UN cancels all further action on climate change after internet commenter exposes it as a hoax

UN cancels all further action on climate change after internet commenter exposes it as a hoax

The United Nations announced today that any and all action and/or conferences focusing on climate change will immediately cease. The announcement comes after the UN read several comments on climate change articles on the internet.

“Wow, we were way, way off,” said Dr. Chris Eula of the UN. “It’s really sad so many scientists wasted their careers studying climate change and climate science only to find out that the whole thing was a giant hoax.”

Everything began to unravel after a recent article in the New York Times about how malaria may make its way to North America in the next few decades. Malaria, a disease typically found in tropical climates, is very rare in cooler, more temperate zones.

“After reading that article I made my way down to comments and was blown away,” recalls Dr. Eula. “There must have been at least 30 or 40 commenters who all said climate change was fake, a hoax perpetuated by scientists to make money or something like that. A few of them had the word “FACT” written in all caps after their statements too. And if I know anything about the internet its that you can’t write the word FACT unless it is true.”

Several nations, including the United States and Canada, have also stopped all research into climate change after they were made aware of the comments.

The latest projections show that an estimated 1400 scientists across the globe will be out of work in the next few months.


  • Robin Kelly

    Unfortunately, the more extreme proponents stating that climate change is a hoax (such as a certain new Australian Senator in the United Australia Party) will cite this article as proof that they were right. Very funny article though

    • John Galt

      The first casualty of war is truth……. I stuck with the pure sciences based on solid math, physics, chemistry etc……. I never warmed up to speclcative sciences that cannot ever fall in line with the scientific method……. A primary requirement of the scientific method is that the experiment be contained within a box such that extraneous factors can be totally eliminated. That will never be the case for climate science where weather, clouds and climate are always affected to one extent or another by the magnetosphere, orbit, sun’s output as well as cosmic radiation, deep space gamma ray burst and eventually a supernova……..

      • wial

        Did you know the scientific method was invented by muslims? Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait. Now how do you feel about it? Or is the only version you accept the one in the box you came up with yourself?

        • Jeff MacLeod

          I guess as you claim the scientific method was invented by Muslims that makes all of science a scam right?

          • wial

            Oh you’re right! Time for a long vaycay!!!

        • John Galt

          Oh really? Seems you are misled or are lying…… Here are some solid facts on how the scientific method came into being……..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Majus

          • wial
          • wial

            Of course, the ideas go even further back, at least to the historical Buddha as outlined in his Kalama Sutta, which had a huge impact on the stoics and skeptics resident in Alexander’s courts in India. But who’s counting. The Buddhists also invented the zero, which the Arabs passed on to the West. This would be interesting to you if you had an open mind!

          • John Galt

            Thanks for sharing that….and you have a point….. bearing in mind that the scientific method evolved over a lengthy time period with each culture contributing something of significance along the way. Such is the nature of real science which at any point in time is subject to political corruption with serious consequential setbacks.

          • wial

            No argument there, although it doesn’t follow that all climate science is corrupt. Big pharma certainly has its issues, but climate science is done largely by violently underpaid servants of the truth and greater good who could be making a lot more money doing almost anything else. Not to say they aren’t biased, but it’s always been the primary entertainment of scientists to embarrassingly prove each other wrong, so that’s why the get so tetchy about so-called skeptics coming along after the fact acting like the scientists are in collusion, when instead they’ve actively been trying to destroy each other and anything that survives that process is pretty well hammered out, at least as best as may be given the available evidence.

        • Geoff Kieley

          And Muslims were invented by climate scientists! FACT!

        • John Galt

          Yes the Muslims initiated algebra, philosophy and took significant steps towards a the scientific method enabling Sir Roger Bacon to finalize the process. Sadly the Muslim scientific world collapsed as a result of religious fanaticism…… so what is your point? Oh….. you don’t have one……;-) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/753d4b9f4a75015532fd6b63828231c5644327c12c53fa794154f470a90c3a69.jpg

      • Stephen Boris

        You all realise that there is not just one “scientific method”? In reality all that term means is that you look at the data objectively as possible. There really isn’t some book with the rules written down in it. Climate science is physics and chemistry btw.

      • (((ilyas252)))

        drivel. long winded, portentous and empty drivel. your name says it all an ayn rand character from the woman who decided social security and received it to her dying day. pathetic.

        • Inky

          I heard Anne Watson licked your buttholĂ«…

  • Framis Furblongkit

    Zika vaccine trial called “huge success” after only 25% of test subjects get autism

    Why do you bother posting this crap?

  • Shadeburst

    Malaria was endemic in London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, during the Little Ice Age. Malaria is a herd disease. You only get it from a mosquito that has bitten someone who carries the parasite.

