Best
227 Comments
Post
  • #66
    !
    There's not really a debate. Big energy corporations stand to lose billions from renewable energy competition so they pay their puppet legislators to resist any legislation in that regard. Funny how the right always laments about how tragic it would be to pass on the national debt (which they created the bulk of) to their children, but they're fine with passing on a dying planet. All bout money. Always has been; always will.
  • #151
    !
    Obama just shot down the pipe line for 200 million bucks from Tom Steyer.
    Big oil apparently didn.t match this.
  • #155
    !
    @Thinkpeople Sure it is. The people with all the money are in control. Thanks for making my point.
  • #175
    !
    Renewable energy corporations stand to gain billions from renewable energy legislation so they pay their puppet legislators to promote any legislation in that regard. Funny how the left always laments how the planet is tragically dying and that we must invest in renewable energy, but they're fine with throwing away government subsidies to politically connected renewable energy companies and pushing manufacturing overseas into countries with lax environmental laws, ultimately doing nothing to actually address the issue in the first place.
  • #187
    !
    @LanthanumK Whatever it takes to move forward. Corporate greed is the only reason we're still burning the same fuels we did in the 17th century and still use internal combustion car engines. The money will start flowing when profits are being made. Investors will run from fossil fuels like rats.
  • #11
    !
    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/12/c...

    Nonetheless, the spirit of Galileo still lives. Just as he once insisted "E pur si muove!" ("And yet it moves!"), many of today's scientists are saying, "And yet it's bunk!"

    Al Gore may produce a lot of hot air, but not enough to cause the Earth to warm by more than 1.2–1.7°C over the next century, which isn't significant given the planet's normal temperature fluctuations. Previous interglacial periods reached an average of 3°C warmer than current temperatures, and as you can see, the planet survived.

    The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been sheepishly toning down its inflated numbers. Its worst-case temperature predictions are down more than 20% from what they were 5 years ago. It is now estimating that the sea level will go up by one foot over the next 100 years. It has already gone up by 370 feet since the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago, and we're not living on rafts yet.

    But if the facts aren't on their side, the moonbat media can always run a picture of a cuddly polar bear in distress.
  • #157
    !
    It's amusing that global warming deniers try to claim they embody "the spirit of Galileo" when in fact you guys are the modern equivalent of those who suppressed Galileo.
  • #199
    !
    @Cal Who are being suppressed is the so called deniers. Government grants to the PC climate guys is all it takes; throw in the sycophant media, the academic fellow travelers and a gullible public, Bingo you get a colossal tax increase all going to your
    honorable leaders, and I heard it's getting colder.
  • #218
    !
    @magnacarta

    Never short change Gore , the only thing green about that farce is the green he has made over global warming .

    Interestingly enough he rarely if ever practices what he preaches .
  • R Load more replies

  • #73
    !
    BTW, Lisa Fine. Bless your heart for sharing this. Sometimes, it really does matter and this issue is one that does.
  • #3
    !
    Ok.

    How do we fix it?

    I have seen this debate pop up before. I personally think humans are only playing a small role but I gave never denied that its happening.

    We have had major climate changes in the past sone of which almost wiped out the planet....but they where when men still basically lived in caves.

    So its happening...fine....what are we willing to do about it?
  • #10
    !
    That is the huge question.
    Most of the resistance comes from those who fear a loss of the current way of doing things. Smart people are figuring out ways to profit from it.

    Contrary to some claims, we don't have to go back to the stone age, but we do need to become very much more efficient that we have been.

    We also have to recognize that we, as a nation, cannot solve the problem alone.
    Right now, some countries are being proactive and aggressive, and some are doing nothing at all.
    We need to be at the head of the smart group.
    As time goes on, the need for action will become more evident. Even if we started today, the warming trend will continue for several decades.
  • #35
    !
    @Cincinnatus

    What your saying makes sence. But is it doable? It's why I ended my post with "what are we willing to do about it."

    320,000,000 of us. If 1 in 4 doubt and another 1 in 3 show apathy towards the issue. Thats approximately 200,000,000 Americans.

    Now lets look globally. 7,000,000,000 people in the world. The majority living in China who has surpassed the US in much of what the scientific community is pointing the finger at.

    Its a very BIG problem and their are no painless easy fixes.
  • #40
    !
    @craythegray

    LED lighting is doing something about it.

    Improving vehicle mileage is doing something.

    Light rail projects is doing something.

    Recycling is doing something.

    China knows it has a problem and it working on it, harder than we are.
  • #46
    !
    @Cincinnatus

    Can you back up your china claim?

    Independent news sources if you will.

    As for the other stuff you mentioned its like spitting in a raging bonfire. The last report escalated the time line.....if we are going to start reversing it we need?????

    I don't have the answers. None that are not drastic.
  • R Load more replies

  • #63
    !
    You have to realize that there is only 3% in the "no human-driven climate change" camp. That actually, is a HUGE win. When you compare the climate science debate to other facts and aspects of reality, you can find that 20-30-40% of the population still believes in witches, Bigfoot, Megalodon, etc..........or really inane stuff like the Earth being only 6000 years old.
    When 97% of anything is decided, it's certain. But the deniers will stubbornly cling to their beliefs even as hey are being inundated by salt water, or their crops burn in the blaze of continual 120 degree summers..........
  • #103
    !
    @Unfit2serve Not in this country. We have so many dumb people that we're leaders in completely ignoring our impact on the environment.
  • #131
    !
    @AceLuby @Yobyag @Unfit2serve

    I remember a Bill Maher segment (I know, I know, a shameless 'libertard') in which he made a really pointed statement attempting to justify his (then) recent reference to the American public as "stupid." I can't remember the exact statement title, but if you search YouTube for "Fun with Statistics Bill Maher" you'll find it.

