 ft. U.N predicts that there will be a 76% increase in population in the next 10 years. They apparently don't think that the seas will be rising but they do like to perpetrate the hoax of global warming. More government slight of hand to bilk us of more money. Reagan had so many things right. Government is not the answer, it's the problem.

technologist: Posted: January 23, 2014 11:38 a.m.

projaclice11: "So be it. Wars are expensive bandwagons…"

A tu quoque fallacy isn't a defense of misspending on climate policy. Surely you have enough common sense and experience to understand that policy errors in one area shouldn't be compounded by another one.

technologist: Posted: January 23, 2014 2:48 p.m.

January 15, 2014
Government Itself Still Cited as Top U.S. Problem
Narrowly leads the economy, unemployment, healthcare
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans start the new year with a variety of national concerns on their minds. Although none is dominant, the government, at 21%, leads the list of what Americans consider the most important problem facing the country. The economy closely follows at 18%, and then unemployment/jobs and healthcare, each at 16%. No other issue is mentioned by as much as 10% of the public; however, the federal budget deficit or debt comes close, at 8%.

garyr: Posted: January 23, 2014 3:53 p.m.

Yup. 99% of real PhD climatologists are wrong or part of some vast unseen conspiracy (from the same folks that can't keep a BJ secret) - but a few dozen Internet cranks that know nothing about the subject are right. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

dragonsail: Posted: January 23, 2014 4:47 p.m.

As a serious skeptic, I can say the bandwagon has a lot of room on it.
I do try to keep an open mind and don't consider all of the information that support or denies GW coming from Internet Cranks. I am reluctant to just accept manmade climate change when the predictions by the 90+5 referred to above for more and massive storms that never occured or the complete melting of the Arctic ice by 2013 that didn't happen, or the multitude of dire predictions made over the past 15 years aren't in evidence. And..that the inconvenient truth appears to be for the most part, both inconvenient and not true.
It is interesting that more than most subjects, this seems to be primarily emotionally driven. I'm not sure if that comes from the fear that's been generated by media, the IPCC,or from the politians.
I support continued debate, however the aforementioned seem to want to shut down debate and push forward their initiatives. We shouldn't let that happen.

CaptGene: Posted: January 23, 2014 5:28 p.m.

"99% of real PhD climatologists..."

Hyperbole is responsible for 98.7% of global warming.

BrianBaker: Posted: January 23, 2014 5:53 p.m.

technologist: Posted: January 23, 2014 6:49 p.m.

"99% of real PhD climatologists…"

Agumentum ad populum. We've already dissected that statistic. *Yawn*

BrianBaker: Posted: January 23, 2014 7:03 p.m.

Yeah. Fake "statistics" for a fake "crisis".

projalice11: Posted: January 23, 2014 7:30 p.m.

"Fake "statistics" for a fake "crisis."
Yeah, Chalk up the fake statistics about Iraq.
Now that one takes the cake.

CaptGene: Posted: January 23, 2014 8:10 p.m.

projalice11, did you bother to look up tu quoque fallacy by any chance?

technologist: Posted: January 23, 2014 8:12 p.m.

You still are invested in fallacious reasoning, projalice11.

Read up here:

BrianBaker: Posted: January 24, 2014 10:24 p.m.

"Yeah, Chalk up the fake statistics about Iraq."

Are you inferring Iraq has something to do with climate change? Because if not, you have a death grip on the completely irrelevant.

ricketzz: Posted: January 24, 2014 7:12 a.m.

Baker. The global temperature has had a 10 degrees celsius variation for the past 400,000 years. When there was a mile of ice on top of Texas 15,000 years ago the global mean temperature was 8 degrees below average. We are now 2 degrees above average and there is no evidence it has ever been this warm for this length of time. You are experimenting with the lives of millions of people and are gambling away your children's birthright. The saddest part about it is that you do it because a bunch of petroleum company yahoos pay people to lie to you, and you are so afraid of walking you believe them.

This is no longer theory. Crops are failing, cities are sinking, and people are dying. Love it while you can, you made it.

17trillion: Posted: January 24, 2014 8:11 a.m.

"This is no longer theory. Crops are failing, cities are sinking, and people are dying."

You forgot to mention the obligatory comment on the Koch brothers. Cities are sinking?

"I've fallen and I can't get up!"

philellis: Posted: January 24, 2014 4:22 p.m.

ricketzz, please explain the following -

projalice11: Posted: January 24, 2014 7:59 p.m.

Speaking of the Koch Brothers:

"Along with Mark Zuckerberg, T. Boone Pickens, Buffett and others, these billionaires have taken the Giving Pledge: a commitment to dedicate a majority of their wealth to philanthropy. (Conspicuously missing: the Koch Brothers, Charles and David, listed as the fourth wealthiest Americans by Forbes.)"

CaptGene: Posted: January 25, 2014 9:51 p.m.

Also missing from The Giving Pledge are Soros, Bezos and Jobs. So what's your point?

hepnerkid: Posted: January 25, 2014 11:53 a.m.

Ricketzz What crops and where? Is this any different from the norm. I remember farmers being described as being "unlucky". Crops have failed for thousands of years. Was it global warming 2 thousand years ago?
What cities are sinking? Where are people dying by virtue of global warming?
Any answers?

technologist: Posted: January 26, 2014 3:32 p.m.

The silence we're experiencing is ricketzz <crickets>, hepnerkid.

ricketzz: Posted: January 27, 2014 7:22 a.m.

Jobs is dead. George Soros is a piker compared to those other guys.

Crops in the Central Valley of California are failing. Not unprecedented, but no end is in sight. The Colorado is running dry, so the Imperial Valley and Yuma will soon have reduced outputs. Miami is sinking. Miami Beach is sinking faster. Florida is made of porous sandstone; levees and seawalls won't help. Manhattan was under water from 13th Street south to Ground Zero (oil companies are way more destructive than Bin Laden). The subways flooded.

This is how climate and food affect global politics:

We must re-prioritize our national goals to reflect the true menace we face going forward. Clue: it has nothing to do with debts and deficits.

michael: Posted: January 31, 2014 2:31 p.m.

It is at my house!

You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail The content posted from readers of does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...