Scientists admit global warming is a hoax (April fools)
By Eoin O'Carroll | 04.01.09
[Editor’s note: Please note the date of publication above, and take the following story in the spirit of the day.]
In an unprecedented move Wednesday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee rescinded the Peace Prize it awarded in 2007 to former US vice president Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, amid overwhelming evidence that global warming is an elaborate hoax cooked up by Mr. Gore.
A press release from the committee quotes a chagrined Rajendra Pachauri, the UN climate panel’s chair, who claims that he was the victim of a “cunning deception spanning decades”:
“I am deeply ashamed for having unwittingly perpetuated such a massive fraud on the governments of the world,” said Mr. Pachauri.
“It turns out that all that data from satellites and radiosondes, surface temperature readings, borehole analysis, measurements of rising sea levels, melting glaciers and permafrost, phenological data, and proxy reconstructions of paleoclimatic conditions were all fabricated out of thin air by my former friend, Al Gore. Now that I think about it, I suppose that we should have instituted some sort of peer-review process before publishing such alarming conclusions. Once again, I’m very sorry.”
After revoking the 2007 prize from Gore and the IPCC, the Nobel committee retroactively awarded it to the more than 31,000 people who signed the Oregon Petition – an appeal challenging the notion that there exists a scientific consensus regarding global warming – “for their efforts to pursue pure, objective science that is free from the influence of any special interest group.”
The prize of about $1.53 million will be divided equally among the petition’s signatories, whose expertise ranges from astrology to Intelligent Design.
For his part, Al Gore has owned up to duping the scientific community. In a blog post on his website, the ex-Nobel Laureate explains the genesis of his scheme, “now that the jig is up.”
As long as I can remember, my only goal in life has been to destroy free-market capitalism and replace it with global totalitarian socialism. But it seemed that traditional methods, such as guerrilla warfare, were proving unsuccessful. Then, one day in 1988, as I was strolling through the halls of my giant mansion, it hit me: carbon dioxide.
By striking at the molecule that lies at the heart of industrial civilization, I could bring the whole system to its knees and usher in a workers’ paradise.
The rest just sort of fell into place. I wrote a book, held some Congressional hearings, made a movie, dashed off a few pseudonymous journal articles on radiative forcing, and the next thing you know, I was on TV with Dave Matthews and Ludacris convincing people to purchase carbon offsets. Carbon offsets!
I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for that darn petition.
The New York Times quotes NASA climate scientist James Hansen, one of the most outspoken advocates of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, who says he bought Mr. Gore’s ruse “hook, line, and sinker.”
“I have to admit, Al got me good,” said Mr. Hansen as he packed up his personal belongings at his office at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “Despite my decades of experience in climate modeling and satellite meteorology, I would just get mesmerized whenever he started showing me all those fancy charts and tables. The man is a real Svengali.”
Not all scientists were fooled by Mr. Gore’s ruse, but many remained silent nonetheless. The Associated Press quotes an anonymous marine biologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who says she knew all along that “this climate change stuff was completely bogus.”
“But I played along,” she said. “The opportunities for securing global-warming-related grant money were just too great for me to resist.”
“Sweet, sweet grant money,” she added.
Following the Nobel committee’s announcement, national scientific academies from 187 countries hastily drafted a joint statement denouncing the theory of anthropogenic global warming and expressing a renewed humility in the face of complex natural phenomena:
It is our hope that, whenever future generations find themselves swayed by the notion that one can derive generalizations about the physical world by gathering measurable data and subjecting it to logical analysis, they will recall the humbling and extraordinary events of today, April Fools Day, 2009.
The only major scientific body not to sign the statement was the Royal Society of Canada, whose country has been brought to a standstill by a massive infestation of polar bears.
<< Have your say about global warming | MainComments
3. Ralph Hansen | 04.01.09
The sad truth of this sick joke is that much of this article should be true. Human influences have little impact on the global climate.
Sadly, there’s too much gravy on the global warming train to knock it off its tracks. Scientific integrity has become an oxymoron.
6. DavidCOG | 04.01.09
Heh, and two of the first three comments *still* don’t get it.
Kudos to CSM for running this April Fool’s. It really drives home the point about the amount of evidence available and the processes involved in determining the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change. And it certainly helps undermine the impression that the religious are scientifically illiterate. ;)
9. Jim Cairn | 04.01.09
Makes you think, doesn’t it! Global warming is a science, not a debate, yet there are a lot of industry-powered propagandists pushing hard to to replace peer reviewed scientific study results with a politically and industry sponsored debate, complete with mindless drivel for the ignorant masses. The funny thought to me was that there are some who might actually Rush to believe this article, as it’s not that much further overboard than the **** pervading the media, like on Fox, etc. I trust NASA scientific study results myself, and I refuse to be sucked into the pseudo-debate. Global warming is real.
10. Jim Peden, Atmospheric Physicist | 04.01.09
Many a truth is spoken in jest. If the scientifically-illiterate general public were to learn just how true most of this April 1 joke is, they would soil their britches, methinks…..
11. Tom | 04.01.09
All it takes is common sense to know tht gullible warming really is a farce. I call it paying attention. We are cooling. We have been cooling for about 10 years now. Even scientists at the IPCC have recognized that. But the gullible warming crowd is insisting on clinging to the notion we are still warming. I think they have a word for that… I think it is DENIAL!!!!! Can you say hypocrisy?
12. nimbo | 04.01.09
Maybe we should model the economy using the same computer algorithms that Hansen is using…. that will heat things up…
13. Aaron | 04.01.09
Very funny article!
Tom,
Regarding your so-called cooling trend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=channel_page
Take a look at the NASA data, care to point out the cooling trend you speak of?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
The no warming for last 10 years crock, is nothing more than cherry picking data and comparing the last 10 years to 1998 which was a very strong el nino year. Take a look at the 5 year running average on the NASA temp data. A couple year shallowing off of the up trend does not mean its cooling.
14. Perry Celsus | 04.01.09
Commentators 2 (larrydalooza) and 3 (Ralph Hansen) have given us a clear demonstration of the depth and quality of their minds by hitting the the nail directly on the head re global warming: it is, indeed, nothing a shameless hoax and a vast liberal conspiracy.
