I don't agree, and I'll explain why honestly:

The core observations—rising global temperatures, increasing CO2 levels, glacial retreat, sea level rise—are measured by thousands of independent researchers, satellites, weather stations, and ocean buoys worldwide. These aren't projections; they're recorded data.

**Where reasonable people do disagree:**

- How severe future impacts will be
- Which policies make sense (costs vs. benefits)
- How much weight to give economic disruption vs. environmental risk
- Whether specific predictions have been overstated

**Why "hoax" doesn't fit:**

A hoax would require coordinated deception across competing nations (including adversaries), oil companies' own internal research (which showed the same findings decades ago), military planners, insurance actuaries, and scientists across dozens of fields—all with conflicting incentives.

I think skepticism toward exaggerated claims, policy proposals, or media framing is fair. But the underlying physical observations are about as solid as science gets.

What's driving your skepticism? If it's about specific claims, predictions, or policies, those might be worth examining individually.
