ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Failed Deception: A Brief History of Climate Change Denial

Updated on August 24, 2018
Dean Traylor profile image

Dean Traylor is a freelance writer and teacher who writes about various subjects including education and creative writing.

Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe has made a name for himself as a leading climate-change denier. If he's not throwing a snowball on the Senate floor to demonstrate his belief that global warming is not happening, he's putting forth "reports" claiming that more than a 1000 scientists support his belief. In many respects, he and his former assistant, Marc Morano have become the voice of denial on this matter.

Don't be fooled. Despite all the theatrics Senator Inhofe has brought to this issue, his attempt to expose anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a hoax -- perpetuated by climate scientists -- can't compare with the raw data collected and other hard evidence that support this harrowing situation.

Unfortunately, Inhofe is not alone. Others have attempted to turn science fact into fiction. And the list of attempts keeps growing. Climategate, the Oregon Petition, and US Minority Report are among the debates,"revelations", and findings released by climate-change deniers over the years. While many of these documents and claims can be debunked, there are so many proliferating the media. And, as a result, the populous that pays attention to it are buying into the arguments.

There’s no doubt an official investigation into AGW is needed. However, it’s not the scientists who need to be investigated, it’s the chief accusers. Many of these individuals and groups have used nefarious tactics, lies and distortion to sway public opinion on an important topic. And they’ve vilified the people who have had little stakes in what has become a political and ideological war.

The concept that human activity is causing environmental damage – in particular, changes to the climate – has been known for nearly a century. The evidence for it has been mounting for more than 40 years. Data collected from around world has suggested that the average temperature per year has risen since the data were first collected.

On top of that, very noticeable physical changes – those that even non-scientists have reported –have become apparent. Things such as seasonal flowers blooming earlier than expected; the reduction or retreat of glaciers in places far from the polar caps; reports of erratic and violent weather patterns; and the acidification of ocean waters beyond normal levels have raised alarms for this dire situation

Many denial groups have formed think tanks to search for ways to persuade public opinion against the belief in AGW. Their tactics are to bombard the media – including the Internet – with information geared to create doubt about the scientific evidence.

Scientists, policy makers, and advocacy groups have pushed for regulations – and in many cases elimination - of dangerous chemicals, fossil fuel emissions and other greenhouse gases that are believed to be responsible for AGW.

However - while the facts speak for themselves -there are those who are actively fighting any proposed laws to curb the use of these products. And, many of the tactics used have been absurd, dishonest, and possibly criminal.

Many denial groups have formed think tanks to search for ways to persuade public opinion against the belief in AGW. Their tactics are to bombard the media – including the Internet – with information geared to create doubt about the scientific evidence. The most popular tactic is to attack scientific consensus.

To date, more than 97 percent of all climate scientists around the world agree that human activity is affecting the rate of global warming. Also, scientific organizations with members outside of climate study have sided with them.

Still, the denialists ignore such facts and come up with their own. Many claim there are increasing numbers of scientists who disagree that global warming is either (1) man-made or (2) happening, at all.

While there are numerous reports from denial groups floating around the Internet, the harshest claims come from two reports and one conspiracy: The Oregon Petition, the “U.S. Senate Minority Report” (better known as “1000 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"), and Climategate. These deserve more scrutiny, for they shed some light on the deceptive history they are part of.

The Oregon Petition

Between 1999 and 2001 (and circulated again in late 2007 and early 2008) a curious petition made its round. Oregon Petition Project – also known as the Oregon Petition - purported to have nearly 31,000 signatures from “scientists” who disputed AGW. It was organized by the impressively named Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine(OISM), a non-profit organization headed by known global warming denialist, Author Robinson.

The petition was later debunked. It turned out that most of the “scientists” weren’t exactly scientists. The reply card (with a survey) was given to anyone who had an undergraduate degree in science. Also, a handful of real scientists who did sign it fell into three categories:

* They were retired,

* not involved in climate science, or

* were already associated with OISM.

Although debunked years ago, the petition is still circulated, and an active website from OISM still lists those that have signed it, as well as offering a copy of the new version of the petition.