But when Ralph says “scientific integrity has become an oxymoron” and “human influences have little impact on the global climate” –although he’s on to something — alas, he doesn’t go far enough. Think about it, Ralph…where did all these scientific tricksters get their information about CO2 and the greenhouse effect? That’s right!…out of chemistry textbooks!! And who put these LIES into the textbooks?
More importantly, how LONG has this been going on? When did these lying EQUATIONS first appear?? You’re right again!– in some cases, hundreds of years ago. So while you guys are on the right track, you need to examine the implications of your line of thought. Not only is global warming a vast liberal conspiracy, it’s an unamerican plot that’s been going on since (at least!) the time of Newton…and Al (the bore) Gore is but the latest incarnation of its evil Magus.
That’s why, as a singer of the Oregon petition, I was deeply offended by this article. You correctly pointed out that there were astologers and intelligent designists among our band of brothers. But why…
…why was I, a proud alchemist excluded?
16. MarkSense | 04.01.09
Jim, the “industry-powered propagandists pushing hard to to replace peer reviewed scientific study results with a politically and industry sponsored debate, complete with mindless drivel for the ignorant masses” are with the eco-warming-horror industry. Go see who is funding what.
18. G. A. | 04.01.09
Love the article. I’m a medical doctor, so have some training in science, and have hated the global warming rhetoric for years. I’m a believer in environmentalism, recycling, composting and reduction of fossil fuels…but not because of the myth of global warming.
There just is no evidence to support the claims.
I blogged about it a few months ago here (with at least one commenter accusing me of right-wing duplicity): http://secretwave101.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/tough-year-for-global-warming-grants/
And I’m happy to see that much smarter scientists than myself are also very critical of the idea - see the latest NYTimes Magazine article about the brilliant scientist Freeman Dyson and his scathing view of global warming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
19. Patrick | 04.01.09
I see this amusing article is already being attacked by scientifically illiterate people who attempt to refute the position of most of the world’s climate science with… “common sense”. /facepalm
20. Aaron | 04.01.09
GA
Dyson is a smart guy but he states things any basic scientific literature search would rectify. If he has so many well substantiated claims that contradict the current scientific evidence, then by all means publish this work in a peer reviewed journal. This is the methods by which scientists go about to contribute to that which is already known in the scientific literature.
Dyson may be a smart physicist, but I’d trust the collective works of the worlds leading climatologists, over a single smart guy who doesn’t even read the relevant literature on the subject any day.
21. Guy | 04.01.09
If you really want to know the motivation behind the global warming movement, just look at what their proposed solutions are. Instead of proposing outright banning of those substances/activities they say contributes to global warming, they always propose some sort of wealth transfer, in the form of a tax or “offset”.
Methinks that if they were genuinely concerned about solving a genuine problem, they would propose laws to eliminate those things like fossil fuels, because that might actually solve the problem. Instead, the “solutions” seem to be “just keep on burning those fuels, but you have to pay US more to do so.”
This is what makes me skeptical of the whole global warming crowd. Seems like they just want my money, not a cleaner environment!
22. Kate | 04.01.09
How many right wing nutjob websites is this going to appear on tonight, touting it as proof positive that “SEE??? We were right all along!”
April Fools, everyday fools.
23. mickey finn | 04.01.09
Now thats a GREAT …. had me hugging me sides casue it hurt so bad…HEHEHEHEH Iffn only the big bad AL ..Wasn’t so wrapped up in hisself……..Good one mate…
24. G. A. | 04.01.09
Aaron,
Fair enough. The guy doesn’t even have a PhD and only recently quit climbing trees and sitting up there for hours. He certainly isn’t authoritative.
My point is I’m not the only one who feels that, on a basic level, the science is just very, very poor. Computer models do not qualify as empiric evidence. You can’t generate a control group when your data is barely 150 years old on a planet that has been around for thousands, if not millions.
50 years ago, the “great” scientists were wringing their hands about global COOLING. Before we spend bujillions of dollars and destroy entire economies, we should be very careful with our science. Otherwise, we’re just be trendy and superstitious.
25. Aaron | 04.01.09
Guy,
While I hear your point, the argument is highly flawed. In what country on this earth would it be feasible to just dissolve some of the biggest companies in the world (eg Exxon/mobil). From a policy standpoint, there’s no way to get to the end goal by proposing a cease on fossil fuel use. There’d be no political backing (even democrats wouldn’t favor this—mostly because its a bad idea), and the notion of stopping fossil fuel use without any infrastructure to support a carbon free economy is laughable.
The ultimate goal behind climate legislation is to reduce CO2 emissions. The earth can support a very modest amount of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources without increasing the global CO2. Though this amount is far below what we currently emit, ie. why the CO2 is rising, and temps along with them.
26. James | 04.01.09
Gotta love conspiracy theorists. Wonder what this world would be like if most people could comprehend the scientific method.
27. JM | 04.01.09
Hey, Dyson doesn’t really dispute global warming! He just thinks the problems won’t be too bad, and that there may be some good things (like Greenland will be warmer.)
28. R. Meagher | 04.01.09
I am convinced global warming from human sources is a fact.
Others on this forum believe it is all a hoax.
If I am wrong, and we still do something about global warming, we have at least kicked a dirty habit.
If the others are wrong, and we do nothing about it, we will have made the most horrific mistake in human history.
29. JM | 04.01.09
You know, Dyson does not dispute the science of global warming. He just says “I’m not saying the warming doesn’t cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I’m saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated.”
Also GA, the global cooling thing is a myth, so maybe you don’t want to be mentioning that for credibility reasons…
31. Aaron | 04.01.09
GA,
While I hear your point, what would constitute significant evidence to prove that humans are causing this planet to warm through CO2 emissions? Computer models are the best means to go about researching something as large as the earth. They aren’t as rudimentary as some people are led to believe.