    There are three legs to the global warming narrative. First of all there is the greenhouse effect. This is the only settled science part. Then there is attribution, which is the field most AGW people are working in, feverishly trying to deny the pause and blame all warming on human causes. Thirdly there is the prediction of dire results, which has fallen down badly as the models have proven themselves flawed in predicting a hugely complex and chaotic climate system. But somehow the settled science label has been stretched to cover all three legs.

    The climate has always changed and always will, and the predicted surge in extreme weather events has failed to materialize. All evidence so far is that the limited amount of warming we have seen in the last 120 years is net beneficial to life.

    • tahoe967

      Right on! Well said!

    • Jeff MacLeod

      Thank you for displaying the type of people this satire is geared towards. Your statement that the climate has always changed there for we have nothing to do with it completely changed my mind on the subject.

      • Lance


        I read the quote where Shadeburst said, directly: “there for [sic] we have nothing to do with” climate change and thought the exact same thing.

        Oh…. wait… He didn’t say ANYTHING like that. AT ALL!!!! You were just arguing with the point you WISHED he’d made! How novel!

        The observation Shadeburst made is salient. Climate is an extremely complex and dynamic. There is very little actual “science” ( i.e. provable, testable, reliable and specific evidence) that “climate change,” as that phrase is currently being bandied about, is either significant, or caused by human activity. We just don’t know.

        To be clear about that: that is NOT a “denial.”

        It is merely an observation that the science on the topic, which has been portrayed by the media as incontrovertible, is largely inconclusive, at this point.

        • Jeff MacLeod

          Actually, yes we do know. Do you know what spectral frequencies greenhouse gases absorb at? Hint: CO2 absorbs in a band centered at 667cm^-1. This is the absorption band associated with the greenhouse effect as it is the band that falls within the Earth’s blackbody emission curve. Have you looked at how those spectroscopic frequencies regarding the energy balance of the system has changed over time? I have. Harries et al, 2001, Griggs et al, 2007, Chapman et al, 2013, Brindley et al, 2016, Wang et al, 2009, and so on. W do know where those excess greenhouse gases are coming from. At least enough to attribute the rise to human activity. CDIAC: 33.5 billion tons as of 2010. Scripps: 2ppm or 15.6 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 increase. Humans are emitting mroe than double what the atmosphere is increasing by just from fossil fuel and cement production alone.

          • Ben Marcum

            Did you know that nature has this thing in place to break down CO2 called plant life? Most of that process being taken care of by the algae in the worlds oceans. Did you know volcanoes put out as much greenhouse gases per year that mankind created over the entire 20th century? Did you know that means mankind’s contribution to greenhouse gasses is slightly less than 1%? Did you know that since scientists began monitoring the mean global temperature they found it runs in cycles? A warming cycle then a cooling cycle then a warming cycle forming a sine wave pattern? Did you know we have entered the next cooling cycle and the icecaps have been getting thicker for several years now? Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is? Let’s take a closer look at the last part of your post.
            “Humans are emitting mroe than double what the atmosphere is increasing by just from fossil fuel and cement production alone.”
            Two problems with that statement [1] It flies in the face of the fact that 99% of greenhouse gases are produced by mother nature. [2] The statement is idiotic. We are producing double the amount that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? Where is this CO2 going? Because according to your statement it is not going in the atmosphere. Any CO2 we put into the atmosphere would be part of the increase. It is impossible to put in twice the amount the atmosphere increases.

          • Jeff MacLeod

            *gasp* plant life? What’s that?

            Your statement on volcanoes is a fabrication. On a yearly basis volcanoes emit no more than 1% of annual manmade emissions of CO2.

            Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (Gerlach et al, 2011) – https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf

            Perhaps you are referring to the total of other natural sources of CO2, such as the oceans, which mans contribution amounts to about 3.5% i believe. However one important factor you are leaving out is carbon sinks. If a system is in balance, and inflow equal outflow, then any addition to that balance would increase concentrations. This is what is occurring. It is the reason why annual human emissions at 33.5 billion tons are more than double what the atmosphere is increasing by at 2ppm or 15.6 billion tons. Carbon sinks are attempting to maintain an equilibrium, based on temperature and partial pressure, but it is a slow process.

            I am aware that climate runs in cycles. Specifically cycles of ENSO and PDO/AMO. To get a climate trend you need to delete these variables, known as noise. This is why we need approximately 30 years to get a trend in climate. Since the industrial revolution began that trend is upward and it is outside of any naturally occurring cycles. Furthermore these cycles you cling to do not deal with the energy balance of the system, as increases of greenhouse gases are, but merely are there to redistribute heat.

            The last part of this post is to show you how silly your final statements are. As stated, carbon sinks are attempting to increase their uptake. The oceans are decreasing in pH indicating that they are taking up more carbon. You are not thinking logically and your statement defy common sense. Obviously if an increase in a variable is only half of what the inflow is then the outflow must be increasing.

    • Geoff Kieley

      Hey! Look everyone – here’s the guy we were just reading about!

  • John Galt

    Misguided satire…… IMHO……. but cute!