Is the Shark Week Megalodon Show on Discovery Channel Real?

The first original program to run during Discovery Channel’s 2013 showing of Shark Week was an over-dramatized show looking at the possibility of the existence of Megalodon, a giant shark at one point believed to be an ancestor of the White shark.

The show starts with a dramatic video that looks to be shot by an amateur with friends on a fishing trip. One of the friends hooks what they refer to as “something big” and eventually the boat goes down. Then the show starts talking about how the boat was attacked from below and could have been from a Megalodon. The show continues on to follow marine biologist Collin Drake and his “team” as they search for the giant predator off the coast of South Africa.

I was pretty skeptical of any of the information being given. Using the power of the internet, I searched for marine biologist Collin Drake. The search results only included references and descriptions for the Discovery Channel show I was watching. Not a promising first step in figuring out if there’s accuracy behind what I’m watching.

Then I searched for the fishing charter accident driving the whole plot behind the show. You would think that if a fishing vessel went down mysteriously in April of 2013 off the coast of South Africa with no survivors, it would certainly be in the news. So I looked. I searched Google, I went to some of the South African news outlet sites and searched through archives and performed searches on boats sinking, etc. The results of my searches again returned nothing. That makes no sense. In this day and age, and with the people shown in the introductory “video” being white adults speaking English, there’s no way this wouldn’t have been covered more extensively in the local, national and international news.

I also searched for Hawaii whale carcasses to match the ones described in the show. Again, nothing similar to what was shown. Additional I looked for any records of the Brazilian Coast Guard rescue video that seemed to show a giant creature swimming near a rescue site. Nothing. Again.

After using the powers of the internet to search for the past 90 minutes, I’m decently convinced this show is for dramatic effect only and has no real scientific value. We’re just being duped into watching this. All Discovery Channel needs to do to thrill viewers is show real footage of the creatures up close, not drum up some ridiculous and currently unverifiable story to capture an audience.

Update: This show was confirmed to be a fake documentary by Discovery.

Posted in General Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,
320 comments on “Is the Shark Week Megalodon Show on Discovery Channel Real?
  1. Jennifer says:

    We just did the same research. It annoys me that Discovery touts this as fact.

    • James says:

      Why so upset? They’ve done the same thing with global warming…science punking the public!

      • matt says:

        global warming is a theory that has no proof, but it is an opinion that many people believe to explain the rising temperatures in the world, but that’s not the point. However, the show (a glorified version of Blair Witch Project)tried to scare people in thinking that the megalodon actually existed, they didn’t provide real proof of anything. They didn’t even provide real instances of anything, if they actually took a sunken ship, lets say the Titanic, and created a conspiracy theory, the show would have been more believable.
        PS just imagine Leonardo Dicapprio being eaten by a megalodon at the end of Titanic. Titanic would be a more entertaining movie=)
        PPS At the end it says the show was highly dramatized. On a partially unrelated note, (my opinion) the show was completely fake, but the Megalodon being alive is improbable, but possible, but it sure as hell is not swimming on the surface of the ocean, remember humans only searched about 5% of the ocean, “previously extinct” animals have been found. that site names a few “lazarus” fishes and talks about the Megalodon, and this site says the shipwrecks of 2013, probably not all of them, but an eaten charter boat would be in there.

        • matt says:

          almost forgot, the 10000 year old megalodon tooth actually exists, but the carbon dating is controversial

          • McKay says:

            I am a geology major. I have asked my professors about radio metric age dating. They all have told me that it is fairly accurate to roughly 10 to 100 years. There are many different forms of radio metric age dating. The most common method to date things 100,000 years or less is with carbon 14. Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon and it has a half-life of roughly 5,370 years. The daughter isotope that C14 decays into is an isotope of nitrogen. When scientist use radio metric age dating they count the amount of half-lives that have past. If I have that meg tooth from 10,000 yrs ago and I had a mass spectrometer I would use the isotope carbon 14 and compare that to the amount of the daughter isotope Nitrogen 14. So if you think that carbon-14 age dating is inaccurate you would be mistaken.

          • scott says:

            yes McKay,but they thought this thing would be like 14 million years old. If they were using a different isotope with a longer half-life, then it would be less accurate, and may show the tooth as being much younger than it should be, would it not?

          • CarbonDate says:

            I feel carbon dating is not near as accurate as they claim. I certainly will not be surprised when the day comes and they say… oh this rock is not 10million years old,,, it is only 3 million years old.

            There HAS to be more variables than just counting nitrogen half lives. Surely it is not just constant, no matter what.

        • Mike says:

          Global warming doesn’t exist? Are you mentally challenged there is overwhelming evidence that proves it does exist. Where do yo base your conclusion for doubt, you have none you don’t do the reseach or have the expertise to dissent you base your opinion on nothing except your opinion. Scientist base their conclusions on evidence, something you dont’ have the expertise to do. So your ignorance is your ignorance.

          • Alex says:

            You’re a gullible fool if you think global warming is real

          • Dallas says:

            There is also overwhelming evidence that shows that the earth temperature overall is not warming. The warming fluctuations are brought on by solar-flare activity. The global warming greenhouse gas effect is highly suspect according to a TOP scientist and professor at M.I.T. One only has to follow the money to carbon credit brokering to understand that a select few stand to make potential billions ( including Al Gore) from all the taxation that will occur due to these beliefs. The climate has changed on a cycle that has gone on for billions of years. The reason there is more data about greenhouse effecting climate change is because the MONEY behind it punishes scientists for speaking out about THEIR findings. Global warming kills one polar bear a year. Five hundred a year are shot. You want to save polar bears?…we should stop SHOOTING them. Maybe you are the one who is truly ignorant here huh?

          • Don says:

            You should read the book “state of fear” by Michael Crighton, fictional story w lots of interesting true global warming facts, including the notion that we only have about 2-300 years of recorded temperature data, hard to say we know the planet is getting warmer when we know so little about the hundreds of millions of years this planet has been in existence, going green has become quite popular and expensive, cross examination reveals reasons to be skeptical on both sides of the coin 😉

          • Joe Preiner says:

            I found the most interesting part of that book was the epilogue after the story, where Crichton talks about his personal views based on all the research he performed during the writing and publishing of the book. He covers both sides pretty well and comes to the conclusion that we don’t know enough one way or the other. There is data to support and discredit most arguments currently being made from both sides.

          • Bill says:

            Mike – you just said “your opinion is based on your opinion” and “your ignorance is your ignorance” it doesn’t get any more ignorant than that

          • seriously says:

            Sorry guys.. Global warming is real whether we like it or not. I’m not saying that we are the only reason that the temp is rising. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and this has been determined to some degree of accuracy by drilling and studying cores from under areas that have only recently been uncovered by the melting Greenland ice sheet. It has been determined that the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles on a regular basis without our help.. Now we just have to hope that the added carbon dioxide that we added to the mix isn’t enough to tip the scales so nature isn’t able to recover..
            We are idiots in the aspect that we know that we are depleting every resource from our planet and overpopulating it and are unwilling to do anything about it.. Almost like being addicted to drugs.. We know that we have a problem but we just can’t control ourselves..

          • disappointed says:

            I could buy into global warming if it was for the fact that the earth sits on a tilted axis. Therefore… the rotation of the planet is not the same everyyear much less 100s of years. Cite the city found in Iceland underneath a melted glacier. Points to the earth climate changing in a pattern we haven’t had enough recorded years to map.
            As for megaladon… giant crocs have recently been caught.So who can be ccertain it doesn’t exist.

          • Ricksphd says:

            Alex and Dallas,
            You guys obviously don’t follow the rules of true research… look at BOTH sides of the issues. If your news is coming only from Fox (or only from CNN), you will not know the truth. In fact, the MIT professor you are referring to made his career by testifying before congress on behalf of the tobacco industry that smoking is not bad for your health. His “scientific method” is not one of hypothesis, test, verify, refine, and repeat, but rather only try to find minor flaws or inconsistencies in other’s research to cast doubt on the general public perception. I agree that we need to ask questions and expect researchers to verify and back up their data. But Dr. Linzen’s doubts and counterpoints have been scientifically rebutted and PROVEN false. That is why 97% of ALL climate scientists believe that climate change is real, AND caused by humans. Read “Storms of my Grandchildren”, written by one of the greatest climate scientists, who really does the science. And then read some of the real reports from technical journals on why solar variation and earth axis tilt only explain a TINY fraction of any warming. Then tell me climate change is not real. Until you really educate yourself, you would be smart to follow Mark Twain’s advice which I will paraphrase “Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than speak and prove them correct”.

          • meg says:

            I’m guessing you voted for Gore its been proven fake most in the scientific fields know that….you obviously didn’t go into a scientific field… gore the one who took the peace prise for it even admitted it wasn’t….your the ignorant one….

          • Frank says:

            Scientists are subject to the same corruptions as politicians. Not all are honest about their findings as we’ve found out. The only thing that there is incontrovertible proof of is that scientists have lied about global warming.

          • ratspt says:

            There is consensus in science! It either is or isnt. There is no factual evidence that global warming is melting the ice caps! Global warming haz been proven to be junk science and the data used to prove its facts have been falsified! Global warming going green is just another way to justify raising our taxes! you idiots believe this liberal lie! The Earth had been here for roughly 4.6 billion years its warmed and cooled 100s if not thousands of time since its begging. Theres geological Fact that there was periods on Earth in different parts of the world that it got so Hot that every thing died! There were NO COMBUSTIENGINES HELL THERE WERENT ANY PEOPLE FOR THAT MATTER….THE SUN DID IT! So wake up you liberal pusher!

          • mpow66m says:

            Oh really,read the news,the UN just admitted GW has no scientific fact behind it.Its BS

          • John says:

            No Mike Global warming is a Political agenda – nothing more nothing less. History shows that the earth goes thru warming and cooling trends and has for centuries. Do a little scientific study and you will see its a false theory. The FACT there are 17,000 Climate, Scientific, global experts that signed a Petition to the world leaders stating the fact that the Theory of GW is False and unproven shows that it is not fact as you were told it was. IF you want me to send you the petition and other evidence I can IF I had your email. History shows that the 11th to 13th century had a 4 degree warmer climate than we do today. That is the time in history when the Vikings would sail to Greenland when that was farmland. Today’s climate is 4 degrees Cooler and IF they would try to sail their small boats Now? Their boats would be torn apart as that water is Way too rough to make the trip. Take a Bathtub and fill it with water put a block of Ice at one end then slowly heat the water – what you will find is it will slowly heat up and you wont get a Cooling period like we are in today. Experts say we are in a 15 year Cooling period! How can that be IF we are warming?? The Bathtub water will Still slowly warm up As the Ice block melts But it will Never cool the whole tub of water. Check out (research) The Email scandal of the (so called) top scientists who are Pushing the GW as fact, You will find that they Falsified documents and Admitted they did! Never take Anything for truth – Even what I am telling you – YOU need to do your own research! GW is a Political agenda to raise our taxes and Limit our energy consumption and Hamstring our production of energy. You really believe that Cow farts are causing GW? IF our politicians cared about GW then Why are they the Biggest users? Obama and Michelle taking separate jets for their numerous vacations Al Gore keeping his 7 big screens on 24 hours a day His home using more energy in his mansion then 10 families use in a month? And Al is making Millions selling His carbon offsets? HELLO!!!

          • Justin says:

            Quick question, no 2 questions: 1,are we talking about sharks right now? And 2, do I have to spell two instead of just typing the number 2? Will that convince everyone to care about my opinion, and change their own?

            Oh,and a comment… Does anyone REALLY care so much about getting their point across on this blog, that they would cut off their own pinky toe?

          • ben says:

            Um not saying global warming doesn’t exist but this climate is the calmest climate this planet has ever had. Are u convinced that cutting trees down is causing too much c02.(trees contribute less than a 3rd of earths oxegen the other 2/3s comes from ocean plants.are u concerned pollution will cause an ice age. Because that’s what caused the first 2, right. Lol. Anyways believe what u want to. Btw what kind of car do u drive. Or do u ride a bike. Do u use solar panels for power at your home. Do you throw your trash away for it to get crushed burnt and or buried. Not tryin to be a dusch but you should probly look into the facts your “scientists” feed you then throw a lil bit of common sense in there and you’ll come a lot closer to the reality of things

        • Steve rogers says:

          Obviously global warming has been happening since the last ice age. Discovery channel obviously dramatically dropped that tag and it sank quickly and solemnly to the bottom of the ocean. So sad this is how they get attention… I’m feeling deceived :-(

        • joshua says:

          hello this is Joshua
          Global warming has plenty of evidence to clarify that it does in fact exist however Megalodon the monster shark lives does have strange claims and inquiries about the fact that Megalodon still lurks our waters.The evidence portrayed in this episode of shark week does not entirely prove that megalodon exists. Discovery channel is still a favorite of mine but i didn’t like the fact that lied and influenced people in the wrong direction

          P.S: coming soon is my website called brainiacscanbesmall check it out in June 2014 THANK YOU

        • Breandan says:

          Global warming is not a theory, it is a proven fact by essentially the entire scientific community, Megalodon is bull shit.

      • DocBrown says:

        Global Warming not real? SERIOUSLY??? You’re an idiot!

        • Bob says:

          You have no evidence for your argument. Until you can provide something half reasonable then you are the “idiot” sheep repeating what everyone else says.

          • Victoria says:

            Yes, there are solar flares, and this year is the one year in an 11 year cycle where the hottest part of the sun faces the earth, but earth is warming much FASTER than any other planet in the solar system and much more DRASTICALLY.

          • Frank says:

            There is no way we have extensive temperature data on every planet in the solar system unless direct readings have been recorded over a long period of time. If such data exists, it is completely fabricated. So your assertion that earth is the only planet that is warming faster than any other is false.
            What is getting worse, however, is the desire of the ruling class to ramp up the propaganda to serve their oppressive agendas. That CAN and HAS been proven.

        • Mark says:

          I agree with DocBrown and Seriously, if you think there is no Global Warming, you are a complete idiot. It is very clear, both scientifically and Biologically, that we are in a Global Warming.

          • Bryson says:

            I do believe that the Megalodon shark is real.I’m trying to find out the truth.I may be on ly 9 years nold I still want to know because I want to study the megalodon shark and learn and study the megalodon shark more when i’m older

        • John says:

          Doc Brown Do you Own research! GW is a False theory Read my post above to Mike. IF it was a Proven Hypothesis? Then Any expert would be a fool to be against the (Theory),debate – Oh Yes There has Never Been a Real Debate in the news or in schools has there! Fact over 17,000 Experts signed a Petition Against the Theory of GW Claiming that the ones Pushing this theory are doing so for Political purposes! DONT Take My Word for it – Check it out for yourself! Want me to send you the link to the Petition? And other evidence to the contrary? Let me know!

          • John says:

            Petition Project with the 17,000 names of Experts AGAINST the Theory of GW

            Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
            Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.
            The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
            This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
            The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
            It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
            We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.
            Frederick Seitz
            Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
            President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
            Paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide


            Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers
            During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
            Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
            Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.
            Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
            Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
            The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
            The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.
            This project is titled “Petition Project” and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved – without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.
            The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.
            Our e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is:
            If you would like to mirror this site or download it to your hard drive, click here.
            You may also view and print this entire web site in one easy step.