If you don’t currently believe the empirical evidence we already have, (temp and CO2 both rising, to name just a few) if we wait for enough evidence to satisfy every lay person in the world, it’ll largely be too late to do advert any real climate warming. Again, if the world’s leading climate scientists (and indeed the vast majority of climatologists >97%) are feeling this situation is in dire need of action, then by all means, give them some credit if you don’t feel like reading the actual science yourself. Despite all the so called ’skepticism’ if you look in the scientific literature there is little to any debate about the fundamentals of global warming and is also true for what they think needs to be done.
Regarding the so called global cooling scare, take a look here. This video explains the real situation regarding the late 70’s ‘global cooling.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg&feature=channel_page
During the time period, the majority of actual scientific literature on the subject still pointed towards global warming. That’s without the computer models we have today.
32. Ulrik | 04.01.09
I love how alarmist always use GISS surface temperature station measurements (James Hansen) when arguing that others are cherry picking. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
Why not look at UAH, RSS, HADCrut and GISS and compare. You would find that all but GISS show 0 warming over the last decade. GISS has adjusted the temperatures up by 0.2C over the last 10 years, what does that tell you?
Someone in NASA, who is posting temperatures whoms name starts with a J and ends on an S wants the data to fit his theory. How can you trust someone like that?!
33. PH | 04.01.09
“The only major scientific body not to sign the statement was the Royal Society of Canada, whose country has been brought to a standstill by a massive infestation of polar bears.”
The polar bears roaming downtown Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver is getting out of control!
34. Eco Interactive | 04.01.09
The sad thing is that Climate Change denialists are posting on twitter about the article. They think they don’t realize the article is a joke! Sad!
35. Tom | 04.01.09
Aaron, Your bias is obvious. Your premise seems to be I am somehow alone in thinking we are in a cooling trend. If so, you could not be more wrong. I recommend Google. What you may fail to recognize is NASA is not the only source for data and they are not the only ones keeping a temperature record. There are four main groups keeping track of temperature records and three out of the four show cooling. The IPCC scientists are not the only scientists on the planet. A scientist doesn’t have to be a climate scientist to be smart.
There have been numerous articles and studies talking about cooling. I have seen what I consider some of the most reputable sources talking about cooling. I have seen an IPCC scientist specifically talk about cooling. I have seen plenty of graphs showing cooling with the peak in 1998. Search for a while using Google with an open mind and you will see I am not even remotely the only person saying we are in a cooling trend. In fact, if you search long and hard enough you find talk about warming going back a while now, talk about cooling in the 70’s, talk about warming in the 30’s, talk about cooling in the late 1800’s, etc. so it seems opinions (and in the end this is what we are going by here - opinions. not good science!) have changed as much as the climate has. And then we have the obvious shift from calling it gullible, oops, global warming to calling it climate change because, well, it isn’t WARMING!
NASA has been shown to have faulty data on more than one occasion. Remember how 1998 was “the warmest year in a thousand years” but later it was proven 1934 was warmer? Maybe not since the gullible warming crowd was quick to sweep that under the rug. How about how they put September’s data in the record for October making things look much much hotter than they REALLY were? I would guess you probably don’t remember that “smoking gun” - the hockey stick graph. Proven to be so manipulative of data I am almost surprised there weren’t criminal charges filed. In fact, I think they have a term for what they were unquestionably doing with the hockey stick graph. I remember now, it is CHERRY PICKING DATA!
Quite frankly, I don’t trust anybody at this point and I don’t even begin to feel obligated to.
36. kiwi | 04.01.09
I don’t find this funny actually. Either we accept GW as a fact and change and vigorously advocate change or reject it and get on with the (increasingly difficult) business of day to day living.
All this cynicism does is simply add to the confusion and in fact dampen down the commitment of those of us who are concerned that there might be a shred of truth to GW but who aren’t sure however due to having to daily contend with the confusion that reigns out there over this issue.
There’s a whole host of issues that might be appropriate for an Arpil Fools day prank,this however is not one of them, IMHO.
37. Ann Observer | 04.01.09
hehe.
Seriously though, perhaps “climate change” is a better term for what is happening - “global warming” implies ALL the globe is warming, so just find a bit thats cooling and we have an inaccurate label, which is enough for the usual suspects to start their nit picking.
Eventually in the Earth’s natural cycle we will have “global cooling” when the next ice age comes a knocking, but possibly some areas in the equator will get warmer, so they’ll be saying there is no “global cooling” (whilst the polar bears really are in Canada, and they are heading south coz its too cold).
38. dejah | 04.01.09
This would be funny if it weren’t so close to the truth about how global warming denalists and fundy Xtians believe that science is a lie. I’m not sure it does CSM much good to say this is a joke, since not everybody will get it.
All you folks who are on here going on about the “lack of evidence” it’s pretty clear that you don’t know how to examine scientific evidence; nor are your critical thinking faculties engaged.
CSM, this wasn’t even funny. A sad attempt at “humor”… FAIL.
39. G.A. | 04.01.09
“What would constitute significant evidence to prove that humans are causing this planet to warm through CO2 emissions?”
My answer is: Nothing. It’s unknowable. The problem is too large and too difficult for our little reasoning method called science. Without a genuine control group, without repeatable results, the conclusions are not scientifically valid.
Unfortunately, we as a culture believe - with a truly religious fervor - that science provides answers to nearly everything, including totally unknowable questions. Thus, science becomes bastardized; cited as the method by which we determine truth about empirically-unprovable things. When it comes to science, we have lost the humility of ignorance.
Humans should limit consumption of fossile fuels for much more supportable, empiric and rational reasons than that the world is turning into a microwave and everyone is going to die.
Bad science doesn’t justify good ideas, especially ones that are cogent and defensible all by themselves.
40. JasonM | 04.01.09
Whether or not humans are a major contributing factor, global warming is a real issue - now, perhaps some of the claims are exaggerated. But that is no excuse to do nothing, and in any case we’ll need alternative energies sooner or later anyways - and the sooner we start that research and get it going, the better. It will only get more difficult to pursue that research as time goes on.
