RealClimate logo

Farewell to our Readers

Filed under: — group @ 1 April 2009

We would like to apologize to our loyal readers who have provided us so much support since we first went online in December 2004. However, after listening to the compelling arguments of the distinguished speakers who participated in the Heartland Institute’s recent global warming contrarian conference, we have decided that the science is settled — in favor of the contrarians. Indeed, even IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has now admitted that anthropogenic climate change was a massive hoax after all. Accordingly, RealClimate no longer has a reason for existence. The contrarians have made a convincing case that (a) global warming isn’t happening, (b) even if it is, its entirely natural and within the bounds of natural variability, (c) well, even if its not natural, it is modest in nature and not a threat, (d) even if anthropogenic warming should turn out to be pronounced as projected, it will sure be good for us, leading to abundant crops and a healthy environment, and (e) well, it might actually be really bad, but hey, its unstoppable anyway. (Can we get our check now?)

85 Responses to “Farewell to our Readers”

  1. 51
    john lagace says:

    True on any other day.

  2. 52
    Sekerob says:

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)

    … the black body type

  3. 53
    Danny Bloom says:

    This arrived in my mailbox on April 2nd, so i took the headline as real…….UNTIL i read the comments…… good one! [Danny Bloom in Taiwan, where there is no such thing as April 1st….]

    This was posted on April 1 on Youtube, but beleive me it is no joke: although some might think so:

    Grad speech to class of 2099 in the future: do not view it until 2099, unless you are curious:

  4. 54
    Deech56 says:

    OK, I came to this site several times to look specifically for the April Fool’s post. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. This is one of the best ones I’ve seen.

  5. 55
    Jarad Holmes says:

    Well…it is April fools. You know, however, that looking at BOTH sides, and who has more blog web traffic, the skeptics and the AWG supporters seem to now have a 50/50 split. Sort of like Sunnis versis Shiites. The real proof will be over time. Will the Arctic ice cap melt in summer “in less than 5 years” or not. The trend data shows a -2.8% per decade drop in the Arctic right now, and 1 +2.8% rise in the Antarctic and global sea ice is just above average (compared to the 1979-2000 mean). Who will win?

  6. 56
    Richard Ordway says:

    I’m actually really happy about this news.

    It’s going to make my job so much easier. Now I can go back to what I specialized in thirteen years ago.

    I can also now forget the bad dreams I’ve been having…

    about homeless people on the disappearing Kiribati Islands begging me to buy cupcakes for money so they don’t starve.

    I can also forget about that nasty dream of visiting Michigan to look for a new place to live that has water after the American west goes dry. (Real dreams I had).

    Whew…its all finally over!!!!

  7. 57
    Dr.Harry Borlsachs says:

    As a qualified gynecologist, it has always been obvious to me that AGW was rubbish. Myself and other climate experts, (retired civil engineers, personal trainers), are at last vindicated in our campaign for truth against those hippy bums at GISS and Hadley. Cosmic water vapour and the fact that grapes were once grown on Mars, Titan AND Venus were just ‘inconvenient truths’ for these crusties.

  8. 58

    Speaking of videos, I came across this one on youTube

    It was just after Revelle’s paper had come out in 1957 and I remember from Capra’s biography that he had been doing film for Bell Labs science education.

    It seems not to much has changed in the understanding of potentials in 51 years other than we have even more confidence.

  9. 59
    Derek says:

    It would not surprise me to see this quote-mined in some contrarian piece at some point in the future. ;)

    Happy April 1st everyone.

  10. 60

    Re: #41

    I have a neocon friend who insists the gubmint is spraying the population with aerosol chemicals sprayed out of jets to look like contrails — the jets crisscross up there so much it looks like a grid, and it all stays up longer than regular contrails and people are getting sick and it is so weird how come no one ever has a digital camera at hand.

    You guys! Not funny! At all!

  11. 61
    Chris Winter says:

    Heh! This had me for the time it took to click the link I found on mt’s shared items. Nicely done, even if it follows the lead of last year’s SciAm column.

    I wonder if anyone else remembers the flower-faced snouters of the Hi-Yi-Yi Archipelago…

  12. 62
    Jeff Edwards says:

    Are you going to start to worry about global cooling now?

  13. 63
    TimJ says:

    The convincing case is a perspective that comes from thinking of “Window Taxes”, “VAT”, “POLL taxes” etc. Now we have “Carbon tax”. The answer to how much CO2 we allow to be emitted is quite simple:
    1/. How much do the governments need to raise?
    2/. How much re-distribution of wealth do they want to achieve?
    These will be the driving factors whatever the consequences of CO2 may prove to be. The difference this time will be that it will move from a local to a global level.
    The US has now joined the game and the movement is accelarating. Governments are already banking and planning on the future revenues. I’m beginning to believe we will not have a choice than to get out our “check books” (as you mention) and sign the blank checks in a year or two.
    We have survived in spite of taxes and defeated some, often by persistently raising our voices to be heard (like the Thatcher Poll Tax) and the voices on this blog do not give me any pause for optimism. Having taken an interest I’m moving rapidly to the denier side right now. (Getting my confidence up on this game:))

  14. 64
    Geoff Sherrington says:

    Ok, so would any one of you above who feels that this is a joking matter and that the catastrophe projection is the valid one, have the guts to explain this belief?

    I remember a cartoon of lemmings rushing to the cliff and their imminent fate. A side stream has split off. In that stream, one lemming is saying “Lest’s follow Bruce, he’s found a faster way”.

    Does this not fit with your philosophy? Anexorics hope for an excuse not to eat. You folk above seem to hope for an excuse to be terrified. Anorexics get mental help.

