Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

May 6th, 2014
09:31 PM ET

Bill Nye: Climate change is our most urgent, number one priority right now.

Bill Nye the Science Guy debates climate change with Nick Loris of the Heritage foundation, S.E. Cupp and Van Jones.

Cupp: should we all just be vegetarians then?
S.E. Cupp challenges Bill Nye the Science Guy on climate change by asking if everyone should be vegetarians.

Cupp takes on Hillary Clinton on guns
S.E. Cupp is outraged that Hillary Clinton was fear-mongering on guns in her latest speech.

Posted by
Filed under: Bill Nye • Climate Change • Debates • Nick Loris • Outrage of the Day • S.E. Cupp • Van Jones
soundoff (481 Responses)
  1. Shanon

    At this moment I am going to do my breakfast,
    once having my breakfast coming again to read further

    July 12, 2014 at 4:37 pm | Reply
  2. Johna873

    I like this post, enjoyed this one regards for putting up. The goal of revival is conformity to the image of Christ, not imitation of animals. by Richard F. Lovelace. dccfgebbbadg

    June 22, 2014 at 12:45 pm | Reply
  3. Johnk268

    Thanks again for the blog post.Thanks Again. Cool. edbkagbeegcd

    June 22, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Reply
  4. MoreData

    The Earths DNA Summarized…

    The idea behind this article is to point out that we are not looking at the whole picture and fancy headlines, critical governments, government employees with poor information or scientist with bow ties aren’t looking at all the data and for the most part are just trying to save face, jockey for a better political position or not lose an argument, which is sad.
    I talk a little about Earth’s DNA…

    Original climate model was created by Green Peace, which was incorrect and they were caught red handed using bad calculations (lying to the world). The models used today aren't as accurate as they say they are either. In other words short climate changes are common place and long term effects can't be immediately tracked by analyzing ICE or short periods of heat waves and short I mean 100 to 500 hundred years, which is nothing to earth.
    Now let's look at what they are not using in their calculations, Solar expansion and activity which has the greatest influence of anything we can think off. The sun goes through growth phases and activity phases, so happens we have been in one for some time now. The bigger the sun the more heat it creates and the hotter we get, which also causes the earth to release more gases. (The earth more gases)

    The Sun phases also has gravitational effects, which affects tides and the moon ability to stabilize oceans, which affect wind and temperatures. These items on their own cause 10,000% greater impact than Co2 or any other gas could ever achieve. I would usually end my explanation it here since there is enough data there to prove Co2, is not the culprit and using one thing to be the cause of disaster without looking the Earth's complete DNA. It's like saying you are gaining weight because you eat lettuce and you don’t just eat lettuce, but we understand lettuce, so that’s the problem, too much lettuce.

    So there are other issues at hand that pretend to be smart scientist can’t wrap their heads around and in order to come up with answer and not look stupid or to try and look smart they find something to blame, which they claim to understand.

    Let's continue, underwater volcanic activity, which is also not mentioned has been very active and we have no way of measuring how much Volcanic material is being released into the oceans, but one small Volcano at the bottom of the ocean can release more greenhouse gasses and material than humans have for the past 100 years, which increases the oceans acidity and raises ocean temperatures, which changes our climate. None of which are manmade and there are hundreds of active Volcanoes on the oceans bottom. (Volcanic acidity permeates enormous areas and absorbs heat, which can affect surface ocean temperature readings, in other words create short term temperature spikes and create long term effects that affect averages, which can be misconstrued as manmade.)

    There is also no proof to show that some of the Glaciers aren’t melting from the bottom or bedrock or ocean and not from top alone. The bottom would indicate tectonic and Volcanic influence on temperature not Co2 or any other gas they wish to blame.

    The final item which has not been added to the equation is earthquakes, which equals crust or tectonic shifts. A small shift in the tectonic plates would impact ocean temperatures if the crust became thinner and heated the ocean floor due the earth’s magma being closer to the surface. It wouldn’t take too much to change the oceans temperature especially global currents are close to where the tectonic change happened. The earth’s ocean temperature across the entire bedrock or crust is not accurately measured. (Japans 9.0 Earth Quake moved the island of Japan about 8.5 feet, so what did it do below the crust?)