41. Simplicio T. Soriao | 04.01.09
I have very little sympathy for Mr. Gore who seems to have been caught by his assertions and outright conclusions about global warming. Mr. Gore does not have the scientific mind to analyze the complex and trying problems of the environment, let alone offer pointed diatribes and harsh comments before his political opponents during his ambitious and disastrous run for the White House.
The harsh realities about the politics of convenience finally caught up with him.
Isn’t this the convenient truth? If not, what is?
42. Aaron | 04.01.09
Well Ulrik, care to enlighten me with your interpretation of the HadCRU data up to the end of 2008?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Here’s a quote from their site if you don’t want to take the time to follow any of the links,
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”
There words not mine. And if you want to read about interpretations of various climate data sets through 2008, look here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/
If you can find a flaw in the actual scientific interpretation of any of the data, I’d be very interested in seeing it.
43. Aaron | 04.01.09
Ulrik,
Care to also comment on the UAH and RSS data here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
The graph clearly shows a spike in 1998 (a strong el nino year) the temp drops back down (relative to previous years), and the temp trend continues the steady rise there after.
44. Lane | 04.01.09
All right, you guys got me. At first I was like “Phew! I can finally drive my car around without feeling guilty!” Then I realized it was a joke.
46. Joshua Brown | 04.01.09
This is the greatest (and sadly, based on some of these comments, most convincing) April Fool’s joke I’ve ever seen. Hopefully, the CS Monitor won’t have to actually later admit and explain, through other major newspapers (or even, God forbid, cable news), that this is a hoax.
But, hey, Hannity and Beck have something to make themselves look like idiots over for awhile. Kill two birds with one stone!
47. MC | 04.01.09
Perry Celsus, you’re an alchemist.
The 1600’s called, they want their “science” back.
49. Slow person | 04.01.09
i don’t understand this article. can someone clarify it for me in simpler terms?
51. Alisha | 04.01.09
LOL, and you know there’s going to be people that are too stupid to understand that this is an April Fool’s joke and they’re actually going to believe that global climate change is a myth! He he Idiots…
52. Doug | 04.01.09
The real joke is this April 1st joke is mostly true. Of course Al Gore is not an evil conspirator. He’s just a guy who got a “D” in his only science course at Harvard.
Dr Bruce Charlton, M.D. has brilliantly explained the human processes that lead to psuedo-scientific travesties like AGW, in his essay “Zombie Science”:
54. Anthropogenic Solar Chaos | 04.02.09
Science Reality Check
deep solar minimum
For 2008 there were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%).
Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%)
It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions:
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”:
55. Starchild | 04.02.09
I knew it was too good to be true. Pretty sad when the joke stories printed for April Fools Day are more accurate in crucial respects than what is fobbed off on us as received wisdom the rest of the year.
56. Camila Thorndike | 04.02.09
CSM, you just won yourself some major youth readership! I’ve loved your newspaper since I could read. This is exactly the topic and format that I’ll use to tempt my friends and colleagues to your site. Well done… right down to the YouTube video links. Made my night.
Cheers! -to your cutting wit and lively spirit,
Camila Thorndike
Co-President of Whitman College Campus Climate Challenge
Truman Finalist ‘09
Udall Scholar ‘09
(I only include the titles so that those with their heads still tragically buried in the sand might tune in to what the next generation of leaders KNOWS - and has been working furiously to prevent - real, catastrophic, morally reprehensible climate change. Let’s get over the debate and move on with saving our future.)
“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand…
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.”
-Bob Dylan
57. Jerry | 04.02.09
Even though this announcement is an April Fool’s joke, the truth is the that Global Warming IS A HOAX! Just do a little research people! These evil persons that rule the planet and our lives created one more reason for us to be scared about. CO2 is not to blame for any climate change (if there is any, which many accreditted scientints oppose that). They try to turn “climate change” and “saving the planet” into a new religion. Their goals are hideous. Please be aware of all this.
58. ses | 04.02.09
this joke has two faces if you ask me, but all jokes aside…the debate should be how much mankind has influence on the climate change, nobody is able to answer this. Why is the temperature rising on mars for that matter? How much does the sun contribute to the changes? What is the ratio of methane released in siberia and deep ocean activity? How much has the active volcano under the arctic plate influenc on the melting of the polar ice? Yes, it is melting, but are humans to pay taxes to fix something we have no control over ?!
59. Scott Miller | 04.02.09
Every part of this article was funny, but the rickrolling links were the icing on the cake!
61. Jennifer | 04.02.09
Nicely done! Good to have a laugh, and yes the poar bear picture was just gravy!
62. Bill | 04.02.09
Please look for yourself climatesci.org these are people that truely use the science.Great Spoof to bad its true.
63. huemaurice1 | 04.02.09
The truth won! - the bio (false trade) + ‘ climatic warming ‘ (swindle) + (unjustified) increase in the price of oil + banking ‘failures ‘ (fiscal paradises) = mafia
64. Courtenay | 04.02.09
Good on ya (as we say here in Australia)!
It’s always made me shake my head a bit that any time this blog even MENTIONS climate change, the comments section is instantly filled with right-wing-extremist-conspiracy-theorist screams of “Global warming is a hoax!!!” Nice way of getting your own back, Eoin!
As someone mentioned before (and as I remember us concluding in my high school geography class nearly 10 years ago), even if climate change ISN’T such a serious problem after all, we still have no choice but to kick the fossil fuel addiction… finite, non-renewable resources simply cannot last forever.
I remember in one of environmental scientist David Suzuki’s books, he reported how his young daughter, on hearing anti-environmentalist protests, asked him, “Dad, what if they ARE right and we’re wrong?” I recall he essentially answered what R. Meagher in comment 26 says: even if we ARE wrong about global warming and other potential environmental disasters, at least we’re playing on the safe side, which is the wisest thing to do. If we’re right and we do nothing, the results could be disastrous. Even though I personally have no way of knowing exactly which predictions are most accurate or which suggested solutions will work best, I know which side I’d rather play on.
(Actually, it strikes me that the only people who REALLY stand to lose from taking climate change seriously are the fossil fuel industries. All the denialists who frequent this blog couldn’t possibly have shares in those, could they?)
