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

31 - 40 of 49 Comments

  1. Dan Joehanson
    1 year ago

    Wow I don't think any of his information is right. No wonder he's not on Wall Street anymore.

  2. Rudy Harrald
    1 year ago

    The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is a tax dodge on Arthur Robinson's farm, and the "Oregon Petition" to which the interviewee refers has been WIDELY debunked. It is an opinion poll among people with no expertise in climate science. Hendrickson is either a liar or a fool, and COL should be ashamed of granting him a platform in either case.

  3. Marsh Connolly
    1 year ago

    It seems some folks are upset that Dr. Hendrickson is not a professional climatologist. I apologize for that, however both myself and he were pretty up front about that in the interview. In fact, I asked first and foremost about his qualifications and he did not mislead. Since we were honest upfront, I cannot see how we are somehow "irresponsible" as we are discussing educated opinion and analysis with the caveat that we are not discussing specific scientific data or making peer-reviewed scientific proclamations. Really, it's just an interview.

    Although he is not a climatologist, he is a well known, well-regarded skeptic who has seen wide, mainstream publication of his work. He is also a moral and honest man of good character as I can ascertain. Agree or disagree, the Doctor Hendrickson deserves to be heard.

    All of you deserve to be heard as well--but we can only publish so much. So I found one writer who I felt would represent many of the viewpoints I have seen skeptics post on Catholic Online. His article on Forbes, republished here, covered many of the points skeptics make. It made me pause to think.

    Presently, I have in my inbox a few leads, which I am pursuing, of actual scientists who work in the field of climatology and who say they do not believe in AGW.

    We will also be considering for publication a rebuttal to this article that was offered today.

    It is my hope that these articles ignite discussion and thought amongst our readers.

    I personally remain convinced that AGW is a genuine issue and a threat to our environment, however after considering much of what Dr. Hendrickson shared, the opposite view at least makes a little more sense to me. I can see why people feel the way they do on the other side--its easier to relate now.

    The purpose of the article is to offer a tip of the hat to my detractors, and to acknowledge that another viewpoint exists. I don't think those who disagree with me are so crazy anymore, although I remain firm in my original belief. I hope that as we further investigate this topic together, I grow along with all of you who are following and participating.

    As I said to Dr. Hendrickson when I spoke to him first, we probably would find that we agree on 90 percent of the issues out there, despite our differences on this one. That probably holds true for you and I.

    Thanks to all of you who are adding to this lively discussion and who are sending me leads and information on this topic.

    -MC

  4. John Shaughnessy
    1 year ago

    For the Love of God, start thinking about Ancient Geo Engineering......Like hello is everyone on this planet stupid enough to believe that the Pyramids are TOMBS?
    Like Hello one more time for possible penetration into the dense minds of Earthlings The pyramids on the Giza plateau control the Hawaiian hot spot. Now why would a bunch of Highly advanced intelligent beings want to control a Volcano.? anyone.? yes you in the back.! what’s that you say? Thats correct....! did you hear that people.? Your not as stupid as you look down here after all. The semi bright human in the back said to control temperatures by controlling ASH discharge into the atmosphere. Very Good..Grass hopper! And how do we do this with Giza Plateau Pyramids on the approximate same latitude of the Hawaiian Hot Spot on the other side of the planet...? yes, yes, spit it out son! By gravity control..! very good, my son, very good, by gravity control, Now how do you disable a pyramid that was set up to control the temperatures on Earth? right again you open them up and turn them into amusement parks, And how do we place the pyramids back on line? yes, yes, Right again! We repair the damage CRAZY humans did to the Earths thermostats i.e. the Great Pyramids of Giza the book "Pyramid Gravity Force" the only answer to CLIMATE CHANGE.

  5. Brad Fregger
    1 year ago

    Thank you for having the courage and integrity to provide the other side if the issue. There is no doubt that the science of climate change is an extremely complex issue, one that we are only at the beginning of understanding. It is the height of foolishness to be making public policy decisions based upon early and, therefore, relatively weak hypothesizes.