Source
The old and new Oregon Petition
The old and new Oregon Petition

U.S. Senate Minority Report

Written by conservative writer Marc Morano and presented by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, this report has been revised numerous times since 2007. Each year, new names are added to a list purported to be of those who disagree with the concept of man-made global warming claims.

This list is impressive. There are a few Nobel Laureates on it. However, a closer examination reveals a few glaring problems. Some of the scientists on the list have either changed their position or simply disagreed with Kyoto Protocol (which was enough for them to be entered on the list). Many of them have asked to have their names removed from the list (which Morano has refused to do). Also, some “scientists” were not scientists such as the weatherman Chris Allen (who was made famous by a particular YouTube video). Allen claimed in his blog that only God could create climate change; therefore, according to him, AGW had to be a hoax.

Other signatories had membership in think tanks created by conservative groups and energy technology companies. Another segment of scientists had little or no background in climate or atmospheric science.

Climategate

Another tactic of the deniers can be considered criminal. Case in point is Climategate. This scandal is often referred to as the “smoking gun” among climate-change deniers. According to this group, e-mails exchanged between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, Penn State University and other campuses and facilities showed evidence of a cover-up to alter data to favor AGW.

When first reported in 2009, Climategate appeared to be damaging. Several conservative-leaning newspapers, libertarian blogs, and climate-change denial websites announced that the scandal finally exposed the “lie.”

In many respect it did. Soon after the scandal broke, questions surfaced on how the e-mails were leaked and what exactly was exchanged in the e-mails. It turns out that the e-mails were hacked by an unknown source, and then released onto a conservative blog.

When published, the e-mails were often edited or had some (not all) of its information posted to suggest wrongdoing on the part of the scientists.

Eventually, university officials, an Associated Press reporter, a committee within the British Parliament, and several independent investigators investigated the entire collection of e-mails.

They discovered:

1. The scientists involved in the matter were frustrated by constant requests for data from global warming skeptics.

2. Constant harassment from a London financial trader who claimed to have found "fakery" in a 1990 research paper by Climate Research Unit head Phil Jones.

3.The scientists had doubts about the quality of the several “climate denial” reports, including one that was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

4. Calls to avoid or ban publishing in a journal that published papers from known climate-change deniers such as Steve McIntyre.

Other findings revealed that the so-called scientific cover-up on the matter were unsubstantiated and were usually misinterpreted. One case, pointed out by FactCheck.Org, stated that denialists interpreted a phrase “hiding the decline” as referring to a decline in actual temperatures, despite a lack of evidence in the text to suggest this.

Finally...

Climategate, the Oregon Petition, and the U.S. Senate Minority Report are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to distortion of facts. However, these issues -- which can easily be debunked -- are being interpreted by too many people that believe them at face value.

As a result, the scientists who did their work are finding themselves under fire, while the real culprits – the numerous climate change deniers and organizations – use the media to spread their hoax to an unsuspecting audience.

This has to change.

Update 2016: CO2 and Questionable Websites

Since the republication of this article, several tactics have come to light. Some of these tactics came from denialists that had responded on one of three articles published on this topic.

One tactic is something I named "CO2 is good for trees!" At least two denialists (one on Twitter and another in the comment section of another article) brought this up. It felt like a last-gasp talking point to argue against those that believe that AGW is happening. It also appears to be based on a misunderstanding of real science. It is true that trees take in CO2; however, it doesn't clean up other toxins or chemicals that pollute the air. Also, it's an argument that can be contradictory; it leads one to believe that more trees and plants need to be planted and that one should be more concerned about the environmental damage caused by the destruction of rain forests around the world. It should also be noted that the reduction of the rain forest through tactics that involved massive controlled fires in the region has contributed to the current climate change crisis.

Another tactic involves popular websites using questionable blogs. Investor's Business Daily is a site usually featured in Yahoo News. As the name suggest, they are a business-oriented website and tend to be right-leaning in their approach. Lately, they've been publishing articles disputing the science presented by government agencies such as NASA, NOAA, and the United Nation's IPCC. The problem, however, is that this fairly mainstream site borrows heavily on questionable and misleading blogs such as Real Science to support their editorial arguments.