65. Know T. Truth | 04.02.09
The natural warming experienced last century occured on other plants as well as earth because it was due to natural changes in solar activity, NOT MAN. Temps since have been going down for over a decade now. It’s truly all a big liberal sham and the most hot hair being created comes from Al Gore and his ilk.
66. tom J. | 04.02.09
As much as it is a well done humorous attempt on the part of the CSM, the unintended consequences are appearing today. Numerous anti global warming blogs and websites are running just the headline and stating that the CSM article is fact, quoting it out of context, and people are believing it. This article did a disservice to the generally scientifically illiterate public. Can’t wait to hear some politician opposed to the idea of climate change use the headline as a quote. Who will be the first?
67. JT | 04.02.09
I believe (and hope) most readers understood this article was written as an April Fool’s Day joke. Unfortunately, too many comments show the prank was misunderstood. Witless readers have been duped into using the prank as yet another piece of mis-information to undermine the credibility of science.
While I think a majority ‘got it’, the article destroys the Christian Science Monitor’s credibility. Since when does the Christian Science Monitor abandon its middle name for the sake of humor?
I would rather rely on Comedy Central for jokes and CSM for news and information.
68. Kate Martin | 04.02.09
why is it that all of the links in the story link you to a singer’s video instead of something meaningful? Is this an april fool’s joke or what?!
70. Crispin | 04.02.09
Aaron
Interesting that you pick as an authority http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/
Real Climate is hardly a place where the independent investigators of truth hang out. Good heavens, its a church!
When someone provides sensible analysis that is irrefutable they are attacked personally as sleazy ***** for the corporate mob, meaning, they have no answer and will raise, like several bloggers above, the spectre of the evil corporation manipulating public opinion, or hoping to. Insults trump science at Real Climate. Go to Climate Science and read there instead.
Having apparently read rather more widely that you, I concluded long ago that the people who know the most about weather patterns, cycles, warming, cooling and the influence of atmospheric chemistry are geologists and geomorphologists. Try to find even one who believes that AGW is real and further, is caused by CO2. I met another one last week in Mongolia - utterly skeptical of the silly inferences drawn from fake and manipulated data. Some call it Mann Made Warming, referring to the infamous fake hockey stick chart with a ‘predictive ability of approximately zero’.
The sad part of the April Fool’s article is that most of what is written there is true but skewed to try to lampoon it for the benefit of the ‘true believers’.
I had a look at GISS numbers and they show a 2000-2008 trend of -0.26 Deg. You can’t call that stable or warming. That is a decline. Even CO2 warmists agree that another 2 years of cooling will ‘invalidate the models’.
Cherry picking data and selecting ‘5 year trends’ to bolster claims of a longer term warming trend is cherry picking. Note the warmists scurrying around trying to show that the quiescent Sun is responsible for the cooling, but simultaneously trying to show that it was not responsible for the warming 20th Century warming. What are they afraid of? Temperatures as high as 1000 years ago when there was hardly any CO2?
Well, as the CO2 level continues to climb and the temperature does not, at some point the jig will be up. There are several reasons but the main one is that the atmosphere does not respond to CO2 in a linear fashion. It was recently shown that a simple ‘more CO2 = more temperature” algebraic equation gives the same 100 year forecast as 10 of the top 11 climate ‘models’. So much for their ‘complexity’. The fact is that if a model does not agree with the faked hockey stick graph, it is rejected. Nature and Science, not to say New Scientist and other lesser publications have editorial policies that state they will not publish any scientific refutation of the prevailing dogma. So much for independent enquiry.
I live part of the time in Canada. There have never been more polar bears recorded. They are thriving on the increased food and warmth. Yet the TV movies show polar bears ‘running out of ice to rest on’. Polar bears float! Does anyone from the South know that?? Duh!
An Inuk man from Nunavut at the polar bear conference in Toronto a few weeks ago disagreed with the ‘findings’ of the panel noting, ‘They say there is a decrease in polar bears. It used to be 8,000 and now there are 16,000. Last time I checked, that was an increase!” But what credence can you give to the opinion of the locals….he is not a scientist after all….
Welcome to the new definition of ’science’. It looks to me an awful lot like snake oil quackery chasing ego, position and political influence.
71. K. Martin | 04.02.09
why did you do this? It’s not funny! Do you have ANY idea how many people don’t think any further than the article, to understand it’s a joke? What kind of sick joke is it that now threatens to fuel the arguments that justify further abuses to the planet because it’s now being said global warming is a hoax, and in the Monitor, nevertheless!!! The comments that are included show clearly that MANY people have swallowed your sad gag hook,line and sinker. Is this supposed to be funny?! You’ve done irreparable harm here and it is going to take a SERIOUS explanation to correct it, but for many it’s already too late. They believe it, whether it was intended as a joke or not. Couldn’t you have done a more tasteful gag, one without such far-reaching implications? I’m REALLY disappointed in the Monitor. I thought you had more intelligence and sensititivity than that. You could have at least ended the article with “Ha! Ha! Gotcha!” Instead you now have many people who are REALLY confused, arguing, defending the use of coal, demeaning Gore and the scientific community. WHY DID YOU DO THIS?!!!!! It REALLY makes me wonder about what’s happened at the Monitor that this is the mentality with which you reach the public. This is serious disinformation. Let’s hope you can reach the believers of your joke in time to make them realize it was a really sick joke , and nothing more.
72. wilbert Robichaud | 04.02.09
Aron “Computer models are the best means to go about researching something as large as the earth. They aren’t as rudimentary as some people are led to believe.”
all of our models have errors which mean that they will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective of how well they are initialised.” - James Annan, William Connolley, RealClimate.org.
Climate Modeling Errors:- Clouds- Convection- Cosmic Rays- Eastern Boundary regions of the Oceans- El Nino- Evaporation- Macroturbulence- Mountain Range Circulation- Multi-Decadal Variability- Near-Surface Temperatures at Night- Precipitation- Regional Climate Change- Seasonal Variability- Spatial Variations in Geothermal Heat- Stratosphere Climate Change- Transfer ofSolar Radiation in the Atmosphere- Tropical Troposphere Temperatures- Upper Tropospheric Humidity.Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive.” - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org
In 1971, Schneider claimed that an 800% increase in CO2 would be needed to raise global temperature by +2 deg. By the late 1980s, he promoted the UN view that a mere 100% increase in CO2 would be enough to raise temperature by +1.5 to +4 deg.
