RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Video: Fake Newspaper Prints Real News on Climate Change

by Sheldon C. Good 09-23-2009

On Monday, millions of people received a “special edition” of The New York Post that told the truth: “We’re Screwed.”  I guess only fake newspapers can print real news.

More than 2,000 volunteers of The Yes Men, a “culture jamming” group, distributed a fake edition of The Post in New York City.  The group’s previous prank against The New York Times incorporated an Onion-esque fake paper with fake news.  But this time, the fake paper contained real news.

The 32-page Post and accompanying Web site cite environmental issues from a February 2009 report from the New York City Panel On Climate Change, a study commissioned by Mayor Bloomberg.  The lead article, “It’s Coming!” notes that our carbon emissions will cause New York to experience “dangerous increases in temperature, extreme weather, and sea level rise.”

The article encourages readers to “put pressure on government — local, state and federal — to convert our entire energy systems to sustainable sources.”  The “staff writer” urges leaders at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh “to make the tough decisions and policy changes that will turn the heat down on New York and the world before it’s too late.”

The Yes Men strategically placed their news at the pinnacle of news surrounding the upcoming summit.  Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is expected to push 100 world leaders on climate change at the Copenhagen conference in December 2009.

In a speech on August 10 in Seoul, Ki-Moon said leaders have a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” in order “ to avoid catastrophic consequences for people and the planet.”  He warned that climate change is “simply the greatest collective challenge we face as a human family.”

But environmental author Bill McKibben fears legislation will be too weak.  In the May 2009 issue of Sojourners, McKibben explained why “350 is the most important number on earth.”

“A year ago, our foremost climatologist, NASA scientist James Hansen, published a study showing that the maximum concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compatible with the ‘planet on which civilization developed’ and to which ‘life on earth is adapted’ is 350 parts per million,” McKibben wrote. “That’s a tough number, because we’re already past it.”

McKibben’s 350 environmental organization has organized an International Day of Climate Action for October 24, 2009.

The 350 organization is a partner of the Global Wake Up Call, which incorporated over 1,500 events in 112 countries, including the fake Post newspaper.

Sheldon C. Good is the media assistant for Sojourners.

Categories: Activism, Environment, Humor
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • jonabark
    Nuclear is not a good option at all. It is , like oil, a finite resource, extremely dangerous at every stage of use, very expensive, a natural target for terror, and concentrates radioactivity in the nuclear waste which has a half life of 10s of thousands of years. No civilization has lasted that long let alone maintained an advanced technology for thousands of years. Every country with nuclear facilities already has serious cancer causing contamination of the environment and human health. Humans have all the energy we need from the sun and wind and geothermal and limited hydro without wasting the planet .
  • jonabark
    Laughed out loud.
  • Anothernonymous
    Apparently the claim that "hundreds of reputable scientists who have evaluated the actual data found that anthropogenic "global warming" is not supported" is still being taken seriously by some contributors to this blog. Back in August, the eminent physicist Richard Feynman was even evoked posthumously by the climate change/global warming deniers in support of their claims.

    Feynman is perhaps best remembered for placing an O-ring in a glass of ice water at the Congressional hearings on the Challenger disaster, thus showing that NASA's scientists had missed its susceptibility to cold temperatures. He is also known as an outspoken enemy of consensus-driven complacency-what sociologists call "groupthink"-on scientific issues.

    Feynman, of course, was a physicist, not a climatologist, but fair's fair, so I wrote directly to Feynman's intellectual successor, Lee Smolin, author of the best-selling book "The Trouble With Physics." In the book, Smolin gently but overwhelmingly reveals the weaknesses in string theory, which is close to being universally accepted by physicists despite the complete lack of theoretical data to support it. In the process, he exposes the way that scientific communities can become blinded by the need to agree with "groupthink" mentalities, and dissent can be suppressed by the very processes that are supposed to guarantee academic freedom. He strongly encourages members of the public to question scientific consensus whenever possible.

    I thus thought that Smolin might have something worthwhile to say about the climate change debate, in which people like hammerud repeatedly suggest that consensus has silenced dissent. With his permission, I am reprinting his response in its entirety:

    "Here is what I say when I talk with skeptics about global warming.

    1) the data is irrefutable that the global temperatures are rising, 2) the recent data concerning melting of ice in the artic, glaciers, antartic etc is that the last several years the rises are accelerating and in the zone of the worst case scenarios from the climate models. 3) the data is also irrefutable that there has been a very large (on historical terms) rise in CO2 levels an other relevent gases in the last decades, 4) it is also irrefutable that this rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity. 5) there is a clear mechanism by which increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures, and there is a lot of evidence for this connection in historical data.

    Therefore even before we talk about detailed modeling there is a clear danger and a clear causative mechanism that ties it to human activities. Therefore it is quite likely just on these grounds alone that humans have it in their power to avert or reduce the danger by reducing the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere. Therefore as a matter of ethics, we should do this even if we are not sure human activity is the only cause of the warming. Detailed studies show this can be done for a cost of about 3 % of world GNP over the next 50 years. That is 50 years from now our children and grandchildren will live in a world 3% less affluent, but without climatic catastrophe, if we choose this path. The possible cost of not doing that is global catastrophe on an unprecedented level. Therefore, in any system of ethics-even if we are not sure the warming is all due to human activity, we should act to reduce the effects of that warming as the cost of acting is very cheap-if we start now- and the risk of not acting is catastrophic.

    The cost of delay is also substantial. If we wait ten more years we may have to resort to dangerous meddling with the climate on a global scale "geoengineering" to avert catastrophe, rather than just investing 3% of GNP. These are things like pumping a lot of sulphur into the atmoshere to turn the sky brown to lower the temperature. So the moral cost of delay is too high from this point on-even if we are not completely sure of the science.

    In fact, there is a virtual consensus among experts about the science, so I think we are sure on it.

    After this you can talk about the climate models. These are of course models, and they are complicated and messy, but after decades of work by a large community of experts there is a portfolio of models that agree fairly well with historical data and give a range of predictions based on a range of assumptions about economic activity etc. There is a virtual consensus among experts that the models can now be trusted at least for broad trends and within a range of predictions.

    But the mid range of those predictions is that if we do nothing there will be catastrophe and the high range-which is what the data is tracking-is catastrophe worse and sooner. There is no reasonable set of plausible assumptions that gives predictions that we will be easily able to live with.

    Therefore even if the models are messy, complicated and can be still further improved, they strongly reinforce the reasoning prior to looking at them, which is that there is an overwhelming ethical case to act to avoid catastrophe."
  • Knightscrossing
    Yep just add more confusion to a complicated issue. What makes me sad is that people go to these extremes to get their points across and in the process do more damage than good.

    By printing a phony copy of the Post, oh by the way is not a very good Christan thing to do, we took a serious issue and confused people. Now people see "phony paper" and now are suspect of the so-called truth.

    This is no different that what some like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and others do with politics.
  • robustcompost
    It's hard, really hard, to admit how dramatic the data is on natural system shifts. Our brains resist the magnitude of unwanted, mostly chaotic changes that lie ahead. We Christian folks who believe in God's mercy can see a role for a confessing, repentant church as the natural consequences of our ecological trespasses bear down, most severely on the poor. Read: "Last Chance" by Larry Schweiger. Truth, insight...but some hope, too.
  • BuckeyeDon
    We've been over this before, hammerud. There's no semantic game going on here. Climate change and global warming are two different, though related, things. Global warming is the documented increase in average atmospheric temperatures worldwide. Global warming is the major cause of worldwide climate change, which is just what it says--climate change.

    Global warming has caused climates to change, but not uniformly in all parts of the world. Average temperatures in the arctic, for example, have risen much faster and further than they have in the tropics. Here in central Ohio, climate change has meant a longer average growing season, wetter and stormier winters, and drier summers (this past summer was an exception). In another place, it might have meant longer and more frequent periods of drought.

    And the evidence that global warming is largely anthropogenic is rather overwhelming, because all other significant possibilities have been examined and ruled out.
  • Bungarra
    Re climate change - mmm... And "Smoking does not cause lung cancer." Right? Cooperate/sectional interests misinformation maintains the rivers of gold for some interests whose are not in the public interest.

    Be very wary of so called climate experts who deny that man can affect the planet. Minor point, there seems to be an interesting correlation between the CO2 levels and the Black Death - as farms reforested following depopulation, temps went down with the CO2 levels.
  • JohnH54
    Nuclear is the only really viable solution.
  • nuclearferret
    A fake paper giving real news must be a shock to New Yorkers used to getting fake news from a real newspaper like the Times.
  • hammerud
    I see that the politically correct term now is moving from "global warming" to "climate change." Perhaps the reason is that it is becoming too well known that hundreds of reputable scientists who have evaluated the actual data found that anthropogenic "global warming" is not supported.
  • rnyce
    Sheldon is a gifted writer. Sojourners is fortunate to have him on staff. He deserves a raise.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008