Real Science appears to be glossy and professional website that's appears to be dealing with science. But, looks are deceiving. The blog is dedicated is a climate change denial site. While the blog may contain swell looking graphs and charts, much of the articles are thinly veiled rants against "liberals and scientists" who have "ulterior motives" to push the climate change "hoax."

Oregon Desert from National Geographic
Oregon Desert from National Geographic

© 2015 Dean Traylor

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      5 weeks ago from Southern California

      No, you just ask bad questions

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean

      You are a bad student, you couldn't answer one of my questions. Even the one that came directly from your article.

      Your article is just fiction, no facts, and you can't even support your position.

      Bye Deflector Dean!

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      5 weeks ago from Southern California

      I said this once, and I'll say it again. Stay on target. This article is about the history of deceptive tactics used by climate change deniers. Deflecting from the topic, just so you can say someone is deflecting your question is off base.

      We get it Brad; you are a rabid climate change denier and likes to debate others even if you are wrong. You're going to present cherry-picked data and give it some funky spin. And when somebody doesn't care to answer your supposed question (and yes, you're known for asking questions and attempting to shut people down for not answering the question the way you want it answered), you feel compelled to pound your chest and declare some form of victory. Nope, that's not how it works.

      Let's be frank, I do my homework. That's how I can write these articles. I don't care if I offend someone's ideology in the process. I'm not here to pamper anyone or appeal to their confirmation bias.

      If you're upset about it, write your own article. Do some research or whatever you do.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean

      I have noticed a number of my commenters comments being labeled Spam, and I couldn't find anything in it.

      Thank you once again for condescension ( I am a bright 5 year old:))

      Can you give me an example of temper?

      And once again, you deflect, attack, and offer condescension instead of simply answering my questions. It takes the same amount of effort if you have an answer.

      Here is another question, I heard it from sixth graders.

      How does the Paris Accord deal with Climate Control? You don't even mention it, which raises another question. if you don't care about the Paris Accord for solving climate control, what is your solution?

      BTW

      "To date, more than 97 percent of all climate scientists around the world agree that human activity is affecting the rate of global warming. Also, scientific organizations with members outside of climate study have sided with them."

      B:

      Exactly how many scientist total 100%

      We have a total world population

      "The world population density is 55.7 people per square kilometer (144.2 per mi 2) as of September 2018. This number is calculated using 7,576,951,385 people as the world population and 136,120,354 km 2 (52,556,368 mi 2 )as Earth's total area"

      The total number of these scientists is

      Is it Greater than 1 million people.

      Is it Greater than 500,000 people.

      Is it Greater than 100,000 people

      What is your number for it?

      Thanks for correcting the spam.

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      8 weeks ago from Southern California

      Brad, a side note: Evidently, the powers-that-be on this site deemed your last comment to be spam and inappropriate. I allowed it anyway and prevented it from being tossed onto the sag heap of Internet history. However, I didn't do it out of the kindness of my heart. Instead, I felt it was more important to expose the type of inane thinking from wingnuts, loons and kooks I have to deal with when I write about such topics.

      It's really sad that I have to put up with somebody writing like a 5-year-old having a temper tantrum.

      My advice to you is take some time and learn how to write compelling, thought-provoking articles and comments instead of the rambling rants you often infest on this site. Better yet, you better think about why you're on this site in the first place.

      After a while, the persecution complex act gets old (if it hasn't already). Even the enablers on this site that you converse with are not going to help you. If you want to continue with these rambling rants, then don't be surprised nobody will respond to it.

      Now, excuse me while I drop this mike.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      8 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean the Drive By Blah Blah Blah

      "For someone who is not very knowledgeable about the subject "

      B:

      Really, why do you say that?

      ---------------------------------

      presented you sure have the galls to call me or anyone out on the matter.

      B:

      Did I do that?

      -----------------

      Also, who are you to demand a question or get upset that I didn't read your comment?

      B:

      I am not upset? I don't think I demanded anything?

      ------------------------

      As I've mentioned before, you're comments are convoluted.

      B:

      You say lots of things, but you never make a specific reference, or make a single comment on what if anything is wrong about my comments.