            2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists Signers
            A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, Z,
            Category: A
            Philip H Abelson, PhD, Gene Ackerman, Robert K Adair, PhD, John A Adam, PhD, Daniel B Adams Jr, Gail D Adams, PhD, Leonard C A Adams, PhD, Louis W Adams, PhD, Neil Adams, PhD, William M Adams, PhD, George Adcock, Lionel P Adda, PhD, Harry Adrounie, PhD, Stephen Affleck, PhD, Phillip Ahlberg, Mark Ahlert, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, S Aisenberg, PhD, Edward Albert, James C Albright, PhD, Allwyn Albuquerque, Ernest C Alcaraz, PhD, Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Perry B Alers, PhD, John C Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Roger C Alig, PhD, Clayton H Allen, PhD, David Allen, PhD, James Allen, PhD, Mike R Allen, PhD, Thomas H Allen, PhD, William Allen, John J Allport, PhD, Vincent O Altemose, Melvyn R Altman, PhD, Edward E Altshuler, PhD, Charles D Amata, PhD, Edward J Ames III, Pierre Saiut- Amond, PhD, Arthur G Anderson, PhD, Berard J Anderson, PhD, James R Anderson, James R Anderson, Ken Anderson, Orson L Anderson, PhD, P Jennings Anderson, Richard A Anderson, PhD, Richard C Anderson, Tom Anderson, Douglas Andress, James F Andrew, PhD, Bradley C Anthanaitis, PhD, Lee S Anthony, PhD, Lynn Apple, PhD, Alan Appleby, PhD, Herbert S Appleman, Morris H Aprison, PhD, Richard E Apuzzo Jr, Philip Archibald, Robert Archibald, John Archie, William Bryant Ard, PhD, Harold V Argo, PhD, Baxter H Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Charles Arney, Casper J Aronson, Jose J D Arruda, PhD, James Arthur, PhD, Max Artusy, PhD, Edward V Ashburn, Randolph Ashby, PhD, Jerome P Ashman, Monroe Ashworth, Orv Askeland, Ronald Attig, Leonardo D Attorre, Luther Aull, PhD, John B Aultmann Jr, William Avera, Frank Averill, PhD, Kenneth Avicola, M Friedman Axler, William Aylor,
            Category: B
            Lloyal O Bacon, Adrian D Baer, PhD, Lester Marchant Baggett, PhD, Dane E Bailey, Edward J Bair, PhD, Quincey L Baird, PhD, DK Baker, PhD, Gary Baker, Lara H. Baker, PhD, Randal S Baker, W Loyd Balderson, PhD, W Lloyd Balderston, PhD, David Baldwin, Evart Baldwin, PhD, Sallie Baliunas, PhD, George Ball, David W Ballard, Glenn A Ballard, Harold N Ballard, Arthur Ballato, PhD, Robert Balling, PhD, Tom Ballou Jr, Robert C Balsam Jr, Daniel W Bancroft, George P Bancroft, Herman Wm Bandel, PhD, Tom Bane, Richard Banks, Peter R Bannister, John Paul Barach, PhD, Paul Barbieri, Andrew M Bardos, Steven Bardwell, PhD, Robert Barish, PhD, Francis J Barker, Douglas D Barman, Durton B Barnes, Christopher M Barrett, James Barrick, PhD, Cory W Barron, Lawrence J Barrows, PhD, John Bartel, PhD, Carol J Bartnick, PhD, Samuel Batdorf, PhD, James L Bateman, Charles C Bates, PhD, Charles C Bates, PhD, Earl Bates, Terry E Batlalino, Kevin Batt, Kirk Battleson, PhD, Michael H Bauer Jr, Norman P Baumann, PhD, Max Baumeister, AZ Baumgartner, Eric Baumgartner, John G Bayless, Jack W Beal, PhD, Edward W Beall, James M Beall, Terry W. Beall, Donald Beasley, PhD, William Beaton, Richard Becherer, PhD, Donald Beck, Gordon E Becker, PhD, Milton Becker, PhD, Kenneth L Bedford, PhD, Brian Beecken, PhD, Kenneth Beeney, Edward Lee Beeson, Jr, PhD, Herbert Ernest Behrens, James M Bell, John Bell, PhD, John C Bellamy, PhD, Thomas E Bellinger, Randy Belstad, Rettig Benedict, PhD, Ray Benge, James A Benjamin, PhD, Charles Bennett, Alvin K Benson, PhD, John A Berberet, PhD, Jay M Berger, PhD, Lev Berger, PhD, Ernest Bergman, Dick Bergren, PhD, Mike Bergsmg, Robt Beringer, PhD, Brian Berman, Marshall Berman, PhD, Andre Bernier, Warren W Berning, Edwin Berry, PhD, Edwin Berry, PhD, Herbert W Berry, PhD, John R Berryhill, PhD, Robert Bessette, Albert J Bevolo, PhD, John H Beyer, PhD, Swapan Bhattacharjee, PhD, Kenneth L Del Bianco, Conrad Biber, PhD, Hans Bichsel, PhD, William S Bickel, PhD, Karin Bickford, Jean M Bidlace, PhD, Charles Bieber, J Bierman, Doug N Biewitt, Rodney E Bigler, PhD, John D Shaylor- Billings, George E Billman, PhD, Billones, D G Bills, PhD, Edward G Bilpuch, PhD, Charles F Bird, E. F. Birdsall, PhD, Seymour Bristein, Burt J Bittner, Sammy M Black, Lloyd Blackburn, M L Blackwell, Bruce A Blake, George R Blake, PhD, Philip J Blank, PhD, Barbara Blass, PhD, Joel J Blatt, PhD, Henry H Blau, PhD, Stephen Blaylock, Carl Bleil, PhD, John Blethen, PhD, James W Blue, PhD, M D Blue, PhD, G Bluzas, G. W. Elvernum, Frank T Bodurtha, PhD, Hollis Boehme, PhD, Steven A Boggs, PhD, Kees Boi, PhD, Art F Boland, M S Boley, PhD, Mark S Boley, Gerald L Bolingbroke, PhD, Eugene Bollay, Bruce Bollermann, J R Bone, John Franklin Bonner, PhD, Jane M Booker, PhD, Bruce L Booth, PhD, Robt M Booth, John W Boring, PhD, Annette H Borkowski, Harold J Born, PhD, Paul N Bossart, John N. Botkin, CJF Bottcher, PhD, Robert H Bourke, PhD, Mohamed Boutjdir, PhD, Joseph C Bowe, PhD, Robert C Bowers, Sidney A Bowhill, PhD, Robert M Bowie, PhD, Norman Bowne, Colin Bowness, PhD, David Boyce, Wilson E Boyce, Robert Boyd Iii, Robert A Boyer, PhD, David Brackney, Dorothy L Bradbury, Joseph U Braddock, PhD, Alan D Brailsford, PhD, Eric M Bram, Emanuel L Brancato, Ross E Brannian, James P Brazel, Theodore Breaux, Reginald Breeding, Bertram V Breemen, Sydney Breese, Martin Bregman, PhD, Brian O Brien, Corale L Brierley, PhD, Edwin C Brinker, Sue Broadston, George Brock, Ivor Brodie, PhD, David A Bromley, PhD, John Bronstein, PhD, Mark Bronston, PhD, Walter Brouillette, PhD, J Brower, Glenn Brown, PhD, Hal W Brown, J Paul Brown, Jerry W Brown, PhD, John Brown, John M Brown, PhD, Raymond E Brown, Walter R J Brown, Cornelius P Browne, PhD, D Brownell, Charles R Bruce, PhD, George H Bruce, Robert Brueck, Col Wm Bruenner, John Bruno, PhD, David A Bryan, PhD, Howard Bryan, Barry W Bryant, PhD, Charles Bryson, John Buckinger, Gary L Buckwalter, PhD, J Fred Bucy, PhD, Wallace D Budge, PhD, Brent J Buescher, PhD, Charles R Buffler, PhD, William Bullis, PhD, Stephen Bundy, Merle Bunker, PhD, James H Burbo, Donald F Burchfield, PhD, Brian Burges, John C Burgeson, Edward W Burke, PhD, Ned Burleson, PhD, Victor W Burns, PhD, Joe Burroughs, William Burrows, PhD, Philip B Burt, PhD, James Robert Burwell, PhD, Richard S Burwen, Gary D Buser, Robert Bushnell, PhD, Robert Busing, Duane J Buss, PhD, Stanley E Buss, Scott E Butler, PhD, P Edward Byerly, PhD, William M. Byrne, PhD,
            Category: C
            Fernando Cadena, PhD, C Cadenhead, PhD, Anthony P Cadrioli, Dennis Cahill, Stephen R Cain, PhD, Richard E Cale, Dixon Callihan, PhD, Christopher P Cameron, PhD, John R Cameron, PhD, Nicholas A Campagna, Jr, John S Campbell, Robert E Campbell, Antonio M Campero, PhD, Frederick P Carlson, PhD, Garry Carlson, George Carlson, PhD, J David Carlson, PhD, Arthur Carpenito, Arthur Carpenito, Benjamin H Carpenter, PhD, Bruce N Carpenter, Jack W Carpenter, PhD, Jerome B Carr, PhD, Lester E Carr Iii, PhD, Edward Carriere, PhD, Marshall F Cartledge, Louis M Caruana, John G Carver, PhD, Charles Case, Phillip M Caserotti, Edward Cassidy, John G Castle, PhD, Dominic Anthony Cataldo, PhD, Frank P Catena, Jim Caton, David Cattell, PhD, Chaels Causey, Michael Cavanaugh, Carl N Cederstrand, PhD, Chris Cellucci, PhD, John F. Chadbourne, PhD, Charles Chamberlain, PhD, Samuel Z Chamberlain, Paul Chamberlin, Charles M Chambers, PhD, Kenneth Champion, PhD, Chun K Chan, PhD, Ronald R Chance, PhD, Charles H Chandler, Berken Chang, PhD, Stanley Changnon, Jr, Daniel W Chapman, Stanley Charap, PhD, Paul S Check, Kun Hua Chen, PhD, Genady Cherepanov, PhD, Jimmie L Cherry, PhD, Benjamin F Cheydleur, Hong Chin, PhD, Craig Chismarick, Edward Choulnard, PhD, Tai-Low Chow, PhD, Robt L Christensen, PhD, Ron V Christensen, Donald O Christy, PhD, Ryan A Chrysler, Eugene L Church, PhD, Steven R Church, PhD, Petr Chylek, PhD, Deborah M Ciombor, PhD, A Cisar, Richard Clapp, Bill P Clark, PhD, Donald L Clark, PhD, Grady Clark, PhD, John Clark, Kimball Clark, PhD, Richard A Clark, Richard T Clark, James R Clarke, John Clarke, Calvin Miller Class, PhD, John F Clauser, PhD, John W Clayton, PhD, Stan G Clayton, John C Clegg, PhD, Thomas L Cloer Jr, Todd Cloninger, David M Close, PhD, Ray William Clough, PhD, Michael R Clover, PhD, Howard Cobb, Fritz Coester, PhD, Michael Coffey, Allen Cogbill, PhD, Theodore Cogut, Allan H Cohen, PhD, Arnold Cohen, PhD, Howard J Cohen, PhD, Richard M Cohen, PhD, Charles Erwin Cohn, PhD, Stefan Colban, Lawrence E Coldren, Christopher J Cole, George R Cole, PhD, Henry B Cole, Lee A Cole, PhD, Stephen Cole, PhD, Forrest Donald Colegrove, PhD, Anthony J Colella, Roberto Colella, PhD, Paul Coleman, PhD, Jeffrey M Collar, Clifford B Collins, Dennis Collins, PhD, Edward Collins, PhD, Gary Collins, PhD, George Collins, Stephen L Collins, Don J Colton, Robert Comizzoli, PhD, George T Condo, PhD, John P Conigilo, Martin E Coniglio, Ralph D. Conlon, James R Connell, John J Connelly, PhD, T Donnelly, PhD, John I Connolly Jr, PhD, Douglas H Cook, James H Cook, Karl Cook, Mr Vernon O. Cook, Thomas B Cook Jr, PhD, David Coolbaugh, PhD, Gordon Cooper, PhD, John C Cooper, Max E Cooper, Raymond Cooper, PhD, David F Cope, PhD, Wm S Corak, PhD, M Yavuz Corapcioglu, PhD, Eugene F Corcoran, PhD, Francis M Cordell, PhD, Patrick Core, John S. Cornett, Robert L Corey, PhD, Henry E Corke, PhD, John Cornell, S D Cornell, PhD, John S Cornett, Charles E Corry, PhD, Michael Coryn, Nationwide Envro Svcs, Rebecca B Costello, PhD, John Costlow, PhD, William R Cotton, PhD, Marcus L Countiss, Arnold Court, PhD, Arnold Court, PhD, Francis E. Courtney, Jr, Carl Cowan, John D Cowlishaw, PhD, Jack D Cox, Morgan Cox, Robert P. Cox, Aaron S Coyan, Cecil I Craft, Kenneth B Craib, James Craig, PhD, John A Cramer, PhD, Walter Crandall, PhD, Robt S Craxton, PhD, Valerie Voss Crenshaw, Kenneth S Cressman, John Edwin Crew, PhD, Gregory A Crews, Robert W Cribbs, Peter A. Crisi, Thomas B Criss, PhD, George T Croft, PhD, Donald C Cronemeyer, PhD, Kevin P Cross, Stephen Crouse, Michael Cruickshank, PhD, Duane Crum, PhD, Glenn H Crumb, PhD, Gabriel T Csanady, PhD, Alan L Csontos, Jerry F Cuderman, PhD, Donald Cudmore, Walter Cunningham, PhD, John T Curran, Bendit Cushman-Roisin, PhD, Leonard Cutler, PhD, Jerry Cuttler, PhD, George B Cvijanovich, PhD, Burt L St Cyr, Walter J Czagas, Rita Czek,
            Category: D
            John Dabbs, PhD, George C Dacey, PhD, Calvin Daetwyler, PhD, W V Dailey, James T Dakin, PhD, Snezana Kili- Dalafave, PhD, Anthony A Dale, George F Dalrymple, Michael Daly, Richard Aasen Damerow, PhD, Dwight H Damon, PhD, Jerome Samuel Danburg, PhD, Richard M Dangelo, Charles D Daniel, PhD, Anders P Daniels, PhD, Fred Darady, Rodney C Darrah, Michael J Darre, PhD, Edward Daskam, Clarence T Daub, PhD, Don Davidson, James M Davidson, PhD, Chad Davies, PhD, Edward J Davies, PhD, Emlyn B Davies, PhD, Frank W Davies, Brian D Davis, D K Davis, Dana E Davis, Dick Davis, PhD, Francis Davis, PhD, Fred Davis, Jesse L. Davis, M Davis, PhD, Wm R Davis, PhD, HR Dawson, PhD, Tom Dawson, Duke Dayton, David Deacon, PhD, Robert E Dean, William D Dean, Bobby C Deaton, PhD, B D Debaryshe, Peter Debrunner, PhD, Robert J Debs, PhD, Arthuir J Decker, PhD, Fred W Decker, PhD, Fred W Decker, PhD, William M Decker, W Edward Deeds, PhD, Erwin Delano, PhD, J M Delano, J W Delano, PhD, David C Demartini, PhD, Gerald Demers, Louis J Denes, PhD, David R Denley, PhD, Warren W Denner, PhD, William J Denney, Ronald W Dennison, Wm Davis Derbyshire, PhD, David Derenzo, Dimitris Dermatas, PhD, Larry Derscheid, Don Desborough, Armand Desmarais, Herbert C Dessaver, PhD, William Devereux, Roland Dewit, PhD, F D Dexter, Franklin D. Dexter, Seshasayi Dharmavaram, PhD, Paul J Dial, Rudolph John Dichtl, Charles Edward Dickerman, PhD, Lee G Dickinson, John Dickmann, Howard Dickson, Robert B Dillaway, PhD, Malcolm Dillon, Michael Dion, Eugene Dirk, PhD, James Disiena, H Marshall Dixon, PhD, Richard W Dixon, PhD, Ross J Dixon, Marvin Dodge, PhD, Edward M Dokoozian, PhD, Richard Dolecek, Edward E O Donnell, PhD, Mark C Dooley, Robt F Doolittle, PhD, Billie Dopstauf, Jerome P Dorlac, Robert W Doty, PhD, Roark Doubt, Lawrence G Doucet, Rae Dougherty, Hugh Douglas, Haninia Dover, Edward J Dowdy, PhD, Thomas J Dowling, James A Downey III, Doxtader, PhD, Arthur E Drake, PhD, James F Drake, PhD, Frank E Driggers, PhD, Raymond L Driscoll, Richard Drisko, PhD, Earl G. Droessler, Murray Dryer, PhD, James L Dubard, PhD, Roy Dudman, Roy Dudman, Michael S Duesbery, PhD, William T Duffy, PhD, Taylor Duke, Herbert M Dumas, Henry F Dunlap, PhD, George Dunnavan, John Ray Dunning, PhD, Kenneth L Dunning, PhD, Wm N Durand, James A Durr, Chizuko M Dutta, PhD, David L Dye, PhD, Steven Dyer,
            Category: E
            Dr Joe R Eagleman, PhD, Joe R Eagleman, PhD, Michael T Eckert, Lee W Eddington, Lee W. Eddington, George R Edlin, PhD, Ronald K Edquist, President, David F Edwards, PhD, Eugene H Edwards, PhD, Maurice Egan, PhD, Jason Egelston, Kenneth W Ehlers, PhD, Walter Eich, Val L Eichenlaub, PhD, Peter M Eick, Thomas Eliaren Jr, Luis R Elias, PhD, Rush E Elkins, PhD, M Edmund Ellion, PhD, Bruce Elliott, PhD, Robert D Elliott, Rodger L Elliott, David Ellis, Paul J Ellis, PhD, Hugh W Ellsaesser, PhD, George F Emch, George Emerle, Louis Emery, PhD, Amsrl-Is-Ew, Charles E Engelke, PhD, Raymond Engelke, PhD, Robert W English, David Engwall, PhD, Gerard Enigk, John W Enz, PhD, Gilbert K Eppich, Jeffrey F Eppink, Seymour Epstein, PhD, Robert D Erhardt Jr, Harold P Erickson, PhD, Richard Erickson, PhD, Paul Erlandson, PhD, James L Erskine, PhD, Brenda Eskelson, Terry Ess, Edward R Estes, Albert Edwin Evans, PhD, James A Evans, Leonard Evans, PhD, Ralph A Evans, PhD, A Gordon Everett, PhD,
            Category: F
            Gary A Fahl, Michael Fairbourne, John B Fallon, Anthony L Farinola, Bruce Farlwald, W Michael Farmer, PhD, David Farrell, PhD, Robert P Farrell, Thomas Farrior, Geo Farwell, PhD, Anthony J Favale, Felix Favorite, PhD, Sherwood Fawcett, PhD, Gene R Feaster, PhD, J D Feichtner, PhD, J Roberto Feige, David M Feit, Hank Feldstein, PhD, William J Felmlee, Charles M Ferrell, Craig Ferris, Terence M Filiplak, R D Finch, PhD, Martin Finerty Jr, James Fink, PhD, Joanne K Fink, PhD, Reinald G Finke, PhD, Melvin Wm First, PhD, David Fischel, PhD, Ferol F Fish, PhD, Ed Fisher, John Fisher, PhD, Philip C Fisher, PhD, William Gary Fisher, Richard A Fitch, Wade Fite, PhD, J Ed Fitzgerald, PhD, Donna Fitzpatrick, Hugh M Fitzpatrick, Robert F Flagg, PhD, Robert Flicker, James L Flocik, Lowell R Flud, Anthony H Foderaro, PhD, Gary R Foerster, Timothy Fohl, PhD, Martin M Fontenot, Robert Foote, Dale Force, James L Fordham, Samuel W Fordyce, Irving S Foster, PhD, J S Foster, Robt John Foster, PhD, Doyle F Fouquet, Louis H Fowler, Grant R Fowles, PhD, Corri Fox, David Wm Fox, PhD, Russell E Fox, PhD, David Fraley, PhD, Allan J Frank, Marchall E Frazer, PhD, James Frazier, Bernard A Free, Wallace L Freeman, PhD, Stephen M Fremgen, William S French, PhD, Frey, Edwin F Fricke, PhD, Gerald M Friedman, PhD, Herbert Friedman, PhD, Joel Friedman, Friess, Gerald E Fritts, Eugene Frowe, S W Fruehling, David H Fruhling, Charles Frye, Robert Fugrer, Norihiko Fukuta, PhD, Charles Fuller, Joe Fulton, Harold Fuquay, Joseph T Furey, Thomas C Furnas Jr, PhD, Nelson Fuson, PhD, Floyd Fusselman,
            Category: G
            Steven A Gaal, PhD, F Gabbard, PhD, L H Gabro, Gaffney, Richard Gaggioli, PhD, George Gal, PhD, Eugene Galanter, PhD, Frank P Gallagher III, Jack Gallagher, PhD, Paul Galli Jr, Charles Gallina, PhD, Charles Gallina, PhD, William A. Gallus, Jr, PhD, Perry S Ganas, PhD, A K Ganguly, PhD, Carl Ganseivity, Floyd Wayne Garber, PhD, S Paul Garber, Edward E Gardner, PhD, Hessle F Garner, PhD, Jay M Garner, Alfred J Garrett, PhD, John C Garth, PhD, Jerrie W Gasch, Robert S Gaston, G R Gathers, PhD, Thomas Gatliffe, William E Gee, D A Gedcke, PhD, Elton W Geist, Charles Gelwall, Gary Gerardi, PhD, George S. Gerlach, Ulrich H Gerlach, PhD, Robert L Geyer, PhD, L H Giacoletto, PhD, Umberto Gianola, PhD, Gordon Gibb, Lee Gibson, PhD, Peter F Giddings, W Allen Gilchrist, PhD, Claude M Gillespie, PhD, Bruce B Gillies, George T Gillies, PhD, William Gilmore Jr, H Scott Gingrich, Helen Ginzburg, James Given, Peter Glanz, PhD, Peter K Glanz, PhD, Jerome E Glass, Thomas A Gleeson, PhD, Thomas A Gleeson, PhD, Dale P Glover, Robert Glover, Will E. Godbey, Terry L Godsey, David J Goerz, Malcolm Goldberg, PhD, Malcom Golderberg, PhD, Ronald B Goldfarb, PhD, Bruce Goldman, John P Goldsborough, PhD, Norman E Goldstein, PhD, Walter J Goldsworthy, Mark J Golol, William R Gommel, PhD, John R Gonano, PhD, Michel Gondouin, PhD, John B Goodenou, PhD, David Goodenough, PhD, Kent J Goodloe, Clifford Gordon, James W Gordon, PhD, Robert Gordon, Wilbur H Goss, PhD, Henry Gotsch, Gordon Gould, PhD, Robt G Gould, PhD, Robert G Graf, Leroy D Graff, Howard E Graham, Lewis O. Grant, Lawrence Grauvogel, Joe C Gray, Kevin J Gray, PhD, Robert C Gray, Thoams Gray, Michael Grecco, Joseph Matthew Green, PhD, David Greene, Donald M Greene, PhD, Miles Greenland, Reynold Greenstone, Anton Greenwald, PhD, Gregory Greer, Howard Greger, David T Gregorich, PhD, J R Greig, PhD, Paul Greiman, Daniel Grieser, Doreen Grieve, J. Tyler Griffin, J. Tyler Griffin, James Edward Griffin, PhD, M Griffin, PhD, Brandon Griffith, Richard T Grinstead, B F Grossling, PhD, D J Grove, PhD, John C Grover, Timothy R Groves, PhD, William Groves, Richard Grow, PhD, Johathan R Gruchala, Mike Gruntman, PhD, Richard A Gudmundsen, PhD, Gareth E Guest, PhD, Thomas F Guetzloff, PhD, Peter H Guldberg, Peter H Guldberg, Guldenzopf, PhD, Charles W Gullikson, PhD, Darryl E Gunderson, Richard Gundry, Raj K Gupta, PhD, Philip F Gustafson, PhD, William Gustin, Donald T Guthrie, Steven L Gutsche, Jeng Yih Guu, PhD, Frank Guy, PhD,
            Category: H
            Gottfried Haacke, PhD, Benjamin C Hablutzel, George Hacken, PhD, Glenn A Hackwell, PhD, Lawrence Hadley, PhD, Frank A Hadsell, PhD, Jeffrey Haebrlin, Anton F Haffer, Erich Hafner, PhD, G. Richard Hagee, PhD, Arno K Hagenlocher, PhD, Ismail B Haggag, PhD, Chuck R Haggett, Douglas C Hahn, John A Haiko, Mary Hakim, M H Halderson, Francis A Hale, R A Haley, R W Hall, Jr, PhD, Robert Halladay, Martin B Halpern, PhD, Matthew M. Hammer, Scott E Hampel, Howard W Hanawalt, Lawrence Handley, PhD, Arthur L Handman, Sultan Haneed, PhD, N Bruce Hanes, PhD, David Haney, Sunil Hangal, PhD, William Hankins, Arthur D Hanna, PhD, Jeff Hanna, RW Hannemann, Martin Hanninen, Edward Hanrahan, PhD, E M Hansen, Robert C Hansen, PhD, Charles Hantzis, William Happer, PhD, Michael P Harasym, Allan W Harbaugh, PhD, John H Harble, Harry C Hardee, PhD, Harold C Harder, PhD, Clyde Hardin, James L Harding, PhD, Mary K Harding, Thomas Harding, Thomas W Harding, PhD, Wm Harding, PhD, Elwood Hardman, Henry R Hardy, PhD, Robert E Hardy, Mark Harjes, Eric A Harms, Lynn Harper, David Harriman, Franklin S Harris Jr, PhD, Richard A Harris, PhD, S P Harris, PhD, Marvin Harrison, James Hart, Robert D Hart, M Hartman, Peter Hartwick, Kenneth C Harvey, PhD, John A Hasdal, PhD, Neal Haskell, PhD, Jill Hasling, Floyd N Hasselrlis, Turner E Hasty, PhD, Ronald R Hatch, Larry Hatcher, Eric W Hatfield, Peter Hatgelakas, J Hauger, PhD, Henry Haughey, Ken Haught, PhD, Arthur Hausman, Peter Havanac, K Havenor, PhD, William Havens, PhD, Kerry M Hawkins, Robert Hawkins, PhD, William K Hawkins, Howard Hayden, PhD, Dennis Hayes, PhD, James L Hayes, Carl H Hayn, PhD, George L Hazelton, R N Hazelwood, PhD, William G Hazen, Harold E Headlee, G Herbert, David R Hedin, PhD, Todd Hedlund, Harold G Hedrick, PhD, John Hefti, Walter Heinrichs, William D Heinze, PhD, William D Heise, Thomas Helbing, Cecil Helfgott, PhD, Marvin W Heller, PhD, Carl Helmick, Ron Helms, Philip Hemmig, J Hemstreet, PhD, Dale Henderson, PhD, Gerald J Henderson, PhD, Richard G Hendl, PhD, John B Hendricks, PhD, Tom A Hendrickson, PhD, Raymond Henkel, PhD, Joseph Hennessey, Gregory W Henry, Malcolm Hepworth, PhD, John A Herb, PhD, Donlad Herlew Jr, PhD, Roger M Herman, PhD, Don Herriott, Tom R Herrmann, PhD, George Herzlinger, PhD, Cynthia Hess, PhD, George B Hess, PhD, Karl Hess, PhD, Ralph A Hewes, PhD, Frederick Hewitt, PhD, Paul G Hewitt, Walter Hickox, Joseph H Higginbotham, PhD, Archie C Hill, PhD, Harvey F Hill, J C Hill, PhD, Robert D Hill, PhD, Richard Hillger, PhD, Hilton F Hinderliter, PhD, Robert Hirsch, PhD, Sol Hirsch, Donald A Hirst, PhD, Mark Hladik, Wai Ching Ho, PhD, James L. Hobart, PhD, George Hobbs, Lon Hocker, PhD, Sidney E Hodges, PhD, Gus L Hoehn, PhD, William B Hoeing, C S Hoff, Thomas E Hoffer, PhD, John R Hoffman, PhD, Marvin Morrison Hoffman, PhD, C Lester Hogan, PhD, David C Hogg, PhD, LE Hoisington, PhD, David A Holcomb, Richard Holcombe, J Keen Holland, Richard Holland, Kenneth Hollenbaugh, PhD, Charles L Hollenbeck, William A Hollerman, John T Holloway, PhD, Russell Holman, Johnny B Holmes, PhD, Edmond W. Holroyd, PhD, Lowell H Holway, PhD, George Holzman, PhD, Philip E Hoover, Richard Hoover, Francis J Hopcroft, George William Hopkins, PhD, Terry Horn, John Horrenstine, Doc Horsley, PhD, William Horvath, PhD, James Hosgood, Charles R Hosler, Richard F Houde, House, Robert M House, Michael S Howard, PhD, Charles D Hoyle, PhD, Jam Hrabe, PhD, Bradford Hubbard, Harmon W Hubbard, PhD, Wilbert H Hubin, PhD, Colin Hudson, PhD, Brad Huffines, Woodie D Huffman, James W Hugg, PhD, John Hulm, PhD, John L Hult, PhD, Brian Humphrey, William E Humphrey, PhD, Robert D Hunsucker, PhD, Hubert B Hunt, J E Von Husen, John L Hubisz, PhD, Frank Hussey, Vivian K Hussey, Jerome G Hust, John F Hutzenlaub, PhD, Alan W Hyatt, PhD, Eric Hyatt, PhD, James M Hylko, Steven J Hynek,
            Category: I
            Rodney D Ice, PhD, Sherwood B Idso, PhD, Alex Ignatiev, PhD, Walter L Imm, Anton L Inderbitzen, PhD, Karl Ingard, PhD, J Charles Ingraham, PhD, Mitio Indkuti, PhD, Ronald H Isaac, PhD, Donald G Iselin, A Z Ismail, PhD,
            Category: J
            Bruce Jackson, Julius A Jackson Jr, K A Jackson, PhD, Warren Jackson, PhD, Bruce Jacobs, Jimmy J Jacobson, PhD, Holger M Jaenisch, PhD, Sherwin W Jamison, Kenneth S Jancaitis, PhD, Cole Janick, Norman Janke, PhD, Paul R Jann, John Jaquess, Fred Jarka, Robert Jastrow, PhD, John A Jaszczak, PhD, Seymour Jaye, Robert Jeanmaire, Keith Bartlett Jefferts, PhD, Thomas T Jeffries III, Jack D Jenkins, Vincent F Jennemann, PhD, Paul A Jennings, PhD, Clayton E Jensen, PhD, L Carl Jensen, Paul Edward T Jensen, Denzel Jenson, Robert Johannes, PhD, Emil S Johansen, Anthony Johnson, Anthony O Johnson, Arlo F Johnson, PhD, Charles M Johnson, PhD, Dale Johnson, Duane P Johnson, PhD, Gerald Johnson, PhD, Horace Johnson, PhD, James R Johnson, PhD, Jeffrey Johnson, L R Johnson, Laurence N. Johnson, Leo F Johnson, PhD, Robert Johnson, PhD, Robt L Johnson, PhD, Ronald Gene Johnson, PhD, Walter E Johnson, Wendell Johnson, William P Johnson, David Johnston, Charles Jones, PhD, H M Jones, PhD, Kay H Jones, PhD, Merrell R Jones, PhD, Mitchell Jones, Ray P Jones, Larry Josbeno, Daniel Juliano, PhD,
            Category: K
            Morton T Kagan, PhD, Jon P Kahler, David A Kallin, Kamal, PhD, W Kane, PhD, Arthur R Kantrowitz, PhD, Bennett Kapp, PhD, Gabor Karadi, PhD, Francis W Karasek, PhD, W Bradford Karcher, Munawar Karim, PhD, James Karom Jr, Thomas W Karras, PhD, Ira Katz, PhD, Yale H Katz, David Kay, PhD, Marvin D Kays, PhD, Michael Keables, PhD, Philip D Kearney, PhD, Horst H Kedesdy, PhD, Richard A Keen, PhD, Ralph O Kehle, PhD, John E Keim, PhD, Karl Keim, D Steven Keller, PhD, Charles T Kelley, PhD, Fenton Crosland Kelley, PhD, Patrick R Kelly, Paul Kelly, Ronald G Kelsey, Mike Kendall, Robert C Kendall, Peter H Kendrick, Dallas C Kennedy I I, PhD, Howard V Kennedy, PhD, J M Kennel, PhD, A. R. Kenny, Josef Kercso, Clifford D Kern, PhD, Quentin A Kerns, John Charles Kershenstein, PhD, Clement J Kevane, PhD, Elbert R Key, Frank Key, Riley Kiminer, PhD, J S King, PhD, P I Kingsbury, PhD, Tommy C. Kinnaird, John J. R. Kinney, Gerald Lee Kinnison, PhD, Timothy P Kinsley, Roy H Kinslow, PhD, Thyl E Kint, Peter Kirwin, Hugh Kissell, Thomas A Kitchens, PhD, Terence M Kite, PhD, Geo S Klaiber, PhD, L T Klauder Jr, PhD, Klaus, PhD, Williad Kleckner, PhD, Thomas Klein, Paul G Klemens, PhD, Kenneth F. Klenk, PhD, Edwin Kiingman, D A Klip, PhD, Duane V Kniebes, John Knight, PhD, Knightes, PhD, Richard H Knipe, PhD, David Knoble, PhD, Mark Knoderer, Mark Knoderer, James S Koehler, PhD, Robert A Kohl, PhD, Joshua O Kolawole, PhD, William Koldwyn, PhD, Lee R Koller, PhD, Kenneth K Konrad, Christopher Konz, Robert P Koob, PhD, Kevin D Kooistra, Jack I Kornfield, PhD, Theresa M Koscny, Fleetwood Koutz, PhD, William P Kovacik, PhD, Robert W Koza, Gregory A Kozera, Geoffrey A Krafft, PhD, Paul Krail, PhD, Roman J Kramarsic, PhD, Gary Kramer, PhD, George G. Krapfel, Howard R Kratz, PhD, Lawrence C Kravitz, PhD, Robert F Kraye, William Kreiss, PhD, Richard Kremer, PhD, Peter A Krenkel, PhD, Warren C Kreye, PhD, Robt E Kribal, PhD, Jacqueline Krim, PhD, James G Krist, Louis G Kristjanson, Paul H. Kronfield, Peter G Krueger, PhD, Paul Kubicek, Moyses Kuchnir, PhD, Antonin Kudrna, Peter Kuhn, PhD, Carl Kuhnen Jr, Matthew H Kulawiec, Andrew Kulchar, Gordon Kuntz, PhD, Edward Kurdziel, Chris E Kuyatt, PhD, Tung-Sing Kwong,
            Category: L
