Who thinks CLIMATE CHANGE is a hoax?

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
Harry33Truman's picture
False- if you were to visit

False- if you were to visit San Bernardino for whatever idiotic reason you wanted to go there, the smog is so bad that when you're driving down the hill to it, you can't even see San Bernardino!!!

mykcob4's picture
Harry Truman is a brainwashed

Harry Truman is a brainwashed conservative that buys into any narrative that they want. He also doesn't think there is anything wrong with nationalist populism the same thing that created the NAZIs. The only people against the facts of man-made global warming are the coal gas and oil producers.

Harry33Truman's picture
In not buying info a

In not buying info a narrative, I'm denying one. Also, explain to me why the Saudi Oil Cartels are funding climate nuts?

ZeffD's picture
It appears to me that only

It appears to me that only the exceptionally ignorant (and trolls) doubt climate change is happening. The debate is about the degree to which human activity (not just CO2 emissions) is responsible...

Perhaps a significant threat to humanity lies in so many USAmericans apparently imagining that "God's will" prevails? That is pure god swill.

mykcob4's picture


The truth is that Global Warming is real and the rate of the climate change is due to human causes.
Those that profess that there is no global warming or that the climate change is not man-made but "natural" are profiting from, paid by, or brainwashed by the Coal and oil industries.

No REAL climatologist/scientist would deny climate change or that humans are responsible.

Conservatives are not concerned with the consequences of their actions. They are only concerned with fast profits and nothing else.

Harry33Truman's picture
"Over the past 130 years, the

"Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years."

Do you have any idea how insignificant that is? Like I said before, CO2 is a very weak greenhouse glass and reduces in strength the more there is. If greenhouse gasses,are causing the temperature to rise methane would be a much more likely culprit.

Your dissertation that anyone who denies your doomsday cult is just brainwashed demonstrates how bereft of logic you are. The Saudis are funding the environmentalists who are spewing this garbage.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - CO2 is a very

Harry Truman - ...CO2 is a very weak greenhouse glass and reduces in strength the more there is.

That is false. Temperature increase as a function of CO2 concentration is a strictly increasing function over the obvious domain.

Dave Matson's picture
@Harry Truman

@Harry Truman

Sophisticated computer models lay the blame solidly on man-made CO2. Take that out of the equations and you get the usual fluctuations about the historic mean. Do you have any scientific credentials or are you feeding off some of those fake anti-global warming sites?

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
Look at say Venus, which has

Look at say Venus, which has a stronger greenhouse effect than Earth, the atmosphere of Venus consists of about 96.5% CO2, and the planet itself has virtually no water. Earth's atmosphere, by comparison, only contains about 0.04% CO2 and is comprised of about 70% water.

Venus' atmosphere contains so much CO2, a vast majority of the heat that is radiated back upward from the surface after sunlight hits it, gets absorbed, redirected and essentially trapped within the atmosphere. As a result, temperatures within the atmosphere and on the surface rise to very high levels. Only when the temperature builds up so high, to about 456.85°C, can heat finally begin to breakthrough and escape.

The more CO2 released into the atmosphere, The more heat will be trapped an cause no end of problems.
How much CO2 do you think it would take to raise temperatures to an unbearable 60-70C

It really isn't difficult to understand, and with how fragile the atmosphere is, too simply ignore it is pretty stupid.

We owe it to future generations.

Harry33Truman's picture
Venus atmosphere is almost

Venus atmosphere is almost all CO2 and is 7 times as thick as ours. With out current rate of 1 ppm per year, it would take 7 million years to get to the level venus is at, not to mention the water cycle moving opposite to temperature increases. Apparently water vapor blocks out and reflects sunlight, and higher temperatures lead to more water vapor, blocking out more existing sunlight.

In addition to this, there's this thing called the carbon cycle. Apparently all the CO2 were emitting was once in the atmosphere, and will be simply absorbed.

phetaroi's picture
What is your background for

What is your background for making those statements? An actual scientific background or reading (for example) right wing position papers?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - Venus

Harry Truman - Venus atmosphere is ... 7 times as thick as ours.

Really? How "thick" is the Earth's atmosphere?

LostLocke's picture
No. We are actually adding

No. We are actually adding CO2 to the cycle and atmosphere. There is a net positive sum of CO2 now.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
it is always a concern when

it is always a concern when someone makes a statement of fact and includes the word "apparently",
its bad once, but multiple times is bad news.

Dave Matson's picture
@Harry Truman

@Harry Truman

The CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere is mostly from coal and other fossil fuels which were laid down over millions of years. It was not all in some atmosphere at some particular time. CO2 has a long turn-around time in the atmosphere; it doesn't just disappear overnight. By the time massive water vapor slows down a venus-like temperature rise we humans will have long been gone!

