top of page

The Climate Hoax: Killing the Hysterics with Facts and Logic

Debunking one of the biggest hoaxes in modern history and bringing logic into a political ploy built on shoddy science, short-sighted logic and repeatedly failing predictions

The earth is warming with shocking speed and we're all going to die if we don't do something now.

Man-made climate change is killing our planet.

Glaciers are melting, there are more storms and floods and fires and other natural disasters than ever, and it's because of the climate crisis humans have caused.

All of these claims are utterly preposterous and yet are presented as fact every day on every major news channel, printed as proven science in every major newspaper, and propped up as the biggest problem of our time by every left-leaning news website imaginable.

Global warming alarmists have been around for decades and have slowly but surely gained more and more support with the general populace even as their claims continue failing to materialize. Children are now being taught about man-made climate change as fact in school and universities while adults are hounded with alarmist rants daily over all forms of media imaginable. Increasingly, the population has fallen for this hoax simply because nobody bothers to look into the matter themselves, instead believing whatever conclusions they are sold from "climate scientists", no matter how many of these conclusions and predictions from this subset of scientists have been proven incorrect in the past. It's a case of "if a lie is repeated long enough, it becomes truth" in the minds of modern society.

There's no doubt that much of what humans do causes pollution and has bad effects on our environment. I have yet to hear anyone, even so called "climate deniers", deny this or any aspect of it. It is with the notion that increases in "greenhouse gases" and in particular carbon dioxide is the main cause of the warming of our climate that the climate change hoax falls apart.

The Carbon Dioxide Myth

One of the key aspects regularly talked about by climate scientists and their parrots in the media is carbon dioxide, or CO2. Labelled as a "greenhouse gas" by these scientists, carbon dioxide is made out to be a scary and harmful pollutant, completely ignoring the fact that it is essential to life on earth. Carbon dioxide is not in itself a pollutant; in simple terms, it is food for plants, which absorb CO2 and expell oxygen into the atmosphere. The claim that carbon dioxide is the cause or major factor in the earth's temperature is incredibly short sighted and ignoring facts that we have from the past millions of years thanks to carbon dating and other scientific methods.

The simplest logical question to ask yourself is this: if CO2 is the driving factor of a rise in earth's temperature, and the carbon dioxide levels have been rising every year since the 1800's, the logical conclusion would be that the global temperature should have risen every single year...yet instead, we see it fluctuate a lot over the decades since we've gotten more advanced collection data, and we even saw it drop quite a bit in the 70's, which had many scientists claiming we were heading toward another ice age.

Against long-term data, this argument that CO2 is the cause of climate warming is nullified completely. Here is a rather interesting graphic that illustrates just how poorly the CO2 argument holds up against long term data.

The purple line demonstrates CO2 levels, with the cyan one illustrating the estimated global temperature through our planet's history. It pretty clearly pokes holes in any correlation hypothesis between CO2 levels and earth's surface temperature, and absolutely destroys the argument that claims CO2 is the cause of it (causation and correlation are often confused as the same thing, particularly by the media; essentially, causation means that action A explicitly causes outcome B, where correlation means that action A may be related to outcome B but doesn't necessarily cause it).

During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian, and the first half of the Triassic periods carbon dioxide concentrations were lower than what we have today yet the world was around 10°C warmer, a massive difference. From the Cretaceous to the Eocene a steep drop in carbon dioxide levels met with an increase in global temperature; these are just a few of the most glaring aspects of the data that doesn't align with the current climate models.

Even going back just a few centuries to medieval times shows how flawed this hypothesis is (emphasis on it being a hypothesis; even those scientists supporting the theory don't claim it to be a scientific fact, unlike many in the media and particularly politicians). With CO2 levels slowly but surely rising for the past thousand-plus years (and more quickly for the past few centuries thanks to human-caused emissions), we are still experiencing a colder global temperature now than that experienced between 1100-1300 AD. Despite that continual rise in CO2, we saw a sharp decline in global temperatures from around 1300-1700 AD, heading in to the warming trend to reverse that cooling period for the last few centuries.