            Kenneth M Labas, Melvin Labitt, Paul Lacelle, MD, PhD, John J Lacey Jr, James Lafervers, PhD, John M Lafferty Jr, Eugene C. Laford, PhD, Milton Laikin, William Laing, George W Lambroff, Robert G Lamontagne, PhD, Robert G Lamontagne, PhD, G.D. Lancaster, Paul Lancaster, H D Landahl, PhD, Richard L Lander, PhD, Arthur Lange, Robert C Langley, George Laperle, Gerald J Lapeyre, PhD, Vince Lara, James G Lareau, Ernest T Larson, Mark Larson, Reginald E Larson, Robert Larson, PhD, Stanley Laster, PhD, Mike Lauriente, PhD, Jerome Lavine, PhD, Albert G Iles Law, PhD, Joel S Lawson, PhD, Kent Lawson, PhD, John F Lawyer, Thomas W Layton, PhD, Paul D Lazay, MD, PhD, Susanne M Lea, PhD, Richard Leamer, PhD, Charles W Lear, Albert O Learned, Jozef Lebiedzik, PhD, Lynn L Leblanc, PhD, Jean-Pierre Leburton, PhD, Charles E Lee, J T Lee, Paul Lee, PhD, H William Leech, PhD, Gail Legate, Mark R. Legg, PhD, Donald R Lehman, PhD, Troy Leingany, Eric E Lemke, Terry L Lemley, PhD, Leslie R Lemon, Andrew Lenard, PhD, Roger X Lenard, Roland E Lentz, Stephen K Lentz, John F Lescher, James D. Lesikar, PhD, James Lessman, Nelson J Letourneau, PhD, Michael A. Leuck, H A Leupold, PhD, Walter Frederick Leverton, PhD, Gilbert Levin, PhD, Stewart Levin, PhD, Arnold D Levine, PhD, Catherine Lewis, PhD, George R Lewis, Richard C Lewis, Huilin Li, PhD, James J Licari, PhD, T Lick, PhD, James A Liggett’, PhD, Peter Liley, PhD, Jay Lilley, Jay Lindholm, Ralph Linsker, MD, PhD, Clarence D Lipscombe Iii, PhD, Chian Liu, PhD, W M Liu, PhD, Robert S Livingston, PhD, Thomas J Lockhart, Jaques Loes, H. William Lollar, Julian H Lombard, PhD, G Lombardi, PhD, Leonard Lombardi, PhD, Bryan H Long, James A Long, James D Long, David Longinotti, H Jerry Longley, PhD, Wm Longley Jr, PhD, Ronald Lorenz, Monty Losee, Stuart Loucks, L Richard Louden, PhD, Robert I Louttit, PhD, Sadler Love, Robert Lovelace, Radon R Loveland, F Lowe, Thomas Lowinger, PhD, Brian Lubbert, Alan H Lubell, Martin S Lubell, Michael D Lubin, PhD, Brian Luckianow, Claus B Ludwig, PhD, Mark Ludwig, PhD, Mariann Lukan, Ronald Lukas, PhD, Robert A Luke, PhD, Robert Luke, PhD, Jack Marling, PhD, J Lund, Mark W Lund, PhD, Dennis L Lundberg, PhD, Theodore Lundquist, PhD, Jesse V Lunsford, Anthony Lupo, PhD, Mark J Lupo, PhD, William H Lupton, PhD, J W Luquire, PhD, Glenn R Lussky, John Lynch, PhD,
            Category: M
            Monte D Mabry, Howard Maccabee, MD, PhD, A MacDonald, Alexander Dainel MacDonald, PhD, Brian MacDonald, Richard Macdougal, Char L Mack, Patrick Mackey, Jay Mackie, Robert A Macrae, Peter Madaffari, Franklin D Maddox, R Magno, PhD, John P Maher, Pat Mahon, Robert A Maier, Jeffrey E Malan, Robert Malouf, Gary M Malvin, PhD, James M Mandera, David J Maness, Kent M Mangold, T A Manhart, Robt C Mania, PhD, Harold Manley, Joseph Bird Mann, PhD, J Mannion, Charles Mansfield, PhD, John Mansfield, PhD, Samuel P March, Jack J Marcinek, Richard M Marino, PhD, William D Marino, George Marklin, PhD, Morris J Markovitz, Morris J Markovitz, William E Marlatt, PhD, Marsh, PhD, C T Martin, Daniel W Martin, PhD, Edward Martin, Jerry Martin, L A Martin, Lockhead Martin, PhD, Ronald L Martin, PhD, Ernest A Martinelli, PhD, Mario Martini, PhD, Philip X Masciantonio, PhD, James V Masi, PhD, Conrad J Mason, PhD, Conrad Mason, PhD, Wulf F Massell, PhD, Wulf F. Massell, PhD, David S Masterman, Ronald F Mathis, PhD, Dilip Mathur, PhD, Ron J Matlock, J Matolyak, PhD, Harrison Matson, Paul R Matthews, Timothy V Mattson, Thomas E Mattus, Richard Matula, PhD, David C Matzke, Paul Mauer, J G Mavroides, PhD, John E May, PhD, John May, A Frank Mayadas, PhD, James Mayo, Robert McAdams, Robt E McAdams, PhD, John Hart Mcadoo, PhD, William Bruce McAlister, PhD, McAneny, PhD, Terry McArthur, Bruce R McAvoy, Michael F McCardle, William Mccarter, Robert P McCarthy, Shaun L McCarthy, PhD, John Mccauley, Thomas A McClelland, PhD, James O McClimans, R J McClure, M McCorcle, PhD, Billy M McCormac, PhD, Philip Thomas McCormick, PhD, John G McCue, PhD, Robert G McCuistion, Tim McDaniel, Dirk McDermott, James M Macdonald Jr, Malcolm W McDonald, PhD, Ralph R McDonough, Edward McDowell, Jr, William Nordell McElroy, PhD, Gerald N McEwen, PhD, Michael McGinn, Randall K McGivney, Stuart Mcgregor, John P McGuire, David F McIntosh, Robert J Mckay, John P McKelvey, PhD, Wm B McKnight, PhD, James A McLennan, PhD, Gregory R McNeill, Edward J McNiff, D Sean McPherson, Daniel E Mcpherson Jr, Reg Meaker, Walter Medding, Sidney S Medley, PhD, James Medlin, William L Medlin, PhD, Ralph D Meeker, PhD, Louis D Megehee, Karin Megerle, Leathem Mehaffey, PhD, John L Meisenheimer, PhD, Ivars Melingailis, PhD, Kenneth E Mellendorf, PhD, Gary Melvin, Arthur Mendonsa, Wm Menger, Samuel H Mentemeier, Micheal D Mentzel, Leo Menz, PhD, Erhard R Menzel, PhD, Charles R Merigold, James B. Merkel, Marshal F Merriam, PhD, Dwight F Metzler, PhD, Donald I Meyer, PhD, Frank H Meyer, Harold Meyer, Howard Meyer, Stuart L Meyer, PhD, Walter D Meyer, PhD, Maurice A Meylan, PhD, Alesandru Mezincescu, PhD, Gerald J Miatech, PhD, Patrick Michael, PhD, Paul C Michaelis, Andre F Michaudon, PhD, C Michel, PhD, F Curtis Michel, PhD, John Medavaine, Marcus Middleton, John A Mikus, PhD, John G Miles, Kelley F Miles, Ralph F Miles, PhD, Frederick H Milford, PhD, William G. Millan, PhD, James P Millard, A S Miller, PhD, Donadl B Miller, PhD, Donald P Miller, PhD, George R Miller, Herman L Miller, Howard Miller, PhD, James A Miller, Larry Miller, Lewis E Miller, Philip D Miller, PhD, Raymond E Miller, PhD, Robert Charles Miller, PhD, Robert J Miller, PhD, Roger Miller, L E Millet, PhD, Dan Millison, John J Mills, PhD, Paul Mills, Greg Millspaugh, George H Milly, PhD, Wm B Mims, PhD, Minkin, PhD, David Mintzer, PhD, Raymod Mires, PhD, Dale Mitchel, Robert H Mitchell, John B Mix, PhD, Jack Pitts Mize, PhD, James J Mizera, Raymond C Mjolsness, PhD, K L Moazed, PhD, Paul Mockett, PhD, Charles J Mode, PhD, Fersheed K Mody, PhD, Mary V Moggio, Philip Mohan, Gary A Molchan, D Mommsen, Ralph Monaghan, W Bryan Monosmith, PhD, Christopher Monroe, PhD, Charles J Montrose, PhD, Donald W Moon, Rickie D Moon, Young Moon, PhD, Richard T Mooney, Craig Moore, Michael S Moore, PhD, Robert D Moore, Jr, John W Moran, Kou-Yiong Y Moravan, PhD, Allan J. Mord, PhD, William Moreland, Dena R Morford, Relbue M Morgan, PhD, Robert Morgan, PhD, W Lowell Morgan, PhD, Carl H Morley, Lawrence Morley, PhD, Edward G Morris, Dan Morrow, Thomas M Morse, Kenneth E Mortenson, PhD, Ray S Morton, Gary E Mosher, Malcolm Mossman, Jack Mott, PhD, Henry T Motz, PhD, Lloyd Motz, PhD, Eugene A Mueller, PhD, George E. Mueller, PhD, George Mueller, PhD, William B Mueller, Barry B Muhoberac, PhD, J Mishtu A Mukerjee, Richard L Mullen, John Muller, PhD, Justus Muller, Edward S Murduck, PhD, George Murgel, PhD, Wayne K Murphey, PhD, Charles Murphy, PhD, John C Murphy, PhD, Murphy, PhD, Lawrence E Murr, PhD, Frank Murray, PhD, Raymond L Murray, PhD, X J Musacchia, PhD, John D Myers, Mark T Myers, Glen Myska,
            Category: N
            Misac Nabighian, PhD, Edward Nadgorny, PhD, James Nagode, Dennis B Nakamoto, Samuel J Nalley, PhD, Michael L Nance, Franklin Richard Nash, PhD, Harry C Nash, PhD, Ronald O Neaffer, PhD, Victor Thomas Neal, PhD, Hugh Neeson, Robert Neff, Robert Neff, John P Neglia, Leland K Neher, PhD, Charles A Nelson, PhD, David L Nelson, David Nelson, PhD, Genne Nelson, Loren D Nelson, PhD, Nelson A Perry, Robert Nerbun, PhD, Arthur H Nethercot, PhD, Charles H Neuman, PhD, Paul Nevins, Jerry S Newcomb, John T Newell, PhD, Richard E Newell, Sam Newner, Richard S Newrock, PhD, Kerwin Ng, Liz Niccum, Chester E Nichols, PhD, Davis Betz Nichols, PhD, Mark E Nichols, PhD, Roberta Nichols, PhD, Eugene H Nicholson, PhD, George Nickas, PhD, Barry C Nielsen, Kurt Nielsen, Henry Nikkel, Thomas G Nilan, PhD, Harmon Nine, PhD, James Nitzschke, John D Noble, PhD, Michael L Noel, Raymond L. Noel, Lasalle L Nolin, Jack Noll, Bertram Nolte, PhD, Eugene Nooker, Philip A Norby, Sherman B Nornes, PhD, William G Norrie, Clyde Northrup, PhD, Hallan C Notimier, PhD, Julian R P Nott, Edward F Novak, J D Novotny, Jerzy Nowakowski, PhD, Gary P Noyes, PhD, Hugh Nutley, PhD, Richard A Nyquist, PhD,
            Category: O
            Michael Oard, Deborah Jean O’Bannon, PhD, Richard L. O’Connell, Frederick Kirk Odencrantz, PhD, Frederic C E Oder, PhD, Randy Oehling, Ordean S Oen, PhD, Robert A Oetjen, PhD, Calvin Ogburn, Norbert W Ohara, PhD, William Ohmstede, Steven E Olbrich, PhD, Fred Oliver, Kenneth Leo Oliver, PhD, Wm P Oliver, PhD, Merrill M Olson, Ted Olson, James Oltmans I I, Joe R O’Neal, Russell O’Neal, PhD, George F Oneill, PhD, Robert E O’Neill, Marchall F Onellion, PhD, Gary L. Oppliger, PhD, Drew R Van Orden, Johathan Orloff, PhD, Cornel G Ormsby, Harold Osborn, Oskoorouichi, PhD, Charles Osterberg, PhD, Wayne Ott, PhD, Wm J Otting, PhD, William Otto, Jacques Ovadia, PhD, Robert Ovellette, Albert W Overhauser, PhD, Robert F Overmyer, Mark Owens, William C Owens,
            Category: P
            Karle Packard, Jack Paden, Robert R Palik, Richard W Palladino, Thomas Y Palmer, John M Palms, PhD, Michael V Palvov, John A Pantelis, Francis Paolini, PhD, Carles Herach Papas, PhD, Sastry U Pappu, PhD, James L Park, PhD, Eugene Parker, PhD, Raymond G Parker, Edward M Parma, Albert Parr, PhD, Christopher Parry, PhD, H D Parry, Zohreh Parsa, PhD, David H Parsons, W H Parsons, PhD, David F Paskausky, PhD, David F Paskausky, PhD, James M Paterson, PhD, Sandra Patrick, Randy Patterson, Robert W Patterson, Gary M Patton, Robert Paul, PhD, Kermit Paulson, Arthur S Pavlovic, PhD, Charles H Paxton, Cyril J Payne, Daniel Payne, F R Payne, PhD, Michael A Payne, PhD, Daniel N Payton, Zoran Pazameta, PhD, Herry Peace, David Peacock, PhD, Durk Pearson, George J Pearson, PhD, David C Peaslee, PhD, Justin B Peatross, PhD, Michael J Pechan, PhD, E L Peck, PhD, Edson R Peck, PhD, Christopher Peek, Gary Pekarek, David G Pelka, PhD, Erik M Pell, PhD, M J Pellillo, Richard R Pemper, PhD, John Penn, Samuel Penner, PhD, Linda Pequegnat, PhD, Darlene A Periconi-Balling, Charles Perry, Nelson Perry, Kenneth F Persin, Persky, PhD, Heide Petermann, Calvin Peters, Jeffrey L Peters, Edward C Peterson, Jack E Peterson, PhD, Arthur Petraske, Andrey Petukhov, PhD, Raymond J Pfeiffer, PhD, Bill Phebe, Frederick Phelps, PhD, Herbert R. Philipp, PhD, Richard A Phillips, PhD, James A Phillips, PhD, Jay W Phippen, PhD, William Pickett, George Piers, Alan Pike, PhD, David M Pike, Gordon E Pike, PhD, Arturs Piksis, PhD, Lester Pilcher, Valter E Pilcher, PhD, Robert A Piloquin, Pine, PhD, Ervin L Piper, Daniel J Pisano, PhD, Jack Piskura, Fred Pitman, James D Plimpton, PhD, David Pocengul, Steve C Poe, William Poley, Polinger, PhD, William J Polson, PhD, Walter L. Pondrom, PhD, Kurt W Pontasch, PhD, G Albert Popson, PhD, Bonne Posma, Richard W Postma, PhD, James E Potzick, Edward T Powell, PhD, Mark L Powell, Michael Robert Powell, PhD, Daren Powers, PhD, Robert W Powitz, PhD, C Dan Preston, Kenneth Price, PhD, Donald W Pritchard, PhD, David G Proctor, PhD, Tso-Ping Ma, PhD, Jesus R Provencio, PhD, Frederick D Provenza, PhD, Anthony J Provenzano, PhD, L L Pruitt, Bruce Purcell, Cary C Purdy, James K Purpura, George Putman, PhD, Thomas H Putman, PhD, Abbott A Putnam, Erling Pytte, PhD,
            Category: Q
            Kathy Qin, James Qualey, PhD, Russell Qualls, PhD, John J Quinn, PhD, Shirley J Quinn, Phil Quire, Karl S Quisenberry, PhD, Patrick W Quist,
            Category: R
            Bernard Raab, PhD, Steven Rabe, Harold Raemer, PhD, Dejan Rajcic, James A Ralph, Frederick Rambow, PhD, Rafael G Ramirez, PhD, Simon Ramo, PhD, Benjamin F Ramsey, Madeline Ramsey, Charles A Randall, PhD, Joseph L Randall, PhD, William P Raney, PhD, C J Ransom, PhD, W. R. Ransone, James Rasor, Ned S Rasor, PhD, Howard Rast, PhD, Dennis Rathman, PhD, Hukum S Rathor, PhD, Andrew A Rathsack, Steven Ratliff, PhD, Alfred Ratz, PhD, Richard Rauch, PhD, Kyle Rawlings, PhD, David Thomas Read, PhD, Robert G Read, Andreas B Rechnitzer, PhD, Charles W Rector, PhD, Larry K Reddig, Noeman Redford, Robert H Rediker, PhD, C Reed, PhD, Emmett Van Reed, Max E Reed, PhD, WR Reeves, Carl J Regone, John Reichenbach, James Reid, PhD, Leonard Reiffel, PhD, William Reifsnyder, PhD, Hugh Reilly, Thomas L Reinecke, PhD, John W Reinert, David Relihan, Marlin E Remley, PhD, Mack Remlinger, Nicholas A Renzetti, PhD, R H Reuter, PhD, Robert Walter Rex, PhD, Bruce Reynolds, PhD, Robert Ware Reynolds, PhD, John E. Rhoads, PhD, John R Rhodes, J J Richard, Benjamin Richards, PhD, Bernard L Richards, PhD, Ralph J Richardson, PhD, Douglas W Ricks, PhD, R J Riddell, PhD, Robt W Riedel, Elliott A Riggs, PhD, James W Riggs, PhD, Robert Righter, Jim Riker, PhD, Gary T Riley, William Riley, Dan H Rimmer, Charles E Rinehart Jr, PhD, Roy Ringo, PhD, Winthrop Risk, MD, PhD, Allan Roberts, Kenneth Roberts, Norman Hailstone Roberts, PhD, Donald K Robertson, George H Robertson, PhD, Stanley L Robertson, PhD, Clark S Robinson, Michael J Robrecht, David A Roddy, Jonathan P Rode, PhD, Rocky Roden, Brian D Rodriguez, Robt C Roeder, PhD, Raylan Roetman, Robert C Rohr, PhD, John H Rohrbaugh, PhD, Neal Rohrbaugh, Oscar A Rondon, PhD, John Roscoe, PhD, Benny H Rose, PhD, David Rose, PhD, Kenneth L Rose, PhD, Frederick A Rosell, Alan Rosen, PhD, Richard Rosencrans, Robert Rosene, Allan Ross, Arthur Ross, Elliot Rothkopf, PhD, Wm S Rothwell, PhD, Lawrence J Rouse, PhD, W Jeffrey Row, James M Rowe, PhD, Stephen Rowley, G Roysdon, John Rozenbergs, PhD, Balaz F Rozsnyai, PhD, Arthur Rubin, Daniel Rubinstein, PhD, Douglas Rudenko, Raymond L Ruehle, Robert Reuss, Donald E Ruminer, George Rumney, PhD, Kim J Runk, Gerald Rupert, PhD, Louis J Rusconi, PhD, B Rush, PhD, Cynthia B Russell, Kenneth Russell, Mark Russell, PhD, Robert Rutherford, Patrick Rutty, Mary Ruwart, PhD, Bill C Ryan, PhD, Frederick M Ryan, PhD, Jean Ryan, PhD, John W Ryon, PhD,
            Category: S
            Patrick Saatzer, PhD, Edward S Sabisky, PhD, Julius Jay Sabo, Frank Sacco, Frederick Sachs, PhD, Thomas Dudley Sachs, PhD, James C Sadler, James C Sadler, Jerry F Sagendorf, Eugene Salamin, James A Salsgiver, George Albert Samara, PhD, Douglas Sampson, PhD, Douglas Sampson, PhD, John F Sandell, PhD, Wm Marion Sandefur, PhD, Eric Sanden, PhD, Jerrell L Sanders, Richard M Sanders, PhD, Andrew Sandorfi, PhD, Wayne M Sandstrom, PhD, G S Santi, Mykola Saporoschenko, PhD, Dalip K Sarin, Lynn Redmon Sarles, PhD, Ronald G Sarrat, Raymond Edmund Sarwinski, PhD, Richard Sasiela, PhD, Edward A Saunders, PhD, Jason Saunderson, PhD, David P Sauter, S C Saxena, PhD, Vinod K Saxena, PhD, Vinod K Saxena, PhD, George P Saxon, PhD, Razi Saydjari, MD, Thomas S Scanlon Jr, Marc A Scarchilli, James R Scarlett, Lawrence A Schaal, Thomas S Schalk, Hans Schantz, PhD, Darrell R Scharf, Richard Scharf, John F Schatz, PhD, Harvey Schau, PhD, Larry Schecter, PhD, Frank Schell, MD, Keith J Schiager, PhD, Walter Schimmerling, PhD, Guenter Martin Schindler, PhD, Hassel Charles Schjelderup, PhD, Jeffrey Schleher, Robert A Schluter, PhD, Frederick Schmidlin, PhD, Philip L Schmitz, Marcel R Schmorak, PhD, Douglas G Schneider, John Schneider, PhD, Michael Schneider, PhD, George L Schofield Jr, PhD, James G Schofield, Paul Schrade, Robert Schrader, John L Schrag, PhD, Martin Wm Schramm, PhD, Ethan J Schreier, PhD, Donald Schuder, Steve Schulte, PE, James J Schultheis, Frederick Schultz, PhD, Thomas A Schultz, Michael Schulz, Scofield, PhD, James F Scoggin, PhD, Theodore T Scolman, PhD, Stylianos P Scordilis, PhD, Clive R Scorey, PhD, Charles N Scott, Scott Scrupski, James B Seaborn, PhD, John D Seagrave, PhD, Chris L Seaman, PhD, Robert D Sears, Paul A Sease, George A Seaver, PhD, Sederholm, Fred Seeber, PhD, Warren G Segelken, PhD, Fritz A Seiler, PhD, Jerold A Seitchik, PhD, James A Selasky, Harner Selvidge, PhD, Mark Semon, PhD, Richard G Semonin, William Sens, Karl A Sense, Nicholas S Sereno, PhD, Byron R Sever, PhD, Harry Sewell, PhD, James Sewell, Richard U Shafer, Wayne Shaffer, Michael L Shand, PhD, Anatole Shapiro, PhD, Edward K Shapiro, PhD, Ralph Shapiro, PhD, James Sharp, Francis Sharpton, PhD, Glenn E Shaw, PhD, Lawrence H Shaw, Steven Shaw, Roy W. Shawcroft, PhD, Thomas Sheahen, PhD, James Shelton, PhD, Hao Ming Shen, PhD, Shen, Moses M Sheppard, PhD, B Sherrill, Frank Shinneman, Calvin Shipbaugh, PhD, Scott T. Shipley, PhD, George A Shirn, PhD, Kandiah Shivanandan, PhD, Andrew Shkolnik, William Shockley, M A Short, PhD, Martin Shotzberger, Curtis A Shuman, PhD, Edwin Shykind, PhD, Kurt Sickles, Richard W Siegel, PhD, Richard Ernest Siemens, Arnold J Sierk, PhD, Wayne Sievers, PhD, Henno Siismets, Lt Col Henry W Silk, Joseph D Silverstein, PhD, E Lee Simmons, MD, Ralph O Simmons, PhD, Wm W Simmons, PhD, Albert Simon, PhD, Jack Simonton, Chirstopher Simpson, Robert S Simpson, S Fred Singer, PhD, Lal P S Singh, PhD, Raj N Singh, Norman Sissenwine, Michael Sitko, PhD, Andrew Sivak, PhD, Michael Sivertsen, Gary W Sjolander, PhD, Riley Skeen, Damir S Skerl, Skluzacek, PhD, Frederick W Slee, PhD, Faye Slift, Michele E Slinkard, Anthony R Slotwinski, Harold S Slusher, PhD, Peter J Van Slyke, Alexander G Smith, PhD, Bruce W Smith P E, Donald R Smith, PhD, Earl W Smith, PhD, Frederick W Smith, PhD, James R Smith, John R. Smith, PhD, Michael Smith, Neil M Smith, Richard Lloyd Smith, PhD, Rick Smith, Thane Smith, PhD, William Smith, Gilbert Snell, Walter L Snell, Leonard W Snellman, PhD, C R Snider, James J Snodgrass, William R Snow, PhD, Donald P Snowden, PhD, Fred F C Snyder, Robert Soberman, PhD, Jon Sollid, PhD, Wanda C Soo Young, Brent A Sorensen, James A Sorenson, PhD, Norman Sossong, PhD, Wallace W Souder, PhD, Frank E South, PhD, Robert R Speers, PhD, Edward L Spence, PhD, Charles Spencer, Daniel Spencer, Charles L Spiegel, Andrew Spiessbach, PhD, Joel S Spira, John G Spitzley, Robert H Springer, PhD, James Kent Sprinkle, Julien C Sprott, PhD, D Sprowl, PhD, Eve S Sprunt, PhD, Charles F Squire, PhD, Robert M St John, PhD, Kim W Stahnke, Drago Stankovic, Glenn Stanwick, Harvey J Stapleton, PhD, Fred Starheim, PhD, Chauncey Starr, PhD, Gene Start, Jennifer Staszel, Herman Statz, PhD, Harold F Staunton, PhD, John Staunton, Michael A Steinberg, Kenneth B Steinbruegge, Ray L Steinmetz, Frank R Steldt, PhD, Jesse J Stephens, PhD, Lou Stephens, Robert D Stephens, Stephen M Sterbenz, PhD, Howard O Stevens, Lewis A Stevens, Robert Stevenson, PhD, William Stewart, PhD, Carleton C Stewart, Glenn A Stewart, PhD, Harris B Stewart, PhD, Homer J Stewart, PhD, William A Stewart, William L Stewart, Bernard Stiff, Regan Stinnett, PhD, Norman D Stockwell, PhD, W Ross Stone, PhD, James R Storey, William T Storey, Charles L Storrs, PhD, Gregory J Story, Glenn E Stout, PhD, David Stowell, David Strand, Thomas F Stratton, PhD, W R Stratton, PhD, Joe M Straus, PhD, Edward A Streed, Sharon R Streight, PhD, George Strella, James S Strickland, PhD, Geo L Strobel, PhD, David H Strome, PhD, Forrest C Strome, PhD, Alan E Strong, PhD, Alan Strong, PhD, William J Strong, PhD, Mark W Strovink, PhD, Roger D Stuck, Robert Stupp, G. Sturges, Victor F Sturm, Eric Stusnick, PhD, Bill Styer, Daniel Subach, PhD, Subraman, John T Suggs Jr, Richrad Sullivan, Thomas J Sullivan, PhD, Donald L Summers, Donald Supkow, PhD, Earl C Sutherland, PhD, Jordan L Sutton, Todd W Sutton, Jon R Swanson, PhD, Robert N Swanson, Hilmar Swenson, PhD, Don E Swets, Donald M Swingle, PhD, Burton L Sylvern, Ronald J Szaider, Edwin Szymanski, PhD,
            Category: T
            Keith A Taggart, PhD, Saeed Taherian, PhD, Samuel Taimuty, PhD, Gerald Tait, Willard L Talbert, PhD, Jim Tallon, Daniel J Tambasco, PhD, Louis A Tamburino, PhD, Lukas Tamm, PhD, Peter E Tannenwald, PhD, Daniel Tao, PhD, Frederick D Tappert, PhD, Suren A Tatulian, PhD, Byron Taylor, Eugene W Taylor, James Taylor, PhD, Michael K Taylor, Edward Teller, PhD, Lee C Teng, PhD, Jeffrey Tennant, PhD, Steven Terwilliger, Eugene Theios, James Thissell, Gordon A Thomas, PhD, Martin J Thomas, PhD, Richard Thomas, PhD, William H Thomason, PhD, Richard Thompson, Richard Thompson, Warren Thompson, PhD, Wm B Thompson, PhD, Walter W Thomsen, Ker C. Thomson, Craige Thorn, PhD, James A Thornhill, T Thornton, Arnold W Thorton, PhD, Eugene D Tidwell, Calvin O Tiller, Jennifer L Tillman, Clarence N Tinker, Merlin Tipton, Robert W Titus, Arthur R Tobey, PhD, Joseph J Tobias, Joseph D Tobiason, PhD, Norman Tolk, PhD, John Toman, Kurt Toman, PhD, James Tomberlin, Randy Tomkins, Daniel Tonn, PhD, Brian P Tonner, PhD, Steven A Tonsfeldt, PhD, George Tope, Carlos Toroes, Charles J Touhill, PhD, Roger Townsend, Joseph C Tracy, PhD, George T Trammell, PhD, Rex Trammell, Felix Rodriguez Trelles, PhD, D H Trenscell, J Trevino, Roy A Tucker, Daniel Tudor, PhD, J Paul Tullis, PhD, Richard Turiczek, Alvis G Turner, PhD, Robert E Turner, PhD, Thomas Turner, William Turner, PhD, Joseph Tutak, Kenneth L Tuttle, PhD, Ben Tuval, David Tweedy, Arthur G Tweet, PhD, Somdev Tyagi, PhD,
            Category: U
            Herbert M S Uberall, PhD, David J Ulsh, Glenn Underhill, PhD, John D Underwood, Kot Unrug, PhD, Donna Utley, PhD,
            Category: V
            J. Peter Vajk, PhD, William P Vale, Oriol T Valls, PhD, Van Domelen, Bruce Harold, PhD, Ruth Van Knapp, Dominique Van Nostrand, Donald O Van Ostenburg, PhD, Earl Van Reenan, Willliam Vanarsdale, PhD, Vandemerwe, PhD, David H Vanhise, Walker S Vaning, Larry Vardiman, PhD, Nancy Vardiman-Hall, Michael O Varner, Lawrence J Varnerin, PhD, Stanley S. Vasa, William W Vaughan, PhD, Wm Walton Vaughan, PhD, Sidney E Veazey, PhD, Karl F Veith, PhD, Theodore E Veltfort, David Vermilyea, James Ira Vette, PhD, Roy E Vincik, Kalman N Vizy, PhD, Henry Vogel, PhD, Karl Vogler, PhD, James Vogler, PhD, Philip A. Volker, Philip A. Volker, James Vollmer, PhD, Mike Vossen, George Vourvopoulos, PhD,
            Category: W
            Alfred Wagner, Edward Wagner, Orvin Edson Wagner, PhD, Marvin L Wagoner, Richard I Waite Jr, Richard Wales, Robert A Walish, Joe A Walker, P David Walker, William Delany Walker, PhD, William W Walker, PhD, James P Wallace, Joel D Walls, PhD, Kevin Walsh, Walter M Walsh Jr, PhD, John F Walter, PhD, Robert F Walter, PhD, Michael D Walters, PhD, R B Walton, PhD, Maynard C Waltz, James E Wanamaker, David Y Wang, PhD, Zhijing Wang, PhD, Roscoe F Ward, PhD, Ward, John F Wardle, PhD, John F Ware, Richard C Waring, Ross Warner, H Waslik, PhD, George A Waters, Dean A Watkins, PhD, Gary W Watson, William Watson, PhD, Charles Wax, PhD, John Waymouth, PhD, Ronald Weaver, George Webb Jr, Theodore S Webb, PhD, Alfred C Webber, Allen H Weber, PhD, Anthony J Weber, Michael Weber, D J Wechsler, Brent M Wedding, PhD, Lloyd Weese, William Weese, Walter F Wegst, PhD, Steven Weise, Max T Weiss, PhD, Ima Wells, Wells, PhD, William Wells, Patrick T Welsh, PhD, Theodore A Welton, PhD, Michael Wendorf, R C Wentworth, PhD, Mike Wentzell, MD, Hans- Helmut Werner, PhD, Smiuel Werner, PhD, Robert H Wertheim, Richard P Wesenberg, Laurence N Wesson, Mark E Westcott, Burt O Westerman, Eric R Westphal, PhD, Norris C Wetters, Jack Weyland, PhD, C Wheeler, David Wheeler, John F Wheeler, Kenneth T Wheeler, PhD, William L Wheller, Larry Wheelock, R S Wherler, David J White, Donald R White, PhD, Douglas White, PhD, John L White, PhD, Lowell White, PhD, Robt Lee White, PhD, Thomas W Whitehead, Jr, PhD, R Whiting, Robert Whitten, PhD, E H Wichmann, PhD, Raymond V Wick, PhD, Donald J Wickwire, Gordon Wieduwilt, W Gordon Wieduwilt, King W Wieman, Chuck Wiese, John Wiggins, PhD, Kenneth A Wigner, John Wilburn, Richard B Wilkens Iii, Eugene M Wilkins, PhD, S Curtis Wilkins, Harvey B Willard, PhD, Willett, PhD, Paul T Willhite, Louis E Willhoit Jr, PhD, Clark William, Van William, PhD, Dansy Williams, Forrest R Williams, Neal Thomas Williams, Talmage Williams, Thomas Williams, PhD, Vernon Williams, Alan J Willoughby, Keith P Willson, Clyde L Wilson, PhD, David A Wilson, David W Wilson, PhD, Donald Wilson, Owen Wilson, Theron Wilson, Timothy M Wilson, PhD, Wm E Wilson, Donn B Wimmer, PhD, Kenelm C Winslow, William K Winter, PhD, John B Winters, P Winters, Donald F Winterstein, PhD, Floyd A Wise, Frank W Wise, PhD, Chester E Wisner, Abund O Wist, PhD, James M Witting, PhD, Warren F Witzig, PhD, William Wohler, Gene Wolfe, John C Wolfe, PhD, Milo M Wolff, PhD, Paul M Wolff, PhD, Eligius Wolicki, PhD, Cyrus Wood, James M. Wood, John K Wood, PhD, Keith Woodard, Richard Woodard, PhD, Patrick J Wooding, John P Woods, PhD, Robert F Woods, Gary K Woodward, Alice Woosley, Rodney Wooster, J Workley, D E Wortman, PhD, J Lamar Worzel, PhD, Peter Wrenshall, Royce E Wrick, Harlow Wright, Keith H Wrolstad, PhD, Peter T Wu, PhD, Wemin Wu, PhD, John M Wuerth, Philip Wyatt, PhD, Bruce C Wyman, PhD, Peter Wyzinski, MD,
            Category: Y
            Dmeter Yablonsky, PhD, Harold L Yarger, PhD, John Yarnell, PhD, John L Yates, Scott Yates, PhD, Hubert P Yockey, PhD, Marvel Yoder, PhD, Thomas Lester Yohe, PhD, Nicholas J Yonker, Edwin York, George W York Jr, PhD, A Young, PhD, Donald E Young, PhD, Lloyd M Young, PhD, Robert A Young, PhD, Wei Young, PhD, Phillip L Youngblood, Luke Dhia Liu Yuan, PhD, Mark Yuly, PhD, Sulhi H Yungul, PhD,
            Category: Z
            Daniel J Zaffarano, PhD, Marco Zaider, PhD, Joseph A Zak, PhD, James G Zapert, Josephh Zappia, Lawrence E Zeeb, Fred Zeile, Bruce Zeitlin, Claude Zeller, PhD, Hua-Wei Zhou, PhD, Jehuda Ziegler, PhD, Paul Ziemer, PhD, Carl Zietlow, Aaron L Zimmerman, E. Leroy Zimmerman, PhD, Elmer Leroy Zimmerman, PhD, John E Zimmerman, John R Zimmerman, PhD, Roger Zimmerman, Sally Zinke, Werner Zinn, Richard J. Zinno, Harold Zirin, PhD, Martin V Zombeck, PhD,

