‘Fake news’ or ‘inconvenient truth’? The global community agreed in the Paris Climate Agreement to recognise climate change as man-made and work together on a common response. They made their decision based on scientific advice, with 97 percent of climate researchers agreeing that the current period of global warming has been caused by human activity. The science on this issue seems to be settled. Is everyone convinced now?

Clearly not. The most prominent climate sceptic in the world is American President Donald Trump, who has tweeted that climate change is an invention of the Chinese designed to harm the American economy. He has also deployed the infamous “but it’s cold outside” argument. Others are more subtle in their denial, such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party which, in their election program, accepted that climate change is occurring but denied that humanity is influencing its development.

Why the doubts? The globally-recognised scientific body for climate research is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been producing climate change reports on behalf of the United Nations since 1988. But the credibility of this organisation has been attacked. In 2009, errors appeared in the IPCC report. The IPCC argues that a small number of errors are unavoidable in a document of nearly 3,000 pages with over 1,000 authors. This might be true, but it was immediately seized upon by critics of the IPCC. It’s fair to say that few other branches of science are so politically charged as climate science.

What do our readers think? We had a comment from Jonathan, who finds it sad that there are still people who do not want to acknowledge man-made climate change. He thinks they block out the science because they believe otherwise they might have to change their lifestyles.

To get a response, we talked to climatologist Hans von Storch, Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. Here’s what he had to say:

We have no reliable empirical evidence about this; but we have done informal polls. It turns out that quite a few people who see themselves as sceptics are motivated by the rejection of political decisions made in response to climate change being man-made. In particular, energy policy and energy prices should be considered, as well as other regulations, including building regulations and transport.

Since such measures are often presented in public as the irrefutable implications of climate change being a consequence of man-made emissions, then the veracity of climate science is denied. This attitude is promoted by over-exaggeration [on the part of people who agree with climate science] that can be observed again and again, for example in the argument that virtually every extreme weather event these days is a direct consequence of climate change, which is certainly inaccurate.

We also had a comment from Hagen, who believes it is already too late to stop climate change. Is he right? What have the global agreements on climate change achieved?

The science implies that climate change can be controlled to a limited extent because the release of greenhouse gases determines their concentration in the atmosphere. By appropriately reducing global emissions, climate change can be slowed down and then stopped altogether. This would take several decades and require very substantial reductions. For example, a complete end to emissions across Europe would be effective but insufficient for this purpose.

Recent UN Climate Change Conferences have led to a general acceptance of such measures without any real obligations. But without obligations, the process cannot be stopped by individual countries if others refuse to participate. The last climate conference (COP23 in Bonn) seems to have clarified how the progress in emission reductions is measured, balanced and compared. These are significant technical advances.

Why do some people think climate change is a hoax? What would it take to convince them? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – United Nations Photo

356 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Scientist have no idea how the climate works so every ‘answer’ they give can only be theory and/or conjecture.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      If anyone claims they know for a fact that it is man made climate change then yes, they are part of the hoax.

    • avatar
      George Guydosh

      You people have any idea what’s it like to get PhD in sciences? No, you visual proud people, you don’t. Over 95% of scientist involved think it’s man made or at least the CO2 emissions are reinforcing this phenomena.

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      When the believe is based on studies then it is a proof. Climate change isnt god. When there is an agreement that it is to a high degree manmade than it is manmade. You can’t just negate something by saying its just a theory.

    • avatar

      Debating Europe, why don’t you prove it is not “a hoax” and put the evidence on here? What is the point of the debate, otherwise?

    • avatar
      Björn Eric Ingemar Grahn

      It’s proven that The temperature and co2 have a coalation. And that we are The Only one cousing The co2 to rice so rappidly. So yes it’s proven. If we dig not Was to exist it should normaly become colder not as now warmer du to less heating from The sun.

    • avatar

      do you think that this is cool are what

  1. avatar
    Matej Zaggy Zagorc

    It’s not that it’s a hoax, it’s the claim that it is only out fault and that we can/must stop it, both claims are complete bullshit.

    Climate change has been going on since the planet was formed. I believe they even found traces of a forest in Antarctica.
    As for humans, yes we contribute to it with with extra CO2 from our industries and speeding it up, but even if we quit that, we won’t stop it.
    IF we decided to stop it, THEN we have really messed with the natural order and nature will bitch slap us so hard we won’t get up.

    • avatar

      thats called tectonic plates

  2. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    Most people don’t think its a hoax, they think the idea of it being man made is a hoax due to the lack of actual evidence.

    • avatar
      Manos Foukarakis

      What ever works for anyone… No its not human made… So we Can keep do what we do…. Simple

    • avatar
      Derek Snow

      We have a lot of evidence. Look at the sky in China, you can barely see blue. The sky is covered in smoke there which is not good at for Earth for the people who live there. Have you seen our oceans? They are already 15% filled with plastic. By 2075, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. Is that enough proof for you?

    • avatar
      Tony Goodchild

      “they think the idea of it being man made is a hoax due to the lack of actual evidence”. Correction, “they” (deniers) are wilfully deaf to the evidence because their know (if only unconsciously) that the implications would mean radical changes to the way of life. The changes are “inconvenient” changes today, they might say, despite being literally “vital” changes, years ago.

    • avatar

      umm what about all of the plastic in the ocean,,,

  3. avatar
    Charles Vee

    Why is the EU letting America go on with the spraying of our skies? What kind of referendum was made to let them poison and mess up our westher, our skies and us?! STOP CHEMTRAILS!

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Charles Vee
      Have you any proof regarding your assertion, please?
      Does the EU do likewise too?

    • avatar
      Deborah Colmorgen

      US not even in the top 500 cities of pollution.

    • avatar

      @Deborah Colmorgen
      US probably won’t be in the top 500 cities of anything because………its not one.

    • avatar
      Teresa Granner

      Chemtrails is BS. There is no such thing. Jet fuel is a pollutant yes. Chemtrails, no.

    • avatar

      The government wants us to believe in climate change because they don’t care about hotter temps. What they care about is how many energy permits (contracts) they can sell. How much control they can have over the lower class. They want to control how much energy you use; how far you can travel or wether you need energy at all. If the global warming hoax is carried out work wide it will cost tax payers to the likes of 50 trillion dollars to reduce the temperature by a mere fraction of a degree. The elitist have laid the plan out and their end game is laughing at all of us regular guys while they are chauffeured to the bank!!! Research some temps from 50 years ago. I did and it was hot as hell!!!!

  4. avatar
    Oli Lau

    Nobody is claiming that the climate isn’ changing. It has always changed. The real issue is the cause of the current changes if it is abnormal and if it is anthropomorphic.

    Why do you always caricature points of view of the others?

  5. avatar
    Arthur Gustin

    “Why are some people retarded ?” is a more relevant question and resolving it might actually improve life on Earth…

    Alleging their position because they have the right to express their opinion is pointless. You’re basically legitimasing the existence to a antagonist position which result to a debate, whereas it’s a unanimous scientific conclusion or even a daily life observable phenomenon.

    Sometimes, authoritarian stands in politics, medias, etc should be in application even in democratic liberal countries because that’s a lot more efficient to take action to reach goals !

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Arthur Gustin
      A bit of an aggressive post methinks.

      Humans are not yet immortal and thus it is impossible to confirm the assertions propounded by the theory of ‘global warming’.

      However – the concept of ‘Pascal’s Wager’ could be used to support the theory of ‘global warming’.

      Why gamble with denying ‘global warming’ when the ramifications of doing so are cataclysmic.

      Indeed, there are so many environmental and energy benefits associated with countering perceived ‘global warming’ threats that to do otherwise is illogical.

    • avatar

      ur right, at this point anyone who denies climate change isnt really worth speaking too, especially if they say man has nothing to do with it

    • avatar

      Boy, that’s an intellectual “word salad”…..whadidsay?

  6. avatar
    Lynne Warner

    I don’t believe anyone thinks climate change is a hoax. We all have eyes and memories. However many of us believe that the hyperbole of it being solely brought about by humans is incorrect and has been inflated in order to charge more taxes on everything! On top of that, what do we have to show for all the money that has been poured into committees that endlessly debate the problem, make laws to remove products from the shelves that they say are harming the planet. Energy saving electrical goods, that don’t work, I.e. light bulbs, (horrendously expensive and pop after a couple of months and require 2 to do the job of 1 old kind), stove plates that can’t cook a steak because of thermostats, vacuum cleaners that don’t suck, more and more items in never ending plastic, no way yet of recycling all plastics. No answers to where all this rubbish goes when people discover that they are inefficient and throw them away. No viable reason for removing glyphosate ! Where is the money going. Why aren’t we seeing governments pumping money into innovation that helps clean the seas, new and better filters for manufacturers so Europe can do it’s own manufacturing instead of sending it to high polluting China, South Korea, India etc? Nothing is being seen to be done by the doom casters and tax collectors!

    • avatar
      Björn Eric Ingemar Grahn

      It is in The politic accely underestimated. If they would tanke in The evidence and what Will happening they should put as mutch ord more money in to it than they dig On war in The ww1 and 2.