    Short Recap of Earth’s DNA the primary climate

    1. Solar Expansion
    2. Solar activity
    3. Gravitational Effects
    4. Volcanic Activity
    5. Volcanic Activity and ocean currents
    6. Volcanic Deep sea currents
    7. Volcanic acidity which raises temperature at the surface of the water, but is not used to quantify impact on climate from Volcanoes in the ocean.
    8. Earthquake effects and sea currents (Thinning of Crust by tectonic shifts)

    Other areas to look at Desserts wind patterns and growth, changing of wind currents, changing of mountain ranges which affect wind currents, rivers and water sources. The Nile was once over a hundred miles from its current location causing the desert to expand in Egypt and that is one of thousands of rivers that are shifting. Well there is more to the Earth’s DNA, but I think we have enough to chew on for a while.

    So I could go into much more details with regards to how all the things I mentioned have greater short and long term impact than human made greenhouse gases. This does not mean that we shouldn’t clean up our act; it means we should clean up our habits, but we shouldn’t stand by false science in order to create more taxes and problems between each other. We have enough financial issues in the world without adding more government oversight, which never pans out anyways since countries will do what they want in the end. The biggest difference between today and hundred years ago is that technology can now broadcast nonsense 24 hours a day.

    What we need is people (us, you, me, your friends) to vote and have the governments release all the patented 20 year old plus, hydrogen technology that can create a surplus of jobs and get us off fossil fuels once and for all. Just changing from fossils fuels to hydrogen will take at least 30 years, which will create a whole new line of vehicles, gadgets, fueling systems and power systems (just to name a few) on land, in the oceans and in space.

    So there is climate change and its going happen whether we complain or not, but we are not to blame. The earth is going to change and we have to ride it out and we should take this Earth change as a reminder to clean up our act along the way.

    We are smart enough to clean things up, if we look for the solution we’ll find it, share constructively.

    May 14, 2014 at 11:03 pm | Reply
    • rvwrb

      To add to your list:

      Both the earth's and sun's magnetic field

      May 29, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Reply
  5. Pete

    Yup, it's official. Bill Nye can't tell his posterior from a hole in the ground.

    May 14, 2014 at 12:18 am | Reply
    • Troy

      And you have a Physics degree? He does.

      May 14, 2014 at 3:01 pm | Reply
      • moreofthislessofthat

        No, he doesn't. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and nothing else. He hosted a elementary school level science show, and branded himself "the science guy." Of course, he is really just a comedian with an engineering degree. But I am not laughing.

        June 8, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
    • cal

      Lots of conservative wanna be scientists on here as usual- please tell us why we should believe anything you have to say versus the 97%+ reports that disagree with your lame remarks. This is all about the money that corporations do not want to spend to clean up their act and our country. Of course you loonies have turned this into a liberal vs conservative issue as usual. One day your children and grandchildren will be asking you Dad what were you thinking> How could you do this to the earth we have to survive in? And your answer will be? Well I heard it on Fox and Rush

      May 26, 2014 at 11:52 am | Reply
      • rvwrb

        Your post simply continued to perpetrate the Con-Lib argument so you are no better. As for the 97% consensus number read this and explain to us why the views of 2.3's of the authors of the papers were not counted:

        From J Cook et al:


        We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

        May 27, 2014 at 11:42 am |
      • Mark W

        rvwrb, the climate science field has been in strong consensus that we are warming the planet for close to two decades now. Just because you Johnny Come Latelys are now furiously waking up to this issue because your precious industry interests (whatever your affiliation) are seeing $32 Trillion (with a T) in revenues threatened over the next two decades doesn't change what scientists have accepted as fact for many years now.

        Thus, the reason Cook et al (or any of the other peer reviewed surveys of climate scientists that have similarly found agreement in the 95-98% range – with the "skeptics" mostly funded by oil money) would find a big chunk of papers "not expressing a stance" is because it simply goes without saying. It is like claiming that geophysicists are "still debating the laws of gravity" because a paper on sediment settling rates in rivers doesn't bother to come out and say "by the way we firmly believe that Newton has it right on that whole gravity thing". Or if a paper on some highly specific aspect of the HIV virus structure (and how it responds to a certain medication) fails to mention "by the way we firmly believe HIV and not evil spirits causes AIDS", that somehow those authors are "in doubt" about that "question".

        Most climate papers are about some very specific aspect of climate. The entire thesis that greenhouse gases are warming the planet was proven decades ago. You don't have 20,000 peer reviewed papers addressing the exact same basic question. Scientists have moved on from answering the basic question years ago, even if you dead-ender anti-civilization types haven't.

