Three Types Of Global Warming Moron

This article isn’t here to convince people that man made global warming is a reality. The evidence for that is abundant and overwhelming, but… well, you can lead a moron to knowledge, but you can’t make him read. If you are still unsure about the strength of evidence available, you should have a look at New Scientist’s Guide For The Perplexed.

Arguing with climate change deniers is exhausting and generally a waste of time. Having somehow managed to avoid absorbing any independent information on the subject for the past two to three decades, they’re hardly likely to change their minds now. However, I’ve noticed there are different types of denialist morons, and here I try to classify them into various groups.

Denialist Morons Type One: “There Is No Warming”


This is proper, old-school denial of the simplest kind. After losing some ground in the 80s and early-90s, the fossil fuel industries created a powerful lie machine, and simple denial was the first tool to appear out of their box of tricks. Step one was to simply deny that there were any data to demonstrate warming. Once that was exposed as nonsense, step two was to discredit the data as mistaken in some way. One of the tools for this was the “heat island effect” – claiming that temperature readings had increased over several decades because cities had grown to encompass the stations where temperature readings were made. However, satellite readings then came on-stream, also showing global warming, and negating the “heat island” myth.

But the morons in this category can happily dismiss graphs and melting glaciers and persist that it’s all made up. Ignorance indeed is bliss.

Denialist Morons Type Two: “There Is Warming, But It’s Not Man-Made”


Having seen type-one denial defeated with overwhelming evidence, the more sophisticated moron then moves to stage two: admit warming, but say it’s not man-made. This class of moron will generally use the argument that “the climate has always been changing”, somehow believing that this proves their case. Of course it’s true that the climate has always been changing. Climate scientists have told us that. So type two morons are prepared to believe scientists about past reasons for climate change but not present reasons. It’s a strange thought process, but don’t forget, these are morons we’re dealing with here. Bizarrely, if you follow this reasoning process through carefully enough, morons may accept that the fossilisation of carbon led to global cooling in past geological eras, but that the freeing of that same carbon into the atmosphere (by burning petrol in your car for example) won’t result in warming. Go figure.

It’s pretty easy to demonstrate that CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution, so the link between these and the rise in temperature becomes harder to deny, though of course morons do try. Eventually, this argument collapses under its own weight, and the less-moronic type-two morons then evolve to the next stage.

Denialist Morons Type Three: “There Is Man-Made Warming, But There’s No Point Reducing CO2 Emissions”


So having belatedly accepted what’s been generally known for almost 30 years, morons fall back on claiming that there’s no point doing anything. Note that the power of the denial movement comes from generous funding by the fossil fuels industry. The oil business doesn’t particularly care whether people believe in climate change or not – just so long as governments are prevented from taking action (which would result in large drops in revenue for their industry, and which industry wouldn’t fight against that?).

These arguments are far more subtle, and tend to come from economists. They come in two flavours: optimistic and pessimistic.

The Optimists say, “mankind will find a fix to this problem as we’ve fixed problems in the past”. The flaw in this argument is that we often haven’t fixed problems in the past. Many a civilisation has collapsed under problems of its own making or as a result of natural disasters (including natural climate change); the only difference this time is that we’re looking at the first truly global collapse. I’m sad to say that the Freakonomics guys fall into this category, making the “something will turn up” case in their book, Superfreakonomics. I have huge admiration for Levitt and Dubner, and strongly recommend their fascinating podcasts, but sometimes economists need to look at history and science as well as economic theory. The reality is, perhaps something will turn up; that “something” will need enormous funding by someone; it needs to happen in a very short time-space; and if we’re lucky, it may even work and not produce unexpected side-effects. But the history of engineering says that every right answer comes after many wrong answers have been tried, and we don’t have too much room for manoeuvre here.

The Pessimists say, “OK, things are going to get nasty, but it’s probably cheaper and smarter to just let mankind adapt as the change happens – after all, we’ve adapted before”. I looked at a specific case of this type of argument by economist David Friedman in a recent article. There are many problems with this argument; from a simple economics point of view, arguing that a huge unknown cost may be smaller than a known cost is moronic. Factoring in risk means that action must be taken, unless the cost of not doing so can be proven to be lower than the cost of acting. It’s also completely false to say that mankind has comfortably adapted to huge change in the past. In previous ages, the population of the planet has been so much lower that there has always been space for migrations to take place. This time, the change will affect everyone, everywhere. This argument is basically a call to allow people to die in huge numbers – given the existing squeamishness about migration at its current low levels, can anyone envisage that hundreds of millions (or billions) of people will be allowed to successfully migrate and begin life elsewhere?

We’re watching a slow-motion train crash unfold, and yet morons still persist in their endless denial. The tipping point will only come when the US accepts the need for change, and that needs the Republican Party to accept it. But with their moronic, science-denying ways, and endless millions of dollars being sent their way by the oil business, that doesn’t seem likely any time soon.

Moron Economists and Global Warming

There are many different takes on global warming, many of them moronic. At the high end of the moronitude scale come the straightforward denialists. Never mind that all warming predictions so far have come true, or that glaciers and ice caps are visibly receding, or that extreme weather conditions have increased (as predicted) or that computer models based on different methods all predict warming; the true denialist doesn’t need facts, because there’s always an oil-funded pundit to reassure him that it’s still OK to drive a Hummer.But denialists still have a problem: despite large amounts of funding for their cause, there’s a distinct shortage of experts they can call on. Climate scientists themselves have reached a near-unanimous consensus on the issue, as have scientific bodies around the world. Favourite spokespeople of the denial movement such as Christopher Monckton have been caught lying so many times that they have no remaining credibility beyond their hardcore base of believers.

Enter the Economists. Now don’t get me wrong – I think Economics is a wonderful field with some of the world’s brightest people finding elegant explanations and proposed solutions for a plethora of issues. On the other hand, while blue-sky thinking is valuable, it tends to create far more dead-ends than real answers. Then bring in the denialists, and the combined result is a recipe for inaction: “No need to cut carbon usage because Doctor Fred Smith of Hastings University says we’ll find a solution”.

Today’s example of nicely-argued economical moronitude comes from David Friedman, and is provocatively-titled What is Wrong With Global Warming Anyway? In a nutshell, he argues that while warming has obvious downsides, it also has obvious upsides (primarily the ability to grow crops and live further away from the equator). He then states (erroneously) that it’s not possible to estimate the costs or the benefits, and so decides (erroneously again) that we can’t say whether the net effect of global warming is good or bad for humans. He is therefore led to the conclusion that there’s no point investing in CO2 reduction, as we can’t provide a cost/benefit analysis to justify the spending.

You may have already spotted that this argument is moronic, pretty much from start to end. His base assumption (that we can’t try to cost the pros and cons) is clearly wrong, and would have many of his fellow economists up in arms – after all, costing such things is how they earn their living – and we’re approaching the fifth anniversary of the review by the economist Nicholas Stern which did exactly this.

Friedman points out that warming will lead to more habitable areas in places such as Siberia and Canada, which could lead to economic gains – as could the opening of new sea routes previously blocked by ice. This is of course true. Let’s assume for a moment that as much new fertile and habitable land appears as vanishes elsewhere (this assumption is highly unlikely to be true anyway, but bear with me). So we end up with large parts of Africa, Asia, the Southern US and other places less fertile and habitable, while equivalent areas of northern Canada, Greenland and Siberia open up to human habitation.

That’s great, problem solved! The only minor problem is how to relocate several billion people several thousand miles from the world’s poorest regions, replace cities, electricity and water infrastructure, road and rail, deal with the huge social upheavals and wars that would inevitably result, and hey presto! A brand new, stable and happy (not to mention warmer) world.

Now, given that our societies have taken around 13,000 years to reach their current states, forgive me for being a little cynical that this may all be achievable in a few decades. Oh, and let’s not forget that warming can only help the spread of disease, with associated costs – there’s no loss/gain trade-off when it comes to more malaria. And let’s also remember that with rising sea levels, there is a net loss of land; and low-lying coastal land just happens to accommodate a large part of the global population, along with the greatest cities.

Friedman’s “don’t worry, we’ll find a solution” attitude is hilarious when contrasted with recent events. If you consider the pain caused by sub-prime mortgage disaster, does anyone believe a global evacuation and resettlement could be achieved? Friedman’s solution only works if a genocidal approach is taken (assumed but unmentioned by Friedman) – allow people in the Horn of Africa (for example) to die from famine, while allowing the Europeans and North Americans to expand and relocate northwards.