  7. avatar

    There is one nimber we need to know – the climate sensitivity. The “vlimate science” today wallows in scaremonhering while the sensitivity estimates are about as unprecise as 40 yesrs ago. Now, why do we have this strange neglect!

  8. avatar
    George Guydosh

    Because our education system is so poor/focused that people just don’t have the basic scientific knowledge. Possibly many don’t even have the basic scientific culture, the notion of causality, the notion of a model as description of natural processes, mathematics can be used to describe and foresee phenomena etc.

  9. avatar
    Nuno Oliveira

    We are 7 billion. You will always find lots of people believing in almost everything.

  10. avatar
    Dante Kenpachi

    It’s not that they deny climate change, our planet’s climate changes all the time, otherwise we wouldn’t had long periods of ice age. They deny the so called human influence on climate change ;) The theory that the sun’s position in the milkey way effect’s it’s behavior and energy output resulting in long periods of hot temp. then a period of normal, then a period of cold. (neverending cicle) like seasons of our milkeyway

  11. avatar
    Neno Prigorec

    Why term “global warming” changed to “climate change”?? What is next change? Probably global warming->climate change->global cooling …. SUN drives climate, not carbon dioxide. Watch sun cycles.

  12. avatar
    Marko Martinović

    There was allways climate change since there was climate. We had 4 ice ages etc. Question is how much are humans influencing our climate and why so many scientific predictions where dead wrong. There is also political aspect to it, and politics now is forcing itself on science, not just this one

  13. avatar
    Constantinescu Florin

    That time when Gore take a Nobel Prize for a book in which he describe how polar ice will totally melt until the end of 2011….

  14. avatar
    Constantinescu Florin

    Some scientist proved that are some climate changes on Mars and Venus too… I hope nobody could claims that that changes are man-made too, right!?…

    • avatar
      Manos Foukarakis

      Its like you say that between 100.000 B. C and the industrial evolution we had no climate Change at all…. So clever bro… Gz

  15. avatar
    Constantinescu Florin

    Nobody denied the existence of climate change! Everyone would like to see some trusted evidence that that changes are man-made! Because the governments hurried to impose some taxes based on climate changes! They are making good money from that story!

    • avatar
      Amphib Ian

      All of science accepts that most climate change is man made. What is your alternative theory and where is the evidence for it?

    • avatar
      Constantinescu Florin

      I think the one who wants to impose his man-made theory should presents some evidences….

  16. avatar
    Ronny Wouters

    You forgot the word “not” between “is” and “a”. You can kiss your carbontaxes good bye and (try to) find another way to finance a non democratic world government. O wait, newsflash, Europe is finding out and is no longer going to pay when nature’s temperature fluctuates(like it did aaaall over history)

    • avatar
      Constantinescu Florin

      It is not a hoax! A hoax is the ideea that climate changes are man-made, so the governments can impose extra taxes! The level of pollution has been greatly reduced since the 1980s due to measures to reduce carbon dioxide and freon emissions. Have climatic conditions improved?

  17. avatar
    John Amyas Dixon

    Sitting here in the UK on a cold winter’s night, with more forecast, following a washout, often cold summer, following what was in some places a record cold winter in the USA, and having also been told that this year is once more the hottest since records began, I can’t think why ‘some people think climate change is a hoax’.

    • avatar
      Björn Eric Ingemar Grahn

      The problem is that due to climate Exchange Europé Will get colder climate due to The vaniching golf streem

    • avatar
      John Amyas Dixon

      Scientists haven’t got a clue what’s happening with the Gulf Stream. it’s part of a system whose workings are too complex, there are too many variables, for them to be sure one way or another about the effects of what’s happening.

  18. avatar

    The climate has been changing since Earth has existed. I have posted this on here before. Iceland was settled because it was warmer at the time. And ancient Greece used to have a tropical climate. We know that already. What annoys people is the insistence that 1. all of this change is because of human activity; 2. that it has to be reversed; 3. that normal people have to pay for it when it is mostly big companies that pollute the atmosphere.

    There are many coastal places threatened by flooding, but isn’t that something normal that the water erodes the soil and advances on cities? Why have such heavy buildings been built on land reclaimed from the sea?

    A very recent example was the deadly flooding in Athens about a week ago. Athens has seen illegal building outside of town plan and in the paths of creeks and brooks, deforestation etc since antiquity and everybody in Greece knows this. This is what has been causing the flooding since always. But the BBC reported it as a sign of climate change… There is proper brainwashing that is going on with regards to this issue.

    • avatar

      It’s another commercial trap to get more money out of us, sell new technologies, generate jobs etc. There are people who are welcoming increased temperatures: Greenland, Iceland etc. Why are their views being left out of the discourse?

    • avatar


  19. avatar
    John Costigane

    Climate change/global warming is basically a left-wing narrative. How does this affect objective scientific perspectives? I say out it drowns out the latter, to science’s severe detriment.

    FDR said “there is nothing to fear, but fear itself” That holds even today. We must look to the future, unafraid. Problems ahead can be adapted-to, using ever-improving technology.

    Ordinary people are feeling the brunt of this. A European Republic would stand against all such tyranny, as in the USA.

    • avatar
      Rich Smith

      Right-wing magical thinking generally reflects rank ignorance.

  20. avatar
    Daniel Jolivet

    Il est certain qu’attribuer un phénomène météorologique quelconque au réchauffement climatique est hasardeux. par contre l’ensemble des phénomènes météos peut avoir un sens.

  21. avatar
    Boris Zugolaro

    Climate exchange exists. The problem is to evalute how much it is a consequence of mankind’s activities. And here it is where the matter turns from scientific to political. What democratic leader might tell their voters they should change dramatically their lifestyle in order to stop the warning? None.

  22. avatar
    Máté János

    Climate change is a fact but the activities of mankind to control it is definetely is more and more a booming business than a non-profit solution :-( …

  23. avatar

    Because the temperature increase is not going to stop at actual levels.

  24. avatar
    Wendy Harris

    Climate change isn’t a hoax it’s just nothing new in Earth’s ancient history.

  25. avatar
    Oliver Zompro

    Climate always has changed and will always be changing. But the human influence on it is questionable. CO2 is nonsense, but we should talk about the catastrophic deforestation.

    • avatar
      Hans von Storch

      Indeed an often repeated argument – “climate has always changed, it is changing now and thus the present change is nothing special”. But it is special – the issue is the speed of change. In my introductory comment – see at the top – I mentioned the “detection and attribution” concept, which is taking into account his speed issue. The present change, across the past several decades, is faster than what you would expect from natural (and internal dynamics) causes.
      The assertion “CO2 is nonsense” is linguistically nonsense, i.e., makes no sense. Please try to write comprehensible sentences so that others can understand what you mean. Ranting may help your present frustrations but not communication.

  26. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    They don’t think its an hoax, they think man made climate change is a hoax and the claim that the planets ever changing climate can be manipulated is a hoax.

    • avatar

      Spot on! No amount of money will change these ongoing processes! The money will simply line the pockets of the charlatans promoting this hoax!

    • avatar

      Not all, but yes, some.

  27. avatar
    Sherrie Heckendorn

    Anyone with a brain can read and research and thus knows that human activity has sped up the natural progression of climate change

    • avatar
      Bill Home

      I love you Sherrie you are actually reading the facts instead of trying to deny them. Our culture nowadays has a tendency to deny everything they see because it is really hard to accept our own faults. If people go into research with an open, unbiased mind and really evaluate the facts, we can accept climate change.

    • avatar

      Well put, the only thing is that not all people know how to use their brain.

  28. avatar

    Because research needs money, hence is not always independant.

  29. avatar

    Cause it is a hoax to scam money, period! The climate has been changing for billions of years and man has nothing to do with it! Don’t even try to argue that in man’s nanospeck of existence in geologic time that it will affect processes which were already going long before man and will continue after man is gone! No amount of bloody money will change these processes! Any idiot clamoring to reduce CO2 is out of his bloody mind! Yeah, let’s reduce our ability to grow food idiots! Next, these criminals and junk scientists will tell you that a new tax will change the size of the sun and these wankers will believe it!

  30. avatar
    Oli Lau

    No nobody is denying that the climate is changing. It has always changed. What people question is that this time it would be man made.

    And why do you write climate change and not global warming anymore?

    • avatar

      We write climate change and not global warming because not all parts of the globe are warming. Yes the average temperature is going up, but some parts of the world are actually getting colder.

    • avatar
      Antoine Che

      Since education has become brainwashing, you might be right…

  31. avatar
    Franz Moisi

    They just want to. They deny that there is no problem and hope that it disappears by itself. So they can continue to waste energy and fossil fuels. (by the way, there is still the issue of air pollution that actually causes people to die earlier)

    I think it all started with the
    US-oil-industry. In the US there is a big tradition of manipulating the public opinion with huge campaigns financed by political groups and or companies.

    Guess what you can’t run away. When the temperature rises more than 2°C and therefore the rainforest burn down, the ice shields disappear (which causes less sunlight reflection) and the methane hydrate and permafrost thaw, the temperature will rise additionally 2 to 7°C. That causes whole agriculture systems to fail, water will be more scarce, cities like New York City or Shanghai and countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh will just drown in the sea and billions of people will have to migrate somewhere else. (Not even starting with the mass extinction of specieas and other ecological effects) So either we manage to do something now or the “costs” will be 1000 higher in 100 years.

