Global Warming a Hoax? The Logistics Involved In Fooling the Entire Planet

Are you still kidding yourself that climate change is somehow a hoax "perpetrated on the American people", as one Senator put it? Then how do you explain all of this weird and extreme weather? From Polar Vortexes to devastating typhoons, heat waves and droughts, extreme weather is increasing, and has been for many years. From expanding deserts to rising sea levels, due partly to shrinking glaciers, the evidence for climate change just keeps on mounting.

But discussing the evidence is the purpose of another hub. In this one, I will address the concerns of the few remaining reasonable people who tell themselves that they have any reason to deny the existence of climate change. If you listen much to Senator James Inhofe, you will be lead to believe that the evidence presented is all evidence of a giant hoax. (Oklahoma is doomed.) The sheer logistics that would be involved if the deniers claims were true should be enough to convince anyone of the hoax being perpetrated... by the climate change deniers.

First of all, if climate scientists and their allies were really trying to trick the entire planet, they would have had to fabricate a tale of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that shouldn't be there. Everyone knows that carbon dioxide (Co2, for short) is a good thing. It helps keep the good old world fit for habitation by trapping heat from the sun as it tries to escape the atmosphere. Well, the scientists say that Co2 is too much of a good thing, mainly because there is too much of it.The evidence tells us that, since the beginning of the Industrial Age, on up to the present, humans have just kept on adding more Co2, faster than the Earth can naturally get rid of it.

But according to the deniers, its all a hoax. People are too small to have any effect on the climate. Of course, there are 7 billion of us now, but to deniers, that probably just proves how infinite the world is. But here's the thing; more people require more energy to meet their needs, including food, homes and such. And the more energy we produce, using the oil, coal and natural gas that we have always used, the more carbon we produce. All of it shows up in the graphs, charts and other evidence scientists have compiled. For the "global warming is a hoax" theory to be true, either the scientists are using methods or machines that are faulty, or they are just flat out lying about the data and are not even bothering to hide it.

Well, maybe those computers aren't too reliable, anyway. Who are we to say? We aren't climatologists. So then it must all be a hoax, right? Nope. There is evidence that we can see, if we look closely enough. And it is not just the drought baking the Midwest, or the salinization that is destroying farmland in Bangladesh from rising sea levels. Even the animals are changing their behavior, shifting patterns of life that they have followed for hundreds of thousands of years. Many migratory animals have reacted to climate change through what are called range shifts, in which they migrate closer to the poles, begin their long journey earlier in the year, and breed even earlier. One species of bird is now facing extinction, because the caterpillars its chicks rely on for food are hatching earlier in the year.

In order for the deniers to be correct in their reasoning, scientists and their allies would have had to somehow convince animals all over the planet to change their migratory patterns, or to stop feeding their young. When was the last time you ever spoke to any animal other than your pets? We still have a long way to go before we can convince walruses to find a place to stay other than Manhattan.

And lastly, what is with this argument that humans cannot have an impact on the environment? From the time that people were able to set forest fires, we have been able to change an environment. Now, we are setting a lot of things on fire, or otherwise using heat to make things work for us. The only problem is that now, the planet is getting... well... hot.

Sheer logistics work against the deniers argument. Not to mention physics. If you are still not convinced, think about this; who would you rather listen too, NASA, NOAA, The National Academy of the Sciences, the National Academies of Sciences of every other country around the world, the 97% of independent scientists who agree with the science? Or, would you rather listen to James Inhofe, Anthony Watts (failed meteorologist), and their ilk?

You decide.