        Time to put on the big boy/girl underwear and join the part of your species that's trying to stave off the worst of this. The time for your ridiculous whining was 20 years ago.

        May 27, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
      • rvwrb

        You are so off base it is laughable – but really we should be crying. Now IF you look at the way in the so called "strong consensus" was arrived at, you would find out that two thirds of the research papers that were published that dealt with either climate change or global warming, were eliminated from the statistics – why? Because they did not attribute their conclusion to either supporting or negating AGW. When you look at the real results in whole: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed NO position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming." it is easy to see how that consensus number has been distorted and accordingly misused and abused. While global temperatures have risen in recent years, (recent in geological time frame) there remains very much a scientific debate as to the cause so to characterize the rise as "..we are warming the planet for close to two decades now." is completely without foundation. You have no idea who I am or what my background is but you feel free to criticize my stance based on innuendos and fabrications. That only reflects on your lack of credibility when it comes to debating anything on a scientific level as someone who truly understand the topic would not use such a frivolous argument on a public blog.

        As for .."scientists have accepted as fact for many years now." yes some believe your hypothesis and for valid reasons – there are many others who do not and for their own valid reasons – hence the debate is alive and well. Your analysis of the Cook report is simply silly at best and idiotic at worst – a feeble way to trivialize the topic. I would not bring up the topic of gravity because 1) there are two equally valid hypotheses out there, one of which is Newton's and secondly despite observing gravity and calculating its effect, no body has come up with the REASON as to why it exists. Einstein is closer than Newton but still does not explain WHY it happens – just how it happens.

        Getting back to the Cook et al report – his conclusion is correct in that 97% of the papers on climate research that dealt with global warming and/or climate change and AGREED with the theory of AGW. What this survey does NOT say is that 97% of all scientists agree with AGW yet time and time again you see that number being posted around the internet by uninformed people such as yourself. In the end 2/3's of the papers that research climate change and or global w\arming FAILED to find a human connection and that stands out and says a lot about the inaccuracy of the 97% consensus of all scientists being bantered about.

        Anyone with a grade three education knows about green house gases and how they are used to warm the planet. they, and specifically CO2 are also used in ways to cool the planet. In other words those gases are the thermostat of the planet. Only people with feeble minds and a lack of a good education would take the position that you have in your post. This entire debate is NOT about green houses gases and their role in climate variation – it is about what is driving the variation we observe today and why; To that end the debate will continue despite the actions by those feeble minded uneducated lemming who try to act as if they know something about the topic but in reality know squat! Include yourself in that category if you haven't figured that out already.

        May 27, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
      • willhaas

        The 97% does not matter. Science is not a democracy. The reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any real effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. Since the early 1700's we have been warming up from the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period about 1000 years before the LIttle Ice Age. We have also been undergoing roughly 60 year warming and cooling cycles. Most recently there was cooling from roughly 1946 till about 1978 and then warming again till about 2005. Since 2005 global temperatures have fallen slightly. All of this is correlated with total solar activity and ocean effects and not CO2 concentrations. During the pre industrial revolution Holocene for 10,000 years there have been cooling and warming cycles with temperatures both warmer and cooler than today but CO2 levels were fairly constant. It is not CO2 that is controlling the collimate. The primary greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere is H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to changes in CO2 so as to mitigate any effect that CO2 might have on climate. It is all a matter of science.

        May 27, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
      • Mark W

        Yes Willhaas, it's "all a matter of science", yet somehow there isn't a non-fossil fuel funded scientist who agrees with you on the irrelevance of CO2, and there are thousands who disagree with the tripe you posted.

        But I'm sure you know better, with your pat hand-waving assertions. I'm sorry I missed where you posted the link to your CV and this groundbreaking data you've been sitting on to overturn decades of research and consensus.

        In the last 50 years, solar output has been in a downward trend as the planet has heated up faster than it has in millenia:


        The overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community after tens of thousands of studies is that solar insolation exerts a minor noise component on top of the long term warming trend due to greenhouse gases. During past time periods (medieval warm period and LIA for example), major changes in solar output have changed the climate. No comparable solar changes have happened recently that can explain the warming, and in fact it's going in the opposite direction from temperature in the last few critical decades.