In 1971, Schneider promoted the idea that the next Ice Age was imminent. By the mid-1980’s and into the 1990s, he equally vigorously promoted the idea that world was about to suffer a catastrophe caused by Global Warming.
“To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest.” Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989)
To many “Exxon secrets” especially the “how to talk to skeptics” Bible will limit the information one get.
73. fre | 04.02.09
Tom and Aaron,
It is not so much whether the globe is or is not cooling over the past ten years. It is that the trends are failing to match the projections of IPCC models that the global warming crowd say we must rely on for long term conclusions. If the projections are wrong in the past decade, how can they be deemed accurate for long periods of time into the future?
74. Mappy | 04.02.09
Global Temperatures have been dropping now for the 5th straight year. How many years does the Temperature have to drop before we can pull our collective heads out of our **ses. Carbon Dioxide feeds every living plant on this planet. Far from a pollutant , it is one of the most beneficial chemicals for Earth. Consensus huh? At the UN Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland currently taking place, 650 scientists, many former UN IPCC scientists (and growing) are presenting dissenting arguements as we speak…that there is just NO evidence of either warming nor mans ability to affect climate.
75. Mike McFadden | 04.02.09
Everyone who is in an uproar over the destruction of the CSM credibility and the untouchable nature of the joke’s subject matter needs to remember where their sense of humor got mislaid. Here is a way of finding it.
Rent the following:
“Duck Soup” by the Marx Bros. “The Jerk”, “Blazing Saddles”, “Young Frankenstein”, “Clue” with Tim Curry, “Airplane”, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, “Some Like it Hot”, “Animal House”, “Caddyshack”, “This is Spinal Tap”, “History of the World, pt 1″, and “The Big Lebowski”. After viewing these back to back this weekend I’m sure you begin to find life funny again.
76. bear #2 | 04.02.09
Every time the Oregon Petition is mentioned in a postive light, another polar bear joins the army of bears used to invade Canada!
Yeah for the Oregon Petition - keeping bears off the ice and employed on the land!
- Polar Bear #2
77. Capitalist | 04.02.09
the problem with the AGW movement is it is too weak in change FF consumption. Cap and trade will do nothing to reduce FF consumption when we are at the peak of resource extraction rates. AGW is just a popular narrative which is distracting the puplic from the real problems of energy scarcity. Natural declining production will limit FF production well ahead of any carbon trading program. Discussing the validity of AGW is pointless Right or wrong, man’s behavoir is still no more intellegent than yeast. We will only stop consuming when the source is depleted. If carbon trading does anything, it will lock in the huge fraction of resources the the west consumes, leaving the 3rd world to fight over the scraps.
78. Capitalist | 04.02.09
gotta love it! ok, everyone, time to go back to sleep. you really don’t want to be awake when God sees how you messed up his garden…
79. Benjamin | 04.02.09
I greatly enjoyed the satire in this piece. Thank you!
I may end up using this in one of the college classes that I teach…
80. Irene | 04.02.09
I am a newspaper editor in Colombia, South America and have always read and recomended The CSM as a very responsible newspaper. Today I could not believe my eyes after reading this article. Only after I started reading the comments did I realize it was a fool’s day joke.
The problem is that many international readers do not necessarily know about this Northamerican tradition (In South America, fool’s day is celebrated on the 28th of December as Innocent’s Day). And nowhere in the design of the page was visible to readers that it was a joke.
I totally agree with the reader that cries over how stunning it is when an article that pretends to be a joke might be nearer to the truth, as it is the case with this article on Global Warming. Yet, the lightness with which, it seems, this joke edition was published world wide, shoud be studied by mass media people, as a case in the subject of interculturalism and responsibility.
81. RedGreenInBlue | 04.02.09
fre said: “If the projections are wrong in the past decade, how can they be deemed accurate for long periods of time into the future?”
Hmmm. How about this one then?
“If the universal gas law can’t predict the motion of a single molecule, how can it be deemed accurate for a large volume of gas?”
Do you see the problem? (Hint: the answer involves statistics)
82. UW Madison Global Commons Student | 04.02.09
Funny joke, but sadly some people still think that this is a HOAX…and have misinterpreted this as fact.
Honestly just look in any SCIENTIFIC database (and you will find that these drastic environmental changes are in fact Truth! It sickens me to think that the popular media can take the place of scientific journals in the “debate” about global warming. Popular media has one goal in mind, ratings. They could care less about scientific accuracy and will deliberately leave out information that would counteract their case. Whereas scientists have a duty to report their findings without fabrication even if it would disprove their hypothesis.
For those who do not believe global warming is a “real issue,” why would the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) state that, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is evident from…increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” (Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policy makers, 2007).
83. StevenDavid | 04.02.09
Global warming may have been real, but the idea that it is caused by man is ridiculous. Everyone is so worried about all the CO2 we horrible humans put in the air, while we only actually attribute to less than 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Has anyone considered that the sun, which produces solar flares that are MUCH larger than the earth itself, may have something to do with it?
84. Barney Rubble | 04.02.09
How right on is this article… satire does usually provide just a GRAIN of truth, not the entire plant–but oh, brother–have we been sold a bill of scientifically sketchy goods. No wonder half the scientific community rejects the global warming fairy tale.
If you want to see an impact on our climate, wait for the Alaskan volcano to quit its spewing and see what happens.
85. mightycpa | 04.02.09
Here’s really how you need to think about this whole global warming thing:
Past performance is no indication of future results.
I thought scientists also believe that we are between ice ages (12,000 year interglacial period)… so, depending on your timespan, you could be right, the planet is cooling, or you could be right, the planet is warming.
Either way, according to Keynes, in the long run, we’re all dead.
86. Humorous Maximus | 04.02.09
Global warming is rebuffed and disputed. There’s a lot of data to support it is happening than to deny it. However, the reasons for the warming are the hard part to prove. The next several years may shed some light on this concept - assuming the world’s major powers keep moving to alternative energy sources.