Pitar's picture
Pollution, being the focal

Pollution, being the focal point of environmental changes, preys on my logic. Earth has more than exponentially polluted itself with noxious gasses, geothermal and tectonic initiated environmental impacts and resulting losses of entire species in its past. That past is a continuum. The Earth is not a planet fixed in its current state. It's in a continuous state of flux. Tectonic movement will open up magma vents that spew sulfuric contaminants into the atmosphere and distribute them over a far and wide path. Tidal responses (waves) will follow and with some luck each generation will bear witness to and record the events for the sake of cataloging them and their planetary impact.

Man's contribution to the Earth's state of preservation is not only infinitesimally brief and microscopic by contrast in the context of its own past calamities, it's only promulgated to astronomical proportions because it now has a voice, stupid as that voice might be, but sheep, whether from religious or secular states of ignorance, talk shit.

This lies wholly outside any supernatural perspective only by choice. If a theist decides to ascribe such natural phenomena to a god, he will and he will expect to be taken seriously. I think we all know and brace for that with less courage than we do receiving the physical event itself. Yet one more incremental religious claim atop innumerable only serves to preserve the sad state of the species.

I find the whole man-made climate change claim to be ignorance-based. So, go ahead and bring your best fact finding here and lay it out to support beyond the limited knowledge men have of their planet that the changes are truly man-made and not a natural transitioning of the planet itself. Prove that the planet is stable and it's man's pollution that remains the only harm in the face of ill-gotten deduction in the absence of a well-founded and fact-funded logic. To make that easy for you, you can't.

So, until then, I'll live with the theist claim that its god's punishment of man for being a poor worshiper and a slob in his holy house.

Dave Matson's picture


[[I find the whole man-made climate change claim to be ignorance-based. So, go ahead and bring your best fact finding here and lay it out to support beyond the limited knowledge men have of their planet that the changes are truly man-made and not a natural transitioning of the planet itself. --Pitar]]

Would you even understand the evidence? I don't think you have any expertise at all in this subject. Where is your PhD and what research have you done? If you have no expertise then your opinion about global warming (that scientists are all wrong) is worthless. If you have some pet argument then maybe some of us might look at it. Just don't preach to us about man-made climate change being ignorance-based unless you can waive your PhD and show us your articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

algebe's picture
The climate change debate has

The climate change debate has many characteristics in common with religious movements. There's orthodoxy and heresy. There are popes and high priests, notably Al Gore. In addition, there are people driven by genuine concern for the environment and the future, and there are people using climate change as a vehicle to push other political agendas. It's hard to find the truth in all this fog.

Here's what I know. Climate change is a fact. There's clear evidence of past ice ages. There are historical records of a "Little Ice Age" in medieval Europe. There are very long-term trends that may be linked to subtle shifts in the angle of tilt of the Earth's axis, and there are catastrophic climate changes, often triggered by large volcanic events. There are also fluctuations in the Sun's output of energy.

What we don't know for certain is the extent to which human activity is changing the climate through emissions of CO2. We also don't know the effect of pumping out large amounts of CO2 for a couple of hundred years and then suddenly reducing that output. It could be like sticking a knife into someone and then expecting them to get better when you pull the knife out.

And then there's the ever-present risk of another Toba event, say at Yellowstone or Taupo, that could plunge us into a mini-ice age or even a full-blown one. And if you like ice that glows in the dark, we are also on the brink of a nuclear winter triggered by the missile envy of adolescents in Pyongyang and Washington.

We need lots more scientific research, and a lot less politics and emotion. But my hopes aren't high.

Randomhero1982's picture
We as species are destroying

We as species are destroying everything really, from destroying rain forest and polluting our own air (even if you don't believe in climate change, do you really think it's a good thing to be breathing that crap in?) Right up to fracking!

From my own work in Seismology, I've seen all to well the cause and effect of messing about with nature, fracking in Oklahoma has caused a problem with earthquakes in an area that really shouldn't get any seismic events.

I think if we don't buck our ideas we will pay the ultimate price, or more likely our children's, children!

algebe's picture
@Randomhero1982 "...fracking

@Randomhero1982 "...fracking in Oklahoma has caused a problem with earthquakes"

Huge hydro lakes are suspected of causing similar problems in New Zealand. If you suddenly put a huge weight on a stressed fault line, who knows what might happen?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Well since everyone is

Well since everyone is talking about the weather here, let me give ya'll an update lol.

I'm in Central Florida, and we've been hearing constant tornado sirens since 4pm. A small one passed in my neighborhood (see attachment). That's the crazy thing about hurricanes, they're like 3-in-1 catastrophes, it brings floods, tornados, plus the hurricane itself.

This is probably my 6th hurricane as a Floridian. So we're all very prepared with lots of coffee and potato chips lol.


Attach Image/Video?: 

CyberLN's picture
John, I hope you come through

John, I hope you come through this unharmed.

MCDennis's picture
not me, i think it is real

not me, i think it is real

Sky Pilot's picture


Climate change is a real environmental process that has been occurring since Earth was first formed. It's a natural process that's independent of man's input. The climate is different than it was just 12,000 years ago and it's completely different than it was 200 million years ago and unrecognizable from what it was 4 billion years ago. It will be different 12,000 years from now and off the scales different 100 million years from now. Creatures, including humanoids, will change in order to survive in the new conditions. It's highly doubtful if modern humans could exist in the atmosphere of 200 million years ago or even 80 million years ago. Our time is now but it will soon be gone because the Earth is a living organism and its lifeforms are nothing but parasites on it. When we die off we will be replaced. It's not a big deal.