    Money quotes:
    -"On the eve of the Iraq War, 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. 6 years later...34% still do."
    - "2/3rds (of Americans) don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does..."
    - "Sarah Palin says she would she would never apologize for America, even though a Gallup poll says that 18% of us (Americans) think that the Sun revolves around the Earth. No, they're not stupid. They're inter-planetary mavericks."
  • #16
    !
    The only scientists denying climate change at this point are the ones who are paid by fossil fuel energy companies. The reason we haven't done anything to lessen climate change is because the energy companies have the politicians in their pockets and all they care about are making more profits.
  • #29
    !
    @Tmaster All over the world?? It isn't just the US that says manmade climate change is happening. There is a worldwide consensus, the difference is they aren't debating it and actually want to do something about it while we are held back by those who are illogical and irrational in their thinking. Even if all the scientists were wrong wouldn't it be better to stop polluting our environment?
  • #65
    !
    Those paid "deniers" are the same guys that worked for Big Tobacco for decades, and are working for DOW now, to try and head off and deny the fact that all plastic containers are leaching estrogenic compounds into our food, and driving cancer rates.
    Anytime to see a "anti-science" movement touting a "white paper" study, you can guarantee it is just a group of pseudo-scientists waving bogus research documents around wildly hoping for media attention.
  • #210
    !
    @Darkdreamer ..."Even if all the scientists were wrong wouldn't it be better to stop polluting our environment?"
    Your last sentence says it all. Good post!
  • #185
    !
    Anybody with money can pay and make the stats represent anything they want it to. My question, is there truly a non bias group anywhere, that can give accurate stats. I believe not!
  • #184
    !
    Except that that's not what it shows.

    The 97% figure on AGW scientific consensus is 97% of papers *that take a position on the issue*! The study showed that 66% of papers on climate took no position at all. Therefore, Mr. Oliver should have Brought out 66 people in lab coats who would stand around shrugging their shoulders.

    Then about 32 could behave as the inarticulate mob he showed.

    In any event, Saul Alinsky would be proud. Its easy to mock, and easier to win an argument, when you don't give an accurate portrayal of the opposing view.

    Please do NOT take my word for it (that's how we get into these messes). You can read the whole paper that originates the 97% trope here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/02402...
  • #182
    !
    This is GREAT It really displays the best technique of the warmist community. It is to SHOUT DOWN those with whom they disagree. Of course John Oliver does not want to have us think about the basic fact that since 1998 (sixteen years), there has been NO rise in worldwide global temperatures, either the air, the sea, the land, or the upper atmosphere. THAT inconvenient truth is not presented. For a reference see :
    http://www.remss.com/research/climate
    By the way, what are the "Science Guy"'s credentials. Well, Bill Nye did get a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell in 1973 so I guess he's a smart guy, but he began his entertainment schtick as a character in a comedy skit, and has run with it. He is not a professional scientist yet Oliver presents him as such.
  • #136
    !
    Next week's debate: A cardiac specialist vs a Christian Scientist over whether little Billy needs a heart transplant.
  • #158
    !
    And for those who don't know, "Christian Scientist" doesn't mean a scientist who's a Christian. It means a member of the "Church of Christ, Scientist", a sect that believes prayer is more effective than medical treatment and that receiving medical treatment actually somehow reduces the effectiveness of prayer.
  • #7
    !
    Every issue has some crackpot attached to it.

    We need not pander to them, and it's stupid to let them control the debate.
  • #217
    !
    if you implement all that hypocrite and IMO loony Gore and his zombie followers want, the electricity in USA and fuel will at min double in price .

    Your weekly food bill will double .
  • #188
    !
    They always try to paint the opposition to climate alarmists as people that deny that anything is happening.

    Not true, most of us admit that an effect is happening. We just completely disagree about changing our lives, industries and economy over it, UNTIL it is proven that the changes are so drastic and dangerous that we MUST.

    Most of us "denier's just think the cost benefit analysis of going green fails the test. Sure in a world with infinite money we should go 100% green. But we don't live in that world, going green is super costly and right now the danger of not going green isn't great enough (in the perception of the 'deniers') to warrant the great cost.

    End of story.
  • #186
    !
    Instead of arguing over whether climate change is happening, we should be discussing what we can do to make this planet cleaner and healthier while improving the quality of life for everyone living on it. We need to do something with all our trash besides burying it. We need to come up with clean, inexpensive, long-term methods of producing energy. We need to stop polluting our water, air, and soil with toxic chemicals. We need to find a way to stabilize our population size.

    All this debate about climate change does is distract us from the work that needs to be done,(and would still need to be done even if climate change weren't occurring).
  • #173
    !
    Nice skit there! seriously funny! How much breathing room do we have, actually. We SHOULD do all we can collectively to bring harmony into the environment. Certainly.
  • #147
    !
    Scientific questions are resolved with research and evidence not debate. There is no scientific debate. The only debate taking place is in the public fueled and funded by ideological deniers of the science.
  • #137
    !
    So much ignorance...

    Quote -
    Knutti and Huber found that greenhouse gases contributed 0.6–1.1 degrees C to the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century, with the most statistically likely value being a contribution of about 0.85 degree C. Around half of that contribution from greenhouse gases—0.45 degree C—was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols.

    From here:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thr...

    Quote -
    According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

    But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.

    The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

    A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

    From here:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wor...
  • #127
    !
    “The debate on climate change should not be on whether or not it exists, it’s what we should do about it.” 1:23
    The climate of earth has always changed, is changing and will continue to do so..with or without mans presence. So obviously there will be data that shows just that. The debate should be how is man affecting climate if at all.
  • R Load more comments...
Post