Ironically, the same scientists that say we're ruining the environment thanks to our CO2 emissions are ignoring scientific fact that CO2 promotes plant growth and is beneficial to the natural environment as a whole. The argument is taking the current gradual trend that indicates warming of the climate (which is within normal climate deviation and is still quite a bit cooler than throughout much of earth's history) and cherrypicking recent findings to highlight correlations and even causations where historically there are none.

It's why all of the climate model "predictions" released in the last several decades have proven wildly inaccurate and often sound outright silly.

The Fake News of Climate Scientists

We have seen a drastic increase in shoddy and substandard scientific standards in the last several decades in particular. This varies quite a bit depending on the field of study - fields that rely heavily on predictive aspects or sociological aspects have been heavily influenced by politics and political correctness, while more number-driven and logic-based sciences like math and physics still follow the fundamental laws of scientific research. Two of the worst offenders for this are fields relating to the environment and those relating to gender (the absolutely backward hysteria going around about gender in the last few years would make for an entirely different rant).

Something particularly concerning is the continuously parroted claim that there is a "scientific consensus" among scientists that global warming is both real and man-made. While percentages and claims vary, media, university professors, and even scientists alike have been claiming that because the majority of scientists agree, that makes it true or a fact. That is quite literally the opposite of how science works and if this were true, we'd never see scientific progress. Not that long ago the overwhelming majority of "scientists" claimed that the sun and other planets revolved around the earth, and Galileo was blackballed for claiming otherwise.

Similar claims (mostly by environmental groups and the like) have stated that the science is "settled" and thus proven fact.

Science does not care how many people believe something, or how few know the truth. Science is about finding truth and facts, not about supporting your own hypothesis. 100% of scientists could agree that the earth is flat, that doesn't make it so. That is not how a hypothesis is confirmed, it is through experimentation and results. Even long-standing theories need to be revisited when new evidence and observations are found - gravity for instance, was once thought to be caused by the presence of tiny particles called gravitons, where our more recent understanding of gravity is that it is caused by mass.

There is absolutely nothing "settled" about man-made climate change or the supposed disastrous effects we're in store for in the next few decades. So far all of the observations and results have directly gone against the hypotheses posited from the majority of climate scientists, and we've yet to see one of their CO2 driven models come even close to matching real data in short periods of time let alone long term.

So let's take a look at some of these claims from scientists, often authors of peer-reviewed papers on these claims and printed in major publications. Also, thanks to Robby Starbuck for compiling many of these headlines and posting them on Twitter a while back.

Ah, An Inconvenient Truth. The documentary was a revelation to many when it was released back in 2006, and much of the current mythology surrounding climate change became widespread with its release. Even shown in many schools to expose children to the blatant lies and embellishments, its scientific findings were treated as reality and truth. Yet as time passed all of the predictions made by their scientists and famously spouted from Al Gore's mouth have fallen completely flat.

One of the biggest failed predictions made and repeated by Gore and tons of scientists was the impending loss of the Arctic ice cap; while the years were pushed back a couple of times, the prediction remained firm: the Arctic would be ice-free in the near future. Even in 2013, a year after An Inconvenient Truth's original prediction of an ice-free Arctic was proven incorrect, scientists published findings stating that it would be just two more years before catastrophe. Ironically, while the north was losing ice mass, the south was gaining it, something never mentioned and illustrating just how cherry-picked the science behind the catastrophic warming myth really is.

We're now in 2019 and the Arctic still has plenty of ice - an inconvenient truth indeed.

Al Gore wasn't the only politician spouting this nonsense either.

Prince Charles claimed that we had just 96 months (or 8 years) to save the world back in '09, while Gordon Brown, then Prime Minister of the UK, claimed we had just 50 days to save the world from catastrophe that same year. France's foreign minister claimed we had 500 days back in 2014, and "experts" at the Pentagon reportedly claimed that Britain would have a Siberian climate by 2020, leading to nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and worldwide riots. There are plenty more examples, particularly in the last few years, way to many to post here. Something all these catastrophic predictions share: they were completely wrong.