Global temperature change is a natural process. Mankind tries to overstate its significance with science. We may or may not be responsible.
I’m of the opinion that since we are having global warming, that a group seized the opportunity to achieve some political influence.
Great April’s Fools joke consequently… It fooled a lot of people. Viva la Dramapopcorn.
Ps, I find the sun calming down to be far more alarming if it proves to be a permanent trend.
(my 2 cents)
87. Aaron | 04.02.09
Here goes a long reply to Crispin,
I never implied realclimateorg was the end all for climate knowledge. What I asked was to find some flaw in their scientific analysis of the current temp data, which again you nor anyone else has done. I personally feel that some of the people who often post on climate blogs if not censored, greatly reduce the progress of discussion. Discussion of science, is limited to the realm of science. So stating things that utterly lack scientific justification (and often its the same things over and over again), is therefore IMO counterproductive and should be censored. If you feel its justified cite where your information has come from. You’ll at least be taken more seriously, cause it at least proves your read something.
You said, “Having apparently read rather more widely that you…” You know nothing of my background, nor I of yours, so lets not make unjustified statements. To ‘conclude long ago’ as you put it, that geologists are the ones who know whats going on with AGW, I will respectfully 100% disagree. If I want to know what sort of igneous rock this is…great, I’ll talk to a geologist. If I want to know where I can drill my oil well (as many geologists work for major oil companies), I know whom to talk to. But to claim that geologists know atmospheric physics and climate modeling better than climatologists, shows that you haven’t met very many climatologists.
You said, “…utterly skeptical of the silly inferences drawn from fake and manipulated data.” I see statements like this often, although they are never accompanied by any reputable citation. Instead, only a sentence saying somebody is doctoring climate data with any reference. Point to your evidence for this, and I’ll address it.
Re. current temp data you wrote, “You can’t call that stable or warming. That is a decline. Even CO2 warmists agree that another 2 years of cooling will ‘invalidate the models’.”
Not sure what ‘warmists’ you’re referring to, but they apparently don’t know their stats. First of all, the last 5 and indeed 10 years are not statistically significant to prove global cooling. Just as 5 years of warming doesn’t statistically prove AGW, 5 years of variability (and yes some are low variables in comparison to 1998–a high anomaly year) doesn’t disprove AGW. Typically 30 year trends are what is needed to statistically prove climate changes. Even though you’ll hear the media hype warming and cooling years for both sides of argument.
Again, you wrote, “Cherry picking data and selecting ‘5 year trends’ to bolster claims of a longer term warming trend is cherry picking.”
I never did that, nor did I cite anything that did this. Its funny you bring up 5 years as trying to prove global warming, when those trying to disprove it are the ones often guilty of doing the ‘cherry picking.’ Regarding your sun comment, we are in a protracted solar minimum. The so called sun ‘argument’ is used not to justify variability in the climate, but instead used to show that that there’s no causative correlation between sun activity and warming trends.
You wrote, “What are they afraid of? Temperatures as high as 1000 years ago when there was hardly any CO2?”
First of all the so called medieval warming trend is highly disputed. Take a look here for a very well done factual video on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&feature=channel_page
And there wasn’t “hardly” any CO2 during this period. Instead somewhere around 280ppm.
“…atmosphere does not respond to CO2 in a linear fashion.”
Nobody has eluded towards anything in the climate system working in a linear fashion. However, this doesn’t mean a causative relationship is not there.
“It was recently shown that a simple ‘more CO2 = more temperature” algebraic equation gives the same 100 year forecast as 10 of the top 11 climate ‘models’.” Again, show me the evidence for this. I can’t evaluate claims that have no evidence to support them. And again, I’m not a climate modeler and neither are you, judging by your oversimplification of the process. There are many things that climate models don’t include. They aren’t perfect but they do a decent job of predicting long term trends. If you aren’t satisfied with them, then you alone can pioneer a new process by which climatologists can study the climate system in sufficient resolution with using your so called algebraic equations. But to criticize and belittle a scientific process (which is repeatable!!) without any evidence other than anecdotal personal experiences, I’m going to respectfully believe the scientific literature.
I’m not going to even respond to the so called ‘conspiracy’ in the peer review process. You apparently aren’t a scientist. I am however, and am very familiar with the process.
Regarding polar bears, yes I think most know polar bears are fairly buoyant. That doesn’t mean they can’t drown from exhaustion from long swims. Regarding the so called polar bear population increase, care to tell me in you opinion what the polar bears are eating that’s causing this population increase you speak of. Polar bears are ambush predators, with seals composing the majority of their diet. When forced to, they’ll eat berries and other mammals if they can catch them. Seals, are their primary food source, remove the ice, and their ability to catch seals is reduced to practically nothing. Check out some actual peer reviewed scientific literature on the current state of polar bears:
And lastly do not defame science when you apparently do not know much about the scientific process.
88. Aaron | 04.02.09
Mappy,
I think you may have mixed up some of the different climate talks. The talks in Poznan took place in December. See here:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_14/items/4481.php
The current talks are in Bonn, Germany.The so called 650 scientists are most likely referring to the famous Inhofe 650 scientists dissent global warming. Which was put out in December and was an update to his “400 scientists” he put out the year prior. Both have been thoroughly debunked, with many of the so called skeptics, being economists, engineers, and even those few cliamate scientists believing in AGW and being published on the list against their knowledge and wishes. Look at these links:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/inhofes-mauvais-blague/
http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2008/12/inhofes-650-what-does-it-take-to-be.html
89. Ric Werme | 04.02.09
Some of the best April Fool gags are written by people who have truly in depth understanding of the issue. This is one of them. I’ve been meaning to check out CSM as the mainstream media seems to have lost its way. (Okay, it knows where it’s going, even though it doesn’t understand why.) I’ll be back!
90. Garrett McCoy | 04.03.09
I like how the argument has become hoax vs. reality without considering the active implications. So what if it is a hoax? Does that suddenly make massive environmental pollution is okay? Does that mean that fossil fuels are suddenly infinite? Quite honestly, if global warming turned out to be false, the steps taken to reducing CO2 emissions and the worldwide efforts to treat the Earth better wouldn’t be something to regret.