ZeffD's picture
This sounds like god swill:

This sounds like god swill:
Diot: "Our time is now but it will soon be gone because the Earth is a living organism and its lifeforms are nothing but parasites on it. When we die off we will be replaced. It's not a big deal."

The end of humanity is the biggest deal for humanity and we aren't simply parasites. Collectively, we really have only ourselves to blame if humans destroy the Earth's ability to sustain human life before we learn to control the climate and Earth's ecosystems.

Ultimately, what we learn on this planet may help us make or engineer other planets to support human life. We should be looking where we are going.

Sky Pilot's picture


As I wrote, the climate has been changing since the Earth became a spheroid. It will always change and may become inhospitable to humanoids as it was in the past. That's a fact. And it's still not warm enough to grow wheat in Greenland like it was several hundred years ago.

ZeffD's picture
Yes, I entirely agree with

Yes, I agree* with what you wrote, Diotrephes. I was simply pointing out how fatalistic and negatively it reads. The climate will change but not necessarily or entirely outwith our control. We have a future and a positive one, or at the very least we can try for one.

Diot*: "It's a natural process that's independent of man's input." Climate changes occur independently of man's activities but like other elements of the ecosystems it now seems clear the climate overall is being affected by the activities of 7 billion+ humans.

Earth's atmosphere:
(My conclusion is that "Harry Truman" is a troll)

Flamenca's picture
Hi, everyone!

Hi, everyone!


"We really have only ourselves to blame if humans destroy the Earth's ability to sustain human life before we learn to control the climate and Earth's ecosystems."

I agree 100% with your post, except for this statement: "We should be looking where we are going."

About this, Neil dG Tyson says: "If you have the power to turn another planet into Earth, then you have the power to turn Earth back into Earth". Let's work to save ours first. (though it'd be awesome moving to another planet, I know!)

Diotrephes, that's a very defeatist possition, and leaves us at the same spot deniers do.

If we (people who claim it's real and that we must invest more in fixing this problem) are wrong, then either there's nothing happening (and we're just wasting your time, Harry, and some money from our goverments, tRump's included), or, on Diotrephes' hedonistic point of view: we're totally screwed and we had it coming, so.... instead of trying to figure this out (just in case), let's take a beer and a look at the flames while Rome gets consumed, 'cause I don't give a damn. xD

In the premise of the post, I asked you whether your religion or politic bias had anything to do with the way you think about this issue... The reason was becaus I've talked to deniers, and most of them take this as a dogma of faith. No matter what you say or proof you show, they never ever will change their minds.

So why are you so unwilling to take scientific words on this? And what about the NASA report or this https://ec.europa.eu/clima/index_en? And the majority of climate experts saying so? Why do you treat opinion as this was some kind of dogma? Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof... Scientists have already provided. Btw, in the EU link, the European comissioner in the picture on the right, is a politician from my country. One right-winded religious chauvanistic politician piece of ass, and here he is, advocating for clean energy... Come, Harry, if he can, you can! :P

But if you are wrong, and it's impossible to make your minds change, the rest of us should better be doing sth... and quick! At least, we should try to bring this debate back, and request our politicians to underline this issue on their agendas. Righties and Lefties and Others, all of them. Just for starters.

P.S. John: I hope you're safe and I wish you good luck.

P.S.II: I din't realize the post was this long until I sent it, sorry for the inconvenience.

Glacier's picture
This is a complex topic that

This is a complex topic that can never be answered with media-style sound-bites. There are definitely nut bars on both sides claiming it's a conspiracy of Big Oil or a conspiracy of the Environmentalist Left, but there are well reasoned folks on both sides as well.

One thing we know is that how you frame the question determines the answer you get. For example, the supposed 97% question is framed in such a way as to include skeptical scientists like Judith Curry and Roy Spencer by watering down the definition of climate change to such a degree that almost all "skeptics" agree.

So back to the OP's question: Are you a CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICAL?

This is not a yes or no kind of question without clarification. What do you mean by CLIMATE CHANGE? What do you mean by SKEPTICAL? Skeptical of what? What happens if you're largely in agreement, but differ on certain aspects such as media generated apocalyptic catastrophic warming? What if you agree with the science, but disagree with the conclusions? What if the average scientist is 90% sure most of the warming is human caused but I'm only 80% sure? What if I agree 100% with the most apocalyptic conclusions about where we're headed, but disagree with the economics and cost benefit analysis on how we should address the problem?

I love climate data, and have spent hundreds of hours graphing and analyzing it, but I find it hard to join climate change discussions because they become so politically toxic that science and reason are supposed to left at the door so you can just nod in agreement in perfect agreement.

watchman's picture
@Glacier .....

@Glacier .....

My appologies....... I misread your post...... I withdraw my own.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.