  6. Joe C
    1 year ago

    That picture of Mark Hendrickson gives the strong impression of someone who is about to take a large bite out of the photographer's face.

    Con, don't you think you deserve better than garbage like this? Doesn't an article like this make you die a little inside?

  7. Tom
    1 year ago

    The Little Ice Age ended in the 19th century.

    If the warming of the 20th and 21st century were the Earth still coming out of "The Little Ice Age", then it wouldn't be over yet, now would it.

    Once back to normal temperatures in the 19th century, the Earth kept on warming - this is the Global Warming that was unexpected, caused by the new phenomena of significant amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which began slowly with the Industrial Revolution (1776) and kept growing exponentially.

  8. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Marshall Connolly dismissed my opinion as nonsequitur because i am just some fool with 35+ years of test and measurement experience in the physical sciences and aerospace industry. My opinion was deemed unworthy due to my lack of PhD degree in the field of "climatology", whatever that is. So who does he interview as the "expert" global hoax skeptic? An economist, and one who readily admits he's no expert, of course.

    In spite of Dr Hendrickson not coming close to meeting Marshall's normally stringent "global warming expert" criteria, he still has the situation sized up about right, proving that it does not require a PhD degree in some esoteric branch of academia to use logic and common sense to reach sound conclusions about data that measures natural phenomena.

  9. Alan Archibald
    1 year ago

    (The following correspondence, under the title, "Catholic Online Posts Irresponsible Global Warming Interview," is available at http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/04/catholic-online-posts-irresponsible.html)

    If Aquinas were aware that Catholic Online had posted the opinions of a non-scientist to “clarify” a matter of scientific inquiry, he would spin in his grave with enough rotational force to supply, in perpetuity, an abundance of planetary power.

    Concerning Dr. Hendrickson's partial and partisan comment about "Archimedes' Principle" - and its role in rising sea levels - his glib simplification fails the straight face test.

    Here are the scientific elements “in play.”

    "Because of Archimedes’ Principle, if the ice is already floating in the ocean, the total mass of the ocean and ice remains unchanged even when the ice melts... However, the real rise in sea levels comes from ice that is grounded on a landmass. As the melted ice flows as water, or falls as ice chunks into the ocean it increases the total volume of the ocean. That is, ice discharged from a grounded ice sheet directly into the ocean has an immediate impact on sea level. Because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are sitting on land and not floating, they have the potential to raise sea levels significantly."

    Similarly, to argue that CO2 is not environmentally dangerous because it is “an essential building block of life on Earth” is beyond bizarre, not far removed from arguing "the impossibility of drowning" because "water is essential to life."

    In England, a Catholic fop named Lord Monckton has been causing similar ideological havoc.

    Here is the story of Monckton’s villainous deception alongside the illuminating work of climate scientist John Abraham at the University of St. Thomas. Not only is Abraham's rebuttal a remarkable piece of scientific work, his meticulous precision also reveals the pains that must be taken to dispel the deliberate darkness invoked by too many Christian "conservatives."
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/04/conservative-christians-and-global.html

    Meticulously-elaborated scientific evidence (rarely definitive even in the aggregate) is an exceedingly precious thing.

    Careful science should never be besmirched by fallacious sound bites from people whose ideological agendas are transparent.

    Attentively,

    Alan Archibald

    PS Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, first posited the "greenhouse mechanism" of carbon dioxide in eighteen ninety six (1896). http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-danger-of-carbon-dioxide-as.html



  10. Keith Pickering
    1 year ago

    If "Catholic Online is seeking published, peer-reviewed scientists with unique expertise on the subject for interview," as stated, you have only to make an inquiry at http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/ who would be happy to provide you with exactly the expertise you seek.


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, Jeremiah 1:1, 4-10
The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests living ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 71:1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 15, 17
In you, Yahweh, I take refuge, I shall never be put to shame. ... Read More

Gospel, Matthew 13:1-9
That same day, Jesus left the house and sat by the lakeside, ... Read More

Saint of the Day

July 23 Saint of the Day

St. Bridget of Sweden
July 23: Saint Birgitta was the daughter of Upplands Lagman, Birger ... Read More