There have always been a select few in human societies that warn us all of impending doom, often facilitated by a warped or misinterpreted world view from religions or simple insanity. Those people were never taken seriously by anyone capable of intelligent thought, and yet now, in an age of sophistication and heightened understanding of the world, so long as someone has a degree or two to their name and claims science supports their theory, we're to blindly listen and follow their advice even when time and time again they are proven wrong.

When you choose to look at the actual data and evidence, it directly contradicts the popular opinion in the science community and today's society as a whole, so I encourage everyone to take some time to look into claims themselves rather than just listening to other people's opinions on the matter, including mine.

Of course there are plenty more articles on the Arctic, but here I'd like to draw attention to one of the biggest concerns raised by climate alarmists: the rise of sea levels.

Hilariously, scientists are pointing to melting glaciers as one of the main drivers in this potentially catastrophic sea level rise that has supposedly been coming for years. Now if you know anything about glaciers, or ice in general, you would know exactly why this is hilarious, particularly when a scientist (ie. someone who should know better) is the one talking about it.

Unlike most things, water actually expands when it gets cold. When ice is placed in unfrozen liquid, roughly 10% of that ice is above the water level, with the remaining 90% submerged. You can easily observe this by placing an icecube in a glass of water; a small portion of ice will stick out above the water. Now when that ice melts, that water returns to its original form and effectively shrinks, leaving the water level exactly the same.

You can witness this yourself quite easily - take a few ice cubes and place them in a glass or container, then fill the glass with water right up to the very top so that adding any more water would cause it to spill over the edge. Now you simply wait for the ice to melt, and notice that not a single drop spills out over the edge, nor does the water level change; instead it remains the exact same level as it was when the ice was sticking out above it.

This is exactly the same concept as glaciers melting - the parts of glaciers we see are only that 10%, with the vast majority of ice submerged in the water already - a glacier melting doesn't change the water level whatsoever.

Of course, not only is the whole thing silly, but the Arctic is still covered in ice and, after a few years of losing glacier mass, has actually been regaining said mass, which of course isn't reported on with near the same aplomb. Neither is the fact that, the entire time this panic has been going on about the Arctic ice in the north melting, the media has completely ignored findings that the south pole has seen its share of ice growing. But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative.

My favourite from the articles listed are the claims that the Maldives would be completely wiped off the map and sunken by 2018; 30 years after the projection, I can confidently say based off a few Google searches that the Maldives is not underwater. Maybe in another 30 years?

When findings come out that go against the climate change hysteria, they of course don't garner the same coverage as any studies or findings that further the narrative, but they do sometimes still get covered. The caveat? They always include comments from a so-called expert explaining how it is just delaying the inevitable and possibly even makes the situation worse. In other words, they insert analysis to directly combat the claims, something conspicuously absent from the vast majority of articles that come out on findings that support the climate change hoax.

One of my favourite sources of fake news features in the above image, and illustrates wonderfully how findings that contradict "popular" science are covered. Here, after detailing how a study found snowfall increases could counter the supposed incoming sea level rise, we have an "expert" counter by saying that it may delay the rise, but could make that rise even worse when it does happen. One of the best aspects is the last part - "the gap between climate models and observations in this case requires further research". That's exactly why current predictive models should not be given the coverage they are and treated as truth, because the observations have not even remotely supported the predictive models - and do you know what that means? It's time to change the hypothesis and start dealing with reality.

In one of the most disgusting displays of fake news in terms of climate change, National Geographic exploited a starving polar bear to warn everyone the dangers of climate change. Heartbreaking video of the bear as it struggled to drag itself across a snowless Canadian landscape was released by National Geographic alongside the caption "This is what climate change looks like" in a political ploy to play with people's emotions. The footage had over 2.5 billion views and seemed to work as it got the world talking.

The problem?

The bear's struggles had nothing to do with climate change, nor did National Geographic ever have any evidence that it did. Sea-ice loss was not higher that year than normal and no other bears in the region were found to be starving. The crew that took the photo claimed they couldn't feed or help it in any way to ease its suffering as it would be illegal, which was true, however they could and should have called a local conservation officer to euthanize the bear and put it out of its misery rather than watching it waste away and using it for political propaganda. A necropsy could then be performed to determine the cause of the bear's suffering, but that likely would have killed their story: the bear was simply sick, most likely from a form of cancer that causes the acute muscle and mass loss seen by the polar bear in the footage.