    • avatar
      Michael O'Hanlon Kavanagh

      Then explain the rapid changes that have occurred since the industrial revolution.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Michael O’Hanlon Kavanagh Easy, there hasn’t been any. Or do you think the ice age was caused by the industrial revolution as well ?

  32. avatar
    Luc Sabbe

    It is even totally unimportant whether the climate change is manmade or not. The mean temperatures are rising, and clearly at a pace never seen before. Even if it would not be due to mankind, we have to react against it, because we know that disasters will follow if we let it rise! Don’t waste your time in discussions who is to blame, we need action, urgently!

  33. avatar
    Vytautas Vėžys

    Cause you changed it to “Climate Change” from “Global warming” after 50 years of telling people that whis world will be inhabitable till year 2000?

    • avatar
      Bill Home

      haha agreed

  34. avatar
    Liz Lyz

    It is about taxes! :) You are polluting ( you change the climate) , so you have to pay taxes.

  35. avatar
    Sabin Popescu

    because it first began as “global warming generated by the industry”, then it transformed into “climate change generated by the industry” and now it’s “climate change”

    The climate has been changing for the past 4-5 billions of years and back then there has been no industry, nor pollution, not even humans.

    So yes, Al Gore’s theory of global warming (nowadays called climate change) is a hoax based on data collected in the past 100-150 years and ignoring the data before that and other factors that influence Earth’s climate (for example that tiny little thing called Sun).
    The sole purpose of this theory is taxing everything that moves

    • avatar

      Although it is correct that climate has been changing for billions of years, and the temperature has been rising and falling, the global temperature is rising at an exponentially greater rate than it ever has before, and there is plenty of evidence showing that this is because of greenhouse gasses becoming trapped in the atmosphere by the ozone.

  36. avatar
    Christophe Walter

    According to the last Woolley Mammoth global warming is cyclical therefore any and all propaganda that states global warming is man-made is in fact a cruel hoax.

  37. avatar
    Franck Legon

    Because they know about climate cycles and the huge amount of studies available in many scientific areas from astrophysics to geology, ice and sediments analyses, erosion, paleoclimatology, archeology, a.s.o., that prooved them to be right for sure since Melankovitch first did in the XIX century.

  38. avatar
    Octavian Damian

    We don’t know exactly how our planet works, is bigger than we can experiment and reproduce in the lab. Climate change is real, no doubt, but human activity footprint negatively contributing on it, is arguable. If it is enough to admit human activity is negatively impacting the percentage may not be so important as our actions to reduce it.

  39. avatar
    Aris Tselios

    Because they believe that Green Energy is expensive and a lot of people who works in factories afraid of losing their jobs.

    • avatar
      Stefan V. Stancioiu

      There would be jobs trying to implement new technologies so… i don’t think those people are scared.

  40. avatar
    Ana Spínola

    Why? Because they are ignorant and arrogant. And lazy too, reading and listening to scientists and researchers requires too much effort for them.

  41. avatar
    Zé Miranda

    Because we actually understand science, computer models, we know how to read articles and we understand that the empirical data and the theory just isn’t sound enough to believe that greenhouse effect has any impact on global temperature changes over time, let alone CO2: the weakest greenhouse gas. The way they usually predict warming is as follows: CO2 generates a small amount of extra radiation which by theoretical feedback effects generates a LOT of additional warming. It is extremely uncommon that feedback effects are stronger than the main effect and to be believable such feedback effects would need to be extremely well understood and empirically documented, which they aren’t. On top of that climate scientists don’t seem to know math very well. The typical analysis for global temperature and the formulas behind feedback effects are often just incorrect in the articles. That is why so many physicists are against global warming. Who knows physics understands that a lot of the claims put forth by climate “scientists” are simply extremely hard to believe without a LOT of experimental evidence, which simply isn’t there since climatologists prefer spending their money playing with useless computer models.

    • avatar

      There are actually quite a few greenhouse gasses including Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and fluorinated gasses. these gasses hold in heat and are trapped by our atmosphere(ozone), causing the average global temperature to slowly rise at a much faster rate than it ever has in the past, endangering plant and animal, as well as human life if it is not stopped soon, as the temperature is rising almost 20 times faster than it has in the past 2,000 years.

  42. avatar


    • avatar

      thats facts

  43. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    If the ‘climate’ scientists claim 97% of scientist believe in climate change where is the list of scientists ? could it be it’s just another manipulation of the data ?

  44. avatar

    If weird how people know and accept that what humans do are killing out planet and our ozone layer which is anywhere from 10 to 30 milas straight up. But it’s too far fetched to believe that those same events and actions that are destroying out planet could possibly be warming the earth or melting ice caps and such. And it is true there is little evidence and mostly just theories but..in the long run is it really that hard to believe

    • avatar

      CO2 does have an indirect effect on the ozone, however, while CO2 slows down the production of new ozone in the lower stratosphere and by the equator, it actually helps speed up the production of new ozone by the poles and in the upper stratosphere.
      The problem with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are that the ozone helps protect us from and keep out harmful rays from the sun, but it also holds in heat, and with more greenhouse gasses being produced, the gasses are held in by the atmosphere, and the average global temperature will start to increase very slowly.

  45. avatar

    i think climate change is real and it’s destorying our earth

  46. avatar

    I believe we accelerated the climate change but why bother this was going to happen inevitably. Why not search a way that we can survive a cataclysmic climate without a glitch and focus more on that. There is fundamental problem in our world which has to with being greedy and always wanting more that will be the demise of our kind if we go to fast. People need to be more happy and enjoy the things they have. I don’t say cut the luxery but do we need to change our car every 4 years and our smartphone every 1 year. When years ago we built things to last we now forgot and one thing is for sure I would not want to be trapped in a horrible climate with things that don’t stand the test of time. I know for a fact with advances in technology be it in times op peace or war always a great waste is made. When will enough be enough ?!.

  47. avatar
    jim andersen


  48. avatar
    Rachel George

    climate change is obviously real and we cannot argue that, there is scientific evidence of how our orbit changes around the sun; we are now getting closer to the sun but we are still in an ice age, there is not enough evidence at the moment to say if the rapid increase of the temperature of the world is our fault but climate change is defiantly real and no one should argue against that

  49. avatar

    Dear fellow citizens,

    My view, is that we need to change our thinking approach on this subject.

    Plz don’t try to blame anyone, start with your self by saying, “the climate is worsening (for one reason or another) why contribute towards worse?” Why make it worse?

  50. avatar

    you keep asking the same questions over and over.

  51. avatar

    It s called climate change now? No more global warming?

    • avatar

      Global warming is the overall phenomenon, which can be felt locally as climate change.

      For example, the climate change for Europe will bring weather that’s more extreme as the Gulf current and its stabilizing impact become weaker.

    • avatar


    • avatar

      Bódis Except there is NO data to prove the climate is changing in any meaningful or un-natural way. The climate changes whether man is on the planet or not.

    • avatar

      Yes, the climate will change regardless because it’s cyclical and nothing on this planet or elsewhere stays the same forever. But it’s completely reasonable to assume that with all the extreme pollution of water and air that we’re causing, those changes are accelerated.

    • avatar

      Edita Of course we affect it, everything does. An ant colony in Africa affects it & a clump of daffodils in my back garden affects it so should we get rid of ants and daffodils ? . The point is the pro climate change lobby can not point to a single piece of evidence than ‘humans’ affects it in any meaningful or damaging way that nature cannot change, as it has done millions if not billions of times before.

    • avatar

      They had to change the name because of stupid people like you that kept saying “it’s snowing, where is that global warming??”

  52. avatar

    Finally Italy weak up !
    In the last hour…
    The recent election shows what really think about E.U.
    Great Britain ; Italy ; who’ s next ???
    The eurosceptisism is the REAL PROBLEM of E.U.
    Why do not debate sincerlly here about it ???

    • avatar

      Is there a brain in your head? 😠

    • avatar

      Zorica I have a brain to check facts rather then news. Climate change always happened. If you are worried start by closing volcanos and the asses of cows. They are the major cause of gases.

  53. avatar

    The question itself is a hoax and most debates on climate changes are either confusing or misleading.

    The only ones hinting climate changes don’t happen are the ones suggesting they can still be avoided. Most people accept climate changes but some people think the changes are made by nature rather than humans. It is a hoax suggesting rejecting the idea of humans being resposible for climate changes is the same as rejecting climate changes all together.

    Furthermore, science is not about the percentages of debaters or scientists accepting an idea. Science is about hypothesis and proofs.

  54. avatar

    because politicians run out if trust.
    they have crossed the limits.
    Barroso working in big bank, and having a drink in hotels with high executives of EU….

  55. avatar

    Because ‘man made’ climate change is “NOT” proven.

    • avatar

      Ivan please let us know where this number comes from and why its a lie. I dare you

    • avatar

      Ivan isn’t this the guy that believes in telepathy and psychokinesis and water memory? Great sourcing the one you have.