        H2O is a greenhouse gas, but there is no net trend in that that would explain any of this. The hydrologic cycle is a closed system. We aren't digging up massive stores of it and evaporating it into the atmosphere.

        You people keep throwing this garbage against the wall, hoping people will believe it. Fortunately there are people like me who are fed up with your sociopath crowd and are fighting back with actual data and science.

        May 27, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
      • rvwrb

        Dismissal of Sun–climate associations was, until recently, de rigueur because climate models were not been able to replicate them. But the increasingly extensive, broadly self-consistent empirical evidence accruing in multiple high-
        fidelity data sets of present and past climate, combined with new appreciation of the complex mechanisms, now precludes this. Climate models are instead challenged to reproduce this comprehensive empirical evidence.

        There is a lot of research going on as to the influence of the sun on our climate and your attempt to dismiss that is ludicrous.

        As for your comment on water vapor, it is equally ludicrous

        May 28, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
      • willhaas

        I am not going to argue with the authors that you site because they are not posting here. Please describe your scientific argument in your own words so we have something to discuss.

        May 28, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
      • rvwrb

        My post was not intended for you and we are both on the same side of the debate.

        May 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • willhaas

        Thank you for reading my post and commenting. Most of what you are saying is all a matter of politics and not science. It does not matter who or how many either agrees or disagrees with me. It thousands disagree with me then go ahead and have them here and now post their disagreements.

        Total solar activity peaked near the end of the 20th century along with the last warming cycle. The oceans act as a huge nonlinear thermal capacitor which causes solar temperature effects to be delayed. Solar activity has beedecreasingig along with the pause in global warming. During the middle of the 20th century global temperatures fell yet CO2 levels kept increasing.

        The Warming up from Littlettle Ice Age started well before the beginning of the industrial revolution and is correlated with total solar activity and ocean effects.

        H2O positive feedback is an important part of AGW theory. The theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the atmosphradiantadient thermal insulation properties which acts to restrict the flow of LWIR absorption band from the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere where Earth radiates to space in LWIR absorption bands. This restriction of energy flow causes warming in the lower atmosphere but cooling in the upper atmosphere. The warming in the lower atmosphere causes more H2O to enter the climate system. Since H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands, more H2O further enhanceradiantadient thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere which represents a positive feedback. This positive feedback amplifies the warming caused by an increase in CO2. This positive feedback has been very important to AGW climate models. But that is not all what happens.

        Besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth' atmosphere, moving heat energy from the Earth's surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O in this manner then by both LWIR absorption band radiation and convection combined. More H2O means that more heat gets moved which is a negative feedback.

        More H2O causes more clouds to form. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar energy but they radiate to space in the LWIR more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback.

        The cooling in the upper atmosphere causes less H2O to appear which counteracts the action of more CO2 and hence represents another negative feedback.

        The negative feedbacks combine so as to mitigate any effect that CO2 might have on climate. The IPCC climate models that have included only a positive H2O feedback to additional CO2 have been wrong. They have failed to predict today's global temperatures. They have predicted global warmingoccurreds not occoured.

        May 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
  6. David Bates

    BTW BIG LOL to everyone who was just making the argument of no proof of global warming. Giant sheet of ice is melting and breaking off, which will in turn raise the sea level globally by 4 ft. and this has only happened 400,000 to 500,000 years ago when greenhouse gasses released from the earth did the same thing. But of coarse this is still not proof, for most it will take their own house being swept away before there is enough evidence.

    May 13, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Reply
    • Pete

      Curious... Antarctic ice mass is the highest volume in recorded history. So much ice that all the nuclear weapons on Earth couldn't melt it. But you guys are all atwitter over a news story about a big ice floe. It's fun watching people with no common sense get bent out of shape. Have a nice day. Personally, I'm digging out from a foot of fresh snow at my place.

      May 14, 2014 at 12:21 am | Reply
      • Troy

        And yet the Arctic ice and almost all the glaciers in the world is are at there lowest ever.

        May 14, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
      • Rob

        and yet, you are wrong.

        May 14, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
    • Rob

      Big LOL to you for actually believing this is important. New flash, ice falls off ice shelf. It happens ALL THE TIME. wow.

      May 14, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Reply
  7. DRJJ

    Bill Nye the actor guy?? He claims we all crawled out of pond scum from nowhere with no evidence and it's not a religion (macro evolution) He's a nut folks!