          • joshua says:

            whoa i did not know that but before I agree with you I would like to tell you that just because more people believe in a fact does not mean it is true.
            my email is if you would like you could send me a message and we will continue our argument later THANKS GOODBYE for now

        • joshua says:

          now i would call anyone an idiot but i think I can find evidence that global warming exist obviously not my own but someone elses work

      • keith says:

        wow… really? a giant shark swimming around attacking south african boats is the same as a scientifically backed theory about the temperature rising?

        • Frank says:

          Anything to serve the oppressive worldwide agenda. Global warming propaganda appears everywhere so that the sheep accept it as fact without questioning it.

      • Victoria says:

        Global warming is real, you do know that, right?

        • John says:

          Victoria No its not real read my posts above I would be More than happy to send you the evidence to the contrary

          • John says:

            Just put in your search bar : Scientists Against the Theory of Global warming and You will get a Host of sites! PLEASE DONT Take my OR ANYONE Else’s word for it – DO YOUR OWN Research!

        • John says:

          tell you what Victoria, Mike and Doc Here you go:

          1 – 10 of about 4,950,000 for Scientists against Global warming – 0.04 sec. (About this page)
          Also try: climate change, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases More…
          WEB RESULTS
          Explanation – Global Warming Petition Project
          … scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition. … petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in … – 11k – Cached – More from this site
          Global warming controversy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          See List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. … One argument against anthropogenic, global warming questions the contention that …
          Quick Links: Controversy over the theory – Scope of the controversy – Reasons given by supporters of the global warming – 112k – Cached – More from this site
          Global Warming
          A Denunciation of the Arguments for Global Warming. July 2, 2006 … us — which argues against the notion that scientists are some homogeneous … – 20k – Cached – More from this site
          The Seattle Times: Books: Novel on global warming gets some scientists burned up
          Novel on global warming gets some scientists burned up. By Seth Borenstein … show “ER,” compares scientists who warn of global warming to advocates of … – 30k – Cached – More from this site
          Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Global Warming Petition Project
          … Temperatures, The Global Warming Hypothesis, Global Warming Evidence, Sea Levels … are thought to cause ”global warming” severe increases in Earth’s atmospheric … – 62k – Cached – More from this site
          More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth by Douglas Houts — …
          … signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in … with the claimed “consensus of 2500 climate scientists” about global warming. … – 16k – Cached – More from this site
          Key claim against global warming evaporates – LiveScience –
          … wrong and that global warming isn’t really happening turns … Report: Warming ‘very likely’ due to man . Scientists craft embryonic stem cell ethics rules. … – 30k – Cached – More from this site
          Global Warming – Wikipedia
          Read about the global warming and climate crisis debate, with information about warming’s causes and its effects on life on Earth. Wikipedia’s user-written overview …
          Category: Global – 139k – Cached – More from this site
          Questions and Answers on Global Warming
          … that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. … Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of … – 18k – Cached – More from this site
          Shared by Yahoos
          Answers 1 – 1 of 2 for Scientists against Global warming
          have you global warming cooks seen this petition from real …

          …Gore’s lectures you would know that the fact is that this current global warming is significant different from all other past global …Best Answer – Chosen by users
          More Answers… | Ask a question…
          • Evidence against Global Warming
 – Read in-depth science articles at Scientific American. Subscribe now.
          • Reduce Global Warming W/ Hydrogen Boost
 – 20%-50% Better Mileage on Your Car, Lower Emissions, Satisfaction Guaranteed or Money Back.
          Also try: climate change, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases More…
          • Evidence against Global Warming
          Read in-depth science articles at Scientific American. Subscribe
          • Reduce Global Warming W/ Hydrogen Boost

          • John says:

            More Links for your study :

   – Overview
            A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
            Anyone who is concerned over the hysteria generated by the current misinformation about Global Warming.

            Main article: global warming
            Hey! The global warming controversy is a debate about the existence and causes of 20th and 21st century global warming, and what steps, if any, society should take in response.
            Hey! There is strong consensus among climate scientists that warming observed over the past 50 years was caused primarily by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, that warming will continue if emissions continue, and that consequences become increasingly serious as the amount of warming increases. A few scientists disagree, most commonly asserting that although warming is occurring its cause is either natural or unknown. Outside the scientific community the consensus is disputed by some corporations, advocacy groups, politicians, and individuals (see global warming skeptics). However, among the governments of developed countries, there is little debate about attribution of global warming to human activities; as of December 2006, 166 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose stated aim is combating global warming. The United States and Australia have not ratified this Convention.
            Hey! There is, however, an ongoing political debate about what actions should be taken to mitigate or adapt to global warming. For example, the Bush administration has not submitted the Kyoto protocol for ratification by the U.S. Senate on the grounds that it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and that it would damage the American economy[1]. The American Senate had previously rejected the measure unanimously (95-0) while the UK-sponsored Stern Review, commanded by Tony Blair’s government in response to the House of Lords Economics Committee’s report which had issued substantial scientific uncertainties about climate change[2], concluded that “the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting”.[3] In addition to economic arguments, concerns include social justice for the adversely affected including likely climate refugees, need for intergenerational equity, and loss of biodiversity.
            Hey! This article focuses on the controversies surrounding global warming; for the basic scientific description, see global warming.

            Controversy over the theory
            The controversy comprises several separate issues relating to global warming.
            Whether the climate is changing beyond natural variations in the historical temperature record.
            Whether human/industrial activity is responsible for the change and if so, to what extent.
            How large future changes will be.
            What the consequences of climate change will be.
            Hey! There is little debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming among climate scientists. In contrast, there is an ongoing debate about global-warming theories in the popular media and on a policy level. Questions include whether there is a scientific consensus on the existence of global warming and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to justify action to attempt to ameliorate its effects. Those who believe that such a consensus exists express a wide range of opinions: some merely recognize the validity of the observed increases in temperature, while others support measures such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are intended to have some future climate effects and eventually lead to further measures. Still others believe that environmental damage will be so severe that immediate steps must be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, even if the immediate economic costs of doing so are substantial. An example of the latter is the Sierra Club, which has sued the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon-dioxide emissions.

            Hey! Critics of the global-warming theory similarly express a wide spectrum of opinions. Some, such as Patrick Michaels, accept that human influence has warmed the atmosphere but dispute the conclusion of the IPCC that “[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”. Others point out that observations of global temperatures over much larger time spans, thousands of years rather than decades, show that global temperatures fluctuated long before the industrial revolution. Some critics assert that it is not possible to ascertain any definitive global-temperature trend from the limited temperature record often cited, while others theorize that global temperature change may be induced by natural causes such as volcanism and solar activity. Over the past several decades, as scientific evidence for global warming has mounted, the debate has entered the public arena. Some leading political figures have taken up the issue, such as former U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore, author of Earth in the Balance, and narrator of the film An Inconvenient Truth. In U.S. politics, global warming is often a partisan political issue. Republicans generally (though not universally) oppose action against a threat that they regard as unproved, while Democrats tend to support actions that they believe will reduce global warming and its effects. Recently, the balance has begun to shift, and bipartisan measures have been introduced.[4]
            Global warming is an even more central and sustained issue for the European Union. Both ‘global warming’ and the more politically neutral ‘climate change’ were listed as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005[5]. However, in Europe, the global-warming theory has gained wider acceptance than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.[citation needed]Kevin E. Trenberth provides evidence for the controversy that occurs when science meets the political arena:
            The SPM was approved line by line by governments. . . .The argument here is that the scientists determine what can [be] said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report, most notably by Saudi Arabia. This led to very protracted debates over wording on even bland and what should be uncontroversial text… The most contentious paragraph in the IPCC (2001) SPM was the concluding one on attribution. After much debate, the following was carefully crafted: “In the light of new evidence, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations.”[6]

            [edit] Assertions by supporters and opponents
            Listed here are some of the assertions made by both supporters and opponents of the global-warming theory. Assertions are included here solely because they have been made by one side or the other, without comment on their scientific validity or lack thereof.

            [edit] Assertions by supporters of the global warming theory
            Supporters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis assert that:
            • The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century.
            • Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years,[7] with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record shows a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.[8]
            • The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years[9] and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels.
            • The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.
            • The urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution.
            • The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
            • Climate-change, attribution studies, using both models and observations, find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity; natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change.
            • Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included[10].
            • The IPCC reports correctly summarize the state of climate science.
            • There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above, reflected in official statements by professional associations related to climate science (see scientific opinion on climate change)
            • Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment, and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries to come.[11]
            • Climate models predict more warming, and other climactic effects (sea level rise; more frequent and severe storms; drought and heat waves; spread of tropical diseases; etc.) in the future.
            • The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse gases.[12]
            • Atlantic, hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change.[13]
            • The Precautionary principle requires that action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming.[citation needed]
            Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tend to support the IPCC position, and thus represent the scientific consensus (though with considerable differences over details, and especially over what action should be taken). Two of the 120 lead authors to the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) are known to have voiced serious objections.[citation needed] An opinion essay in Science magazine’s Society and Science section reported the analysis of 928 peer-reviewed scientific abstracts on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003 (Oreskes, 2004). The analysis found none that challenge the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work but later admitted to flaws in his own analysis, and the remaining parts of his attempted refutation are disputed

            [edit] Assertions by opponents of the global warming theory
            Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:
            • IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.[3][4]
            • Correlation does not imply causation, so just because temperatures have risen overall since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution doesn’t necessarily mean that Industrialisation has caused the change in temperature.[5]
            • The period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has produced “urban heat islands” (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.[6]
            • Some global warming studies, including the influential “Hockey Stick” study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [7] [8]
            • Using “consensus” as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. [citation needed]
            • Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, [9] changes in sea temperature [10] and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth. [11]
            • Estimates at CO2’s effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a “net” greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%. [12]
            • Climate science cannot make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms.[citation needed]
            • Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).[13][14]
            • Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber, however, on a global scale, where earth’s atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber. [citation needed]
            • The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
            • Many opponents also point to the Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, and which indicated an above-average temperature for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.[citation needed]
            • Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
            • The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide increases have always followed a rise in temperature rather than the other way around. [15]
            Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters’ arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.
            Many opponents also say that, if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now, because:
            • Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious, and do it for less money.
            • A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
            • There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse-gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth [16].

            [edit] Existence of a consensus
            Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change
            The proportion of scientists who support or oppose any of the global-warming theories is a matter of controversy in its own right. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous support for the global-warming theory from the scientific community. Some opponents maintain that it is the other way around, claiming that the majority of scientists either consider global warming “unproved”, or dismiss it altogether. Other opponents decry the dangers of consensus science, which appears to imply that they believe there is a consensus while also downplaying any import attached to it. This may be a sign of growth toward acceptance, or a sign of the realization the nature of the debate itself.
            A 2004 essay in the journal Science [17] reported a survey of peer-reviewed abstracts related to global climate change in the ISI database. Of the 900+ such abstracts found, none contradicted the view of the major scientific organizations that “the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.” A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal [18] challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science [journal] study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of “a persistent effort to suggest . . .that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.”[14]
            Global warming skeptics sometimes assert that not all of the IPCC authors support its reports. However, of the lead authors of the TAR, almost none are known to have officially commented on the reports as not accurately describing the consensus. The adherents of a consensus say the statements of those who expend the effort to comment negatively on that consensus is moving in the opposite direction, toward more agreement.[citation needed] Others dispute this.
            To support the claim of a lack of support, the website of S. Fred Singer’s Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four separate petitions:
            • The 1992 “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming” (“…Such policy initiatives [those concerning the Earth Summit scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992] derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”) [19]
            • The “Heidelberg Appeal” (also from 1992)
            • Singer’s own “Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change” (1995 and 1997)
            • The “Oregon Petition,” which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz.
            According to former SEPP policy associate Candace Crandall (who was at the time S. Fred Singer’s spouse), these petitions show that “the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing.”[20] However, those who have examined the petitions challenge that conclusion, pointing out that:
            • The 1992 “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists” is more than a decade old and only has 46 signers.
            • The Heidelberg Appeal makes no mention at all of climate or climate change, much less global warming.
            • Most of the signers of the Leipzig Declarations are non-scientists or lack credentials in the specific field of climate research.
            • Many of the signers of the Oregon Petition are also non-scientists or lack relevant scientific backgrounds.[21][22]
            In April 2006, a group describing itself as “sixty scientists” signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and “Open Kyoto to debate”. As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories are non-scientists, or lack relevant scientific backgrounds. For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. In addition, more than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized, research institute related to climate science. [23]. One of the signatories has since recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.[24]

            [edit] Global warming and carbon dioxide

            One argument against anthropogenic global warming questions the contention that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) correlate with—and thus have caused—global warming. Proponents of the view that greenhouse gases have caused recent global warming respond that correlation is not a significant part of the evidence. See attribution of recent climate change.

            420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station (present time at the left).
            • Correlation does not imply causation. Indeed, studies of ice-age, temperature variations show carbon dioxide levels increasing after warming rather than before. [25], [26] This assumes that current climate change can be expected to be similar to past climate change. While it is generally agreed that past (ice age) variations are mostly timed by astronomical forcing[27], the current variations, of whatever size, are claimed to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO2 (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO2 emissions).
            • Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down slightly, even though carbon-dioxide levels went up. This is largely attributed to the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols.[28]
            • The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small, accounting for 0.0381% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
            • The Earth has been in an ice age with a much higher level of CO2. The Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era, the Earth was in an ice age with atmospheric CO2 estimated at 4400ppm (or .44% of the atmosphere). However, a recent study suggests the Ordovician period began with a reduction in CO2. [29]
            As noted above, climate models are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century when GHG forcing is included, which some insist strongly points to the importance of GHGs, as does attribution of recent climate change.

            [edit] Urban heat islands
            Main article: Urban heat island
            Global-warming skeptics question the accuracy of the temperature records. They say that if the monitoring stations are located in more populated areas, then they must be influenced by the increased heat generated by the city as a whole (known as the “Urban heat island effect”). Those who believe in the accuracy of the records point out their consistency with the unaffected, marine record; the lack of a difference between the warmings observed in urban and rural areas; and various studies which have examined the records, and which have found no bias.

            [edit] Global warming and solar activity
            Main article: Solar variation theory
            Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation. According to the Stanford Solar Center, at most 25% of recent global temperature variation can be attributed to solar irradiance. When the 11-year sun cycle is accounted for, there still remains a significant, 0.75°C increase in recorded global temperatures. [30]

            [edit] Beneficial or detrimental
            There is also disagreement on whether the effects of global warming will be beneficial or detrimental. Many researchers predict disastrous consequences for a warming of 1.5 to 7°C. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts such a warming is likely within the 21st century, unless severe measures are taken (see Kyoto Protocol).
            Other researchers feel that up to 1.5°C of warming would increase crop yields and stabilize weather. Many of these doubt a larger warming is likely. In response, some advocates of strong, early measures (well beyond Kyoto) note that the belief in beneficial effects–and the doubt that a large warming is possible–should be independent if these conclusions were in fact neutrally derived from scientific research.

            [edit] Supporters of the global warming theory
            Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that have issued supportive declarations) include the following. These represent the mainstream position, a consensus that is the current scientific opinion on climate change.
            • The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
            • The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and India [31].
            • The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
            • The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
            • The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on climate change.
            • The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [32]
            • The Union of Concerned Scientists

            [edit] Opponents of the global warming theory
            Main articles: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus and :Category:Global warming skeptics
            A small minority of climate scientists and scientists in related fields have expressed opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming. Several of the most prominent include
            • Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, astrophysicists (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics),
            • William M. Gray, tropical meteorologist (Colorado State University),
            • Richard Lindzen, atmospheric dynamicist (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and
            • Frederick Seitz, solid-state physicist (former president of the National Academy of Sciences).
            Some prominent opponents from outside the climate science community have been:
            • David Bellamy, botanist and British environmental campaigner;
            • Ann Coulter, American syndicated columnist;
            • Michael Crichton, science-fiction novelist, author of the global-warming themed State of Fear;
            • Andrey Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin;
            • Ross McKitrick, economics professor;
            • Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1993), biochemist and inventor of PCR, known for idiosyncratic and sometimes controversial views on topics unrelated to biochemistry, and
            • Michael Savage, botanist and host of radio talk show The Savage Nation.
            Some organizations were formed to promote the opponents’ views:
            • Cooler Heads Coalition.
            • Information Council on the Environment (defunct): Michaels, Balling and Idso all lent their names in 1991 to the scientific advisory panel of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), an energy industry public relations group.
            • Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
            Notable former skeptics who are non-scientists but now acknowledge mankind’s role in global warming include British entrepreneur Richard Branson and Pat Robertson. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has also publicly acknowledged that the cause of global warming is anthropoegnic (man-made), but there is some scepticism in Australia about his sincerity, due to his political position.
            Some of these opponents to the anthropogenic, global-warming theory have links to the fossil- fuels industry. [33] For example, Patrick J. Michaels and Frederick Seitz have both been linked to the George C. Marshall Institute–Michaels as a “visiting scientist” and Seitz as “Chairman Emeritus.”.[34] The Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil, and from petroleum-related organizations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation [35][36][37]Similarly, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received several large grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and from ExxonMobil.[38][39]The CEI website lists both S. Fred Singer and Robert Balling as “experts,” while Ross McKitrick headed up a CEI project called the Cooler Heads Coalition.[40][41] Many observers are critical of these connections, suggesting that they pose a conflict of interest. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49].

            Scientists, critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors, dispute the validity of this guilt-by-association argument. These same critics are, themselves, part of government, state-college, and university systems; the scientific organizations listed in the proponents section; or some mix. Most have been considered skeptics, or at least somewhat skeptical, of certain points since long before the funding was provided. For example, according to the Forbes story [50] listed above, The Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia, CO (IREA) funded Patrick Michaels because according to its GM “‘We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,'” and said that, although he “…believes [that] global warming is real, just not as big a problem as scientists claim, he acknowledged [that] this is a special-interest issue. He said the bigger concern is his 130,000 customers, who want to keep rates low, so coal-dependent utilities need to prevent any taxes or programs that penalize fossil fuel use.” In that same article, Donald Kennedy of Science, said that ” ‘skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers’ “; and that ” ‘I don’t think it’s unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical,’ “; and that ” …donations to skeptics amounts to ‘trying to get a political message across.’ ” This tends to further refine the entire dispute as being one of a political nature.
            Other criticisms of funding are made by groups known to be in direct opposition to either corporations in general or energy ones in particular, such as the Mother Jones criticism of ExxonMobil donating to groups such as the American Council for Capital Formation [51]. Such groups complain that the ACCF presented an appendix that focused only on the uncertainties of a 2001 NAS report when the ACCF testified in front of the U.S. Senate. Mother Jones’ complaint seems to be only that, although the ACCF usually focuses on economic critiques of policies, this time they wrote something one-sided about the science involved in the debate to support their economic position on the Kyoto Protocol. Doing that, according to Mother Jones, puts them in the skeptic camp.
            Some opponents to the anthropogenic view of global warming have also been criticized for using incorrect information or flawed analyses in support of their viewpoints. For example, in April 2005, David Bellamy published a letter in the journal New Scientist in which he claimed that, of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 555 of them were growing, not shrinking—a statement which, if true, would cast a good deal of doubt on the existence of global warming. It turned out, however, that Bellamy’s figures were incorrect: the vast majority of the world’s glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. George Monbiot of the Guardian tracked down Bellamy’s original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer’s website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[52] Similarly, before starting, Steven Milloy belonged to an organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was paid by tobacco companies to cast doubt on studies about the dangers of secondhand smoke [53] [54]. However, most of the authors of these editorials, their websites, or the publications themselves are almost universally extremely critical of the role of industry and government in environmental matters, and focus almost entirely on negative aspects of the debate [55] [56] [57] [58].

            [edit] Betting over global warming
            A number of scientists have proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether future temperatures will increase. With the exception of two Russian physicists betting $10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003,[15] all other skeptics have either refused to bet on terms that pay out before the year 2100,[16] have refused all bets, or, like Richard Lindzen, have only accepted odds that indicate temperatures that are much more likely to increase rather than to decrease.[17]

            [edit] Global warming litigation
            Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (case 05-1120 pending before the United States Supreme Court), was filed to force the Federal Government to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit (California v. General Motors Corp.) to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles’ emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples,[59] a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.

            [edit] Political pressure on scientists
            Climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the man who is credited by many with the introduction of the global-warming theory to the public, in Congressional testimony in 1988, complained in a widely cited New York Times article [60] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to “censor” information “going out to the public”. NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints[61]; once again, government officials said they were enforcing longstanding policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums. The BBC’s long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that “scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.”[18]
            Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like ‘catastrophic’, ‘chaotic’ and ‘irreversible’, had altered the public discourse around climate change: “This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth’s climate’, and that we are ‘at the point of no return’. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.” [19]
            According to an Associated Press release of 30 January 2007 [62]:
            “Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
            “The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to “global warming” or “climate change” from a report.”

            [edit] Controversy about responses to global warming
            Even among those who agree that global warming is real, there are further controversial issues, which include:
            How to respond to climate change.
            Whether decisions require less uncertainty.
            Much of the discussion centers on the effect of emissions of carbon dioxide related to human activity, ranging from burning of fossil fuels, to industrial activity (see above). But this argument alone would be confined to the scientific press. The point that leads to major controversy—because it could have significant economic impacts—is whether action (usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now, or in the near future; and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect on global temperature.
            Due to the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those who feel strongly that, even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature. Conversely, others feel strongly that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.
            One response to global warming is to shift some of the tax burden from income of consumers, to the fossil-fuel industry. If introduced gradually, the overall effect on an economy is likely to be minimal; in the long term, such policy would be beneficial, as the life of existing gas- and oil-reserves would be extended (delaying price increases due to supply shortages).

            [edit] Kyoto Protocol
            Main article: Kyoto Protocol
            The Kyoto protocol is the most prominent, international agreement on climate change, and is also highly controversial. Some argue that it goes too far in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases; others argue that the cuts in emissions it would introduce are far too small. Another area of controversy is the fact that India and China, the world’s two most populous countries, both ratified the protocol but are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement. Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would cause more damage to the economy of the US than to those of other countries, thus providing an unfair economic advantage to some countries. Additionally, the high costs of decreasing emissions may cause significant production to move to countries that are not covered under the treaty, such as India and China. As these countries are less energy efficient, this could cause additional carbon emissions. In 1998, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia wrote Resolution S. 98 that opposed ratification of the Kyoto treaty, and in turn the U.S. Senate voted 95 to 0 against the treaty.
            The only major developed nations which have not signed the Kyoto protocol are the USA and Australia. However on 30 November 2006 The Hon Greg Hunt MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for Australia said: “First, climate change is both real and soluble. The deniers are wrong: that is, those who argue there is insufficient evidence. The doomsayers are also wrong: that is, those who argue that we are coming to an unavoidable and catastrophic end.” [63]. The New York Times reports that in the US the Congress elected in 2006 is serious about legislation to impose mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions that most smokestack industries have long opposed. [64]. The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or oil producing countries.[65]

            [edit] Public perceptions
            Public perceptions about the global-warming theory were slow to evolve, but have moved substantially in recent decades.[66] A Taylor- Nelson-Sofres poll reported by ABC News in 2006 reported that 85 percent of Americans believed in 2006 that global warming “probably is occurring,” as opposed to 80 percent who believed so in 1998. Less than 40 percent were “very sure” of it, however. In 1998, 31 percent of the public said global warming was “extremely important” or “very important” to them, personally; in 2006, 49 percent said so. [67]
            According to a report [68] on August 16, 2006 by Dr. David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation, the general public has a poor understanding of global warming. This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the film An Inconvenient Truth. One problem is a confusion between global warming and ozone depletion. (See Relationship to ozone depletion in the article on global warming.)
            On July 20, 2006 [69], Dr. David Suzuki commented that public opinion on climate change and the film was being deliberately twisted by an expensive campaign of public relations. However, James Hoggan, the president of James Hoggan and Associates, a large public relations firm, attempts to correct public perception about the issue in his blog at

            [edit] See also
            • Global cooling
            • Scientific skepticism
            • Environmental skepticism
            Part of a series on Global Warming

            Scientific opinion • Attribution of causes • Effects • Mitigation • Adaptation • Controversy • Politics • Economics

            Related articles
            Climate change • Global cooling • Global dimming • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gases
            Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Kyoto Protocol • Peak Oil • Renewable energy • Temperature data

            [edit] References
            ^ Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts, George W. Bush letter 13 March 2001
            ^ Economic Affairs – Second Report House of Lords, Session 2005-06
            ^ STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change. Summary of Conclusions
            ^ Safe Climate Act of 2006. Summary of the Bill
            ^ The Top Politically inCorrect Words for 2006: Macaca, Global Warming Denier, Herstory and Flip Chart Top Annual List
            ^ The IPCC Assessment of Global Warming 2001
            ^ Deep ice tells long climate story, by Jonathan Amos, BBC, 4 September 2006
            ^ Vostok Ice Core Data
            ^ New Research in Science Shows Highest CO2 Levels In 650,000 Years, by Daniel B. Kane, 28 November 2005
            ^ Simulated annual global mean surface temperature
            ^ Global Warming is Happening, by Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
            ^ Romm, Joseph, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, Morrow, 2007
            ^ [1]
            ^ “Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact.”
            ^ BBC Panorama: Bush’s climate of fear
            ^ BBC: Chaotic world of climate truth

            [edit] External links

            [edit] Politics
            • Paul D. Thacker “Environmental Science & Technology, 31 August 2005, “How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global warming skeptic”
            • Ode to Kyoto: The energy industry’s stealth campaign to confuse the public and stop Kyoto — Broadcast 23 January 2004 on PBS’ NOW with Bill Moyers (RealVideo format).
            • Environmental Defence – Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer — How ExxonMobil funds scientists and media pundits to “de-bunk” the science of climate change
            • Greenpeace: Industry And The Climate Debate
            • What planet are you on, Mr Bush? (and do you care, Mr Blair?)
            • “Skeptics get a journal” by Paul D. Thacker, Environmental Science & Technology
            • Misusing figures about global warming in testimony to the United States Congress
            • The Cosmos Myth: An Insidious Masterpiece. The Real Truth about the Revelle-Gore Story — by Justin Lancaster, with related affidavits and sworn deposition of S. Fred Singer
            • The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (PDF)
            • Speech by Senator James Inhofe, Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
            • CNN Anchor cites Hollywood movie to defend science reporting
            • Ad hoc committee report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction – a report to U.S. Congress on flaws and problems with Mann’s “HockeyStick” analysis and conclusions.
            • Exxonsecrets – how Exxonmobil funds the climate change skeptics
            • An online magazine discussing public relations controversies associated with global warming.
            • “Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics” — by Marc Morano reacting to Heidi Cullen
            • AntiEcohype: Climate Critical Commentaries

            [edit] Science
            • A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
            • The Global Warming Debate: Fundamental differences in opinion about climate change.
            • Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science
            • CO2 or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
            • Roger Pielke, Jr., Daniel Sarewitz (2002). “Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate”. Issues in Science and Technology 19 (2): 27-30.
            • ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of “hockey stick” climate history reconstructions
            • False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael Mann’s famous graph.
            • National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7 degrees F below 20th century average.
            • TCS Daily Article by Roy Spencer: principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville and previous Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama questions cloud model accuracy.

            [edit] Printed media
            • Eilperin, Juliet (August 4, 2006, page A3). “More Frequent Heat Waves Linked to Global Warming: U.S. and European Researchers Call Long Hot Spells Likely”, . Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post. – Report on findings presented at an international conference on climate science at Gawatt, Switzerland the week of July 21 – 28, 2006.
            • News Services (July 28, 2006, page A8). “Global-Warming Skeptic Funded by Coal Utilities”, Washington in Brief. Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post. – Brief article stating that prominent human-caused global warming skeptic, Patrick J. Michaels, received $150,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association.
            • Struck, Doug (July 29, 2006, page A1 & A12). “On the Roof of Peru, Omens in the Ice: Retreat of Once-Mighty Glacier Signals Water Crisis, Mirroring Worldwide Trend”, . Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post. – Newspaper article reporting on decrease in size of glaciers worldwide and resulting shortage of water.
            • Singer, S. Fred; Dennis T. Avery (October 28, 2006). Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. 978-0742551176. Editorial review from Science Daily: [70] “Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we’re warming, why it’s not very dangerous, and why we can’t stop it anyway.”
            • Lee, Dixie R.; Lou Guzzo (April 1994). Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?. USA: Perennial. 978-0060975982. – “…challenges the environmental prophets of doom and gloom with penetrating searing truth. Environmental Overkill is a bright light that exposes the fraud and deceit being perpetrated against an unknowing public.” — Rush Limbaugh
            Retrieved from “”
            Categories: Articles with unsourced statements | Climate change assessment and attribution | Debates | Denialism | Global warming skeptics | Environmental skepticism
            • Article
            • Discussion
            • Edit this page
            • History
            Personal tools
            • Sign in / create account

            • Main page
            • Community portal
            • Featured content
            • Current events
            • Recent changes
            • Random article
            • Help
            • Contact Wikipedia
            • Donations

            • What links here
            • Related changes
            • Upload file
            • Special pages
            • Printable version
            • Permanent link
            • Cite this article
            In other languages
            • Deutsch

            This page was last modified 21:42, 4 February 2007.
            • All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
            Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
            • Privacy policy
            • About Wikipedia
            • Disclaimers

      • joshua says:

        global warming does exist and if not the earth is defiantly taking a toll on some form of human pollution

    • jimmy says:

      I am a huge fan of shark week have been since I was a little kid now they want to air something that goes against everything this show stands for I am upset I only hope the rest of the week is real footage

      • ashley says:

        I have been watching shark week since i was 5. I have always enjoyed the way that they make facts come to life and fun to learn. I was super excited when i saw the title to this shark week kick off show. as soon as it started thought my red flag went up. The video looks like a legit video if it was being filmed by a professional. The scene with the actual attack is crazy. I am pretty sure that if you are attacked and your boat is now capsized you are not going to have everything in perfect frame. Then the pictures started. I am not a photographer but they loked fake, however i went with it hoping that, as scientist they would first debunk the photos. But they never did, they just added a very staged video of a whale bitten in half. No real proof, no real evidence, and no real scientist. I was very disappointed when it was over. If Discovery had been honest about it to begin with it would have been met with far better reviews, however as it was portrayed as fact, I am notholding much hope for this years week.

        • Frank says:

          I suppose that Discovery thinks this kind of fakery is perfectly ok since the numerous “reality” ghost shows also present themselves as factual and real. Discovery fails big-time on this one.

    • thebattfam says:

      I could do a better photoshop job on the “whale attack witness photo”. Laughable and just for entertainment. The mermaid “documentary” had better graphics. I got more science out of the Sharknado movie!