    • avatar

      Claudio Gamao .

      The 97% figure comes from a peer review paper where a pro climate change individual (none scientist) peer reviewed ‘100 mixed scientific papers’ and came to the conclusion 97% of scientists believe in man made climate change.

      When his findings were checked it was found to be full of errors, assumption’s and is some cases right out misrepresenting of the papers.

      When Peiser (2005) re-ran the Oreskes (2004) results they found only 2.38% explicit endorse climate change from a sample pool of ‘3,146 respondents’ (real physicists).

      The ‘real’ science is out there, you just have to look for it and stop believing what people like Bill Nye the fake Science guy and lobbyists tell you, as the media do because they need to sensualise everything and ‘climate scientists’ do because its the only way they get funding..


    • avatar

      Claudio A meaningless chart as they only asked ‘funded Climate & Earth’ scientists. If you only ask dog owners if they like dogs you would probably get a figure of 97%. In any science having two sets of results that are exact is very, very rear but with climate change its always 97%.

    • avatar

      Ivan there is a little bit more than the chart. Anyhow, i believe its slightly stronger argument than the speach of a person who believes that water has memory.

    • avatar

      There are over one million physicists in the world, still can’t find a list of the 97% that say human climate change is real. It would be a very, very long list. lol

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows
      There is a wikipedia link with all the references. Read it and cry (or laugh like a pro brexit idiot)

    • avatar

      Ivan hello again, check the politics part of the link below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
      Such a shame, he just died so you cannot present to him your perspective. Although i strongly believe he wouldn’t bother arguing.

  56. avatar

    Hoax is a word that describes a false flag. Climate change is cyclical and therefore not man-made. What is man-made is Chemtrail weather manipulation.

    • avatar

      Haha you don’t believe in global warming but believe in Chemtrails. So funny :D

    • avatar

      João look up sometime. Weather manipulation has been going on for decades.. Didn’t it start with cloud seeding? By the way, if you want to get technical about global warming, go back 10.000yrs and discuss the Ice age with your ancestors. A million years in Earth terms is a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things and we are still coming out of the Ice age. It will return like it always has.

  57. avatar

    The resource corporations and their enablers spread disinformation. Green energy to save the planet (and many peoples lives from resource wars) means no more oil or gas sales.

  58. avatar

    Because before was global warming, now it is climate change… Wake up some people arent dumb… We are going to a new ice era Not globing warming..

    • avatar

      And the facebook anti free speech algorithm kicks in. So long freedom of though, I knew you well :(

    • avatar

      What u mean

    • avatar

      Rui There is an algorithm used by facebook to auto remove any post with links that do not agree with their socialist set of values.

    • avatar

      Ah ya… for sure..

  59. avatar

    Because there is no scientific consensus about it. If scientist can’t agree on something, it usually means that the answer is not so clear…

  60. avatar

    I wonder if some of the people commenting here are taking the piss, or if they’re truly as ignorant as they sound. FYI: scientists corrected the name of the phenomenon because climate change was a more accurate description than global warming. FYI2: science doesn’t merely work in a lab, it also works on prediction models and observation of expected phenomena. If the observation fits the expected prediction, the model is verified as correct, like how we found gravitational waves.

  61. avatar

    I think it’s both true. There certainly is climate change, won’t deny that. Still there is also a lot of fake news and people talking nonsense around it. And people talking nonsense are in both camps.

  62. avatar

    Why do hundreds of millions of people NOT have clean drinking water and enough food to eat?

  63. avatar

    No one changed the name from global warming to climate change, this is literally one of the dumbest things people say on this subject.

  64. avatar

    I wish people would stop calling Global Warming a theory. Its obviously affecting our lives, we’ve had some of the strongest and out of place storms in the past year alone, and these past years have been some of the warmest years ever recorded in history. I wish everybody would stop acting like the evidence that has been released is not real, or is some kind of joke. It’s so frustrating when people say there ‘isn’t enough evidence’ or that ‘we all know the facts aren’t true’ because we do know they’re true, and we know that Climate Change and Global Warming aren’t a hoax. Why do people even say that Climate Change and Global Warming are a hoax? A hoax is a deception or lie that is made to be perceived as the truth, but why would people make this up? By stopping Global Warming we’re trying to push forward in the production of renewable energy, like wind, solar power, etc. Why do people act like using renewable energy is a bad thing, and that we’re trying to hurt our country? Jeez, people. We’re trying to save the planet.

  65. avatar

    0.9 Celsius per century is global warming…..give us a break!
    The entire science is based on the removal of the medieval period warming period, when temperatures were warmer than today, to justify the theory that the current warming is unprecedented. The 1990 IPPC report included a graph confirming this but removed it in subsequent reports to fit with Mann’s Hockey Stick. Mann is currently suing Tim Ball and Mark Steyn over allegations of fraud but the cases are bogged down in the courts due to Mann’s reluctance to produce his data.

    • avatar

      Yes, the temperature were warmer than today, but they were not rising as quickly as they are today either. The reason that climate change is getting so much attention now is because it is happening at a much faster rate than during the medieval time period because we have more of an influence on the changing.

  66. avatar

    Global warming isn’t a hoax it’s a big joke the planet has been going through climate changes since the beging of time dessert were green all land was covered by water scientist have proof of this now show us proof there is global warming and not just a degree or two

  67. avatar

    It should not be called “Global Warming” as much as it should be called Climate Change, because our climate is changing. Some parts of the globe are getting warmer while other parts are getting colder. In Idaho, we had one of the worst years of winter while the tropics are getting even hotter and we are having more and more powerful storms that have become even more frequent than in the past. Who here can argue that fact that our polar ice caps are melting away and Arctic and Antarctic animals will loose their homes in a matter of a few years?

  68. avatar

    “The walls we build around us to keep the noise out only reverberate the same ideas, notions and beliefs we enforce, leaving no room for debate. When we opt out of an argument we are choosing to ignore opposing views thereby failing to understand the other.”

    “The most fatal illusion is the settled point of view. Since life is growth and motion, a fixed point of view kills anybody who has one.”
    “… But these skeptics are only selectively skeptical. They think themselves enlightened for resisting all this new proof and remaining steadfast in mistrusting anything that someone else says. But it is a false enlightenment to accept only those ideas that align with one’s worldview and reject those that don’t.”

  69. avatar

    Because there is no evidence, only models and theories which turn out to be wrong.

    • avatar

      Isn’t it lovely when someone uneducated thinks he knows more than the whole scientific community.

    • avatar

      Spyros Kouvoussis (<--- Troll) Ok comrade, instead of the usual idiotic insults how about you provide some evidence ?

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows did you actually read the article? It actually argues that climate change is real but could be possibly be overriden by the effect of the sun activity. So for what reason did u you attach this article?

    • avatar

      Please, provide me with an explanation of why those theories and models are wrong

    • avatar

      Uli Czeranka I did and it agrees with my first post, there is NO evidence.

    • avatar

      I am sorry, but to prove that a model is wrong, you need to show numbers and statistical confidence. What you did means nothing.

    • avatar

      Daniele Sicoli .

      You are mixing theory with evidence.

      Definition of Scientific Method:

      ‘a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested and repeated & consistent results are achieved which is then classed as scientific evidence.

      Definition of Scientific model:

      ‘A theory that is a representation of an idea’

      *No model as provided reliable, consistent or repeated data so is not evidence.

      There is a ‘theory’ the world is flat, it doesn’t mean its true.

    • avatar

      What do you guys expect from an extreme-right wing guy?

    • avatar

      João Mascarenhas ‘extreme-right wing’ ? Based on what exactly ?

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows yah, great, but to disprove it you need data and statistical analyses to prove that the model is less valid than another model. So, formulate your model and test it. I am still expecting your numbers.

    • avatar

      Daniele Sicoli You are incorrect, it is the responsibility of those proposing the ‘climate change theory’ to prove its real.

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows I am sorry, but in science you can’t prove something true. You can just put under stress the theories. Up to now, no one was able to put under stress the Newton’s dynamics as far as we are on Earth, we are large enough and at sufficiently low velocities. Sometimes it is also a matter of reasonability. However, If you could, since science is democratic, the scientific community would listen to you (however you need to speak the right language, that is mathematics, to participate to a democratic debate, otherwise you are just delirious). If you want, look at the peers on climate change and try to put them under stress.

    • avatar

      Daniele Sicoli Unlike climate change theory Newton’s, Einstein’s and every other scientists can be repeated with the same outcome. Which is why ‘evidence’ is required and there is none for man made climate change.

      Some people believe that the theory the Earth only being 10,000 years hold is true, does the fact it is some ones theory make it real ?

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows You said “Unlike climate change theory Newton’s, Einstein’s and every other scientists can be repeated with the same outcome”. This is false, in fact classical models have statistical confidence. Empirical evidence is actually to be interpreted in the statistical sense. (Then there is quantum mechanics, that is not classical, and it is an extreme situation confirming the need for statistical evidence, or, to be more consistent with what I said, not putting this need under stress.)

    • avatar

      Daniele Sicoli And yet you are prepared to believe without question one side of the argument in the absence of any evidence ?

