Skip to main content

Is global warming a hoax? Catholic Online interviews a skeptic Comments

Over the past two weeks, Catholic Online had the opportunity to interview Global Warming skeptic and author, Dr. Mark Hendrickson who is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. Continue Reading

11 - 20 of 49 Comments

  1. Ruth
    1 year ago

    He does have a very good crap meter and the "COL" gets owned in this and he gives way for fact than was presented in the other article. But we are dealing with a Religion on this subject and SO many follow it blindly. As I scientist, (hard but a practical form of science), I don't "Believe" in global warming. I read the studies and form opinions. I believe in God. And I see the Creator's hand in many things and they are good. The EARTH has no problem with increasing CO2 nor does plants (they actually thrive according to REAL studies--which in turn decreases CO2 in the atomsphere). And I have yet to find a good study that shows mild changes in CO2 causes problems in animals. Loss of habitation is the major issue. But the 'earth'--it does not rely on its animals for help--it is the other way around.

    In the USA, real pollution, which was terrible here 40 years ago, has become so low that we are reduced to arguing about the effects of cow farts (Methane) and whether we should apply a carbon tax to farmers for it.

  2. jimspice
    1 year ago

    You don't have to go far to find from whom Mark Hendrickson receives his marching orders. According to his bio at the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, Mr. Hendrickson "sits on the Council of Scholars of the Commonwealth Foundation," a conservative think tank funded by the Koch Foundation. Hendrickson is also listed as Seminar Faculty for the Foundation for Economic Education, another Koch beneficiary. If that's not enough, Koch also funds a student fellows program for Vision & Values itself.

  3. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    I see the obnoxiously self-important, such as Ed and Steve, have favored us with their wit and wisdom.

    I don't doubt global warming, since I learned a lot about it as a meteorology student. I also learned about global cooling, in the Milankovich Cycle (10 C, 100,000 years period), the Bond Cycle (2 C, 1475 years), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (0.6 C, 60 years). I'm also old enough to have experienced the cool phase of the PDO, from 1945 – 1975. At that time, the national authorities were trying to frighten the peasants with claims of a coming Ice Age.

    The reason – one of many – I don't believe in the current global warming nonsense is that it is anti-scientific (and I'm a scientist). As I presume every high school student knows – that may exclude Ed and Steve – science and scientists are defined by the use of the Scientific Method. For Ed and Steve, let me mention a couple of principles of the Scientific Method.

    Most important, in my opinion, is that a scientist considers all hypotheses to explain a phenomenon, not just one or two that he happens to like (or be invested in). The scientist then attempts to falsify the hypotheses – to prove them incorrect . This can be done by well-planned experiments, or just by observing the evolution of the phenomenon over time, as compared to the prediction by the hypothesis. This principle has been part of the Scientific Method since the time of Francis Bacon (1620).

    Instead of this, the self-proclaimed “climate scientists” such as Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and James Hansen start with a single hypothesis: a trace gas that is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere and that absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in a single narrow band (14.8 microns) will somehow emit enough back-radiation to increase the surface temperature. This ignores the passage of 60% of the Earth radiation through the atmosphere into space. These people have spent 25+ years trying to prove their hypothesis is true. No confirmation so far. Needless to say, this is not science.

    The possibility that a variation of solar irradiance might have an effect is not even considered, though the observed coolings in 1660 – 1720 and 1795 – 1820 correspond with sunspot minima in the same periods, the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum.

    Another principle of the Scientific Method is that the scientist makes his data available to those who wish to confirm his results – and, of course, allows them to publish their data and results. These are two more principles that the “climate scientists” of the Trenberth/Mann/Hansen sort do not subscribe to. Anyone can read of their actions in the ClimateGate emails – released in November 2009, in time to kill the Dopenhagen conference. Good!

    I hope Ed and Steve and the other alarmists will let us know why their heroes are exempt from the criteria of science.

    I also hope the next time Marshall Connolly interviews an economist on the subject of global warming, he'll bother to ask how much warming – say, 1 F ? - justifies keeping 1.5 billion humans, some of them Catholics, living in poverty, rather than allowing them to have inexpensive electrical energy? Even if generated by nasty old (cheap) coal? Four (4) million kids under age 5 die of pulmonary disease every year because they live in homes where mothers cook over open fires of wood and dung. And how much of the corn crop should we turn into ethanol, depriving them of food, to stop that 1 degree F?

    It's not quite as horrible a record as the millions of Africans who die of malaria every year, because DDT is evil to the idiot followers of Rachel Carson. No doubt the all-knowing Steve and Ed will have some thoughts?

  4. benwelgoed
    1 year ago

    Read: Global warming most definitely not a hoax - a scientist's rebuttal.
    (also in catholic online)

    It is ignorant to believe that humans cannot ruin this planet after we all have seen humans pollute all major rivers, large expanses of seawater (shredded plastic all throughout the pacific), coral reefs dissolving due to that same "harmless CO2" getting adsorbed into the oceans, hundreds of species dying off each year because of humans penetrating the wilderness, thereby eliminating habitat while adding pollution.

  5. vance
    1 year ago

    Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Since the 19th century, science and private industry have been researching and developing more fuel efficient machines that pollute less. Why? Because the public demanded cleaner air and clean water. The people who lived in large metropolitan cities demanded cleaner and safer environments therefore cities and industries complied. This happened long before Pres Nixon created the EPA for political reasons. Pollution and Climate control has been pushed by the Marxists over the past 45 years because it is a useful tool to cripple and kill manufacturing and free markets. Every Communist country as well as India could care less about pollution and global warming. It is only the Communists in Western societies that are pushing the issue. Back in 1968 I first heard "Pollution" as a political issue coming from a Communist Activist who was a regular fixture on the college campus I attended. Then came Earth Day in 1972. It was an event that organized and operated by the communist Students For a Democratic Society ( SDS ) and Americans For Democratic Action ( ADA ) across many college campuses. Is global warming a hoax? Absolutely.

