Sure, but hyperbolic (or ironic/false) statements are a subset of jokes, so there is some overlap, especially when the meaning of joke doesn’t become apparent until after you read the content proper. I think it is reasonable to say that headlines are intended to draw people in and make them chose to read something, and I’m not sure the content lived up to the promise of the headline (I was expecting something related to climate change or some sort of specific weather phenomenon specific to 2000).
And honestly I would be a lot more accepting of stuff like this if it wasn’t for the fact the BB likes to name and shame other media outlets for what it considers to be unacceptably bad science journalism. Like, a factually accurate, lighthearted tweet about how a specific place on Mars is warmer than a specific place on Earth is bad, but this (or the highly dubious piece on black ice) is good?