      Just remember there were people who believed long before it was fashionable.

    • avatar

      Daniele Sicoli to prove its right u have to show evidence =D its called validation

    • avatar

      Daniel Pluskota Ok but let’s stay in the context of statistical analysis, you have to test the hypothesis that your model is not significant, right? Then, depending on the significance you choose, you can or cannot reject the hypothesis of inconsistency of the model. With a higher significance (lower confidence) you might not reject a model you rejected with a lower one. In principle, there might always be a model which is right with a lower significance.

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows based on you disagreeing with them

  70. avatar

    Cause they’re american and we all know the most of them are totally stupid.

    • avatar

      If you think the richest & most powerful Nation on Earth is full of stupid people what does that make people in the EU ?

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows the British believed they were genetically superior than the Africans during their colonial era.

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows You’re talking about the people who elected Donald Trump, right?

    • avatar

      why are you so racist?

  71. avatar

    Climate always change …. Man made climate change sound stupid as you pay for studies like that: … The United Nations Climate Change Secretariat released its first ever annual report this week, in which it held up its “Gender Action Plan” as a key to increasing the participation of women in responding to global warming. and Greenland Ice Core Data…..

  72. avatar

    This page has the dumbest followers. Racists, homophobic, anti-science, etc.

  73. avatar

    Climate change is a continuing situation in earth since the beginning.exploitation of it by business interests is a matter of our times

    • avatar

      Yes, duce. But climate should not change so fucking fast

  74. avatar

    Becasuse nobody is even remotely borhered by the highest co2 emissions in the world – those of china

  75. avatar

    Absence of evidence?? Ohh your not from Europe, where people twice or trice my age remember winters with a metER of snow etc.

    A better question would be, if we should not rather adapt to the changing climate? The very idea that humans can control nature is ridicilous – ever seen how air temp drops 10C or more in hours? And then think about all the gas we burn during winter for heating, which obviously just warms our asses!;-)

    Good luck to all to change climate!:D

  76. avatar

    This is a lie made by the capitalist pigs at NASA! Just like the moon landing on a green screen. It’s not possible cos the moon is a hologram. Furthermore the atmosphere does not exist because the earth is flat.

  77. avatar
    morgan lowe

    I dislike global warming greatly

  78. avatar

    Dinosaurs caused the ice age, so obviously humans are causing global warming… isn’t spring, summer,fall, and winter climate change.. so I guess it does exist.. lol

  79. avatar
    Teddy Sinclair

    The climate is continuously fluctuating, surely this ‘climate change’ is just a nother natural temperature fluctuation.

    • avatar
      Dr. Nero McGee

      As a professor of climatology at the university of Stoll, Loughborough, I state that, although the climate is fluctuating, data shows that this sudden increase of temperature is anomalous and unexpected.

  80. avatar

    No one is denying tempatures are changing, the fact is we have no idea why it’s changing or even enough solid long term information whether it is normal. Tempature records barely go back 150 years then when core samples show there was more ice melted on many occasions as recently as medevil warming, people say “well not in the South Pacific”. Everyone is cherry picking points to their argument and we simply don’t have the data since even the scientists want to pick and choose what parts of core sample data they want to accept so we go back to our (barely a blip in time) short temperature record.

    Most concerning is all the focus is put on energy and transportation when those are not the biggest causes of carbon emissions. Argriculture is the biggest and of agriculture, cow sh*t is the biggest factor…. Yes cow pies are the biggest contributor to global warming going by this carbon theory (and you wonder why some are skeptical). Construction is the next biggest contributor following agriculture but all we talk about is cars….

    Finally there are multiple solutions that can cool the earth but no one wants to solve the problem. We can put sulfuric ash into the atmosphere or push the warm surface water down to the floor of the ocean but nope the solution people want to go with is taxes and credits…..

    I think this issue would gain much more traction if it was presented in a more conclusive manner as pollution. That is undeniable and is something we can have definitive theories on. China and Mongolia are disgusting and I think everywhere else could do better as well so let’s go at it from that way which is a much more definitive issue that can be hypothesized with much greater factual data. But that doesn’t come with a doomsday scare so it won’t happen. Plus people are so invested and careers staked on the climate at this point they basically want it to happen

  81. avatar
    Alex Cobabe

    I’m all for cleaner air and less wastefulness. But anthropogenic climate change is pure hype.
    These are the same self proclaimed scientists who said mankind would run out of oil in 40 years, 40 years ago. Their neigh predictions have never been right. So they changed their shtick to a doomsday scenario, and if we don’t act now by investing countless dollars into green energy companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy (Solyndra)it will be too late. Anthropogenic climate alarmists are like that show Ancient Aliens. The premise of that show is this, when in doubt, it must be aliens. “Look at the top of this mountain, how flat it is. It must have been aliens paving a landing site.” An alien denier would say, no, that’s a plateau. Those occur naturally in the driest of deserts.
    In the mind of the alarmist, nothing unusual can be natural. We have never seen weather like this before, therefore it must be cow farts and fossil fuels causing it, they claim.
    This anthropogenic accusation has been made before, just differently. There was an mini ice age 600 years ago. And many Europeans claimed that it was caused by witchcraft–“weather cookers” they called them, because there’s no way the unusualy cold climate could be natural. Don’t be a science denier.
    Today there’s a lot of power to be gained from anthropogenic alarmism. Once everyone believes the problem, the alarmist gets to charge whatever price they want for the promise of green alternatives. Or they get to delicate how much little energy you get to use (carbon tax), and how much energy they get to waste. We already see this today with African colonies being denied a coal plant for energy, they have to use the solar they can’t afford.
    If there was a simple way to cause some cooling at the north poll, alarmists would oppose it, that solution is too easy. The energy companies are already investing and researching energy alternatives, but that’s not enough for the alarmists. It could not be more obvious they want to control the means of production not save the earth.

  82. avatar
    Rodney Boyce

    Climate Change is not a Hoax. “Climate” is the dynamic systems on this here Earth. These systems have always been DYNAMIC…….. So sad that mass histerria on a global scale causes such a waste of resources ( financial and human resources ) consentrating, focasing, being directed toward “saving the planet”. The climate has always been changing. It will continue to change. Forever.! Why not spend a little time and resources addressing some of the dynamic global issues which a little change may be achievable and make a difference. Food,…War,…Greed,…Religion,…..Racism,…..POLUTION,….Drugs,…..Disease !!!!!!!!!!!
    OPEC and Carbon Tax: Biggest commercial rackets ever thought up, invented,..designed.

  83. avatar
    afzal ta

    Maybe if we tell people the brain is an app, they’ll start using it.

  84. avatar

    Because it is a unproven hypothesis, the real question is why do some people believe human created climate change is real when there is no evidence for it ? Why did you stop calling it ‘global warming’ by the way.

  85. avatar

    Because a relatively small group of powerful people with links to carbon based industries seek to destroy renewables

  86. avatar

    And in the case that we don’t have succes to reduce CO2, what we do? Because human been produces CO2 ?!?!

    Of course that It is well like human been to integrate the activities in the nature, we use a tree, we must plant 2-3 trees, and so one.

    There to much to debate !

  87. avatar

    Because they are too stupid to pay attention in Science lessons. Especially Chemistry lessons. They didn’t get it, so it doesn’t exist.

    • avatar

      Oh, you’ve got me convinced Ivan. Some guy in Athens thinks it’s fake!

    • avatar

      John Then show us the evidence that man made climate change is real comrade, if as you sheep think it’s proven there must be tonnes of actual ‘evidence’ of it, so give it up 8|


    • avatar

      Actually I’m a scientist and that’s why I don’t believe in man made climate change.

    • avatar

      I think maybe you mistook scientogy for science. I would not be surprised since your education derives from Breitbart…

  88. avatar

    In the end it doesn’t matter, everyone is suffering the consequences with more extreme climate. When things get worse the climate change deniers will find another fantasy to believe, as they always do :)

    • avatar

      We can’t ‘deny’ a claim that is not been proven to be true comrade. Provide the evidence for it and people will agree with you that its real, but you can’t because there isn’t any.

    • avatar

      Ivan I don’t need to provide you any evidence, because there’s a thing called Google that can provide it for you :) have a great day!

    • avatar

      David So that’s a no, you have no evidence but expect people to believe you. Seriously ?! lol Would you like to buys new clothes ?, only been worn once by a king lol 8|

    • avatar

      Ivan I don’t need you to believe me, you are free to believe whatever you want. If you need evidence about climate change use Google or any other search engine.

    • avatar

      David You join a debate then when asked to provide evidence of your position you refer people to google ? then what was the point of your participation comrade in the debate in the first place ? lol 8|

    • avatar

      Ivan The question was “Why do some people think climate change is a hoax?”, and my answer is that it does not matter what some people think about climate change, it is happening anyway. If you want evidence you can find it by yourself. It is the same as with “flat earthers”, I do not have any wish to debate with them either, they can live in their own bubble it is fine with me, and you can live in your own bubble too, I don’t care.