    May 12, 2014 at 5:40 pm | Reply
    • HK

      You're a nut. There is evidence! Have you heard of these things called fossils?

      May 12, 2014 at 10:25 pm | Reply
      • Me

        I don't listen to actors who claim to be a scientist when they are not. Where are the real scientists?

        May 13, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
    • Laptoples

      Let's say hypothetically that climate change isn't real and man made emissions aren't
      Are you saying that pollution is a good thing ?
      Poisoning drinking water, the air, the soil and our health is great ?
      Climate science is a collection of evidence from scientists that study bees, clouds, wind, dirt, mosquitos, fish, ice, ants... Etc, etc, etc.
      All these different scientists (which don't even know each other) aren't fudging centuries of research so that there's a conspiracy to make up in our present day !!!
      We need to look at the future and seek new ways to provide energy in a cleaner more efficient way.
      Fracking and mining up fossil fuels is only happening because of powerful people who don't care about anyone but themselves, and their profits.
      At least be honest with yourself and everyone else and say, I don't care what happens..... I love the fact that there's pollution and the corporate world of covering it up and making a mockery of it all.
      Science faces reviews that come from well thought out theories that get tested over and over again.
      When there's this much evidence towards the impact of climate change, then denying it is just a self absorbed conspiracy assortment, that you got sold from a dark greed ridden place, where truth has no importance and fairy-tale facts take the day as usual.
      Thanks, Les xo
      Why would (Cupp) think that a poll on percentage of "who believes" ... be a driving force for her argument for or against the science of climate change ?
      Answer: because its trickery 101,obvious and pure deceit.
      Her journalistic integrity is as always, just a bunch of talking points.

      May 13, 2014 at 7:52 am | Reply
  8. pjoe

    There is no room in pseudo-science for skepticism. YOU MUST ALL BELIEVE!!!

    May 12, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Reply
  9. steve696

    I am not a climate denier. It appears that the globe is warming slightly. Whether that is man-caused or not is debatable, but the data appear reliable, except for the most recent decade or two. What I am concerned about are the proposed solutions. You want solar panels, highly expensive, kill birds and other wildlife, and may have other unforeseen negative consequences. Wind turbines dry out the land and heat it up as well. Isn't that a bit counterproductive. Ethanol ruins car engines for any car not specifically made for it. And recent studies cast doubt on its effectiveness in helping the environment. Electric vehicles are nice, but way too expensive for putting them in the market in numbers sufficient to make a difference globally. Where I am going with this is simply this. We need a lot more time and research to find positive answers that don't have major negative consequences. Rushing into killing our moribund economic recovery for negligible gains and negative side effects is not a wise course of action.

    Finally, and perhaps even more important than anything I have said so far, there must be a coalition of countries willing to substantially cut emissions including China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world. Otherwise anything we can do, all 300 million of us, would be a waste of time and money. We have set the example. But unless others are willing to follow, we are doomed to be insignificant in our efforts.

    May 11, 2014 at 4:48 pm | Reply
    • RobKetch2014

      I will give you that more research is needed. And I see some viable point to your logic over the solar and wind energy sources, even though one or the other was never the intention for a lasting solution but a synergy of all natural alternative sources of energy.

      I have spent some time around smaller solar panels and could be open to the idea that a large solar farm would be literally baking its surrounding area. The wind turbine I am skeptical of in the drying effect as the turbine is pushed by the already present wind passing by so whatever drying was occurring would have already been happening in conjunction with the rest of the environmental changes. With a combination of solar, wind and revisiting hydroelectric power there could be some lasting improvements in how we power our grids.

      The mention of the electric car yields one problematic issue unseen to the consumers in the batteries and the contents thereof and what would need to be done with the abundance of those batteries once fully electric cars become more prevalent. If we are already stuffing the ground with the waste batteries we throw out every day, what will we be doing with the byproduct of the larger bulk batteries of fully electric automobiles? I have driven non-ethanol prepared cars and driven on 10%ethanol fuel and never had to constantly perform maintenance or make unnecessary trips to the mechanic as a result of the fuel, so I cannot speak to the ethanol issue but my experience does not leave me very open to the debate on its evils. I agree the expense of the electric automobile is not worth the price it is marketed on, but I have some residual hope for the hybrid car provided we can sole some of the issues I mentioned from the emergence of the more needy battery systems we will see.