I have little doubt homo sapiens will survive this century of warming, and the centuries of disruption that will follow. But can we survive in our current numbers, and maintain the complex societies we live in today? That seems unlikely. We’re inevitably entering the greatest period of instability our civilisation has been through in its 13,000-year history. The next few decades (or more likely centuries) will be tough – and the last thing we need is more complacency brought on by moronic arguments like Friedman’s.

A Very American Coup

On or around 2nd August, without an increase in its debt ceiling, the US will begin to run out of money, and be forced to begin defaulting on its payments (in fact, the ceiling was hit in May, at which point the US began deferring pension fund investments). Raising the debt ceiling is usually a fairly routine affair – it’s happened 74 times since March 1962, including 10 in the past decade. It has to happen when the government needs to borrow more money; of course, the raise tends to be accompanied by standard complaints from opposition politicians about mismanagement of the country’s finances, but it gets lifted anyway. Not to do so would be catastrophic, and neither party has been prepared to get blamed for a potential financial and economic meltdown.

Until now.

Something’s shifted in recent US politics: the birth of the Tea Party movement, ostensibly a grass-roots campaigning body that believes in lower taxes and “smaller government”. In reality, even if the Tea Party began as a popular movement, it was quickly hijacked by far-right interests, in particular Americans For Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers. Last November, around 60 Tea Party-backed candidates were elected to the House of Representatives, forming a caucus under the chairmanship of the gay-hating, genuinely moronic Michele Bachmann. Bachmann seems to have displaced Sarah Palin as the natural leader for American morons, and is standing to be the Republican candidate to oppose Obama in the 2012 presidential elections.

Previously, while extremism was prevalent in the Republican Party, and stupidity was fairly widespread in both parties, no significant group of people was ideological (or just crazy) enough to allow the US to contemplate its first ever default. The realistic deadline for agreeing a deal came and went last Friday, and all attempts at deals have fallen through. While (of course) the Republicans have tried to paint the situation as intransigence on both sides, the blame falls squarely on them; they refuse to contemplate a penny in tax rises, a stance which has been branded economic illiteracy by The Economist. If there’s any criticism of Obama, it’s been for his over-willingness to compromise without receiving the same from the other side.

This creates a puzzle; are there really people in Congress who are prepared to see huge damage done to the US economy by their obstinacy? Bachmann and a number of others made clear that they would oppose a ceiling increase regardless of any deal; in effect voting for an economic calamity. I wrote a post on the crisis last week, in which I suggested three reasons why the more extreme individuals may contemplate a default, as follows:

  1. Somehow the US electoral system really did allow genuine, semi-literate morons to be elected. They simply don’t understand the implications of what they’re doing, and believe the “we don’t need government” nonsense that they spew out.
  2. Some of these people are religious nuts; they live for Armageddon, and have got themselves into a position to bring it forward by crashing the global economy. Think I’m joking? Sadly, no.
  3. This one is a guess on my part: The suicide-bomb theory. The US owes China vast amounts of money – that’s part of the source of China’s growing economic power. Perhaps the morons think that if the US defaults on its debts, China would suffer enormous damage too. Of course, the only problem with suicide bombing is that the US (and Europe) would go down along with China. Perhaps these crazies think the US could recover quicker, and postpone the day when China inevitably takes over as the world’s largest economy.

I think all of these do apply, but I missed something bigger: a deliberate default by these corporate-funded individuals represents an effective coup against the democratically-elected Federal government, and against the US Constitution itself. While this has become increasingly obvious over the past few days, all doubt was removed by an interview with Senator Mike Lee, a member of the smaller Tea Party caucus in the Senate, in which he openly threatens the US with economic mayhem unless the Constitution is amended to meet Tea Party demands. It’s worth reading it carefully and contemplating its implications. Here we have a group of elected individuals, bought and paid for by far-right corporate interests, helped into office by Murdoch’s Fox propaganda channel, who are in a position to do major (perhaps unprecedented) damage to the global economy, and appear willing to do so.

America’s elected government was painstakingly set up by the founding fathers, backed by the US constitution, to defend the interests of the American people against the power of unelected vested interests. At the time, the the risk to democracy came from European royalty and super-wealthy aristocrats; but those powers have faded to near-insignificance, and been replaced by a new “corporate aristocracy” who are every bit as much a threat to democracy as the old aristos were. Without government, there is no democracy; if the government is brought to impotence by the Tea Party’s actions, democracy takes a huge hit (at the expense of an economic earthquake). Those best placed to move in and take advantage (both financial and political) of the chaos are the very people who back the Tea Party and other extreme members of the Republican Party.

Unlike the original Boston Tea Party, which challenged power on behalf of the people, the new version attacks the people on behalf of power. This is no revolution – it’s looking increasingly like a coup.

Moronic Republicans And The Debt Ceiling

It provided me with great entertainment over the past couple of years to watch the rise of the Tea Party, a far-right, “small government” grouping that took off in protest against “Obamacare” (because after all, who would want guaranteed access to healthcare? Not morons, that’s for sure).

And then I was again amused to see a number of Tea Party-supporting morons elected to Congress last November, representing a swing to the right both within Congress and within the Republican Party, which saw (relatively) sane candidates swept away by morons. But nobody told me these lunatics could have the power to crash the world economy…

Republicans in Congress are blocking the requirement to raise the US debt ceiling; without this increase by early-August (at the latest), America will default on its debt, leading to an unprecedented disaster across the Western and global economy. The Republican demands seem to come in two flavours: very moronic and ultra-moronic:

  1. Those who are simply “very moronic” demand that Obama introduce huge spending cuts and no tax rises at all, even for the wealthy.
  2. The “ultra-morons” (including MoronWatch favourite Michele Bachmann) simply don’t want to increase the debt ceiling at all.

Note that Obama is offering heavy spending cuts (in line with initial Republican demands), but is also insistent that some tax rises are necessary.

This may seem a complex decision, but there are some clear-cut points here. Here’s a quick guide (with thanks to The Economist) to the US budget decisions.

  • Is this the right time to start heavy cuts? That’s debatable. Cutting while the economy is still weak will hurt the economy – how much it gets hurt is open to debate, but a recent study by IMF economists suggests that heavy cuts tend to do more harm than good. This implies that the Republicans and most Democrats (including President Obama) are wrong in introducing austerity at this stage.
  • Do there need to be tax rises? This is more clear-cut: the Economist, in an unusually outspoken editorial, recently referred to Republicans as “economically illiterate” for insisting on no tax rises.
  • Does bashing the poorest make sense? Republicans have suggested cuts to programmes such as food stamps. Ignoring the sheer callousness of this proposal (when these same people won’t support tax hikes for millionaires), this again is economically illiterate. Food stamps generate activity in the economy – $1.73 for each $1 spent. So the cuts would depress the economy by more than they save – and that doesn’t take into account the economic and social effects of having millions of people (half of them children) going hungry.

The result of not raising the debt ceiling would be so catastrophic that economists are barely even trying to predict what would happen, instead choosing (for now) to say “they wouldn’t let that happen, would they?”

So why are morons like Bachmann even contemplating it? I can think of three explanations:

  1. Somehow the US electoral system really did allow genuine, barely-literate morons to be elected. They simply don’t understand the implications of what they’re doing, and believe the “we don’t need government” nonsense that they spew out.
  2. Some of these people are religious nuts; they live for Armageddon, and have got themselves into a position to bring it forward by crashing the global economy. Think I’m joking? Sadly, no.
  3. This one is a guess on my part: The suicide-bomb theory. The US owes China vast amounts of money – that’s part of the source of China’s growing economic power. Perhaps the morons think that if the US defaults on its debts, China would suffer enormous damage too. Of course, the only problem with suicide bombing is that the US (and Europe) would go down along with China. Perhaps these crazies think the US could recover quicker, and postpone the day when China inevitably takes over as the world’s largest economy.

The only bright side to this is that hopefully, once this crisis is past, some of the smarter Republican voters will be so scared, so repulsed by these morons that the Republican Party will be punished for its lurch to craziness by being swept from power: in Congress and across the states for a generation to come. Are Americans well enough educated and informed to make that call? Let’s hope so. But there needs to be an earthquake in US politics. A vibrant democracy needs at least two viable alternatives – the US currently only has one.

Morons and Banking Regulation

In 2008, the US banking system collapsed, dragging down much of Europe’s with it. The problem was allowed to occur because deregulation in the 80s and 90s had taken away many of the rules that would prevent high-risk lending for short-term profit.

This much is well known… except by morons. Barely had the public been forced to rescue the banks and save the economy from meltdown, before free-market fundamentalists were rewriting history. The problem (they said) wasn’t too little regulation, but too much.

A recent tweet from Sam Bowman of the Adam Smith Institute (a poorly-named organisation, given that Adam Smith himself believed markets needed regulating) showed that refusal to face facts is still alive and well:

Or to paraphrase – banks DON’T need to be regulated, silly!