  89. avatar

    There’s plenty of evidence to support it being a fact, btw. It’s a happening; now, for at least a couple of decades. You know, that thing called “cumulative effect”? People who know how a car’s engine works, knows that once sped, if you want to stop—mostly it’s not only enough to let the car slow down, but you must break. Because of inertia.

    Climate change has gained traction, after decades of CO2 pollution. It has gained inertia, speed; the “rate of change” in climate phenomena has increased… Put it in a thousand ways, it’s the same fact.

    The breaks of climate change, well, don’t exist: there’s no miracle tech that can revert the effects of climate change; no magic potion, no method, no process to stop it. It’s happening and will keep happening. The “runaway effect” or “domino effect” is what makes CC a bit unpredictable—and dangerous. A threat to security.

    What we can do is avoid the snowball from being disastrous in the long term. How? Implementing alternative sources of energy (renewables), recycling, sustainable economies with sustainable consumption and production… You know, the “same bloody tune we’ve been saying for years”.

    People believe it’s a hoax because they’re unable of seeing past their noses; see the “big picture” as it were; and see for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They’re unable to invest in the long future when they can get a biscuit today, or go to Bali in August. Or they’ve put their absolute trust in their perceptions when rationality says otherwise, so they decide (read, believe) that seeing a blue orange is natural… “How could it be otherwise?”

    [By the way, that’s how climate-change deniers sound to scientists and science students like me].

    To a certain point, it’s all the same—I feel sadness and frustration, disappointment and incredulity at the sheer amount of stupidity people are able to accomplish. People will be people: they’ll have their beliefs… And dialogue will always be the way to try and get consensus; and understanding. And that what we CAN only do now: try to get people to work together for a common cause, because that is what it has always been—a common, shared interest of preserving what’s right, what’s healthy and beautiful, and holy (if you must).

    It’s a pity to destroy something that can’t be replaced, really.

    And it’s all the same to me: if something is done, great; if not, what ever went around… Is coming around. Fast. Quick. And when it’s knocking on your doorstep year after year—a heatwave after a heatwave, a crop failure after a crop failure, drought after drought, or flooding after flooding… At some point these “deniers” will realise something is wrong. They must realise it at some point. That’s not only about the Science—it’s about changing ways. Doing something. Stop losing… And guarantee a future, at least. For someone.

    We’re so prone in watching movies about the destruction of Earth—and we morbidly like them. But reality is ever dreadful than movies… Reality is that we’ve lost almost 1000 species to extinction; extreme climate events are becoming the “new normal” and that checkmates our food security (crop productivity, for example), it exposes us to new threats (like disease that follow after their vectors, following the climate most favourable to their reproduction)… And it destabilises entire ecosystems that, right now, and for thousands of years, has given us (ecological) goods and services… It’s a way of life we put at risk with climate change; that we are ALREADY putting at risk.

    Believe the science or not—the change is here. The risk is happening. Look at the news, go outside, feel the weather; ask farmers and talk about their crops; check the butterflies; visit a hospital… And see all the subtle ways in which climate change is disrupting the world. And it’s not a movie—it’s not some TV programme hoax to make fun of anyone.

    It’s not only the science: it’s the consequences that worry me… And it should worry everybody.

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows Seriously? What are you really expecting? Whatever I will show you, it’s there—peer-reviewed by the exact same scientists you’re overlooking (or ignoring, don’t quite know which one is worse) in those, you know, highly renowned (but for you, unreliable) journals that give us the info, the data, the “evidence” (as you put it).
      Whatever there is to know, is available for you to read & research in the World Wide Web.

      Your problem is NOT that we do not produce evidence—is that whatever we produce, fact or otherwise, you’ll just cram it up your arse and spout it’s rubbish.

      I can try and start a tirade of research-based evidence, with all its boring, heavy, scientish jargon (that you won’t really bother to go through in detail, mind you; that’s what most of us do, read exhaustively)… But you WILL keep on refuting on every one of them, at every turn of the corner.

      What you want, I have an impression, is absolute truths; ultimate answers.

      If that’s the case… Well, then as you were, mate. Science is not here to give you Religion and dogmas.

      You have a problem with the scientific method, come up with something better if you can…

    • avatar

      Ian How can ‘evidence’ be peer reviewed when there is no evidence ? You can’t peer review opinion.

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows Clearly, you don’t know what “evidence” means… You see, in any scientific article, there’s a section of “Discussion” where, you know, the authors of the paper “discuss” the “results” of their study. And by results, to say—mathematical analyses, statistical analyses, the results from mathematical models, etc. And to say “discuss”, we say read other people who have found the SAME or SIMILAR things and that means we discuss the same subject; so you know what happens when different scientists, unrelated in space and in time, of all kinds, get the SAME results, through math? They arrive at conclusions, which is another section of any article title: “Conclusions”.
      When you have read enough and you’ve experimented enough, and you’ve discussed enough and analysed enough… you conclude. You get processes… you get evidence.
      And it’s not an opinion. It’s a piece of information that keep coming up and through thorough analysis and repetitive experimentation, and double checks, and yes—peer-reviewing, you have evidence. And when that evidence is consistent and it follows solid and sound models, it becomes fact and theory, and law.

      By the fact, for example, that you don’t know what “evidence” is, or by the mere fact that you so simplishly equate it to “opinion”, you’re proving to me, yes—giving the evidence, that you have not the slightest idea, not even the thinest glimpse of how the scientific method, or the peer-reviewing process works.

      You think that scientific evidence is handed out like cookies… And that, mate, is disrespectful.

      The fact that it flies over your […] head, means that you have no respect, not even the ounce of healthy curiosity, to rise your bloody arse from that position you have… and well, have opinions. Silly, unfounded, irrational, irritating opinions about things you care not to even be minimally informed about.

      Yes, mate: you have opinions.

      And this is MY opinion of you.

      But your opinion about evidence doesn’t change the fact that evidence is evidence, despite what you say; what you believe is inconsequential…

      Read up about how a scientific journal works; nay, read up about how articles get from the lab to the editor’s table; nay, read how damn difficult it is to get published… The hells of making an impact as a scientist. Read up on that; learn that not everything is evidence…. and peer-reviewing is exactly the corner stone of scientific publication.

      You know nothing.

      And because of your disregard for serious discussion has been thus proven, I will not waste any more words, or breath, or frustation on you.

      You want to believe there’s no evidence? Go on now, believe whatever you want. It won’t change how the world works; it won’t change how the world is. And it won’t change what climate change is and what many—many people are doing despite of you. And thankfully, in your stead.

  90. avatar

    The extent of it is disputed. Because scientists proved to be biased.

  91. avatar

    Every time it is a bit warmer somewhere in the world, the media yells climate change. If it is colder e.g. snow in Jerusalem last year – there is silence. So, does this very biased reporting not look like a hoax? Add to this the nonsense like the civil war on Syria caused by climate or the iminent demise of the internet and you have your answer.

    • avatar

      Really? I see the opposite. Every time there’s snow, some denier confuses climate with weather and thinks it debunks climate change somehow.

    • avatar

      “Some denier” versus global media. Yeah, right. Check out what attribution means and what real climate scientists think of attributing individual weather events to global warming.

    • avatar

      John Denier is a religious term, like heathen. One more ground to call this a hoax – like any religion is a hoax.

    • avatar

      Ivan the prediction was correct, the date needs a bit of adjustment LOL

    • avatar

      It’s also colder in Portugal and Spain.

    • avatar

      Zé Ice age in Spain but an heatwave in Great Britain, Moneybags Gore didn’t see that one coming lol

    • avatar

      Zé Just to think that makes you a denier :))

  92. avatar

    The Wooley Mammoth was convinced it was a hoax. We are coming out of the Ice age still.

  93. avatar

    In Greece we have a folk story about a shepherd called the ” John the lier”
    John used to troll his neighbours by telling them that a wolf was attacking his herd ..
    He did it so many times that when the wolf did came no one believed him…
    That’s the case with our governments they were wrong so many times in the past that now no one trust them even if they are right on this one

  94. avatar

    Because it is. Climatology is not a real science. Most of their articles are based on computer models and not on real life data, therefore they cannot prove anything.

    • avatar

      in other words, are you god on earth or not? if not, stop talking…

  95. avatar

    Because there is a scientific literacy deficit which is being exploited for political gain. Improve scientific literacy. make empirical data science a core subject in secondary school, and watch the problem evaporate.

  96. avatar
    Steve O

    Wow, the trolls really came out for this discussion.

    The fact that a small percentage of people don’t accept the science of climate change is pretty irrelevant, actually. Since every country in the world is part of the Paris Accord (with the US announcement they will withdraw in the future), the climate deniers have lost the argument. They can make all the noise they want, but those 190+ nations are not going to change what they are doing.
    Are they doing enough? No, but that doesn’t change the fact that they agree with the IPCC findings.
    Additionally, I can’t think of a single large multi-national corporation that disputes the existence of climate change and humans’ role. Many are taking voluntary actions. Is it enough yet? No, but that doesn’t change the fact that they agree.
    What do all these deniers know that every government on the planet (save one, perhaps) and virtually the entire capitalistic economy knows?
    Shoot, even Exxon and API agree that climate change is a problem.
    Sorry, deniers, you have lost. Posting your little screeds on this comment thread will have no effect whatsoever on the actions that are already being taken and will continue to be taken. You are not going to convince any of those multi-national companies nor any of those 195 governments to stop doing what they are already doing. Sorry, you lose. Nice try.
    Lastly, I suggest you carefully consider the career trajectory of Jerry Taylor. Research his story. He was not only a denier, but the face of the libertarian Cato Institute on the strong denier side. Check out what changed his mind. He now is working to influence conservatives to take climate change seriously. What do you know that he doesn’t?

