In support of this hypothesis, we offer a few observations on some incredible statements made by one Polly Toynbee of The Guardian, which were posted on the internet by the Europe Intelligence Wire on 28 December 2000.  In this amazing piece of scholarship, the Contender for the Crown (of Greatest Exaggerator) made a number of most emphatic statements that have a sound of finality about them much akin to what might be expected in a message from Diety:

"... this year global warming became an incontrovertible fact, visible to all citizens ... The Met. Office's advisers have just revised their predictions upwards by two degrees, expecting temperatures to rise by six degrees this century ... This is no unimaginable futuristic abstraction: children now born will see all this come to pass ... There has never been a climate change so sharp or fast."

Never?  Are you really sure, Ms. Toynbee, that a temperature rise of 6°C per century has never occurred?  Judging from the tone of all that precedes this claim, you probably truly do believe your statement is correct.  However, you are, in fact, wrong.

Just three weeks prior to your pronouncement, for example, you could have read - in the article by Labeyrie (2000) in Science magazine - about Dansgaard-Oeschger events that are characterized by "an initial warming of 10°C or more within a few decades."  That's right.  Ten degrees.  Or more.  Within a few decades.  And these events are not even rare.  You could also have read in the same article, for example, that "twenty-one such events occurred between 75,000 and 15,000 years ago."  That's about one every three thousand years, which is a far, far cry from - what was it you said, - never.  And just think about all the scientific papers that must have been written about these many events.  Yet you were convinced (we assume you did not intentionally lie) that such things did not exist!

How did it happen?  Did you ever think to ask someone - like maybe a climatologist - about the possibility that rapid and dramatic climatic changes might possibly have occurred in the past?  Did you ever think of going to a library to see if you could learn for yourself about the matter?  Did you ever, in fact, actually think at all?

But enough of the past, we've got the future to worry about.  And with respect to the Met. Office's prediction of a 6°C rise in temperature this century, how do you know that "this is no unimaginable futuristic abstraction" and that "children now born will see all this come to pass," where all this also includes sea levels rising "by seven meters, wiping out every major coastal city in the world?"  Wow!  Are you a god?  Do you have a pipeline to him?  Is he one of the Met. Office's advisers you talk about?  Your stridency must be causing even them to blush!

We jest with you, of course.  But did you ever stop to think about what your shoddy journalism could do to you professionally?  Will not all who read your writings from this time forth justifiably wonder if you are not creating your "facts" out of thin air?  Why should anyone believe what you have to say about anything in the future, unless you provide verifiable documentation for what you so mater-of-factly state to be true?  And what about your editor and publisher?  How long will they allow you to print such blatant falsehoods, for which they also must bear responsibility?

To make our position on this subject crystal clear, we feel a need to state that we have no problem with anyone who disagrees with us in terms of economic or political philosophy, or who may have a different opinion about what certain facts may mean in terms of science, or who may argue with us about what those facts may imply in terms of policy initiatives.  In fact, we actually admire and respect many of our intellectual adversaries who operate in these diverse arenas, i.e., those who truly believe what they say they believe, for honest differences can readily exist between equally honest persons.  What disturbs us about your recent writings, however, is your blatant substitution of fallacy for fact, wherein you cross over a most important journalistic boundary.  The public deserves far better than what you have given them in this unfortunate instance, Ms. Toynbee; but for some strange reason, we do not believe you will serve them anything better in the days to come.  We hope, however, that in this case it is we that are wrong.  Why not surprise us all and make it so!

Reference
Labeyrie, L.  2000.  Glacial climate instability.  Science 290: 1905-1907.