    • Daniel Hoock says:

      It is akin to the “History” channel having episodes on aliens or the bible. It is really sad that they can’t find enough interesting stories about work from real biologist working with real animals. It is so lazy to make up these things.

      • Jason says:

        At least the bible show was based on actual events

      • Lucas says:

        Ancient Aliens, if that’s what you’re referring to, was created and aired in a VERY different manner–a manner which is understood to be nothing more than theories that are both fun, and in some cases informational, to discuss. Shark Week is, and has always been, very different. It is intended to be educational, informative, and REAL, not merely low-budget and fictional! With the Mermaid fiasco and now Megalodon, the Discovery Channel has fallen to a new low of television. The times in which children and those interested in the world can tune into Discovery to enlighten themselves in REAL-WORLD things is LONG PAST! Hopefully, Discovery will catch the hint.

        • Paul says:

          Yeah. Discovery channel has become a joke. And how about that stupid live show after the megalodon crap. They had people on thag show that have absolutely nothing to do with sharks. They just using shark week to pump up the other stupid shows they have going. That moonshine show? And some fat guy that doesnt like to wear shirts? I remember when discovery channel was actual discovery. They had camera crews out in the bush in africa filming animals and all sorts of stuff. Just a bunch of crap.

    • Ernesto says:

      I did the research as well and ended up with next to nothing of what they said happened. Did some basic math to calculate the descent rate of the “shark” at the end of the show and came up to 160 ft/sec. That is roughly 10000 ft/min. Thats Jet Speed…
      I really hope that they are not trying to go in that direction because i have been a fan for years and respect Discovery as a serious organization and not sensationalist press. I guess ill have to wait for tomorrow and watch the rest of shark week.

    • Ryan h says:

      The only actual fact I was able to find information about was the shark nicknamed “submarine” off the coast of cape town

    • Marlene thurston says:

      I searched as well and found nothing on news or papers,very dissapointed with discovery channel.I think it’s very wrong to deceive the public.when you watch a channel like that you’re looking for facts.

    • Jeanne says:

      I too was suspicious of this program, especially after the Mermaid: The Body found debacle. Why is it becoming impossible to believe programs that are broadcast these days? Is money so important that reliable (or so I thought) sources for information are embellishing/inventing stories for audience ratings? By the end of the program, I was very cynical. I wish they would stop this type of program altogether!

    • buck101 says:

      after mermaids on history channel I knew better than to bite into megaladon

    • eyeballz says:

      this is ridiculous! These people are actors. I can’t believe “Discovery Channel” is involved in this. If this animal exists, how come we don’t have the original dinosaurs flying overhead? with all the super fishing ships out there, that have massive amounts of food entangled in their nets….. where does the 60 – 100 foot megalodon fit in? Yes, we discover new species all the time, but excuse me….. Shark week better step up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Chris says:

      This is same crap they tried to give us with the mermaid documentary. The sad part is some people will believe its real. I get it, it’s speculative but don’t photo shop photos and make up boat accidents to prove your point. Shame on you discovery channel!!

    • asheli says:

      Did anyone watch the show….MERMAIDS…it had the same so called real footage also….the man who is named as COLIN DRAKE in MEGLADON is also the main character in MERMAIDS…funny huh? If they are gonna portray it as real they should at least find some fresh faces…lol

    • big Al says:

      I feel the same Jennifer.
      sorry to rehash an old thread but this is just on irish tv tonight.
      i latched onto your reply as i too research the stories tv peddles us. glad to see some else checks too plus other comments seem to drift off topic.
      I also searched online for a boat attack and also the family day off Hawaii showing the half eaten whale. I found nothing anywhere. it all looks like photoshop to me.
      i used to think of discovery as a great factual channel now its getting full of dramatics.
      I’m watching discovery channel less and less because of this kinda thing.
      after this I’m finished with discovery.

    • sukhi says:

      I put discovery on to watch the programme and caught it as some fisherman was talking. This dude was the south African presenter in the movie Invictus…lol

    • Randall says:

      Thanks for adding clarity. This in very disappointing news. Shame on you DC. My initial reaction was “oh my god!!! Modern technology captured something amazing!!” Now, I question everything DC televises, prints, and promotes…

  2. Twimom227 says:

    LMAO! I just did the exact same Internet searches and concluded the same. Everything was just too dramatic and polished. It’s disappointing that the opening of Shark Week is a fake documentary. There is so much great real stuff… Why fake it?! Thanks for the post!

  3. Becky Cling says:

    100% agree. I’m quite annoyed…. everyone’s freaking out… can you not tell that these are actors and fake footage?!

  4. Meredith says:

    My thoughts exactly- the biologist actor is too well spoken and dramatic .

    • Angie says:

      Yes, he was a big give-away. I love how he ends every interview clip with a strait to camera “MEGALODON”. Haha! The only thing missing is a “DUN DUN DUN” on the soundtrack. If they had just billed this as a movie I would have been fine with it, it’s less cheesy than most of the stuff on syfy. Putting the word documentary in the description was not a classy move. I see an apology/back-pedalling statement in Discovery’s future. BOO!

    • efie30 says:

      …and way too pasty. You would have thought they would have spray tanned before playing the parts.

  5. Rachel Clark says:

    I TOTALLY AGREE! I just did the same searches you did with the same results. I am upset. This is shark week on the Discovery Channel. It causes me to question the other show’s authenticity. Not cool Discovery Channel…not cool!

    • Shenkle McDoo says:

      I hate to confirm your suspicion about the other supposedly real documentaries on nearly all the science/history networks, but there is such a high degree of editing, staging and manipulating the indormation that what you see rarely reflects he truth or anything even slightly resembling objective or unbiased research. Actors are hired to make research and field work look more realistic and convincing. Scenes are manipulated and staged over and over until the desired dramatic effect is captured. And you, the audience, are led from hypothesis to conclusion (or inconclusion as is the production fad these days) with no room to judge the results for yourselves. I know this because I have a little experience with how straight forward stories are changed and glamorized before they are presented to the public for consumption. Now this doesn’t mean I hate these shows. On the contrary, I find them entertaining as hell, but then again I know not to take them seriously or put to much stock in anything I see on that magical talking box in my living room. Remember that Discovery Channel is an entertainment venue first even though they do, on occasion, put out some good science.

      • Randall says:

        We’ll said but DC should promote entertainment as such…instead, Megladon, Mermaids, and Big Foot were packaged and sold to us as a documentary not entertainment…shame on DC (but I’m still a DC junky…ssshhh don’t tell anyone). Lol…but thanks for the great post…we’ll said…

  6. bobbi brodman says:

    It’s a mockumentary, similar to the one one “mer” people

  7. Joie says:

    I’m with you… I searched as I’m watching…this is crap… I’m a faithful Shark Week watcher and these people are acting … Nothing like the usual productions they put out… They’ve screwed up in my opinion… People watch because it has always been real …

  8. Patrick says:

    notice how the sailors handle the 55 gallon drums 1 tips over in a left it up like it’s empty

  9. Becky says:

    I was also trying to do some research and nothing turned up besides your post. Needless to say, I am skeptical too.

  10. Natasha says:

    Thanks. I was thinking the same thing and doing the same Internet research when I cam across your post. Shame on you Discovery Channel! Did you think your viewers Were that naive?

  11. Randy says:

    The did the same thing with the mermaid shoe

  12. jordan presnell says:

    Dude I’ve spend the last thirty minutes doing the same thing. This is as stupid as the idiot that did the fake mermaid episode.

  13. Rich says:

    I agree. Everything stinks of fake.

  14. Kirk says:

    Nice work. Apparently fake documentaries and scripted reality series are big.
    Mrs honey boo boo.

  15. What a scheme says:

    It’s so disappointing watching this show and realizing how much this network has slipped. All that is happening is a loss of credibility and respect. I’m watching this and researching without finding anything relevant to their story. If people think this is science my degree has just been degrated. This isn’t doing anything to help sharks either. Very irriatated with Discovery channel.

    • Neil McCormick says:

      I’ve been a Discovery fan for years. Watching every shark week since it began. I first got irritated when they canceled Dirtiest Jobs with Mike Rowe. Then mermaid was shown and I was like ok what are they doing, this isn’t twilight zone. Now this fake megladon videos OMG! Who is in charge now and putting this kind of junk on? Take it to the sci fi channel.

      • Tiger Shark fan says:

        No keep it off the air all together. They talk about the fear a single movie caused.. the harm it did and that shark week is supposed to help educate… wtf. First night of shark week and its a mockumentary.. really?! Shame on discovery. Definitely something us fans of real science and fans of sharks should write to discovery about how shameful this was.

        • CJ says:

          My thoughts exactly and quite frankly, even though I was suspicious of the too-slick and lacking in any real evidence show, I was still starting to freak out a bit about the possibility of this shark still living in the ocean. Shame on Discovery Channel indeed, they are supposed to be educating their viewers and I thought the whole point of shark week was to de-mystify and show us that sharks are to be respected and appreciated not feared and hunted into extinction.

  16. Steve says:

    Mermaids, now Megaladon? I’m game for Docu-fiction as intriguing entertainment, but if Discover Inc. wants to maintain credibility, they better make sure to clarify which they are broadcasting.

  17. Fawn Taylor says:

    I agree! I have searched all over the Internet and found nothing. Not good Discovery Channel!

  18. April says:

    Yes! My B.S. meter was going off big-time as I tuned into shark week to watch Megalodon. I nudged my husband and said, “Do those people look like they are acting? Is this a reenactment?” Then I too went and searched for Collin Drake and found nothing. That chick “Madeline” certainly has the mannerisms of someone who is acting. I felt like I was watching one of the Jaws movies.

    • Angie says:

      I was so convinced it was fake that my first search was on imdb. Not finding it listed was quite a surprise, I even recognized one of the “fishermen” as an actor I’ve seen in other (low-budget) things. Did they really expect us to believe that this footage they recovered from the sunken boat would be in such good condition? Or that the families of real people would be okay with the last moments of their loved ones being used so sensationally, especially since it was alleged to have happened just four months ago? Ridiculous!

  19. doug says:

    100% agreed. More convincing than the mermaid one they did though. Had me going for at least half an hour. It was entertaining though.

    • I did Internet research throughout the entire show. No records show of any events that they had tried to portray. No news stations in the world has any records of these “fatal attacks”.

  20. Brandon Buck says:

    I think it’s fake. I couldn’t find a single reference anywhere about a fishing boat sinking on April 5, 2013 in South Africa, with everyone dead

    • Jasmine says:

      I kept saying to my husband that for a marine biologist “Collin’s” skin is amazingly smooth and not showing the affects of the outdoors. He had to be an actor! So annoyed!

  21. Landon says:

    My girlfriend and I just spent this whole time scouring the Internet for the same things! Finally we stumbled onto your post. I can’t believe discovery channel has turned into this.

  22. says:

    It’s fake. The found footage looked staged and try a google search of all of the marine biologists. None of them exist.

  23. Howard says:

    I have done almost exactly what you have including searching for Ms Joubert. Nada. The pictures are all seemingly photoshopped not very well I must say and if any of this was remotely true something would have surfaced before now. (pun Intended).

  24. Jeff Williams says:

    Yeah I don’t think this is real; it looks to be presented in much the same way as Discovery presented its Mermaid documentary with actors portraying scientists. About the only thing that can be construed as factual is the data on Megalodon’s existence millions of years ago.

  25. CJ says:

    Joe, while researching this very topic myself, I found your blog post. Thanks for doing some more research so I dont have to now. Your post is spot on!

    Duped (but still watching!),

  26. Sharon says:

    I totally agree. My husband and I have been watching this and searching online with similar results – nothing! Just show us real science!

  27. Hailey says:

    I searched everywhere for any supporting evidence that these events actually happend… No such luck either. Disappointed in the discovery channel!

  28. Eric Lindquist says:

    Thank you for this. I 100% agree with you. Why aren’t the articles about the boat going down in Hout Harbor there? If this Collin is such an expert, where are his credentials? And, he had in his budget to build a 1 ton whale replica to tow behind a boat with chum cannons?

    • Angie says:

      HA! The chum cannons, that was overkill on a hilarious scale. I love/hate it. It annoys me, but I can’t look away!

  29. Lindsey says:

    Thank you so muh for posting this. My husband was watching it and kept saying, I swear these guys look like actors so I googled and found your article. I hate being duped. Had to let my sister down gently when they aired the “are mermaids real” documentary a few months ago. She really thought it was real and I am sure a ton of people are falling for this too. It’s an insult to our intelligence.

  30. gabby says:

    I totally agree with you . The show has been on for 40 minutes and with minimal research I’m convinced it’s like the Blair witch project and it disappoints me that they sunk so low just to draw viewers.

  31. Allen Campbell says:

    You and I are in the same “boat”. After suspecting that the Brazilian coastguard, washed up whale and underwater fin sighting footage were CGI I started researching and come up with nothing. Also, some of the “fishermen” crew that are toting that whale decoy seem to be acting.
    And after seeing the chum-cannon, I am convinced this has zero factual merit. Disappointing if you ask me :/

  32. Joel says:

    Yep, fake! The pics from the whale carcass were fake looking so I started searching just as you did. I agree with you, discovery does not need this to entertain viewers. This and the mermaid fake doc really should not be in their line up but maybe on Sci fi along with sharknado.

  33. Kendra says:

    Glad I found this. Just started the show (and my Internet search) and now I can just delete the show vs wasting my time on this “documentary”. :( boo Discovery! But thanks for the post and saving me the time!

  34. D says:

    I am pretty irritated overall with this “kick off” to Shark Week. It’s that damn mermaid documentary all over again. Thanks for doing the research; I started Googling things when your blog popped up,and I am glad to avoid some of the time consumption. I just want to see Air Jaws.

  35. K.Sanborn says:

    I agree, I can’t find any information on the boat.

  36. karen anderson says:

    i agree with the above, we have been searching for the past 30 min and nothing. It makes me mad that I took the time to watch this crap.

  37. Louie says:

    it appears to be the same type of fakumentary as The Mermaid thing that the animal planet did………..

  38. Lia says:

    Thanks for doing the 90 minutes of legwork…I did about 15 then found your post :) I had the same suspicion!

  39. Nate says:

    Totally bogus. This Collin Drake is s terrible actor, and fame seeker Footage of beached whale and “fin”in South Africa are obviously photo shopped. Shame on Discovery

  40. Jennifer says:

    So angry!!! I spent the last hour looking to see if there were any other articles. Completely pissed. How low will Discovery sink?

  41. Kayla says:

    this is so messed up… me too Discovery VERY DISAPPOINTED!!!!

  42. heathet says:

    I get sick of the “search for megalodon” shows. I am a huge shark fanactic, and am currently looking at grad programs for marine biology, and to see that this Colin Drake doesn’t have much of an internet footprint, doesn’t bode well for his credentials. I’m calling foul on this one too. They need to show these beautiful creatures and display true scientific evidence, and skip the overdramatized hype.

  43. Laura says:

    I’ve been doing exactly the same thing as you, searching the dates and the incidents mentioned in the show as facts and coming up with nothing. This is very disappointing for them to present this as a documentary. I don’t mind them discussing the possibility that a megalodon still exists, but they don’t need to fabricate fake evidence. Some of the photos and videos seem to be CGI without any captions saying that they are computer graphics. It’s disgraceful in my opinion. Like you said, real footage is interesting enough to captivate our attention.

  44. kimberlie polk says:

    Just sad.

  45. Catherine says:

    Thanks for doing all your investigating. It looked too polished for me, my search came up empty except for yours

  46. Ray says:

    This is just as big a lie as the fakeumentary they made about the mermaids.
    Shame on you discovery channel for lowering yourselves to lies for ratings!!!!

  47. Julie says:

    I just did the same. Same results. Not surprised. They did this with a mermaid show a while back too. EXTREMELY disappointing .

  48. Adam & Jamie says:

    We are disappointed, to say the least.

  49. Cynthia says:

    So glad to find your blog! Things looked “fishy”, overacted and I started googling the marine biologists and the accident as well…obviously nothing surfaced. Disapointing!

  50. Michelle clayton says:

    I realizes this was bullshit when the guy from the Brazillian Coast Guard wasnt speaking portuguese very well. I really wish they would say that this is fake and show real shark footage

  51. Karen says:

    Shame on you Discovery! You’ve lost an entire household of loyal Shark Week viewers. If we wanted to watch crap, we would tune in the Honey Boo Boo or the Kardashians. Never again.

  52. Elle says:

    Ugh!! This is such crap!! Way to lose credibility discovery. I’ve been googling this same ‘boat accident’ too and found nothing on the Internet. Was this dramatization necessary!!!!

  53. Jess says:

    It’s strange the marine biologist doesn’t get in the water and now his boat is hit. Plus josh wolf just introduced his guest as a star of the move megalodon…totally fake ugh not a good way to kick off the week…

  54. Ryan says:

    Soooo glad I’m not the only person to have started their own inquest with this utterly bogus episode lol the special effects are even sub-par it feels like I’m watching a cheap horror movie
    I’d rather have seen a factual scientific episode on this shark
    Maybe they are running out of ideas……maybe it’s time for a whale week for fresh start

  55. AdamAndJamie says:

    We are disappointed, to say the least. Sorry ya ‘all.

  56. Kristi says:

    Have been a faithful Shark Week viewer since the beginning….until now. No need to dramatize and create fictional scenarios and try to pull this off as a documentary. I expected more from you Discovery. I am going to vote my displeasure by changing the channel. Goodbye to a once wonderful network. What a shame you have resorted to trash like this.

  57. kelly says:

    LOL! The girl on the boat that went down and the girl scientist are the same person!

  58. Dave says:

    Discovery has really gone down hill over the last few years.

    It used to be all nature, and science. No mockumentaries, scripted reality crap… What the hell happened?!?!?!?

  59. AtlasObjectivest says:

    What a joke, of course they had to toss something in about “global warming” – I’m done with the Discovery Channel. Nothing but worthless liberal drivel.

  60. Derek Nolan says:

    First the Mermaids show, and now this. We need to let Discovery know this isn’t acceptable. Feel free to comment on my tweets to Discovery here: and here:

  61. Nal says:

    I turned to my wife 30 mins in and asked, “Why do I feel like I’m watching this is Spinal Tap?” Then I googled Drake, found your blog, and turned it off.

  62. Rob says:

    I mean a chum cannon, really?!?! Just plain BAD. The icing on the cake is the ridiculously handsome “marine biologist” Collin Drake. What a cheeseball. No self respecting, educated person in this field would act or speak in such a rehearsed manor nor would they perform such experiments that would put more of these beautiful creatures, real or extinct, in danger by egging on the moronic general public to go out and hunt them. Completely irresponsible Discovery Channel. You should be ashamed.

  63. heather says:

    By the way, over on Nat Geo West they are having their own, as they call it “shark fest” programming. Some are repeats, but they aren’t fake.

    • Katherine says:

      Good to know – if tomorrow night’s programming isn’t any better than tonight’s (which is not hard to improve upon!), I’ll be headed over there to watch that. Thanks for the info.

  64. Nate says:

    Totally bogus! This Collin Drake is obviously an actor. Footage of beached whale and “6 foot shark fin” are obviously photo shopped.The longer I watch the mote ridiculous the footage is Shame on Discovery

  65. Waborat says:

    The airiel view of the “chum slick” made me laugh out loud!

    First Memaids and now Megalodon! Discovery has lost all credibility.

    Sad to see one of the few great TV channels left start going down like the titanic.

    • msblatch says:

      Right-o! My husband (lifelong fisherman) and I laughed at the chum slick too. The canons were a joke. Totally ridiculous. VERY upset with Discovery. It’s as if they looked at the mermaids “documentary” and said, “Hey! Let’s do that but we’ll do it BETTER!”… or as we viewers thought: so much worse. :(

  66. Jessica says:

    Here I am arguing with my husband about this show because its on Discovery so surely it should be real so we do research and this is totally not real…. sad =\

  67. AD4413 says:

    While fun to watch, i do hate that discoovery is making it seem like its a real documentary. It was pretty obviously fake….. but they should really start it with a waiver saying this is fake or whatever but could be a possibility.

  68. Gin says:

    Soooooooo disappointed! I was doing the same research and ran across this post! Discovery needs to be emailed!

  69. John MItchell says:

    Does anyone else wonder how the camera from the fisherman survived the water and wi still able to be viewed kind of reminds me of the Blaire Witch Project and just as stupid

  70. Thomas says:

    I could tell it was fake from the get go. Sadly enough the mermaid documentary fooled me. Not making the same mistake this time. I watched to see all the acting take place. I am getting sick of these fake shows. Discovery/animal planet documentaries are going to take a turn for the worst viewer wise.

  71. Waborat says:

    The airiel view of the “chum slick” made me laugh out loud!

    Sad to see one of the few great TV channels going down like this.

  72. Dave says:

    Nat Geo wild has a actual intelligent show about the Ragged tooth shark.

    Not the crap discovery is trying to show.

  73. AdamAndJamie says:

    Dominic Monaghan wants to be ANYWHERE but on that couch. Hahahaha!

  74. Waborat says:

    The airiel view of the “chum slick” made me laugh out loud!

  75. John says:

    To the Discovery Channel: this farce of a “documentary” is as pathetic as it is ridiculous. You have wasted my time, nullified your credibility and therefore officially lost a viewer. I will absolutely never watch anything put out by this station again, nor will I trust anything related to the “Discovery” brand in the future. What a shame. This is what you get when a once-educationally focused company makes the conscious decision to put ratings above integrity in order to cater to the most susceptible and ignorant bulk of our sad population. Crap. A big F.U. for the minutes of my life you’ve already wasted, and a bigger F.U. in advance for the moronic conversations I will now have to engage in if at any time I feel the obligation to correct some idiot’s new convictions on the existence of the “Megalodon.” What a joke.

  76. Hurricane chaser says:

    Four words come to mind… “War of the Worlds.”

    • msblatch says:

      … ditto except according to my grandmother, who heard the “War of the Worlds” first-hand, they broke into the broadcast frequently saying it was not real. No such luck with Megalodon :(. Good thing we are not all that gullible.

  77. Laura says:

    Said the same thing to my husband about this being too much like Blair Witch. Everything looked photo-shopped. Stupid way to start off week of programming I usually enjoy.

  78. Tyler says:

    Was doing the same research throughout the show. Knew that Megalodon was fake, but am really surprised that Discovery faked the boating accident and lead scientist. Lost credibility for sure.

  79. Dianne bell says:

    I won’t be watching discovery ANYMORE,! Waste of time! I don’t watch fiction.

  80. rendan says:

    Towards the end of the show there was quick and i mean quick subtitles saying it was fake. Same thing they did on the mermaid show, you could clearly tell it was fake, you think a discovery of this calibur could be kept secret for an episode of tv, no if something like this was discovered it would be all over national n local news the day of, come on people

  81. Derek Nolan says:

    People are commenting on their Facebook post about the show. They are deleting comments calling it out on being fake as fast as people are posting them. At one point it had over 2200 comments. I just looked and it’s down to 183.

  82. Brad says:

    It was pretty entertaining and somewhat believable initially but went down hill quick. It’s one of those things where you want to believe but commonsense kicks in. I couldn’t believe they expected us to believe that Drake was able to locate and commission a life size whale 18 days after the downed boat. Not only was the whale fabricated in such a short time frame it was transported half way around the world.