  97. avatar

    There is climate change, and it is a natural process.
    Anything else is political propaganda

  98. avatar

    Untill 2011 the entire north pole will melt!

  99. avatar

    Because 6,000 ago the whole of Europe was under ice and 10,000 years ago the Sahara Desert was a forest. It’s just part of the planets cyclic pattern so we should be spending our money & time on coping with the change and not wasting it trying to stop the unstoppable.

  100. avatar

    …and why do some insist on pondering the viewpoints of those disbelieving climate change. It’s not an either/or issue

  101. avatar

    Probably because solving this problem will need regulation and government spending. They see that as leftist policies, so they see the problem itself as a leftist excuse or trick.

  102. avatar

    Climate change is a natural phenomenon, the hoax is claiming that it is anthropogenic.

  103. avatar

    if you believe that s Climate Change is a Hoax, Trump can be your Guru

    • avatar

      While Merkel and her Russian Nord Stream 2 is your Guru ?

    • avatar

      Ivan what has a gas pipeline to do with Climate Change Hoax?

  104. avatar

    Because it is. If the Wooley Mammoth were around today and was able to speak Mr. Mammoth would point out we are still in the Ice age.

  105. avatar

    Why do governments not act??????

  106. avatar

    It’s definitely not a hoax. Point is how much of it is really caused by human activity. Anyway global warming is still much better than global cooling.

  107. avatar

    Because it has been politicized too much both on the left and right.

  108. avatar

    Either because they have a vested interest in ignoring or denying it or because they have had an inadequate science education

  109. avatar

    The hoax is to try to mix a natural cyclical phemomenon like the temperature of the planet and the consequent CO2 percentage in the atmosphere (warm oceans contains less gas than cold ones) with the horrific massive destruction of the ecosystems on the whole planet, in a complete indifference…
    But Yes Goldman Sachs and its friends want to privatize the air, last common good after the water, so as to make the CO2 release (read consumption of air) of any activity on the planet legal only with a “CO2 tax” to buy and sell on the biggest exchange platform ever conceived by humanity that would make NYSE look like a local flee market…

  110. avatar

    I think older generations caused climate change. YOU’VE SCREWED US ALL YOU THOUGHTLESS PRICKS

  111. avatar
    Bob Ross

    The evidence is unreal. People just want something to talk about. They base it on their own experiences.

  112. avatar
    brynn lee

    I think global warming is faker than my friends lol. no but fr it aint real.

  113. avatar

    And all this phd scientists said in 90’s that eggs are responsible for bad cholesterol. 20 years later we know eggs are need in our diet and our liver produce bad cholesterol without eggs in our diet. This are all theories and have not much to do with reality. Also geoingeneers are full of crap telling people the can fix anything using Harp weapon or chemtrails that being sprayed all over the world. So if some1 saying about scientists theories being a fact is stupid

  114. avatar

    The solar output from the sun has dropped slightly since the 1970’s but the average global temperature has increased, how? The stratosphere is cooling but the troposphere (the bit humans live in) is warming, how? The amount of CO2 (a green house gas) in the atmosphere has increased by 400% since the 1950’s, how? Please can somebody explain what ‘natural’ and ‘unconnected to human’ process may have caused this?

  115. avatar

    Because there is always more than one argument and people make their own mind up as to which argument they believe. Debating Europe you really do ask some stupid questions. You’ve just become endless clickbait.

  116. avatar

    Easy. Because they are irrational. Why do others think Earth is flat? The question is why do we allow such people to vote? They are unable to process important information how can they understand what is right or wrong for society?

  117. avatar

    The question is really stupid.

  118. avatar

    I would be convinced that Global warming is real if government agencies didn’t use it as an excuse to Tax us. It is more like a money making scam. where exactly does all of that money go? Should I make a Freedom of information request? Shouldn’t need to. Just release an annual audit.

  119. avatar

    It’s what happens when you raise children to believe in virgin births, resurrections and unassailable holy prophets, and teach them that their irrational beliefs are sacred and must be respected. They’ll learn believe anything based on what’s convenient to them, rather than what the evidence shows.

  120. avatar

    I am a little confused. No websites are giving me a straight answer (What climate change is caused by), so it is so hard to get my project sorted :(

  121. avatar
    mandy vincent

    So called “global warming” I would like a so called expert to tell me, WHY they found wooley mammoth and rhino on the new road build A14 in the UK. SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED and us humans cannot be blamed for that one lol. But, TAX THEM HUMANS, TAX THEM was NOT around in those days was it.

  122. avatar
    Scott W Wood

    Because “climate change” is a hyper symplification of the issue.

    The climate changes, always has changed, and always will change. It’s an act of deception to use such a term to describe what they are actually meaning when it’s said. What is being said is “man is destroying the climate and you must give us the power to change everyone’s behavior to fix it”

    But that requires at least 8 separate assertions be met, met in order, and all of the earlier ones have to be satisfactorily proven before the above demand is reasonable:

    1. The climate is changing (I already said that is a given)
    2. It is abnormal change, not a transient or local change.
    3. It is not part of some pattern or trend that will eventually reverse.
    4. It is more than the earth (which has dealt with a changing climate for over 4 billion years without our help or interference) can compensate for.
    5. The change is going to cause predominantly bad things. (and not cause good things to compensate for them)
    6. Human behavior is a significant contributor to the change.
    7. We can do something/anything to effect, stop or reverse the change.
    8. The people asking for power are the best qualified to address what we do and will do something that will work.
    9. Whatever is actually done, not only works but makes the end result better and doesn’t actually cause worse problems than if it had been left alone.

    Meanwhile, if you’re claiming humans are doing it and carbon is the bogeyman and carbon does it by trapping solar energy, why in the hell aren’t there a number of stories all over every science journal and newspaper clearly demonstrating that:

    1) an increase of 0.01% of a single, transparent gas that has exists primarily in the first 1-2 miles of an 18 mile thick atmosphere, has existed on the planet in greater concentrations than we have now since the planet, will actually cause damage commensurate with the level of hype and panic and require the kinds of drastic reforms we’re being asked for. Go look for studies that say “yeah, carbon – this invisible stuff that is 5 parts in 10000, up for 4 parts in 10000, actually does that!” You won’t find them.
    2) if the claim is that more energy is being ‘trapped’ by carbon, why aren’t we looking at energy-in-vs-energy out first, foremost and primarily? You’re saying more energy is being trapped, THAT should be the first thing to look at – how much energy is coming in, how much is going out. How does that compare to 10, 20, 40, 100, 1000 years ago? (btw, someone did study it. They found the ratio remained constant over the last 30 years but the level of solar energy coming in increased during the same years climate-science is claiming warmed because of carbon)

  123. avatar

    Man made Climate Change is a HOAX. It has a Political Agenda and No science to back it up. All the data used to back up the case for man made climate is based on FRAUD. There are over 32 thousand scientists who reject man made climate change and yet the media will only listen to a very small minority some 72 that back that climate change is man made. In the past there has been periods of HIGHER Temperatures and Mini Ice Ages. Grapes used to grow in the London area in the past. Our Climate does change over thousands of years. I would like everyone to do their own investigation and you will discover that man made Climate is a political HOAX.

  124. avatar

    Climate change is just one of those things that we think about. I read a thing and it was from the one and only carrot Steven hawking. He said that were going to keep using so much power and that the world is going to start to glow. But if the earth keeps getting hotter and hotter then the glaciers will melt and we might loose some beaches and maybe a mile of the coast cities. but is there really that much ice that it will raise the whole sea level??? I think that global warming isn’t that big of an issue because if your telling me the world is going to get blazing hot think of oymyakon the coldest INHABITED place on earth. This place reaches -50F but Antarctica it reaches -60 C and -70F and that’s pretty cold and if the glaciers are melting and the world is actually getting hotter i’m sure temperatures wouldn’t get above 150 in some places and as humans we adapt. Regarding oymyakon if its that cold now im sure we wont see a change of 40
    degrees. I highly doubt global warming is an issue if it is it wont happen over night it would happen over hundreds of years and animals would adapt with the subtle changes and as humans we will adapt too.

  125. avatar

    If the Governments of the world truly want to make a difference, invest in electric cars.
    Of course like the Australian Government, they won’t do this because it reduces their revenues from us all filling up at the gas pumps given their horrendous 50 something percent tax on the excise.
    No!! They will introduce a “Carbons Admission Tax” to bleed us dry again. while taking the moral high ground saying they’re attempting to contribute.
    We all know know that Scott Morrison wont do this because Australia exports are mostly fossil fuels such as Coal.

    I personally think Climate Change is REAL! It’s the rich and powerful who prevent us from change because they profit from our inability to choose an alternate ‘cleaner’ source of energy.