      Saying they are convoluted, is inaccurate, vague, ambiguous, without reference, and meaningless.

      -----------------------------------

      Then again, chaos is what you're about.

      B:

      Can you prove it? NO!

      --------------------------------

      You just don't like anyone going against your ideology and don't have the ability to accept criticism of those beliefs.

      B:

      When did you comment, and your criticism wasn't about my comments on the issue, just deflections away from you having any real comment on them.

      ------------------------

      You say you like to debate, but it's under your rules

      B:

      What rules are they?

      -------------------------

      . Sorry, not going to happen.

      B:

      I guess you are right because it hasn't happened yet.

      --------------------------

      You can do all the name calling you can.

      B:

      Driveby Dean Blah Blah Blah

      -------------------------

      But, that's the coward's way...even if you were the one to draw first blood.

      B:

      You don't make any sense with that statement, I have no idea what it means!

      --------------------------

      So go deflect that and come up with more nickname that fit your true self. Deflector is a start, what's next?"

      B:

      I know you are an expert in education as you write about it in your hubs, but does that statement really mean anything?

      I am not the one deflecting.

      What would you like me to call you?

      -----------------------------

      Here is an example from some comments

      "Dean

      The question is really easy,

      "Just because we have created it,

      doesn't mean that we can stop it,

      and certainly not reverse it."

      And this is your answer!

      :)

      Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Comprehending the first 100 pages of Finnagans wake is a lot easier than deciphering your questions. I dont even think you know what you are asking."

      B:

      Why was my question so difficult?

      Just because we have created it,

      B: I said assume that Climate Change is real and according to your article We the humans created it!

      next, I said, doesn't mean that we can stop it,

      B: You could answer this with a way that we can stop it? I don't know what that way would be, so I asked you.

      ---------------------------------------

      Next I said, and certainly not reverse it.

      B:

      At this point, you could agree with that statement, submit a way that we could reverse climate control.

      ---------------------------------

      That is all I was asking the author of this pro climate control hub.

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      8 weeks ago from Southern California

      For someone who is not very knowledgeable about the subject presented you sure have the galls to call me or anyone out on the matter. Also, who are you to demand a question or get upset that I didn't read your comment? As I've mentioned before, you're comments are convoluted.

      Then again, chaos is what you're about. You just don't like anyone going against your ideology and don't have the ability to accept criticism of those beliefs.

      You say you like to debate, but it's under your rules. Sorry, not going to happen. You can do all the name calling you can. But, that's the coward's way...even if you were the one to draw first blood. So go deflect that and come up with more nickname that fit your true self. Deflector is a start, what's next?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      8 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean the Deflector

      Yes, but the real question is do you:)

      "There’s no doubt an official investigation into AGW is needed. However, it’s not the scientists who need to be investigated, it’s the chief accusers. Many of these individuals and groups have used nefarious tactics, lies and distortion to sway public opinion on an important topic. And they’ve vilified the people who have had little stakes in what has become a political and ideological war."

      You are pro climate change as indicated by the snippet above.

      as well as the following

      "Update 2016: CO2 and Questionable Websites

      Since the republication of this article, several tactics have come to light. Some of these tactics came from denialists that had responded on one of three articles published on this topic. "

      B:

      My comments question your pro climate change.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      B: My comment

      "B:

      For example

      "My question is that assuming for argument, let us say it climate change is real. Just because we have created it, doesn't mean that we can stop it, and certainly not reverse it."

      -----------------------------------------

      What do you think your article is about

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      8 weeks ago from Southern California

      Do you even know what the article is about?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      8 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean

      Deflection is your middle name. The question is really easy,

      "Just because we have created it,

      doesn't mean that we can stop it,

      and certainly not reverse it."

      I am sorry, I am going to have to grade your response as F-. You would have gotten even a lower grade, but you did spell your name correctly.

      :)

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      8 weeks ago from Southern California

      Comprehending the first 100 pages of Finnagans wake is a lot easier than deciphering your questions. I dont even think you know what you are asking.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      8 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean

      "And i told you why i did it, so dont play ignorant about it. And no, you didnt do a thoughtful comment. Its the usual butchering you love to do. Maybe youve cried wolf one too many times."