91. Mark | 04.03.09
I’m amazed at the sillyness of the article for one and then of the commentors. Do we really think global warming is the issue? What would one think about respecting the place in which we live?????? Whatever we call the after effects of what we’re doing to our planet really doesn’t matter, does it?
92. Gerrit van der Lingen | 04.03.09
This was a good April Fool’s joke. A pity that it was marred by the comment that expertise of the 31,000 academics(among them more than 9000 PhDs)who signed the petition against the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis, ranges from astrology to Intelligent Design. This petition was an open one. All names of signers and there qualifications have been published.
Some people seem to doubt that the planet has been cooling and is expected to continue to cool. This is NOT based on computer models, but on real-world observations, such as (1) the sun has now been unusually quiet for a long time. The transition from sunspot cycle 23 to 24 is taking a long time. At the end of March the total number of spotless days during this transition stood at 586. The so-called Grand Maximum active solar period last century (which probably caused the warming)has come to an abrupt end. This means cooling. Some scientists have even suggested (in peer-reviewed articles!) that we may be entering a cooling period akin to the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) of the Little Ice Age. (2) The oceanic Pacific Decadal Oscillation has entered a cool phase (these alternating warm and cool phases last on average 25 years. Warmaholics, especially those “rent-seekers” are in denial. They find it very difficult to utter the words “global cooling”. The Australian CSIRO calles it “suppressed warming”.
Let’s not forget that cooling would be infinitely worse for the world than warming. Cheers, Gerrit - paleoclimatologist
93. kiwi | 04.04.09
Mike Mcfadden
For everyone who has grasped the true intent of this item, someone will either misuse use it or misunderstand it. Now if you consider our record on AGW as a community of nations, not only are we reneging on all our fine treaties and assorted good intentions, we are in fact cranking up the very mechanisms that are apparently behind the theory.
Consequently and assuming you hold to the theory, do you honestly believe that a woefully misunderstood and neglected issue of this calibre warrants more confusion nothwithstanding its humorous intent.
On the other hand, if you are of that group that deny the basis of AGW, then please, reveal your hand and let your argument be seen for what it is and in its proper context.
94. Homunculis | 04.04.09
Ha Ha. Facts are facts, cycles, 22 year cycle Sun hot periods, natural cyclical global warming and cooling periods. How do you jibe all that with this rediculous hyperbole of ‘man made’ global warming. How pretentious, how vain as a species. Using computer models that cannot even accuratly predict the wheather a week out and thousand year model is gospel? For all you children just tuning in, how is it CO2 immisions are lagging not leading indicator of global warming? And if you do not understand this fact, how is it you can intelligently be part of the discussion?
95. Mike McFadden | 04.06.09
One of the hallmarks of good satire is that no subject is taboo especially one that has controversy surrounding it such as the debate on global warming. I would say that to satirize something automatically grants credence to the import of the subject. When there are two sides that have such black and white differences you get stereotypes of the proponents of each side. It is from those stereotypes that you get the ingredients for satire. The issue of global warming has supporters who fall into stereotypes that are clearly laid out in the comments section on this blog everyday. So what did this article reveal using humor as the means? Those very stereotypes. If we cannot laugh a little at the extremes taken by both sides then there is no hope for an intelligent debate. Instead you have two sides screaming at each other while neither side listens. I for one am willing to laugh.
96. Aaron | 04.06.09
Gerritt,
First of all, please cite sources where its necessary. I know you label yourself as a paleoclimatologist (of which I couldn’t find a peer reviewed paper by you in this field- from the couple I did find from the 70’s, I’d fully warrant paleogeologists though :-) ), but please for other readers, its necessary you cite your evidence for each of your statements. That way I can learn where you get your info (maybe learn something new myself) or point out there’s no scientific evidence supporting your statements.
You seem to place sole planetary warming on the sun cycle and PDO. Both, do contribute to the earth’s climate but in the past 100 years, neither can explain the amount of warming we’ve seen.
You, like others have said the earth is cooling. The actual temperature data do not suggest we’re cooling. A lag in an upward trend does not constitute cooling. And indeed being a scientist yourself, you know that 5 years of lag doesn’t statistically stand up to the scope of the dataset we’re referring it too. Nobody has yet found any problems in the analysis of the current temperature data here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/
If you do have issues with the interpretation of the latest temp data, please do so from a scientific standpoint, not rant about how left leaning realclimate is or something to that effect (which someone else did previously). And again, here is a good video regarding the so called cooling trends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=channel_page . I’d be very interested to hear your take on this interpretation as well.
I respect your opinion but from a scientific standpoint it doesn’t hold up if you can’t substantiate your claims that go against the vast majority of scientific literature.
Humunculis,
You wrote.”How pretentious, how vain as a species,” in referring to the idea that humans can effect the earth enough to change the climate. I however find it rather naive and arrogant to think we don’t have some impact on this world. Do you see smog over areas with heavy population? If so, where do you think this smog came from or the local effects it may have? I’m not suggesting that smog has anything to do with global warming. I’m merely trying to point out, that as a collective society we have the ability to drastically change the landscape, oceans, and climate we live in.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
13. Global Scamming: Scientists worldwide admit global warming is a hoax | THE AUDACITY OF HYPOCRISY | Media Lies | ObamaLies.com | Exposing Mainstream Media Hypocrisy and Lies | 04.01.09
15. KipTip: Dear Kip… BREAKING NEWS: Russia Invades The USA / Advice Column // What’s your problem? /// Crapvice | 04.01.09
19. Scientists worldwide admit global warming bis/b a hoax | csmonitor.com » GOSSIPGET.COM | 04.02.09
20. FT.com | FT Energy Source | The Source: Abu Dhabi; China goes for electric cars; US Senate votes on clean energy costs; Conoco; oil sands; Russia/Ukraine | 04.02.09
21. Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. | 04.03.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. pata | 04.01.09
Love it! Made me laugh out loud.