      I also strongly agree that a GLOBAL effort needs to the front of these revolutionary problem solving efforts, all or nothing. We are not going to save anyone in the this century with these kinds of solutions, but try to preserve something for centuries to come.

      But I think the central issue to this video is that you have someone representing the sciences debating with an economist and a media representative, which are sides of the spectrum of society that traditionally have never been able to understand each other and in that futility, CNN logged some air time and repeated online viewership and nothing more. As soon as Bill Nye attempts to present his position using the science, the media voice (Cupp) enters media statistics and anyone who has gathered statistical data worth their salt knows that you never display the data that disagrees with your position. so she did her due diligence and present only the information that favored her position. Loris of the Heritage Foundation with its reputation for data manipulation did the same. Nye more than likely did the same, but the difference is that none of the data he presents come from him directly, so he has no cause to go out of his way to manipulate his supporting data.

      All of it was just an amusement piece to sway the viewing public and drum up viewers from all sides of the issue. To strike up an entertained crowd, a classic Turner Broadcasting tactic, look at TBS and TNT which show the same old shows over and over because the sheepish populace is dumb enough to continue to tune in. It matters not how many informed minds tuned in, it was all a stunt to occupy your minds on one channel and website for a given amount of time. Well played Turner.

      May 12, 2014 at 10:09 am | Reply
  10. dave

    They can talk and act like science is up for debate just like any other political topic at hand. But get this straight "crossfire" is not politics..if you try to use polls, opinions, economics...give me a any of you have good understanding of science to begin with...if so you wouldn't be talking like this..but since you is apparent that understanding of science really needs serious tone so it can reach everybody..sure there will be economic costs associated with making things greener..but not doing anything to start with will decimate us in the long run....then you can talk about costs and is upsetting people in this country think I have right to my opinion..well sure...but what is the point of that when you are completely representing "stupidity" on your part without thinking..
    Good Job!

    May 10, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Reply
  11. GW

    Why is it important who throws the blanket over the world – it will still make it too warm for comfort or have other side effects. One of those blankets is now 40% thicker in a time frame nature isn't used to dealing with; not to mention it's not been this thick in the past 800,000 years. Sure, it was thicker somewhere back 10 of millions of years ago, but nothing like humans lived back then – unless you are a flesh eating anaerobic bacteria, of course 🙂 Perhaps the Sol system has wandered into a warmer region of space, a hot asteroid storm is upon us, of deep volcanic action is producing more gas... that does not alter the fact we have thrown a warming blanket (CO2) half again as thick as what nature provided us as a species.

    Then again – I won't be here for the fun times – I won't need to endure the effects, whatever they are. And if I am rich, my grandkids will be able to endure it as long as I they have a sufficient supply of serfs to do the menial task of building those super insulated homes on hilltops overlooking the Los Angeles or Miami Seas. But alas, it has always been this way, and always will. It's human nature.

    May 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm | Reply
  12. PulSe

    Reality is quite a bully.

    May 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Reply
  13. 20

    This makes me so sad. Hopefully I'll still be living by 2050, I don't want a bunch of stupid people wrecking the world for me. I want to live with clear skies and green grass. It's not fair! Kids born in the world today are being screwed over by people like these news casters.
    Why do some people not believe in climate change? Because of the media! The people who are supposed to be telling us the truth ignore all studies because it's more 'interesting' to have a bunch of conspiracy theories! It's ridiculous! These are not adults. They are children. They should be ashamed to call them selves news reporters.

    May 9, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Reply
    • rvwrb

      Why can people not understand that Climate Change is a natural process and that our planet has undergone regular and cyclical changes to its climate over the years; that those changes at times were much more rapid thatn what appears to be happening now?

      May 9, 2014 at 4:42 pm | Reply
      • wlb

        "Why can people not understand that Climate Change is a natural process and that our planet has undergone regular and cyclical changes to its climate over the years; that those changes at times were much more rapid thatn what appears to be happening now?"

        revwrb: You misunderstand what the term 'Climate Change' means. It refers to Anthropogenic Global Warming - Man caused Global Warming. Man's burning of fossil fuels which releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere; and because CO2 is a potent Greenhouse Gas, prevents the natural transmission of infrared thermal radiation into space from Earth, causing the planet to warm. Since around 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased 40%, and atmospheric global average temperature has climbed at a rate unprecedented in the last 1400 years. Its not the climatic effects so far that are most concerning -it's what those effects will be as man continues to add CO2 to the atmosphere and warming continues that has scientists alarmed.