  126. avatar

    Global warming is natural, man made global warming is a hoax and the biggest money spinning con i ever heard of, 80% of the planet is water ,there’s more carbon emissions coming from sea algae in one year than any human man made carbon could ever produce in a lifetime and that’s excluding all the thousands of volcanic eruptions. The Sun governs everything and when the sun goes out our planet and everything on it dies, and that is just not going to happen for at least another 5 billion or so years.If you believe in man made global warming then you may as well make money and profit from it because thats why it was created and put there in the first place .

  127. avatar
    Adam west

    I don’t deny climate change. I will use the evidence that is been happening forever. Sure, man or people for those that are a bit PC has played a part but so have other animals. We and what we do are all part of nature. Either way, the sun is getting hotter, planetary orbits change and there will be catastrophic tectonic plate movements in the future.
    There is plenty of evidence for climate change both an increase and decrease in temperatures. What needs to happen is, we keep going as we are and develope new power systems along side what is there now rather than just cutting emissions without a viable solution.
    Then there the third world problem. I call them that as they are not emerging economies but third world and backwards. These countries are like that fur a reason. If governments want to help then help them in their countries rather than importing a low IQ population that will drag the whole world down.. so then you can really forget about fixing climate change….

  128. avatar
    Jean-Philippe Puyravaud

    It is a simplistic geopolitical question. If you (forcefully) control the production of oil, you want countries to be addicted to it. Therefore, you deny oil is a problem and you don’t want alternative energies. You also have the means to dilute science findings. You can run armies (oil again!) and sell weapons. It explains Trump’s (Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan) position.

  129. avatar

    Anyone that thinks they have more credibility than 99% of the world’s climate scientists truly doesn’t understand how science works and should stop talking until they learn enough.

  130. avatar

    I used to believe what the media, politicians and UN says about climate change, but after their assertions after assertions proved to be false, I don’t believe it any more.

  131. avatar

    Because everyone uses climate changes to increase taxes…

  132. avatar

    Because environmental Laws have a cost for the states, the companies and the citizens.
    The humans don’t care for the future earth they only care for the present earth. Since they still breath clean air, they swim in sunny beaches they don’t care what will happen 50 years after because most of them will be dead.

  133. avatar

    Climate has been changing long before the phrase became popular.
    Should we pollute less? yes.
    Will we change the climate with high taxes? No.
    Is “climate change” pandering only about the money. No, it’s all about money and power.

  134. avatar

    Because it’s a natural process without sufficient data on man interference, yes pollution is bad and must be decreased. The world climate changes all the time, there’s nothing man can do to stop it, it’s a natural process!! Politicians use climate change just to increase taxes, nothing more. It’s a corrupt science, run by politicians, all for the money and all the indicators show it’s a worldwide hoax.

  135. avatar

    It has nothing to do with “right” or “left wing” politics….Maggie Thatcher was 1st Western politician to lead campaign in Rio almost 4 decades ago.
    Since then, there has been a confusion of data/analysis/predictions. .some very extreme and clearly more motivated by other motivations.
    It’s if course true that climate change is a natural phenomenon. .but also that post industrial revolution, the process has dramatically increased… very few now deny this…but the actions needed still debated.

  136. avatar

    Because some feel their ideology doesn’t have the answer, and leftist ideology has, so they oppose the science as they oppose the leftist policy.
    Not all rightwingers oppose science though, or believe they don’t have the answer.

  137. avatar

    There’s a whole lot of dishonesty regarding the climate, and the topic is used for political purposes.
    There’s no public debate of stratospheric aerosol injections.
    There are no attempts to reduce overseas trade, which adds as much pollution as almost all passenger cars on the planet — there isn’t even a discussion about it.
    Current climate change policies are mostly focused on raising taxes. These taxes will put more of the middle class into poverty, and they will not help the planet, especially if they drive more businesses overseas where those businesses will have less environmental regulation to observe.
    And lastly, some of the main interest groups who drive the political agenda own coal mines, oil stock and lumbering companies. The duplicity is palpable.

  138. avatar

    Because we are 12800 years from the last ice age and going on for another 29000 years warming anyway, that’s called Milankovitch cycles, the only major impact mankind has is deforestation which disables Earth recaptation of CO2, and chemical pollution due to its industries which don’t add much to warming process.

  139. avatar

    Because information is very partial…. Who know that ice surface is extending in antartic

  140. avatar

    coz ppl don’t know when to believe liars

  141. avatar

    Global warming if A FAKEEEEEEEE!!!!!

  142. avatar

    who are you I am you what

  143. avatar

    There was the ice age long before people were on the earth, there also has been several increase in temperatures since the ice age. This is politically motivated, there are many scientist that do not believe that the climate situation is man made. Man and Women have created pollution but Mother Nature is responsible for the climate, we can fix pollution but not the climate. Only pompous fools think they can change the natural processes of the earth. Our PM is using it for financial gain through carbon tax etc.

  144. avatar

    Becauseit is a Hoax, and the New green,are the REDS. GLOBALISTS ARE DICTATORS

    • avatar

      Great satire!!!

  145. avatar

    In the history of the earth warming already happened due to earth axe change…. Or due to sun solar storm… Every time the earth adapted to this new situation.. Every time some species desappeared…. .. And some new ones emerged…

    • avatar

      So in other words, you are ok if humans become extinct and are replaced with other forms of life? We need to be clear that the purpose of sustainable development *is* (and has been from the start with the Brundtland report) anthropocentric: it is about keeping the conditions necessary to sustain human life on Earth. That does not make the science a hoax, but it is a different and sad perspective to say we do not care about it. You have the right to your opinion, but maybe your children or your children’s children might have a different one.

  146. avatar

    Because they are right wingers.

  147. avatar

    Because the fossil fuel industry has been spending millions in sowing doubt about what used to be a simple fact

  148. avatar

    This page explains (and shows the evidence) that the oil industry has known the facts about climate change since the 80s, and then adopted strategies similar to the cigarette industry to fund climate science denial, lobbying against climate policies, and branding themselves as green. The minutes from this meeting that took place in the 80s is particularly telling: the American Petroleum Institute concluded this:

  149. avatar

    Nobody thinks climate change is a hoax, no serious politicians/people. The discussion has been and is about which country has to do what: whether it is ok that only some industrialized countries must take measures, and others, even larger ones, dont have to; whether anyone knows which technologies help and which are harmful. “Some people think climate change is a hoax” is a hoax. The largest hoax is as usual in the politics behind the whole thing… surprise surprise, just politicians doing things

  150. avatar

    Because people serving or profiting from the resource industry say so. They obviously do not want people to stop buying their resources and convert to green energy.

  151. avatar

    Because they think instead of swallowing propaganda.

  152. avatar

    How about… it’s taken 3.9 billion years for humans to evolve and at no time was the climate an issue and you want us to believe that in some short time of a couple hundred years we are all doomed. Please …. Wake up to the nonsense of climate change.

  153. avatar

    Climate Change is a political slogan. There is nothing scientific about it. Eg climate changes every day, climate changes every few years, climate changes every few centuries, climate changes every few thousands of years people are still surviving etc. This is a political agenda.

  154. avatar
    hiLIARy cunton

    because it is a hoax and a lie

  155. avatar
    hiLIARy cunton

    because it is a hoax and a lie by fraud al gore and mick mann pedophile

  156. avatar

    I put a CO2 monitor in my room to see what the levels would be. They got up 2100ppm while sleeping and I didn’t burn up. I remember when mythbusters tried proving increasing co2 would raise the temp and it did not. They raised the ppm levels up to 73,000ppm. The temp always changes before co2. Not the other way around. Yes, this is what China does because this not about the environment. It’s about money power & control. Why is it that the people that cry about this the most, are the ones living on the COAST?!? Obama is perfect example. Humans don’t even cover .1% of earth and people believe these clowns? If you’re going on trust alone, what have Democrats done that tells us we can trust them?!? You forgot to mention NOAA had its emails hacked twice and each time it showed they fudged the data to make it appear it was warming. There is an article in the Washington Post from 1922 that pushes this same garbage. This is what you call a “long con.” They never show us anything other then keep repeating “the science is settled.” People that cannot think for themselves will believe this. Truth is plants need a minimum of 150ppm just to survive. They would much prefer up to 1600ppm outside. So, no matter what happens, CO2 is not a pollutant. You bozos think God would make it that way?

    There was a man named Stanley Meyer that had patents on an engine that runs on WATER. He was poisoned at a meeting in 1998 FTs the took a drink of his cranberry juice. There is no money in an engine that runs on water because anybody can use it. Look him up. Stanley Meyer.

  157. avatar

    Climate change is not a “hoax”, the climate has been changing since the world began. Is it man made though? Nope, it is not, there is no proof of that. There is no proof that CO2 is responsible for that as well. These are just fairy tales backed by billions and trillions of money from certain interests to push for changes they want and control of the population. Remember “scientists” in this rotten world do not work for free, and they certainly aren’t published without support…. The powers who pay, get the “research” results they need. They are abusing the fear of death in people in order to push for their dystopia, that is what “climate change” is about.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.