  83. Jjkaboom says:

    This is all bs. Its just like the mermaids documentary they did a fee months ago. And when i researched the biologists and scientists in the show they came up as actors. Some were even on imdb. It sucks that discovery channel is startin to turn up fake documentaries. Haha even whale wars was better than this. And the megolodon in the end was soooo CG none of it even looked real.

  84. JeffT says:

    FAKE – used my tablet to rocord my TV as I replayed the DVR of the Megalodon show. There was a 3 second blip of disclaimer text at the end of the show, which reads:

    “None of the institutions or agencies that appear in the film are affiliated with it in any way, nor have approved its contents. ”
    Though certain events and characters in this film have been dramatized, sightings of “Submarine” continue this day.”
    Megalodon was a real shark. Legends of giant sharks persist all over the world. There is still debate about what they may be.”
    Produced by Pilgrim Studios for Discovery Channel copyright MMXIII Discovery Communications, LLC”

  85. Katherine says:

    I totally agree – Discovery, you lost all credibility with me (and my family) tonight. We’ve long enjoyed Shark Week – and there are tons and tons of cool pieces they could have done. This is sad. I admit to being TRICKED into searching Collin Drake…what a waste of time. I can’t get those 2 hours of my life back…and all I wanted was to see some cool shark footage. Shame on you, Discovery Channel – you’ve let a lot of (very loyal) fans down. I had cleared my week of evening appointments – all so I could absorb the awsesomeness of q

  86. Ben says:

    So disappointed. I am not saying Megleadon does not exist, one fact they made is true. That it we are finding animals that were thought to be extinct every year, not only that we are finding new species every day. So there is the possibly the beast is still alive surviving in the deep and we just haven’t seen it, or a shark that evolved from Megleadon that is bigger then the Great white exist, both are probable. But tricking the American public like this into believing they discovered it and it is for a fact real is disrespectful to scientist and biologist out there, just like the Alien and UFO conspiracy, ya most likely they do exist, the logistics or sound for there is so much space and places so one must be out there. But this is science and in science u need sound evidence, doesn’t mean u can’t have your hypothesis on the subject, but don’t try to fool the public with phoney evidence for money, some of us really do appreciate science and what it stand for

  87. Casey says:

    That’s very disappointing that the discovery channel would pull a stunt like that, but then again it’s driven by ratings and money, not conclusive factual evidence. I looked up the boating accident and I found nothing. I have lost a lot of faith in the discovery channel, I would rather get my factual evidence from OPB

  88. Katherine says:

    I had cleared my week of evening appointments – all so I could absorb the awesomeness of sharks. I’ll see what happens tomorrow night – but if it’s more of this junk, I’m done. It’s sad Discovery Channel is not nearly as interesting as it used to be. Totally not scientific anymore.

  89. Mel says:

    I watch shark week every year to learn about them not be entertained! I have plenty of movie channels. Discovery channel has gone to far… I’m so upset that they tried to fool such a loyal fan base. I highly doubt I’ll watch the rest of the week after this was the start.

  90. Susan says:

    Did anyone else read the clips at the bottom of the screen at the end? My favorite, “Though certain events & characters in this film have been dramatized, sightings of “submarine” continue to this day.”
    Why not just give us the factual story of “submarine” not a made up movie? At least this explains why none of us have been able to find anything on the Internet about these stories.
    I LOVE Shark Week, look forward to this every year, but I like the factual stories & info regarding sharks. If I wanted a made up movie I would watch Jaws…

  91. john g. says:

    I think there should be some sort of group complaint put in to discovery… Definitely not cool and I do agree it degrades the integrity of Discovery channel and shark week… not the end of the world but I definitely thing that they need to apologize to their viewers and clearly fess up to putting ratings ahead of facts.

  92. Breighanna says:

    I called bullshit and I was right.

  93. Chris says:

    TOTAL SNOW-JOB… So funny- The acting was my first suspicion, then the photographic ‘evidence’, then the chum slick. WAY too many production ‘values’ for a documentary, and the Photoshop work looked ridiculous IMHO. I too searched for Collin Drake, and the original ‘accident’… nothing found. I absolutely believe that there are MANY creatures we don’t know about in the depths of our oceans, even possibly ‘megalodon’, but Discovery Channel, give me a break… Stop insulting our intelligence, and stick to real science please. If I want drama, I have six children of my own that provide me with plenty.

  94. BringBack MikeRowe says:

    What can you expect from a channel that cancels a show like ‘Dirty Jobs’ and puts on ‘Amish Mafia’, ‘Moonshiners’, and ‘Tickle’. They’re so full of bad acting that it makes elementary plays look like high theater.

  95. Marc Smith says:

    Did you see the graphic of the “chum field?” Perfectly angled off the boat with a perfect red blood line from blue water. Cmon discovery.

  96. Deborah McKay says:

    Did you tune in because you wanted to see the first time shown footage of a quest to find what took down a fishing boat? If an event such as that had happened in April, August would not be the first time to hear about it.
    I came across the show while flipping channels. I was excited about the possibilities, until I thought about the dates. I still watched the show because I like to think there are those possibilities. I also watched the docufiction “The Last Dragon” and the one about merpeople. Imagination can be a wonderful thing.

  97. Kodiak77 says:

    Soooooo disapointed at Discovery. I don’t mind an interesting story if i know im being told one. I’ve been trying to research the boat accident since they showed it at the beginning of the episode without luck, and the ending made no sense at all. If the ending had happened the way they showed research and investigation would have increased, not have stopped.

  98. Ryan says:

    Now that i think of it why isn’t there a whale week?!? Lol

  99. Dan says:

    tried doing same searches as everyone. instantly thought the photos looked photoshopped, but assume Discovery would have credible programs. i assumed wrong. too bad, theres enough interesting real info on sharks. Discovery Channel apparently doesnt care about credibility or science. it might as well run sitcoms.

  100. Jeff says:

    I think Discovery Channel has jumped the shark….

  101. Amy says:

    I am so disappointed! I too went to try and find info on this incident and found nothing. I was very happy to find this written piece. I think everyone should paste it to their Facebook, twitter pages to spread the word of what the Discovery Channel is trying to pass off as real.

  102. James says:

    Someone at Discovery needs to lost their job.

    This is a big blunder, and Discovery’s credibility for the near foresable future is destroyed.

    Hmmmm…. Maybe a Megalodon took a bite out of it. lol…

  103. Brook Steinway says:

    Oh come on people. The chum cannon made it all worthwhile!

  104. Richard says:

    Since when did Discovery become Sci Fi? This is actually undoing all the good work they’ve done for the shark…makes me sick!

  105. alex says:

    they are showing it again, I cant believe they would moc biologist like that. its stupid. I really really hope there isn’t people out there believing this. im extremely mad that I wasted hours of my life, I could have been watching family guy!

  106. Carrie says:

    Check out the first comment at the end of this article from a Discovery Channel investigator, dated April 4, 2013–the day BEFORE the “boat attack supposedly happened!!!

  107. Dan says:

    It amazes me to “discover” how stupid “The Discovery Channel” thinks its viewers really are! They have insulted us twice already this year with this mockumentary “bull”. Not worth my time watching this channel any longer, no longer a credible source for information.

  108. Matt Thomas says:

    Only thing I found online was a lot more reports about the shark called the submarine. Some of these going back many years. Who knows. Everything else seems fake.

  109. alex says:

    they fake whale they built disappears, they main boat (Viking ruby) apeers to get hit and shakes every one up, they (tag) the shark. Then they act like its no big deal. then the shows over and they tell you its fake after over an hour of pounding it into your brain that’s this whole thing is real. wow discovery channel..I remember growing up watching lions kill other critters on real footage just fine. what happened to the good ole days

  110. stephen says:

    Definitely actors. Can’t believe they are calling it a documentary. The cheesy “recovered” footage..

  111. Cambee says:

    So, many things wrong with this.

    1) chum cannon? What science expedition would ever incure the cost of this? Fuel is more important thn co2 guns.

    2) Gaint Whale? 3 weeks between ship down and delivery of the prop? Wow, that is great turn around time.

    3) I’m a marine biologist in my spare time too. Except I actually did to grad school in the US.

    4) megalodon knows to attack a floating prob, but ignores all the small boats around.

    Thanks discovery, you are destroying great shows and weeks. Good bye Deadlist Catch and Shark week. Nat Geo has been stepping up its quality in the past 12-24 months.

  112. Tish says:

    I started to think it was all a hoax when they showed the whale washed up in Hawaii. That footage was HD…way too good to have been taken by a kid’s video camera and the date stamp on the supposed footage of the whale looked like a computer font not like anything I’ve ever seen from any kind of video camera even a digital one.

  113. Michael says:

    I thought the disclaimer at the end flew by way to fast to read it. It make me suspicious, so I went to the net to check it out. Thank you, Joe, you saved me time.

  114. Ja says:

    Same thing, been looking online since in started: (9:27pst) can’t find ANYTHING about this boat going down… hate to think it’s fake but shit… looking like it..

  115. renegade732 says:

    I would think 4 people about to die would be screaming at the top of their lungs asking what was going on or calling for their wives or husbands, something. and then no sign of any of the people on board but they found the camera and it was water proof “wow” what a break. Lastly the was the female marine biologist, she was entirely too hot to be for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Discovery channel “c’mon man”, just show the real stuff its awesome already, don’t be jerking your audience and pissing them off, thats how you loose us…………..
    Start a series, call it, “What if” or something, because the show was very well done and entertaining but its shark week guys do the right thing.
    renegade 732

    PS Was that Glen Frey who played the lead biologist LOL

  116. Tim says:

    It’s fake, the boat has the real charter company name “Hooked on Africa” partially obscured as it is taped over towards the back but still somewhat visible. Visit their website and you can see the actual crews and read their news photos etc. They even have a news update for April with no mention of any of this!!

  117. JJ Blue says:

    “Renowned marine biologist Dr. Colin Drake?”

    I’ve looked for 60 minutes and no such marine biologist exists. That is, none who are “renowned,” or even known at all.

  118. Elizabeth says:

    I’m not sure this is entirely fake.

    While I can’t find anything on a marine biologist named Collin Drake or the opening incident in question, there is a shark photographer and expert named Mike Bhana.

  119. b rock says:

    everyone talks about the camera angles and no results on the internet. Maybe if they had actually paid attention and noticed the “amateur” footage is acting and from the time i started watching, the dead whale on the beach is CGI. that was my first clue it was fake.

  120. marc says:

    they have their contact site down now also. sucks that discovery would do something like this

  121. Emma says:

    Found all the comments posted above way more entertaining (as well as believable) than this show. As with all of you, my husband and I are cheesed off with this fiction. Get better actors next time discovery channel!!!

  122. Kyle says:

    This makes me so angry. Shark week is supposed to provide information on sharks. Discovery channel makes a fake documentary. I’m very disappointed.

    • suzanne lawrence says:

      i found an article about a 70 foot whale washed up with half of it bitten off. i dont know if any of this is true,but i believe anything is possible

  123. carl says:

    its just like the mermaid thing discovery had on a year ago.. I started watching it and instantly knew

  124. Dan says:

    The Bureau of Tourism for the South African government should file legal action against “The Discovery Channel” for its irresponsible programming being touted as a “documentary”. Too many viewers who haven’t done their research like we have will likely be unaware that this was a total farce and devoid of any factual information. Too many avid fishermen who may have had plans to go South Africa for a fishing expedition,now have been scared off! Someone needs to overhaul the management over at “The Discovery Channel” or pull their license. This channel should be renamed as “The Garbage Channel”.

  125. Randy Denman says:

    I’m kissed!!!

  126. renegade732 says:

    Well Put Dan Couldn’t agree more

  127. Rob says:

    The day we can’t trust what we see on discovery channel is a sad day for not only the entertainment industry but society as well… I’d hate to see discovery take the TLC route but it seems like that’s whats happening with all this fake garbage. DON’T LET ME DOWN NATGEO!!!

  128. Elizabeth says:

    In addition to Mike Bhana being a real shark photographer and expert, Stephen Godfrey is real. So is the Kent guy. I found tons of information about them online and the photos online matched what was in the Discovery Megaladon special.

    Not everything about this is entirely fake.

    When they talk about the El Diablo of the coast of Mexico and what not, that’s all real. So is the deep sea footage of what they think is a Megaladon.

  129. Whunt says:

    As much as I hate to say it this fluke by discovery makes me want to just go watch sharkfeast on mat geo wild

  130. marc says:

    my kids used to ask me “how are you so smart?” I would respond “I watch discovery channel and nat geo”
    after tonight it will be “I watch nat geo”. I called bull crap after 15 mins and turned it. tuned back in for the “live” show and was even more disappointed. what the crap discovery. I hope someone gets fired….

  131. Kate says:

    I did a little searching as well and I did find a whale found off the coast of Hawaii on 1/21/2009 through the Department of Agriculture it was stated in a study looking at local toxins in the water. The whale however was not attacked by a shark it was beached believed to have been sick, and the only other was a sperm whale I found through NOAA marine mammal rescue on 02/15/2009 which was attacked by a shark.

  132. Tim says:

    Wow – 143 comments in two days? Serious traffic yet no ads, optin newsletter, or other form of monetization?. You’re missing the bus. Unless of course you’re independently wealthy :)

  133. Mario says:

    Do not know if i can finish out the rest of the week. I love shark week. Normally during this week, our family would be in FL hanging out at the beach during the day and then watching Shark Week at night. I did the same research before i found this site. Not happy in the midwest!!

  134. Mike F. says:

    The videos and photos I’m seeing are looking the same quality as the Mermaids shows. Another hoax on viewers?

  135. Paul says:

    Con mucha ilusión me puse a ver el primer programa de “Shark week” con la total decepción de encontrarme con esta basura de documental que no tiene ningún fundamento científico.He buscado por todo el Internet la veracidad de los ataques y no existe nada que los respalde. Muy lamentable que Discovery CHANNEL presente esta programación de poca calidad por un clásico que todos esperábamos con ansiedad y que ahora ya no lo veré mas.

  136. Blayke Olson says:

    Completely agree with all of this mockery. I am severely disappointed with how fake it was. A bunch of things that I noticed about this special were the constant discrepancies in the video footage versus the interview testimonies. First example, brazil video footage that showed something in the water as they were trying to rescue someone from the water. the pilot of the chopper said that they had the guy about 20 feet out of the water when they saw something in the water. the video footage showed the “megalodon” in the water while the man being rescued was still in the water. both testimonies were shown not 5 seconds apart in the special. another one would be the that scientific studies show that Megalodon’s main food source was some sort of dwarf whale that was thought to be extinct and recently discovered to be alive. and then later in the movie, discover channel claims that the Humpback whale was the megalodon’s main food source, which is contradictory already.

    I don’t believe this for a second and am actually really pissed that Discovery is choosing to show a bunch of CGI and Photoshop photos to make people believe in lies rather than show actual fact based studies and teachings. When I was younger, I would learn and use all sorts of facts that I learned on Discovery. Now all I will get out of this is great “fish stories” that aren’t true at all and that all scientists are between their mid 20’s and early 30’s and attractive… and that its ok to draw in thousands of underwater predators using hundreds of gallons of fish blood in a specific area, thus messing with normal feeding activities of said predators.

    Bring back Bill Nye and stuff like that. We actually learned things from those shows

  137. Jennifer Eige says:

    Seriously!? Discovery Channel SUCKS! Thanks for your post, saved me time searching for this freakishly handsome biologist!

  138. Christy C says:

    Discovery Channel has sold its soul. They are shameless. What’s next? A “documentary” about female Amazon warriors living in Hollow Earth? I hope enough people are enraged about this so that advertisers reconsider being associated with this kind of falsehood. It jeopardizes the credibility of their other shows. I kind of hate them right now and I hope I never again catch my TV on that channel. grrrrrrrr…

  139. Kelle says:

    Soooo dissappointed with Discovery channel and Shark week. We should recommit “Shark Week” to Animal Planet or National Geographic. Discovery Channel has pissed me off and lost all credibility.

  140. Skotti says:

    We’re gonna need a bigger boat!

  141. Rob says:

    Yeah, Discovery should have played Sharknado instead of this poor fiction. The whole “found camcorder” reminded me when duped initially of the Blair Witch on History Channel years ago. I was excited about Shark Week…no more.

  142. Bridget says:

    Wow, this is pretty shameful work Discovery Channel. The Channel is becoming a joke. National Geographic Channel is also running a Shark Week, much better- real, accurate, interesting, and NEW scientific information & footage. I’m switching for good after this ridiculous crap.

  143. Ali says:

    Search the web for “Collin Drake Mobley”

  144. Kim says:

    What a farce! How about the “lost Nazi photos” and really, the whale prop that was built seemingly overnight? “Renowned marine biologist Collin Drake” looked like he was going to laugh every time he dramatically suggested the creature they were looking for was “Megalodon”. I know real scientists that would be grateful to have a fraction of the budget granted for his “expedition”. Very disappointing Discovery – unfortunately, I rarely watch your channel anymore based on the stupid shows you now produce and definitely reinforced (loss of my viewership) based on this waste of my time in addition to the commercials for upcoming shows shown every break, “Tickle”…really? :(

  145. Mark says:

    I knew the show was complete bullcrap right after the ‘amateur video’ of the fishing charter being attacked. They said it happened a few months ago and there was NO WAY that this wouldn’t have been reported and all over the internet if it really did.

  146. Leo says:

    I pay attention to stupid details in movies and shows that don’t make sense and noticed that on April 23rd was 18 days after the attack of the fishing boat. But when the biologist gets his team together prior to going out with the giant fake whale, he tells his team they are going back to where the boat went down a week ago! Hmmm! A week ago would mean 7 days! Not 18! Totally fake! Also if this shark was so Big and dangerous, why the hell would they allow 3 little inflattable boats to be next to the ship if its possible for the shark to take them down? Did anyone else happen to ctach thst either?…Disappointing for discovery channel!

    • Ryan says:

      Totally agree with Leo. I noticed they said the ship went down 18 days ago. Then before the big moment of going out he tells his team they are going back to the spot of where the ship sank a week ago.?? I then realized the show was completely full of crap.just trying to get high ratings for a name of MEGALODON….. Get real just stick to the real shark week

  147. Nick says:

     to did some internet research and found nothing of the ship wreck or Colin but I did find that Dr. Bretton W. Kent ( appears 40 minutes in) does exist and is who they say at the university of Maryland. It was weird though that I found his name sometimes with a W. and sometimes a K., even with sites that are connected directly to the university.

  148. Tony says:

    This is TOTAL BS! Just like the Mermaids “documentary”, its totally fake. Just look at the disclaimers at the end. I am soooo sick of Discovery doing this.

  149. maribel says:

    Read the fine print as the show is finishing. It tells us it’s dramatized…

  150. Commercial Diver Anndy says:

    If you watched the show, towards the end (last 10 minutes) there is a disclaimer that flashes across the bottom of screen and if it didn’t go so fast I’m sure it would have stated it was a dramatization. With that said, if you watched the show immediatly following the Megladon show, Shark After Dark the guest sitting to the left of the actor Dominick Monohan (don’t kill me for getting that wrong) the actor from Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Wolverine movie was the producer of the Megladon show. The very first question the host asked them in the first minute of the show was do they believe that Meglodon could exist today ( and they were supposed to answer with one word) the producer said flat out no way. The show was supposed to be thought provoking mockumentary, I guess. Well played Discovery Channel, well played. Not to mention I have spent the last 7 years as a Commercial Diver working in the gulf of Mexico and some other various places and I have seen all manner of marine life, but never a Megladon. Not once.

  151. Mr right now says:

    What’s the big deal, people? Why all the tears? From reading your posts one might think discovery stole your puppy and knocked up your sister! Throwing out the idea that Megalodon could still be roamimg our waters and theorizing all the scenarios how, that’s a great way to kick off shark week!

  152. Dave Manning says:

    Thanks for the article. Just like everyone else, I found the mockumentary to be pretty entertaining, and at times, pretty compelling too! Alas, after a quick google search, I found out that it was very much fake.

    At the very end when the “disclaimer” comes and goes (three paragraphs in a mere 1.5 seconds), I couldn’t catch any bit of it! Anyway, good thing I have a PVR: I paused it and transcribed it as follows:

    None of the institutions or agencies that appear in the film are affiliated with it in any way, nor have approved its contents.

    Though certain events and characters in this film have been dramatized, sightings of “submarine” continue to this day.

    Megalodon was a real shark. Legends of giant sharks persist all over the world. There is still debate about what they may be.

    Finally, I share my disappointment with all of you in the fact that Discovery Channel would kick off shark week with such fake programming.

  153. Justin Johnson says:

    It’s a Shame how some people such as these posters have trouble grasping on to large concepts that change our perspectives. While it is possible that this was faked it doesn’t mean other large weird theories are not correct. It mean space is endless so why not aliens. The ocean is massive so why not giant sharks.

  154. Ethan says:

    pretty sure the boat “accident” they used was the sport fishing boat that sank off of st lucia considering he had been battling a 200 lb marlin for over 2hrs

  155. Nanie says:

    I will never recommend Discovery programs to anyone, ever again. Period. Unreliable, pathetic and weak. Syfy channel move over…Discovery is chomping at your heels. At least we have the National Geographic channel.

  156. Tony Fairfax says:

    I have to laugh, as Discovery’s tag line is “The World’s #1 Non-Fiction Media Company.” Really?

    This show puts all of Discovery’s shows in doubt. How obviously fake…There was no boat sinking in South Africa. There was no whale carcass in Hawaii in 2009.

    Note at the end of the show they roll for less than a second a disclaimer. Can anyone read it?

    Here is the number to Discovery’s Ethics Hotline: (800) 398-6395. I suggest everyone call it and voice your concern.

    What a crappy way to put the whole Shark Week into doubt…

  157. Tony Fairfax says:

    Ohh, and take a look at the “photo” taken by the shark observer in South Africa. She is high up on the hill, yet her alleged photo is nearly from sea level purporting to show a giant shark eating a whale. How could she get that angle from being so high up? Fake, fake, fake.

  158. Tony Fairfax says:

    The show is produced by Pilgrim Studios in Hollywood. Here is its corporate statement “We’re not about cheap gimmicks, contrived plotting or fifteen minutes of fame. We’re proud of the work we do, and it shows.”

    Call them and tell them of your own Megalodon sighting: T: (818) 478-4500

  159. Ahmed says:

    I am a big fan of science channels but ..

    Oooo my God !!! what a disgrace …

    I just saw this “documentary” few minutes ago , and totally believed it ! I actually kept on rewinding my DVR and looking at the footage over and over again of this “mockumentary” so it wont end soon, it took me double the actual air time to finish it. I got on the web to check on it, and found this site ..

    the only reason I believed it because it was on Discovery channel.. my faith in the channel is shaken to the core, and any other “documentary” I will ever see again .. it only shows how naïve and susceptible are we (the common viewer) of any thing being claimed as “scientific” ..

    I think the discovery channel should defiantly make a statement about this crap ..

    the only good thing about this mocumentary is that it is very well thought and written to deceive , It would have been a good movie but NOT on the Discovery channel ..

