Rush Limbaugh Falls for Global Warming Hoax

It looks like Schlock Jock Rush Limbaugh fell for the hoax global warming “research” on his radio show Thursday, thanks to the expert advice of one Dr. Roy Spencer.

Here's the dripping apology sent to Limbaugh by Spencer after realizing he was the cause of Limbaugh getting duped.

Even the most preliminary research by someone even slightly knowledgeable in climate science could figure out this hoax. Maybe Rush's “truth detector” was on the fritz.

H/T to the Great Beyond for this one.


But of course that’s a foreign concept to you. In any case, it would seem the Global Warmenist’s hoax basically backfired on him:

SPECIAL NOTICE: (11/08/07)
TO: Listeners of Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, November 8, 2007
FROM: Roy W. Spencer

Yesterday (11/7/07), a “research study” was circulating on the internet which claimed to have found the “real” reason for global warming. Even though the hoax was quite elaborate, and the paper looked genuine, a little digging revealed that the authors, research center, and even the scientific journal the study was published in, did not exist. I sent an e-mail to Rush about the issue regarding the hoax, with a copy of the “research study”. Unfortunately, my very brief note to Rush was not very clear, and he thought that I was calling global warming a hoax, rather than the study. Even though Rush has told me not to worry about it, and that “the buck stops here” with him, I just wanted to apologize to everyone for this misunderstanding, as I feel that better wording on my part would have prevented this from happening.

-Roy W. Spencer


An anonymous Brit has now admitted in a brief interview that he wrote the fake global warming research paper which is claimed to have fooled some of us “global warming skeptics”. His stated purpose was to “expose the credulity and scientific illiteracy of many of the people who call themselves climate sceptics”.

I would argue that he has done just the opposite.

Several of us (scientists and non-scientists alike) were able, within a matter of seconds to minutes, to identify the paper as a fake. We then spread the word, warning others of the hoax. Therefore, we showed that we do not, as the hoaxer claims, “believe almost anything if it lends support to their position”. We did exactly the opposite.

In contrast, the hoaxer himself shows that he continues to believe in urban legends. To the inteviewer’s question: “Do you think humanity is to blame for the current observed warming?”, the hoaxer replied, “Yes. The science could scarcely be clearer”.

This myth continues despite the fact that there have been NO scientific papers published with evidence that our current warmth is not due to natural climate variability, e.g., a small change in cloudiness, or precipitation efficiency, or general circulation of the atmosphere, or a variety of other possible explanations that do not involve manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Thus, I would say that not only did the hoaxer’s attempt fail, he would do well to be a little more discerning about scientific claims from politicians and actors.

-Roy W. Spencer
updated 12:40 p.m. CST November 9, 2007 *********************************************************************************

that Rob would wade into this one, with his typical bull-in-a-china-shop lunacy. I also suspect that Rush Limbaugh is his hero….some hero!
As for Mr Limbaugh falling for the hoax…..priceless!
I love it!

And yet it completely fooled expert abstract-analyzer Benny Peiser.


It’s a shame it doesn’t quite make the standards of Alan Sokal. Now to see it in a ‘proper’ journal e.g. cliamte research and then debunked elsewhere would have been great.

NO scientific papers published with evidence that our current warmth is not due to natural climate variability” - what planet is this guy on? Just check out the IPCC website or

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific on your IPCC reference. Too many pages to review. What percentage of CO2 emissions are anthropogenic, for example? Anything other than “models” to back up their statements? Nope.

“I would argue that he has done just the opposite” - Roy Spencer.

Well of course! That’s how you can tell what excellent skeptics are Roy and Rob above. They’re always arguing just the opposite.

I wonder if there are any psychological studies on the subject of contrarians. They seem to share some personality traits, but I can’t put my finger on what. Rarely, one finds a brilliant contrarian; more commonly they are foolish & obnoxious.

Rush Limbaugh Help’s Obama Win Election
Rush Limbaugh, has publicly urged Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton to keep the divisive Democratic nomination fight alive, but talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday it’s Barack Obama who he really wants to be the party’s nominee.
“I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees,” Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. “I now urge the Democrat supereldegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama.”
“Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win – blue-collar, working class people,” Limbaugh also said. “He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that.”

Thank Rush You Did a great Job :)