This is a moron meme that I often see on Twitter, so here are some quick and easy answers to the above question (thanks to contributors on Twitter).

  1. If you think the US banks were over-regulated, you must have missed out on all the deregulation since Reagan was elected in 1980. I’d recommend reading The Big Short, a detailed account of how stupidity was allowed to rampage unchecked through the US financial system.
  2. In Sweden, a poorly-regulated banking system faced collapse in 1992. The Swedes fixed their regulation and so didn’t face the same problems as the US, UK and other less-regulated places.
  3. A similar collapse happened in Spain in the 1970s; in response, Spanish banking regulations were tightened up immensely. When the UK’s poorly-regulated banks began collapsing in 2008, Spain’s banks were far less exposed. Who came to buy distressed British banks? A Spanish bank called Santander. Santander now owns a number of previously British-owned banks. Regulation clearly beats non-regulation.
  4. And yet again… Canada came through the crisis relatively unscathed, because its regulation was biased against low-deposit house purchases.

The Adam Smith Institute claims to promote market ideas; but the market has spoken very clearly. Banks in those countries with strong regulation are clearly stronger than in those without, especially the US. The US and UK economies and banking sectors have shrunk more than those in other Western countries, losing global share. Well regulated banks have gobbled up poorly regulated ones. The market has spoken, and the market says: regulation beats deregulation.

Here’s a simple question for those claiming the 2008 collapse was the result of regulation: specifically which regulation(s) led to sub-prime lending, forced the securitisation of bad loans into investment instruments, or pushed the ratings agencies to decide that these poor investments were AAA-rated? Morons can never answer this – it’s easy to claim regulation is bad, but apparently impossible to provide details of which regulations caused the problem (largely because they don’t exist).

Market fundamentalists make the false assumption that a laissez faire approach to bank regulation would allow the “good” banks to thrive as the “bad” ones go under; but it’s not that simple. Capitalism encourages risk-taking. The fact that one bank takes a bad risk and fails doesn’t stop other banks from risk-taking – their spin of the roulette wheel will come sooner or later. Only regulation can stop stupid risks from building up in the system – there is no free market mechanism to prevent them.

Perhaps I’m being unfair in assuming Sam Bowman has no clue on this subject – after all, he is (I assume) paid to dish out his market-fundamentalist dogma. The morons who repeat it unpaid have less excuse.

Looking Ahead: Morons in 2011

At this time in a new year, you can expect political pundits, economists and “futurologists” to give their predictions for the next 12 months. As the world’s leading Moronologist (self-appointed), I’ve decided to share my predictions for the coming 12 months. Where will be the hotspots of moron activity? Who are the morons to watch? What will morons be doing and saying in 2011?

Prediction 1: Winter will be colder than summer

OK – that’s obvious. However, this simple fact takes morons by surprise every year, and provides their small minds with “evidence” that man-made global warming is a myth. Meanwhile, the oil, coal, gas, motor, road and aviation industries will continue to fund denialist organisations in order to keep millions of morons confused.

Morons to watch: in the absence of any actual scientists who deny climate change, the serial climate liar Christopher Monckton is likely to again be wheeled out by deniers. It doesn’t matter that he’s been repeatedly discredited; morons don’t check facts anyway.

Probability: 100%

Prediction 2: The Tea Party will become increasingly confused

Given the extreme levels of confusion already existing within these moronic groups, this is a braver prediction. The Tea Party is a loose-knit collection of assorted morons, who believe they are part of an “anti-elite” movement, but who in fact are funded and nurtured by some fairly “elite” types. As activists realise they’ve been primarily used as a tool to win lower taxes and looser regulation for the super rich and big business, many will drift away, disillusioned.

Morons to watch: this may be a make-or-break year for Sarah Palin, the Moron Queen of Morondom. Her chances of becoming 2012 presidential candidate seem to be slipping, and she’s likely to end 2011 by drifting further from politics towards lucrative celebrity deals.

Probability: 75%

Prediction 3: Islamaphobia to rise in Europe/Israel, peak in US/UK

This is a complex one; since 9/11, morons have been inciting even dumber morons to believe that Islam poses a threat to life, the universe and everything. Islamaphobia has helped fuel the growth of neo-fascist movements across Europe, that were already in recovery as collective memories of the Holocaust faded away. Xenophobia is at the core of European identity, though Europe plays well at being “tolerant” in between the odd genocide. Neo-fascists have been making electoral gains for some time in places like France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and across the old Soviet bloc. Israel has also seen a long rise of neo-fascists being elected – something that has deeply disturbed Holocaust survivors.