As criticism mounted, National Geographic printed a letter from one of the people that was there to film the bear, where the truth got even more sinister. The original scouts was sent there specifically to photograph images to "communicate the urgency of climate change" where they stumbled upon the bear. Despite acknowledging that the bear was likely sick or injured (ie. it wasn't climate change that was hurting the bear) they instead waited days as a full film crew was brought in to take more extensive footage of the bear, all the while they could have made a simple phone call to put an end to the poor bear's misery.

The incredibly disgusting exploitation of a struggling animal for political purposes shows just how low media will go to sell their narratives to people, and why everything telling you what to think needs to be looked into before you form an opinion in order to prevent yourself from being manipulated.

It Doesn't Stop There

Of course it doesn't stop at animals; using children to espouse their message is the latest plot by leftist politicians and organizations, with climate change at the forefront of this rather disturbing trend. Large protests from children have been organized by various companies and activist organizations with a vested interest in leftist politics, and Greta Thunberg, a 16-year old Swedish girl, has been touring around the world and meeting political leaders about the incoming tragedy that is climate change. Of course, the hypocrisy is quite funny, as the student came to North America via a private yacht emitting more pollutants than if she had simply taken a commercial flight, and is having her activism funded by groups in Scandinavia directly tied to companies selling "green" power initiatives.

Rather than talking about real cuts to pollution, which would include a wholehearted shift to nuclear power, the only truly emission-free source of power we currently have, the climate change movement seeks to completely overhaul the economic systems in western society in a move toward socialism and further dependence on government.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the outspoken member of the house in the US from New York, famously put together alongside several others a "Green New Deal" which was supported by many Democrats in the States. The bill called for a complete overhaul of virtually all systems in the United States - nearly every building in the country would be torn down and rebuilt to be "eco-friendly" in just 10 years, all emissions would be stopped by 2025, and even cows may be killed in order to prevent their methane emissions (no seriously, the first draft included this).

The ridiculous bill gained some solid support on social media despite the fact it cost more money than imaginable and its efficacy in helping the environment was next to zero. Of course, it was never about the environment: instead, it was a plan to socialize the United States, as admitted by Ocasio Cortez's former Chief of Staff, stating the real goal of the Green New Deal was the "reshaping of America's economy".

The climate change hoax is and always has been a political tool that goes against what science is about.

The Reality

If you dig hard enough, you can find plenty of scientists with real data that shows much more accurate climate models and logical interpretation of climate change. One of the best was a 2012 study out of Duke University which Forbes covered and illustrates that solar cycles are in fact the leading factor in our climate and temperature fluctuations and unlike CO2-driven models, this fits with historical data. Of course this kind of study doesn't get much traction by media given that it pokes holes in the whole "man-made" aspect of climate change.

It turns out, if you look at solar and climate cycles in the past, they tend to be more accurate predictors of the future and observations fall within natural variation. Instead, current climate models focus on CO2 as if it is the major factor in climate change despite historically having no correlation.

A graph that illustrates these findings in terms of temperature predictions is above, and as you can see, the heavily favoured IPCC predictions which mirror many current climate models have thus far proven wholly inaccurate and drastically embellished, while a model using solar deviation and cycles (in blue) fits the data much more accurately but without all the doom and gloom. You can choose which you prefer yourself.

This rant is illustrates just a small portion of the mythology and inaccuracies floating around about climate change, and if nothing else, hopefully inspires you to look more into real data and observations to form your own conclusions rather than relying on what the media and "experts" conclude for you.

Even if you do still believe the climate catastrophe is coming, don't worry; you'll still be alive a few decades from now* to realize your naivete, though I'm sure the narrative that we're all going to die in a few decades thanks to the climatocalypse will still be going strong.

*Assuming you don't die from non-climate change related occurences of course.


bottom of page