        If you want to see data on this, look here:

        May 9, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
      • rvwrb

        Your answer is pure rubbish – climate change is the process whereby the climate on this and other planets cycles on a regular basis and to say that it only refers to AGW is pure garbage. Why don't you try to learn something about what has gone on on this planet over the last 500,000 years or even more!!..No wait just go back 10,000 years and you will see evidence that the climate has cycled up and down on a regular basis.

        Try investigating research that shows the temperature rise has preceded the rise in CO2 and that the release of CO2 from the South Pacific has occurred at a much more rapid rate than previously thought and that within the margin of error that rate of release could be happening instantaneously today and not the 1,000's of year previously thought.

        You comment that climate change equates to AGW is simply not true and serves to show how ignorant you are on the topic...try some real research!!!!

        May 10, 2014 at 12:21 am |
      • NEIM

        Not this rapidly over the past 30 years. The planet was an inhabitable ice-ball at one point too. Economics don't mean anything if we're facing catastrophic weather that threatens to wipe out hundreds of millions.

        "Scare tactics?" oh brother. These are the same type of people that argued the world being flat.

        May 9, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
      • rvwrb

        Thirty yeas is a drop in the bucket in terms of climate and is not an appropriate time frame to measure any climate change – time frames lasting thousands of years are more appropriate.

        As for the inhabitable ice ball – it is a theory that is receiving a lot of debate and like climate science is not built on fact but rather on conjecture. Except for a brief period of cooling about 8,000 years ago, the temperature above Greenland was consistently well above the current temperature with multiple peaks – only 500 years ago it started to cool to its current temperature.

        You reference to a flat world just illustrate how feeble minded you are.

        May 10, 2014 at 12:09 am |
      • rr

        Hi rvwrb,

        If you take some time and do a bit of unbiased research (on line is good enough) you will understand that climate change has NEVER in all of the recorded history occurred this fast. Also remember when climate change caused increased temperature (NOT AN ICE-AGE) in the historical past there were no humans around.
        What is happening NOW is unprecedented and could very well push earth into a major irreversible tipping point.
        The idiots that deny that Climate Change or Global Warming in not a problem or worse it’s not happening have an agenda and believe me they don’t give a poop about you or me.

        May 9, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
      • rvwrb

        I have done just that and the results are in – climate has changed much more rapidly in the past than what has been observed over the past 150 years. A major climate cycle lasts fro about 125,000 years, however the rise to the peak is characterized by a 10 degree C rise in 15,000 years with individual fluctuations happening during the interim with temp swings of 2 to 3 degrees C over a 500 year period. Recorded history is essentially 160 years – a small time in terms of the overall climate picture.

        Humans have been on this planet for approximately 200,000 years during which the global temp has been as high as 2 degrees higher than the current levels. These swings are naturally driven. Don't believe the rhetoric you see in articles and other pages on the web – research NOAA etc as well as university research – I have and from that work it is clear the debate is very much alive and well. You should follow up and do the same.

        May 9, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
      • wlb

        Playing games with the meaning of "Climate Change" is the most immature post yet seen on this forum. Of course the Climate has gone through warming and cooling cycles in the past. You really think scientists haven't studied this? You also think they don't know that Temperature increases led to CO2 increases in the past by driving CO2 from the oceans?? And that they still do?
        The news here is that apparently YOU don't know that during the industrial age Man has been adding large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, so that now atmospheric CO2 rises first, and via the greenhouse effect, warms the planet by trapping infrared thermal radiation trying to leave the Earth's system. This Man-caused CO2 increase has been so rapid, relative to the past, that CO2 increases have been leading the temperature rise since about 1800, and the temperature rise has then driven more CO2 from the oceans as it always has, amplifying the original temperature rise, once again by the Greenhouse effect.

        Have you studied physics? Or even read Physics books? Or Climate Papers? It doesn't seem so: You don't even understand the difference between temp rise caused by the Greenhouse Effect and CO2 rise caused by warming from other sources, and yet assume you have unique knowledge about past cycles and others don't, and use this as a supporting argument to deny AGW. And pick a fight about the semantics of 'Climate Change'. I find your entire debate style uninformed, or more accurately, ludicrous.