  160. Steve says:

    Very disappointing. I agree with the comments that with so much interesting genuine material there is no need for such phony hype. Why doesn’t Shark Week talk about the real issue that sharks are becoming extinct? See the good article in Discover Magazine (no connection to Discovery Channel)

  161. Al says:

    I am really disappointed with Discovery Channel’s airing of a fake documentary on the existence of megaladon. They have no integrity. How can I watch anything on Discovery Channel anymore. Forget about the existence of megaladon, what about the existence of true facts and integrity on the Discovery Channel.

  162. Richard says:

    I knew this show was fake within the first few moment s of watching it. What upsets me is that they try to pass it off as real and know most of the population will believe. Our educational television has gone to crap!

  163. Scott says:

    How disappointing.

  164. kupaDuffy says:

    There is not enough proof….I have been fishing here is the pacific the biggest ocean of the world….
    I’m very disappointed with the show.If there is a megalodon shark wouldn’t it be more sighting and evidence.A good tv show but not true at all……

  165. alyssa says:

    It has to be fake. The so called Collin Drake is the same guy from the Mermaid shows that were made to look real but fake.I HATE when they waste peoples time with fake crap.

  166. FlyerJoe says:

    it the same thing as the Mermaid show last year. I remember when Discovery used to do Factual shown not melodramas!

  167. FlyerJoe says:

    it the same thing as the Mermaid show last year. I remember when Discovery used to do Factual shows not melodramas!

  168. Tony P says:

    everyone should go here and tell Discovery that they screwed up

  169. Shirley says:

    I am glad I came across this article because as I was watching the show I too did a lot of searching and came up with nothing. Not a fan of Discovery right now.

  170. SJP70 says:

    Well Discovery Channel, you just ruined “Shark Week” for me, and likely for many other viewers. Really? You guys couldn’t find a real marine biologist to lead this fictional episode? Oh yeah, you forgot to display a disclaimer at the beginning of the episode. A simple, “re-enactment” would have been nice. Or, just start a new Discovery Channel called, “Not The Discovery Channel You’ve Come To Love and Trust”.

  171. Lisa says:

    I too felt this show was a hoax about 30 min into it & like all of you found zip to support any of their claims. What sealed the deal was that Mike & Madelyn were going IN THE WATER when this thing was supposedly around. No true scientist or shark professional would do such a thing & a Discovery Channel funded show would NEVER chance the lives of these folks that way. Who puts 5 miles of chum, distressed whale sounds, and a fake decoy then jumps in a flimsy shark tank when a potentially 50+ foot Megalodon (that took out a boat & all aboard) is headed their way?!?! Um, no….that’s not reality.
    I’m not a “believer” per say, however, there are enough other possible sources/stories/legends to explore whether this creature still exists rather than just make it all up! I hope Discovery addresses this in some way soon.

  172. Frankie says:

    Yeah, “James”, keep telling urself that global warming is fake. How do u eat or breathe with ur head buried in the sand?
    As far as the “Megalodon” show, i agree that it was a lame kickoff to “Shark Week”. All they need to do is to show us factual shark shows, not scripted over-the-top stupidity like the Megalodon thing.

  173. Tara says:

    After the mermaid BS, red flags went up immediately when I started watching the show last night. Discovery channel has become a huge disappointment. Like most people commenting here I started researching events depicted in the show and came up with nothing. I’ve been watching sharkweek since it started and this is ridiculous. People tune to Discovery for facts. Not over dramatized crap.

  174. JohnnyJ says:

    Will not waste any more time with Discovery Channel(s) after wasting 2 hours for a fake show last night. Bad enough they are doing these stupid AND FAKE reality shows like Amish Mafia, but now they screwed up what put them on the map. Fake Documentary with not even a disclaimer (other than the BS they put on the end, which does not say it was fake). Fake stories to support INCREDIBLY bad acting. Done with there channels. Blocked them on receiver so my kids don’t try to watch. They blew it.

  175. efie30 says:

    My favorite detail is the creation of a five mile long blood trail to attract a 70 foot shark – all about what looks to be only 1000 yards off shore. Those little zepplin boats look sturdy enough to handle a bump from said shark, too.

  176. Efren says:

    Sharknado was more realistic.

  177. John says:

    I spent 15 minuets searching for April 5, 2013 sinking of a fishing vessel off the coast of South Africa until I read the comments here which confirmed my suspicions. After watching the show a few things bothered me; How did they get the video from them people on the fishing boat if they all died and the boat sunk to the bottom of the sea? Did they find the cell phone or video camera on the ocean floor? And the Nazi photo from a U-Boat that shows a dorsal fin that makes the shark look like the size of the U-Boat? Really? This photo would have been world famous! 6ft. dorsal fin photo? That photo would have been viral. I’m very disappointed in Discovery Channel’s decision to air this fake programing.

  178. James J says:

    To many secrets. Gonna catch up to them eventually! And on this one. it’s Literally gonna come back and bite them in the ass!

  179. guillermo says:

    Would have been better if they announce a coming sci-fi movie on friday night call “Megalodon” AND instead give Updated reports of numbers/position/population changes thru – SCIENCE FACTS BY SCIENCE CHANNEL – of all SHARKS from ALL SCIENTIST studying this beautiful beast – EVERY YEAR AT THE BEGINNING. Have to see the look in my sons face when I told them IT WAST NOT REAL. BUMMMERRRRR!!! Love Sharks Afraid of them Have touch one at 70′ under Will Not do it Again.

  180. ta-amo says:

    And the liar shall be THRUST down to Hell. That is all I have to say.

  181. Mark Gould says:

    I was suspicious that it was fake from the opening “found video” and it went down hill from there. It appeared to be fabricated from the word go. Doesn’t Discovery understand that we (the viewing public) are by and large intelligent people? Aside from the speed at which the megalodon was supposedly descending at the end being ludicrously fast. Discovery completely forgot about how long things take to be manufactured.
    The Humpback lure was a huge tell (pun intended). The time that it would take to manufacture a ‘lure’ of that size and complexity had to be on the order of MONTHS vs. the couple days they inferred on the show. It was supposedly ready for use 18 days after the charter boat was sunk. To make something that large out of fiberglass and wood takes planning, plans and a LOT of materials. Not just the finished hulk or hull in this case. Typically to form something with complex curves in fiberglass takes a plug and mold to then produce a finished product like a hull of a boat. They didn’t just free form the shape and get a realistic resemblance to a Humpback whale complete with fake barnacles on the snout. This ‘lure’ took at least a month to construct. Then to simply disappear in an explosion of water with no floating debris (it was made from a lot of wood sealed in epoxy and should float quite well) and also not see what supposedly hit it and the shark cage a second later which exploded as well. I could go on and on with so many things that were wrong with this ‘documentary’, but it would be preaching to the choir.

  182. Christy C says:

    The reason for the outrage about this show being fake is that it was also watched by children and teenagers who are not as savvy as adults. They cannot tell when an image has been photoshopped. They do not realize that a person taking a photo from atop a hill cannot snap a photo of something from sea level perspective. Yes, parents can tell their kids that it is fake but children being children they often still believe that it could be true.

    Mockumentaries are fine. I am not opposed to them but the disclaimer should be provided at the beginning of the show and after a few of the commercial breaks so that we are all aware that the events are not based on actual events. There is an expectation that the content presented by the channel will be truthful and reflect accepted scientific opinion. Otherwise, it feels like bait and switch. That is what I oppose.

    This method of theirs does discredit them. They produce a lot of videos that parents purchase for their children. They are not cheap. If discovery Channel will fake information in one show without feeling compelled to being upfront and honest about the content or purpose then what else are they faking for the sake of hype?

    If after talking to you about a subject for an hour I told you , “Ha! Ha! Just kidding.” how pleased would you be?

  183. Steve R says:

    Megladons are rell fact

  184. Steve R says:

    Megladons are is bigger than 2 whales!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  185. Jerry says:

    I searched too and nothing! Just a ratings ploy! Geez!

  186. Hector says:

    The Megalodon show was obviously bull, so I am not writing to comment on that. I wanted to post a comment here, because I am (once again) so disappointed in some of the comments people have left. I suppose it is stupid for me to be doing this, as I realize that I am not going to change anyone’s mind, however I find I cannot leave this page without saying something in response to the global warming debate taking place here.

    Anybody who claims absolute certainty towards either side has clearly not done his or her research, and is allowing his or her own personal beliefs to be influenced by the opinion of somebody else (someone probably in the media, with whom he or she already tends to agree). The FACTS (not disputed) are that the planet is getting warmer, and this increased heating will have a massive effect on the planet. Now, this is a process that does happen every so often on our planet, and there will probably be another ice age on this planet at some point. However, there is evidence to suggest that human practices are harmful to the planet, and could be affecting it in a way that we describe as “global warming”. There is, however, no conclusive evidence of this, though no one is disputing that these practices are harmful to the planet (just whether or not they are actually causing the temperature to rise in any significant way).

    No matter what the cause, there is no question that the temperature of the planet is rising, and therefore it is a silly debate. Climate change is occurring, this is fact number one. Fact number two is that we do things that are bad for the planet. Those things may be unrelated to climate change, but does that really matter? If there are better practices that don’t harm the planet, is there any reason not to pursue those safer, cleaner avenues?

    Both theories are unproven, and the only people arguing that either one is absolutely true, are people who have other agendas. Everybody should keep their minds open, because we don’t know the answers, and deciding that one unproven theory is right, and another unproven theory is wrong, well that seems foolish to me.

  187. Tony Fairfax says:

    I would be less annoyed if Discovery and Pilgrim Studios put a clear disclaimer at the beginning of the show and at each major commercial break. That would be the ethical thing to do, not just a vague disclaimer flashing on the screen at the end for fewer than two seconds…

  188. M. Cox says:

    The premise, albeit over-dramatized and obviously fiction does not however dismiss the fact that the oceans of the earth are by far the most un-explored regions of our planet. To completely rule out the possibility of the existence of such a creature would be ignorant at best.

  189. M. Cox says:

    Global warming IS real. The real debate is what’s causing it! Why spend X billions on dollars rebuilding the east coast when it will be destroyed again in the foreseeable future???

  190. Varoom says:

    I kept searching for the date of the sinking and found nothing. There were many parts of the show that I thought were fake, but I kept telling myself that its the Discovery channel, this has to be real. Not that I would expect them to have all the correct answers all the time, and of course they’re going to speculate about things, but I’m thoroughly disappointed that they put this fake garbage on and passed it off as real.

    So is the rest of the week just more fake crap too?

  191. Russ says:

    there are many reasons why i think that this is fake. I too searched the internet for Colin Drake marine biologist. there was nothing revealed about a person like him ever existing. i also searched for some kind of boat sinking by the cause of a shark. also never existed

  192. Clint says:

    Well I am glad to see that there is more intelligent life out there that caught this, for lack of a better term, BS that Discovery is dishing out. Chum would be more tasty. What has happened to journalistic integerty, oh yea its run by cooperations. Integerty. LOL
    Second, for all the global warming folks. Just a question. Why was there an ice age and how did the earth get out of it??? Maybe natural cycles of the earth. Not saying that we are really screwing things up but I want to see the real proof. Not just reteric.
    If you guys want to see something truly scary watch the Real documentries, Bag It, and Tapped. Very interesting, all taken with a small grain of salt.

  193. dan says:

    Lol. Anyone that thinks the current climate change ISNT due to human activity has been DUPED by big oil.

  194. Angie says:

    My husband and I too started searching if this was real. I went to Snopes yesterday and nothing, but there is something today on this:

    So disappointed in Discovery….

  195. Robbie says:

    I read the article from South Africa news and i think they took a real tragedy and took it an extreme. Really disappointed in this fake show with no facts. I have been a fan for years and love the real facts and footage; but this is complete bull and crap. Discovery clean this mess up please.

  196. mike says:

    this show was an intentional fake show just like ‘Mermaids’. that was not real either. this is just a “what if” to make you think. it is possible for this shark to just suddenly show. look at all the other underwater creatures that have, just recently, been found.

  197. WhatWhereWhy says:

    Same here searching the Internet to verify the show. LOL All Fake.
    What goobers. You’d think Michael Moore wrote, directed, and produced it.

    Global warming, the planet MIGHT be getting warmer but it isn’t humans
    causing it. Earth is a big round ball of FIRE, we are living on a fairly
    thin CRUST, again, on a hug ball of fire. Everything could change drastically
    at anytime. All it would take is one large volcano to blow and block the
    sun for a few days to change things.

    It might be getting warmer but we can’t do anything about it. If it is going
    to be warmer people may have to move from the current oceanfront because a new
    oceanfront might be coming. We can’t stop it.

    If you believes global warming is caused by humans don’t have children, help
    cut down on emissions now and in the future.

  198. CJ says:

    Not only was the first show very disappointing, next they aired Shark After Dark. Horrible. The host was NOT funny and they hardly talked about sharks. They had a skit called ‘shark porn’ and the host tried eating some chum. Really?!? I don’t know if I can trust Discovery anymore. I am so disappointed that they have sunk to this level of entertainment. I would have been happy with footage of white sharks swimming around, or hearing victims of shark attacks tell their stories. The first show was horrible and the after show was even worse. Shame on them!

  199. Roy schieder says:

    This is funny, much more so than Jaws

  200. really??? says:

    HAHAHAHA XDDD YOUR OPINION IS BASED ON YOUR OPINION?? NO SHIT!! XDDD It absolutely kills me when people that are so dumb.. they could jump out of a window and go up.. try to sound even remotely intelligent. Just be yourself..

    Now.. this absolute crap that discovery channel is showing.. First.. “forced out of hiding” a 100 foot shark.. 50 tons.. 100,000 lbs. Of predator.. HIDING???? right.. O.o some serious thought in this show.. Then the good cop bad cop routine of these 2 unknown scientist.. “I don’t believe it’s megaladon” so when you change YOUR mind.. it must be real..
    Please do not badger my intelligence.. first. Sharks don’t hide.. there is no hide concept for a shark.. they swim.. the eat.. they breed.. they die. End of story. They do not think. They are a pure instinct predator.. they WILL escape, if threatened by something or feel danger.. but.. that’s instinct.. not thought.. not.. “I’m one of the only of my species left.. I got to hide”.. O.O HAHAHAHA XDD

    Global warming.. who gives a …. not I. But.. there is the SAME amount of research showing the earth cooling.. but the truth.. is ABSOLUTELY not enough data to even begin to say Yes or no!! That would be like taking a 2 month old baby and saying.. “he’s a bad person” please think for yourself.. please.

    And opinion based on Your opinion.. u just don’t talk.. but I laughed so hard.. XDDD

  201. Tammy W. says:

    I watched Megalodon with my children, because they are so mesmerized by anything regarding sharks. Like many of you, I too did some research (during commercials) about what was being presented and found nothing. I then went a step further to see who owns Discovery Communications. Once I learned of the owner’s name and the fact that he is a former NBC executive this spoke volumes. We can’t believe the news these days so why should we believe what is presented on the Discovery Channel?

  202. Marc says:

    It wasn’t 5 minutes into the Megalodon Show that I looked at my wife and said that it was fake & reminded me of the Mermaid show with the same type of fake footage. I was very disappointed to say the least.

    • Joe Preiner says:

      It was the same here. Just a few minutes in I started to lose interest, thinking it didn’t feel or sound real. Sure enough…

  203. Ed Mc says:

    Has the world gone totally mad? Why would the Discovery Channel waste our time producing fake shows. The mermaid show was an embarrassment. This Megalodon show was a fraud. I too spent time looking for info on this April 5,2013 South African boat attack…nothing. Discovery Channel presented this event as fact as most viewers believed it was a reenactment of the actual boat that sunk. They even showed divers at the wreckage.

  204. kirby says:

    It just amazes me that there are still folks that believe this nonsense that global warming is a theory. All I can say is your a good comrade! You bought, hook line and sinker, the governments position that global warming is a theory. There is not one single reputable scientists that holds the idea that global warming is not real. Your gov’t spends good money to push the idea that global warming is a theory and nothing more. Seems they’re getting their monies worth. Don’t worry though I’m not, the planet will be fine. Even if it’s not habitable for human life it will recover and shake us off like fleas on a dog.

    Before you start ranting about the wonderful credibility of your scientists, such as Rush Limbaugh, do some homework on your own. No, it’s just so much easier to listen to the experts that espouse your own feel-good beliefs, just like every pastor does to his flock every Sunday morning. I’m just enjoying watching these new reality shows where folks are mining for gems in Greenland, since it’s been turning green. Greenland has been iced over for the last 10,00 years. Now for the first time we all can get to the mineral content. One of the worlds largest rubies was found lying on the ground just last year. Watch the gold rush that’s headed there!

  205. Vinicius says:

    Isn’t this junk just like presenting fake news?
    Why is this even legal?
    Really, Discovery could not come up with anything better?

  206. walt says:

    one more thing about the authenticity of this Discovery program joe, how did they get the footage shown of the americans? if there were no survivors and the boat sunk, how was the camera footage salvaged – from the bottom of the bay? and if so, was the camera water proof? if this thing eats 2,500 lbs daily, why is there still a whale population?

    • Joe Preiner says:

      Yes another ding on the program’s credibility, if it had any left. How fortunate that camera was waterproof and they were able to find it. What luck. Garbage.

  207. Sharky says:

    The Blair Shark project
    Shark week has lost it’s roots .. This is
    HollyWood fake like the people

  208. Jupiter says:

    This shark week special reminded me of The Blair Witch Project.

  209. Lean6 says:

    Discovery and Animal Planet pulled this same crap with the Mermaid production. I wasn’t amused at that one, and I’m not amused at this one either. I can appreciate good TV just as well as the next guy, but if I’m watching sci-fi, I want to know it so that I can rack it and stack it among other programs I might rather watch. This cheating with the lure of educational value or things that people would want to know is not cool in my book. I guess I should wonder what else is dramatized and fake on Discovery channel and Animal Planet actually….

  210. Tom says:

    Hey thanks for checking it out! Saved me the trouble. Makes me pissed off Discovery is so desperate for ratings and ideas. What a lame year for Shark week…lies and subterfuge…the Louisiana Bayou Rookin tail with the big fat guy, who I will refrain from calling a liar, was also a load of horse manure. Discovery if u are paying attention let Liberty Mutual know like you, they too have lost a customer – quality not quantity!

    • Joe Preiner says:

      Agreed. There were some redeeming shows, but in general the programming was pandering to misinformation. Shows went more for shock value and manufactured drama instead of just giving viewers what they really want, which during Shark Week is educational programming and footage of sharks. Seems so simple…

  211. steve says:

    Well I thought the picture from the german u-boat was cool why they didn’tnd someone from the boat or a family member to verify it. Though I don’t believe megalodon exist.With a 1300 pound mako and a 1100 pound bull being caught, Both much larger than there respected species are suppose too reach. It would not surprise me that a great white has one or two out there much larger than usuall.

  212. ratspt says:

    There is NO consensus in science! It either is or isnt. There is no factual evidence that global warming is melting the ice caps! Global warming haS been proven to be junk science and the data used to prove its facts have been falsified! Global warming going green is just another way to justify raising our taxes! you idiots believe this liberal lie! The Earth had been here for roughly 4.6 billion years its warmed and cooled 100s if not thousands of times since its begging. Theres geological Fact that there was Periods on Earth in different parts of the world that it got so Hot that every thing died! There were NO COMBUSTIN ENGINES HELL THERE WERENT ANY PEOPLE FOR THAT MATTER….THE SUN DID IT! So wake up you liberal pusher!

  213. John says:

    Proof of global warming:
    (1) Insurance companies are writing it into their future plans
    (2) The US department of defense says it is real
    (3) Nasa says it is real
    (4) AAAS says its real. (Association of US scientists).
    (5) North pole is melting more and more most summers; sometimes less, sometimes more, but always trending down
    (6) Animals and plants are changing their range; moving north and uphill.
    Sure, the 11-year sun cycle affects things, but this isnt going up and down every eleven years; the hottest 10 years have all taken place in the last 12 years.
    (7) It used to snow when I was young, every two years. Now its like once every 10 years. The snowdrops used to come out in February; now its january.
    (8) The people who say it is not happening used to work for the tobacco industry saying that cigarettes didnt give you cancer.
    It really amazes me how thick people are. How could anyone be against efficient cars, better lightbulbs or using our unlimited supplies of sunlight over scraping tar off sand?

  214. JD Montana says:

    I thought the Topic was supposed to be based on the megladon shark? not global warming folks

  215. Caleb says:

    If anyone really wants to know if they were actors or not then you should really look up the names of the people in the videos. Most likely they would have put there names in the end of the show.

  216. Angel says:

    The reason no one can find anything resulting in the megalodon is because the government has covered it up just like the mermaid documentary. We aren’t allowed as citizens to know what exactly is going on. I researched the wreckage myself. I didn’t find anything but the government is covering it up. If the footage exists or even if the megalodon still exists we’ll never know cause of the government but I full on believe that the the prehistoric creature still exists and is only resurfacing once every decade. Im not a scientist but there is still about a large amount of ocean that hasn’t been discovered yet and for all we know the creature maybe 10,000 feet below the surface. We’ll never we can’t go that far down it’s nothing but darkness and its freezing at that depth. But it did exist and it is an ancestor of the white shark. It may exist just like the giant squid and the whale they found. The goblin shark that’s a species of shark no one has heard of that was supposed to have been extinct as well but its not. A man caught and released it for those of you who have facebook twitter or instagram or maybe even pinterest may have seen it. Theres a lot to be discovered and besides you cant put all the facts in a documentary just some stuff not everything is real in a documentary most of it is props and stuff so don’t blame the discovery channel because if you think about it this documentary was also educational. So please stop complaining about the documentary until to have cold hard facts youselves

  217. James Guyer says:

    When is everybody going to learn that nobody can tell the simple truth. Everything has to be a great big secret or a flat out lie. I have several questions that will put this in perspective for you.
    1) When the boat was sank, why didn’t anybody discover a bite mark?
    2) Also there would have been broken and lost teeth on the ocean bottom near the wreck.
    3) Did you know the U-Boat picture with the giant dorsal fin in the background was faked?
    4) Why wasn’t there a follow up on the fake whale? Certainly the shark would have just spit it out.
    5) Why didn’t any body think to turn on the sonar?
    When things don’t seem quite right start asking some questions, you’ll find yourself starting to
    doubt the validity of what you’re seeing.
    I have always been an admiring viewer of the discovery channel until they started falsifying they’re documentaries.

  218. james says:

    The discovery channel is a discrace its the final straw, nowadays its full of reality shows about fisherman and gold diggers and then there making documentrys about sharks taking down boats what are 100% fake it should be about geography and science ,reality of the world the person who give the go ahead for the programme should be sacked

  219. Nina says:

    If you believe in mermaids, megladon great whites and or global warming! I have a bridge I like to sell You!!!

5 Pings/Trackbacks for "Is the Shark Week Megalodon Show on Discovery Channel Real?"
  1. […] I just read this article and it's worse than I originally thought. I knew the opening boat capsizing looked fake, but I thought that Discovery would tell its viewers that so I actually believed that event took place. If this guys research is correct every video we saw was fake including the boat capsizing.…-channel-real/ […]

  2. My Homepage says:

    … [Trackback]…

    […] Read More here: […]…

  3. Watch says:

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here: […]

  4. … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here: […]

  5. […] Is the Shark Week Megalodon Show on Discovery Channel … – A look at Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives on Discovery Channel’s Shark Week. There’s a disturbing lack of information on Collin Drake and other events…. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *