Posted by: Kash Farooq | July 30, 2010

Why do climate change denialists think it’s all just a hoax?

Why do climate change denialists think that global warming and climate change is all just a hoax? Who do they believe will benefit from such a hoax?

The answer given by is: “many people, from an ex-Vice President to the head of the UN’s IPCC to every scientist receiving grant money to research it.”

It’s laughable that this is the best they can come up with. Are they seriously suggesting that all the data published and recorded around the world has been made up by a handful of scientists trying to protect their jobs?

So, as part of the hoax, what are climate scientists suggesting we do? Give all our money to them so they can live it up in their research labs? No, far worse. They want us to think about renewable energy! What?!? They want resources to be used sustainably. How dare they? They want our buildings to be more energy efficient. Ridiculous.

Don’t we need to do those things, anyway? The oil will run out at some stage. And it would be nice if we didn’t cut down every tree we can find.

The hoax angle is neatly summed up by the following Joel Pett cartoon:

What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

Copyright 2009 Joel Pett in USA Today. Posted with permission.

The press does not help. In the UK, we’ve had a couple of bad winters. So what do the press decide to do? They have a “do you believe in global warming?” survey. Such surveys do not seem to happen when the weather is warmer than normal

One of the key people asserting that the IPCC data is exaggerated or wrong is our favourite hereditary peer, Viscount Monckton.

The Guardian’s George Monbiot labelled Monckton arguments as “cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish”.  Take a few minutes to read this article – it’s a great summary of Monkton’s inaccuracies and how he distorts the facts; from comparing graphs with different scales to quoting historical myths that have long since been discredited.

Monckton’s tactics to deal with people who disagree with his theories are decidedly unscientific. When John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, produced a presentation debunking Monckton’s arguments, Monckton responded by urging his supporters to flood Abraham’s university with emails demanding it start a disciplinary inquiry. Monbiot’s article “Monckton’s response to John Abraham is magnificently bonkers” is also well worth a read.

Attempting to unscientifically silence your critics is a sure fire way to lose the “it’s all just a hoax” argument.

Related post
Global warming – so what if it’s not anthropogenic?



  1. The Global Warming Issue is a kind of religious movement that concentrates all it’s efforts on one isolated aspect, ignoring all the other threats.

    It is true that carbon-dioxide does warm up the planet, but this so called scientists denies the fact that our sun is becoming hotter in the last decades, heating also the other planets. Who will pay for the Global Warming on Mars, Jupiter or Neptune? The problem arising here is that this Global Warming Thing is mutated into propaganda. It’s not anymore a scientific or ecologic issue. It is misused to force more taxes and control over the population and the industry.

    There are more threats that are not exposed by the medias, like water pollution and the forest clearance. Well, they may claim that Global Warming is the biggest threat of all. I say that the global misuse of religion and science is the biggest threat that has done it’s impact already like we know from human history.

    • “the fact that our sun is becoming hotter in the last decades”

      I’d like to dispute that:
      The “correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative

      But, anyway: so what if it’s not anthropogenic?. If increased solar activity is causing the planet to get hotter, shouldn’t we be trying to slow it down?

      • I has not said that only the sun is the reason for Global Warming. Humans has also heat up the planet by huge carbon-dioxide emission. But that the fact that the sun increased in thermal activity (not in solar spot activity, that is actually a real anomaly in it’s cycle) is denied by the scientific community indicates that they work with public relation techniques and not with scientific methods. They try to force a change in the law, ignoring all the other factors. With their propaganda they try to give the Guilt for all this to the poor people, that works hard to live and to survive. Instead they are not willed to admit that for example the biggest emission of carbon-dioxide derives from industry and not from the automobiles. Manipulating the mind of the masses through big public relation campaigns is surely not the right way to solve a problem.

  2. For fun, we could play spot the logical fallacies and red flags on Peter’s website, but I fear there is no enough time in all of eternity to cover it adequately.

    What’s frustrating about AGW denial (scepticism is fine, but everyone who calls themselves that seems to conveniently ignore the vast majority of the science), is that it trots out the same old debunked arguments time and time again, whilst simultaneously crying foul about supposed poor-science by *the actual scientists who know what the hell they’re doing*.

    THAT is the politicisation of the issue Peter, and it comes from those with no interest in legitimate science. There is no such thing as “alternative science”. Science is a process, you either use it and use it well, or your view gets rightly shot down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own set of facts (not my words).


%d bloggers like this: