What the hell is this, a joke?
Not entirely. It’s more like gallows humor. This site takes the stance that global warming is real, and human activity is responsible for at least some of the changes we are seeing.

Who funds this site?
This is a privately owned site. As the owner, I should tell you I’m no scientist. I am, however, a science writer who contracts for NASA through the University of Colorado-Boulder. I have worked with earth scientists, particularly glaciologists, for the past several years, and their findings have influenced my views. However — and I cannot stress this too strongly — this site should not be taken as a reflection of the views of NASA or CU. The opinions are mine, and any mistakes that might occur here are my responsibility.

How and why did this site get started?
Two reasons:

	Praline-prize-winning Mardi Gras shoebox float

1. I’ a big fan of Sloane Tanen and her fuzzy chenille chickens. If I hadn’t seen her work, I never would have thought of this. (Whether Ms. Tanen would feel the least bit flattered that her work led to this pedestrian Web site, however, is doubtful.)
2. In 2006, I made an award-winning (!) Mardi Gras shoebox float. (Okay, all it won was a box of pralines, but still.) The theme for the float competition was Laissez les Warm Temps Rouler! and it came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and in the midst of news reports that NASA climate scientist James Hansen had been warned to pipe down about climate change or face “dire consequences.” That float was the starting point for putting penguins into different situations.

Why not present a “fair and balanced” approach that gives equal time to arguments against the existence of climate change?
Two reasons:

1. Although think tanks may express doubt about climate change and the role human activity plays, the science community is pretty confident. Yes, there are a few who disagree, but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept that global warming is real. I’m willing to trust the people who have devoted their careers to studying climate.
2. This is my site. If you want to see “underreported” doubts about global warming, just go look at something ExxonMobil funded.

What other “questionable” theories do you believe in?
Evolution.

Isn’t Earth’s climate beyond our control?
Yes and no. We certainly can’t prevent, for instance, a major volcanic eruption, which would actually have a cooling effect on climate. The geologic record shows dramatic fluctuations in climate, on a scale that dwarfs any changes we have seen during recorded history. Between 600 and 800 million years ago, much of the planet was encased in ice. Fifty million years ago, Earth was so warm, it had no ice caps, and crocodiles and palm trees both lived above the Arctic Circle. But there was something else our planet didn’t have that long ago: a human population in excess of 6 billion.

Today’s human population is not only huge, it is also dependent on a certain degree of climate stability. Although some might wish for a warmer or cooler climate, our infrastructure and agricultural systems depend on this climate. If it changes dramatically and quickly, we have no guarantee that our farming practices can keep pace. So while completely controlling Earth’s climate is beyond human capability, should the science community find that human activity is causing rapid climate change, I submit we are acting in our own best interests to change that activity.

Will polar bears go extinct?
I recently put this question to Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado (who is no climate skeptic, by the way). He suspects that polar bear numbers will drop, and the bears may disappear altogether from some regions, but he doubts that polar bears will go completely extinct because of habitat loss in the near future. This is not to say polar bears could not go extinct from, say, hunting pressure or disease. Although habitat loss alone probably won’t lead to extinction, a New York Times report echoes the suggestion polar bear numbers will drop substantially.

Keep in mind that polar bears (the cubs, at least) are cute, cuddly, appealing animals who can look imploringly at the viewer on mailings sent to the environmentally conscious. Bigger risks may come from phenomena that we can’t so easily put a face on, like ocean chemistry, or changes that affect the base of the food chain.

What about penguins?
I also put this question to Dr. Scambos. He doubts that penguins are in any imminent danger of extinction. Remember that penguins are littler than polar bears, and littler animals tend to have higher population numbers. However, his assessment did not end there. Dr. Scambos has lamented the widespread public perception of penguins as sweet, gentle, and kind. “They’re messy. They’re smelly. They fight all the time. They’re disgusting, frankly. They live on mountains of their own—” Well you get the idea. In particular, he complained bitterly about an incident in Antarctica when he and some colleagues set up equipment to take spectral measurements of “pristine, pure Antarctic snow.” The equipment was pointing straight down at the surface. Once the equipment was set up, an emperor penguin promptly walked under it and pooped. (Truthfully, that story merely improved my opinion of penguins.)

Will humans go extinct?
When I was training as a volunteer for my local natural history museum in 1995, a fellow trainee posed this question to a bright young museum employee. His answer was the best brief summation of global warming I ever heard: “No, we won’t go extinct. But the adaptation is going to be ugly, especially if governments aren’t prepared for what’s coming.”

Is it too late to do anything about climate change?
If it were too late, there wouldn’t be any point discussing it.

Some scientists I have spoken to describe our situation as being close to a tipping point. After we reach that point, it may be too late to avoid substantial future warming. A couple scientists I have spoken to have stated that a small amount of further warming is probably inevitable. But we do have a choice about whether to take the steps necessary to avoid more serious warming later on.

Again, I’m no scientist, but in my opinion, the best thing we can do is burn less fossil fuel. More fuel-efficient cars and appliances are a great start. Real results, however, will come from finding a different source of energy. So you can consider the source: I personally doubt the ability of some biofuels, particularly corn ethanol, can meet all our energy needs. And I think nuclear power, despite its risks, deserves serious consideration. But don’t take my word for it; decide for yourself. See Resources/News for more information.