  15. 65


    I think it’s “merino” (the breed of sheep).

  16. 66

    That was exceptionally cruel as I’m presently without coffee. That and it’s now April 2nd …

    For months I’ve written about green energy. Well, yesterday my Retail Electric Provider, TXU Energy, made it somewhat clear (I still need to talk to someone a bit higher up …) that they aren’t going to pay me at all for exported power. So, I’m running the house on solar and batteries until they straighten their act out. Thus, no coffee until the sun comes out, or I decide that being without coffee presents a serious threat to my ability to properly parse April Fool’s jokes that I didn’t read yesterday …

    Oh, and then I call the media and tell them what a bunch of jerks TXU is …

  17. 67
    Mark says:

    “Ok, so would any one of you above who feels that this is a joking matter and that the catastrophe projection is the valid one, have the guts to explain this belief?”

    Which one? The joke or the catastrophe? Or why you can have both?

    The Joke: It’s April, Fool.

    The Catastrophe: It’s Science. Repeatable, reliable science.

    Both: We are complex creatures able to both understand a joke AND know there is suffering in the world.

  18. 68
    Chris says:

    Just seen the sheep gag, brilliant. Thought you’d like to know they are organizing now and getting ready to leave the planet, they don’t want to be blamed….

  19. 69
    Shelley says:

    Why, you must have seen this video. I’m convinced!

    Unfortunately, unlike your post, it is not an April Fool’s joke.

  20. 70
    Geoff Wexler says:

    Good news. Now I shall have lots more free time.

    (by the way I think you meant cheque)

  21. 71
    Geoff Wexler says:

    4th. Edition of John Houghton’s “Global Warming”.

    This excellent book which has just come out, has already been remaindered so there will no longer be an urgent need for you to review it.

  22. 72
    Aylamp says:

    63. TimJ

    When the “Carbon Credits” bubble bursts, someone is going to be left with some worthless pieces of paper.

  23. 73
    dhogaza says:


    I think it’s “merino” (the breed of sheep).

    Yes … and no … “moreno” and “merino” are both used to describe breeds of sheep. “merino” is spanish, maybe “moreno” is just a bastardization that’s crept into use in the US.

  24. 74

    #73 dhogaza

    More importantly, what are the characteristics that apply here, pertaining to the relationship under consideration?

  25. 75
    luke says:

    This is such a relief I’m glad that finally they stopped wasting money on research about global warming and admitted that its a hoax. Know if only Obama will admit the same. thanks for the work you did to prove it wrong.

  26. 76
    James Staples says:

    That’s as bad as Discover Magazines (1999 – or 97, I think) Item about the ‘Mole Rat-like’ creatures that use a head-mounted heating organ to melt a warren of tunnels through the Antarctic Ice!
    My borther never let me live that one down – though I should’ve know better, as I’m fairly familiar with thermodynamics and all that!

  27. 77
    Theo Hopkins says:

    Obama, presently in London at the G20 was most pleased to read about the end of global warming.

    He had been asked to support the European Community’s inititive (Directive EU 01:04:09 Carbonated Beverages – Carbon Reduction Directive) to reduce the CO2 in fizzy drinks. This is planned to reduce the CO2 content of beverages buy 40% over the next ten years. However, this would not apply to bottled mineral waters (as popular in France – Evian, Vittel, Perrier, etc)and was thus seen as an anti-American trade protection device under the guise of a green inititive, for most European fizzy drinks are produced by the European arms of Coca-Cola and Pepsi and remit their profits to the USA.

    Obama has vetoed the directive and on BBC TV tonight he said “CO2 reduction? Change we will NOT have”.

  28. 78
    Sergei Rostov says:

    [Response: The sheep albedo one is apparently one of the top 100 of all time…. Hard to top that. – gavin]

    Hey, you could have expanded on my Pirate Pegleg Hypothesis….

    [Btw, the only AFD joke that ever made me angry came yesterday: The TV Guide Channel got my hopes up when they announced the breakup of the Jonas Brothers….]

  29. 79
    Hank Roberts says:

    Er, Theo — you have to wait, now, til April 1, 2010.
    It’s over.

  30. 80
    Alan B says:

    In 1957 the BBC ran a short documentary on the positive effects of a warm winter and early spring on the spaghetti harvest in Switzerland. It was voiced-over by the great and trusted broadcaster Richard Dimbleby and is still one of the greats:

  31. 81
    Peter Backes says:

    The sad part about the premise of this post is that there are legions of nitwits that believe it 365 days a year…

    P.S. – My favorite April Fools post was ‘Doubts about the Advent of Spring.’ I still read it on occasion when I want a chuckle.

  32. 82

    Mine last year took the opposite tack and was not nearly as popular as this :)

  33. 83

    It’s the pirates of course.

    And 2007-2008 proves it. Uptick in African pirate activity = cooler planet. So, rather than costly cap and trade systems, just promote a little bit more piracy at least of the ocean kind.

  34. 84

    Paul writes:

    And 2007-2008 proves it. Uptick in African pirate activity = cooler planet. So, rather than costly cap and trade systems, just promote a little bit more piracy at least of the ocean kind.

    Well, someone better call back all those warships that have been sent to the region or Global Warming is going to come back!

  35. 85
    Joao Vasco says:

    You forgot hypothesis f): even if it is bad, and stoppable, it is better to let it happen, than spending the money to stop it – this is the thesis of Bjorn Lomborg, and his argument is as flawed as most of the arguments of climate change negacionists.

    Actually, it is possible to see people defending thesis a), b), c), d), e) and f) at the same time, regardless of the contradictions between them.