      B:

      Again, did you read my comments, I asked some valid questions. And as you always do is deflect, bad mouth, and drive byyyyyyyyyyyyy:)

      ------------------------------

      B:

      For example

      "My question is that assuming for argument, let us say it climate change is real. Just because we have created it, doesn't mean that we can stop it, and certainly not reverse it."

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      8 weeks ago from Southern California

      And i told you why i did it, so dont play ignorant about it. And no, you didnt do a thoughtful comment. Its the usual butchering you love to do. Maybe youve cried wolf one too many times.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      8 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean

      Did you actually read my comment.

      You took one paragraph, and wrote book, and that paragraph was an aside, not the focus.

      I tried to take your article seriously, and I gave a well thought out comment. And you just ignored it.

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      8 weeks ago from Southern California

      Brad, you must have been a cherry picker in your younger days, because you seem to be really good at cherry picking data. Once again, you pulled off a Gish Gallop to go with those cherries. So I'll ignore most of your distortion of facts, and just focus on one item that you brought up.

      I was born and raised in the Los Angeles area. The same goes for my dad. Ive heard the story that the indigenous people supposedly called this area the smokey valley. Ive heard the same thing mentioned for the san fernando valley, san Joaquin, valleys in Arizona, Utah, and Texas. I find it odd that these names eminated about a decade ago and that theres no evidence to back these claim. I suspect it may be an urban myth.

      If there is any truth to it, id say it had to with another natural phenomenon, ocean haze that was trapped by the mountains and blown inland by the persistent sea breeze. Also, wild fires may have been a factor as well as numerous camp fire from tribes in the region.

      Still air quality in the last century....when the region exploded in population, has been a human made problem. As my dad can attest to this, the air quality was bad when much of the region was rural. He used to state that he could see the thick black smoke covering the skies above orange county's orange groves. It was from smelting pots meant to protect oranges from the winter frost (when was the last you woke up to morning frost in the OC). He saw this from his farm in ..... Gardena. Of course there were other factors. Afterall, LA was home to a lot of industry.

      Air quality was so bad in the 70s that i remember having sig alerts while in elementary school, in which we had to stay in our classroom during recess.

      Of course im probably spinning my wheels with you.you're just a denialist living in your bubble where facts are meant to fit your ideological views. Thats probably why the shams i mentioned this article are being used by climate change denialists throughout the world.

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      8 weeks ago from Southern California

      Brad, you must have been a cherry picker in your younger days, because seem really good at cherry picking. Once again, youree doing the Gish Gallop. Soill ignore most of your attempts at fact-checking and just go something that stood out for me.

      I was born and raised in the Los Angeles area and so was my father. Ive heard tahe story about the name the native americans had for the LA basin. Ive also heard that they gave the names to the San Fernando Valley, a valley in Utah, and one Arizona. However i never anything to validate those claims. My suspicion is that its an urban myth. If there is any truth to it may reflect the wild fires in the area or refer to ocean haze that is very common to the area. The mountain trap much of it giving it the impression that theres smoke.

      Air quality has always bèen a problem in LA and surrounding area. And much of it has to do with industry. Even when areas that were once rural such orange county human-made

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      8 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Dean

      B:

      I don't see any real facts here, let me say why.

      -------------------

      "To date, more than 97 percent of all climate scientists around the world

      B:

      I have tried to google this and don't come up with a number, 97% of X. How many people is that?

      Next question, what are the credentials of a "climate scientist?"

      What is the culprit? is it CO2 or Methane, or some combination including other factors?

      -------------------------

      agree that human activity is affecting the rate of global warming. Also, scientific organizations with members outside of climate study have sided with them.

      B:

      What is human activity?

      Nature does a lot of things itself, and after billions of years we are still here. Before man we had volcanoes, whose ash could produce global dimming, we have had fires around the world that create smoke and chemicals into the air.

      Los Angeles had air pollution when the Indians were here. Air pollution seems to be part of nature. Of course, man has created and detonated nuclear explosions, surely not helping the environment. But they were limited and temporary.

      We have aircraft in the skies for 100 years, from gasoline, to diesel from ground level to over 60,000 feet.

      None of that will be impacted by the Paris Accord.

      And air pollution won't stop from the accord, it will just shift from America to third world countries.

      ----------------------------------

      Still, the denialists ignore such facts and come up with their own. Many claim there are increasing numbers of scientists who disagree that global warming is either (1) man-made or (2) happening, at all."

      B:

      My question is that assuming for argument, let us say it climate change is real. Just because we have created it, doesn't mean that we can stop it, and certainly not reverse it.

      Around the world traffic gridlock is worsening not abating. We can't fix traffic gridlock, then what are the chances we can fix climate change. We are pretty good at making things worse, but not very good at fixing things.

      One of the things that humans have done for the last one hundred years is be in wars. And how environmentally clean is a war?

      Anyway, this should be enough comment to start.

      :)

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      2 years ago from Southern California

      No more on the Agenda 21, please. In fact, enough with the "big lie" I'm done with that, the illuminati cabal, bible codes or whatever. I'm not into "alternative" thinking or conspiracy "theories". This article is about deception from deniers. 'nuff said.

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 

      2 years ago from Elkhorn, WI

      Global-warming is the biggest lie since evolution. This is all one big facade to get the United Nations to impose a global-footprint tax on the entire planet. It will be here very soon. They will undermine and nullify the sovereignty of every nation. And per Henry Kissinger there will be an RFID veri-chip, patented as "Digital Angel", implanted on every human being on earth by 2017. SEE Agenda-21 & Project 2030!

    • Jodah profile image

      John Hansen 

      2 years ago from Queensland Australia

      I am in 100% agreement with your facts and arguments in this article Dean. I really can't say much more. I am already tired of arguing the truths of climate change myself on my own hubs, but you have done an excellent job.

    • Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

      Dean Traylor 

      2 years ago from Southern California

      I knew when I published this article I'd get comments like this; however, I'm not sure where to begin with the response. I'm still wrapping my mind around the conspiracy presented here (Climate Scientists lied in order fulfill Agenda 21? Really?) As I mentioned, the topic of climate change has been taken out of the realm of rationality and into political rhetoric and ideology. And how the climategate thing went down was a huge example of that. Do you realize that some of the stuff you mentioned I "obviously" missed were either embellished, taken out of context, or fabricated by the hackers and the blogs that first published them? Do you realize that all this was investigated by the British Government and was basically dismissed (with some people calling the accusation against the scientists dishonest and misconstrued). The only criticism that went against the scientists was for what they called certain people. However, they were not mocking them; they were expressing their frustration with certain people who were constantly protesting or blocking their research. And to be frank, if I had corporate shills, ideologists, and deniers obstructing my research or trying to ruin my life, I'd have a few choice words for them, too.

      Now for the personal attacks: first off, I'm a skeptic of a lot of things. Not a denialist. My blinders have been off for a long time and I do a lot of research (and not relegated to some person's blog who's only aim is to affirm bias rather than dispense information). Most importantly, I can't stand conspiracy "theories" of any kind. People who succumb to this nonsense are biggest sheeples around. Oddly enough, they like to take pot shot at those of us who can think clearly and see thing for what they are. And, finally, sorry I'm not going to address the Agenda 21 or that these scientist are lying to get grant money (never could understand that, considering that grant money has a specific purpose to fund stuff rather than make the scientist filthy rich).

    • James Gaskins profile image

      The Daily Conservative 

      2 years ago from Phoenix, AZ

      Obviously you missed the emails that were hacked on two separate occasions that show Climate scientist's mocking people for being so stupid and naive for believing the government about global warming. They even go so far to call Al Gore their "snake oil salesman". The fact is that these scientist's were the same ones bought and paid for by the United Nations who were worked for the International Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC). They were caught red handed in email communications saying that it was all a big hoax. You're a smart guy. Do some research and look it up. The reason why they would make all this up? Agenda 21. Like I said, do some real research and stop thinking everything you don't understand or are too afraid to understand is a conspiracy theory. The truth is right in front of you. Take off the blinders. I will warn you though, once you start uncovering the truth of things, it's hard to really ever be content again. You can have truth or you can have happiness. You can't have both.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)