Meanwhile in Britain, which has always been less fertile ground for fascism than most of Europe, the BNP (British National Party) appears to be heading for collapse amidst electoral failure and financial meltdown. The EDL (English Defence League), perhaps Britain’s dumbest organisation, has gained somewhat as a result, but I predict that they too will splinter and decline during 2011, largely because they don’t seem to have any member who can read or write.

And in America, where mainstream politics are further to the right, the far-right have always found a home within the Republican Party, which ironically seems to rein in their more extreme elements.

Morons to watch: Publicity-seeking Pamela Geller will keep ranting to ever-smaller crowds before vanishing from public view. BNP Leader and British eyesore Nick Griffin may well be ousted as BNP leader. Creepy-looking Dutch MP and inciter of hatred Geert Wilders will continue to be the rallying point for Nazis across Europe.

Probability: 50% – very much depends on whether Islamist terrorist morons (or people pretending to be Islamist terrorist morons) succeed in any major attacks in the West during this year. Also depends on unemployment levels across Europe.

Prediction 4: US economy will gain strength as UK weakens

2011 will provide the results of the big test: stimulus spending (as tried by the Obama administration and by the outgoing Labour government in the UK until May) and government spending cuts (as favoured by the UK’s new Conservative leaders). UK consumers are already reacting badly to VAT rises and government jobs cuts… which is likely to lead to lower tax revenues, and the need for even more cuts (as already demonstrated in Ireland).

Morons to watch: the new Republican speaker John “Crybaby” Boehner needs to help derail the recovery if the Republicans are to have a good chance of winning the 2012 presidential elections. UK Prime Minister David “Rich Boy” Cameron will announce that the recovery is weaker than expected (without taking the blame) and “regretfully” announce further spending cuts.

Probability: 60% – depends on many factors including Prediction 5…

Prediction 5: Oil price rises, morons draw wrong conclusions

Upwards pressure on oil prices continues for simple reasons: the easiest-to-reach supplies are dwindling, pushing oil companies to exploit more expensive sources like oil sands and deep-sea wells. America uses in excess of a quarter of the world’s oil supplies, but developing countries are growing much faster than the West, and use more oil each day.

If your friend was addicted to a substance that is becoming increasingly expensive and hard to come by, which of the following advice would you give them?

  1. Try to use less of it, or
  2. Keep using more, and spend more time and money looking for new supplies.

The oil industry runs the Republican Party, and the Republican Party now runs the House of Representatives, so America will try 2) the moron approach. Being chronically addicted to oil, the moron approach is to spend huge amounts of money to find more oil, and deepen the addiction in the process, leading to an even deeper crash when global oil supplies finally peak. At the time of writing, the oil price is $89 per barrel, and will probably be significantly higher at the end of 2011.

Being so deeply in the grip of oil morons, America’s choices are a painful adjustment now, or an even more painful adjustment later. “Kicking the can down the road” is the moronic choice, and no doubt the approach America will take. Meanwhile China, apparently less in awe of everything the oil industry says, is investing heavily in green energy alternatives.

Morons to watch: The newly-empowered Republicans will stall attempts to invest in green energy, and try to kill rail investment (which would cut transport energy usage). The oil industry will continue to claim that there are centuries of oil supplies left, despite all the evidence. Morons will complain that the price of gas keeps rising, but keep on driving their SUVs anyway.

Probability: 80%

And finally… Predictions 6 and 7: Jesus won’t return and the world won’t end

And now for some morons we can all laugh at (well, almost all of us anyway).

A group calling itself We Can Know ran posters last year in Nashville, Tennessee to advertise their web site. They claim that Jesus will return on May 21 2011, and the world will end on October 21 2011. Their campaign was reported in The Tennessean, but the story was later removed (original link). Meanwhile, many other groups have settled on December 21 2012 as the true date.

For those who believe in the Rapture, and are worried about their pets’ wellbeing after they float up to heaven, a kindly group of atheists have set up a pet care service.

Morons to watch: look out for religious nuts acting even angrier than usual when they wake up on May 22 and find they shouldn’t have sold all their worldly belongings on eBay for a dollar.

Probability: 100% (actually, make that 99%… just in case)