  6. Steve
    1 year ago

    Global warming doubters do not wish to listen and will not hear. They are kin to Flat Earthers and folks that claim the moon landings were faked. This rag appears to relish purveying gibberish.

  7. Catholic Cientifica
    1 year ago

    Many emotional and insulting comments, very sad to see. Stewards and leaders must be responsible and observant. At the risk of over-simplifying, I disbelieve evolutionary theory because it would lead to the conclusion that either apes would have Darwin'd out of existence or we'd have a continuous line of the middle-ground missing links. I disbelieve man-caused climate change because geology and tree-ring evidence prove there were significantly hotter periods in Earth history before industrialization, and because Mars is showing the same warm-cool cycles as Earth. Temperature fluctuations have been shown to more closely follow sunspot activity than anything from Earth, which, if you recall your physics, would make sense given the relative sizes of Sol and Terra. Plus, NASA, the UN and that awful little group in England (with the leaked emails where they discuss their data-manipulation and political maneuvers to silence dissent) all agreed that the CO2 level increases came after temperature rises. Following the money shows extreme fortunes made in the trade of ghostly carbon credits and scam tree-plantings, besides the now-bankrupting 'solar' and 'wind' energy companies that were never intended to produce. All of this focus on -the gas we exhale- has diverted funds from real causes of cleaning up and preventing pollution. China and India have ravaged their lands and rivers with industrial waste, and we have many sites domestically requiring cleanup. There are still slash-and-burn practices in the Americas and all sorts of poaching in Africa. Taxing carbon dioxide is one step from taxing rainwater... which is also actually happening in the US. So why all the focus on CO2? Reading transcripts of the UN and speeches and publications from groups like Greenpeace, PETA and even our EPA tells us in their words: shutting down as much western industry as possible, forced redistribution of earnings (aka theft, the opposite of christian charity), and population reduction. Start reading more widely my friends, and read Critically - with Minds first, then Hearts, and always humbly pray for Wisdom. God bless you all!!

  8. Ed
    1 year ago

    I am confident you can find skeptics for every prominent scientific theory if you look among the set of people who have just any advanced degree.

    I look forward to Catholic Online printing articles debunking the quantum mechanics, evolution, and the accepted estimates of geologic time. Naturally, I expect in your search for well-informed objectivity, the articles will all be written by economics & poli sci graduates!

  9. Gisell Freuze
    1 year ago

    Hi. I'd just like to clear up a few misunderstandings. "Global warming" is a misleading name in that it implies that the world everywhere is heating up. A more accurate name is "climate change". The reason why it is called global warming is be cause of the domino effect caused by the increased amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Up until the early 1700's the Earth' s atmosphere held only 275 parts per million(ppm) of CO2. You may be wondering how scientists know what the chemical composition of the air was in 1700 and before. In places like Antarctica, Greenland or siberia scientists can drill down through the layers of ice and find pockets of air "frozen in time". By looking at the layers of ice, scientists can determine when the air was trapped and thus know what the composition of our atmosphere was all the way back to before even dinosaurs. Today the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 393.84ppm. This has resulted in a slight rise in global temperature. This in turn is causing the global ice caps to begin melting. This doesn't just effect polar bears. The southern ice cap is extremely important in that it acts as the oceans refrigerated. Almost all of marine life thrives in cold water. Jellyfish and other pests however thrive in warm water. However those aren't the greatest of our concerns. Changes in the temperature of the ocean changes our wind patterns. Changes in wind patterns equals changes in weather patterns all over the world and if you've been paying attention to the weather phenomena for the last few years...well it's pretty evident something is going on. Besides...if you look anywhere, people aren't arguing if whether climate change is real. They're arguing about what is causing it. the Some hypothesize that the rise in CO2 levels is caused by a rise in volcanic eruptions, or changes in solar energy. However the most probable hypothesis is that perhaps the 36.1 gigatons of CO2 we pump into our atmosphere each year may have something to do with it. Also the rainforest stores massive amounts of CO2 and has acted as a kind of CO2 drain. However people need room to raise cattle to keep up with the growing demand for meat so in order to make room the rainforest is being burned down, gradually, chunk by chunk. Every year an area of the rainforest the size of new jersey is being burned to the ground releasing the CO2 it once stored.Climate change is not about scaring people. It's just the universe trying to tell us humans to stop treating the world like a toilet. We only have one planet and since we have yet to terraform mars we really should try to not kill the Earth. I don't know about anyone else but I want my children to live on a stable planet.:)

  10. john byatt
    1 year ago

    would like to see a follow up post re "Dr. Hendrickson makes some points that are worth consideration';

    I could not find one point worthy of any consideration Marsh.


    please list those points.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Revelation 11:4-12
These are the two olive trees and the two lamps in attendance ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 144:1, 2, 9-10
[Of David] Blessed be Yahweh, my rock, who trains my hands for ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 20:27-40
Some Sadducees -- those who argue that there is no resurrection ... Read More

Saint of the Day

November 22 Saint of the Day

St. Cecilia
November 22: In the fourth century appeared a Greek religious romance on the ... Read More