        May 10, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
      • rvwrb

        Apparently YOU don't know that researchers have recently found substantial amounts of CO2 are being released into the atmosphere at a rate that is much greater than previously thought – to the point that it can address nearly all if not all increases observed over the past 50 years. You don't understand that as the sun hits the oceans it warms the oceans and the result is the release of CO2 into the atmosphere – something the IPCC has conveniently ignored or under assessed. Either way there is a lot of data suggesting that the variation in our climate is very much likely being driven by natural causes – do the research!!! It is out there.

        I do have a unique knowledge having studies ancient climates in my job – there are too many holes in the position of the IPCC for any reasonable scientist to believe – so it obviously leads to the fact you have no understanding of the scientific process not do you know the role of scientific debate in that process..instead you simply want to roll over and lie there..typical of a layman.

        May 11, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
    • rvwrb


      May 9, 2014 at 11:37 pm | Reply
      • rr

        Hi wlb

        There is no senses debating this issue with people like this. As critical as this topic is unfortunately this topic has become politically polarizing. They will deny this disaster is happening even as they drink their own pee when the fresh water runs out.

        May 11, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
      • rvwrb

        And you would not know a debate if one was happening in front of you - must be a member of the GOP

        May 11, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
      • Troy

        You need to goto .
        Try to learn before you post.

        May 14, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
      • rvwrb

        Unlike you I have been investigating this topic for close to 15 years now and I do know what I am talking about. Since all you can contribute to the debate is a mention of the NASA climate site, it is obvious that you really do not understand what is being debated, nor why. Leave these discussions to people who do know something about climate and can contribute to the debate.

        May 14, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
      • Mark W

        The only thing you've been "investigating" rvwrb is a bunch of denialist websites, which routinely present things in very misleading ways (among them that CO@ lead-lag issue). This is because most of them are funded by the very industries that stand to lose literally trillions (according to a recent study) during the next 20 years if humankind does the right thing here. There's good reason that they have invested $550 million over seven years in these websites and "think tanks" that specialize in distorting the science.

        Try "investigating" a real science journal once in awhile – just for variety. And to build a little credibility with the rest of your species.

        May 18, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
      • rvwrb

        Wow if there was a Nobel prize for arrogance you would win hands down!! What a bunch of rubbish you spewed out. You lack of understanding of the topic is clear by your silly comments.

        Here are some links you might consider looking into – that is IF you re4ally want the full story on the debate – something I doubt very much to be on your list of accurate climate reports.

        http: // http://www.klima-schwindeldotcom/Hatch_UN_scientists_criticaldotpdf

        http: // http://www.ametsocdotorg/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findingsdotpdf

        ..the paper supporting the rise in temp preceding the rise in CO2



        Climate change: no consensus on consensus
        J. A. Curry and P.J. Webster
        School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
        Georgia Institute of Technology
        Atlanta, GA 30332-0340

        http: // nipccreportdotorg/articles/2013/may/21may2013a1dothtml

        May 20, 2014 at 5:23 am |
      • rvwrb

        Wow if there was a Nobel prize for arrogance you would win hands down!! What a bunch of rubbish you spewed out. You lack of understanding of the topic is clear by your silly comments.

        Here are some links you might consider looking into – that is IF you re4ally want the full story on the debate – something I doubt very much to be on your list of accurate climate reports.

        http: // http://www.klima-schwindeldotcom/Hatch_UN_scientists_criticaldotpdf

        http: // http://www.ametsocdotorg/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findingsdotpdf

        ..the paper supporting the rise in temp preceding the rise in CO2



        Climate change: no consensus on consensus
        J. A. Curry and P.J. Webster
        School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
        Georgia Institute of Technology
        Atlanta, GA 30332-0340


        May 20, 2014 at 5:25 am |
  14. KB

    At one point when Cupp was attacking Bill Nye she was saying that cows produce more green house gasses then the Keystone Pipeline would help to produce. Of course she didn't say what the source was and what they included when figuring out that research. The main greenhouse gas produced by cows is methane. Methane is also a problem with other forms of fossil fuel extraction. There is a proven way to solve that problem with cows. There are scaleable systems that can break down cow manure and harness the methane to provide power. This also has the side effect of nearly eliminating the smell from manure as well as producing great fertilizer. Unfortunately that would be considered a "Green" source of energy and thus would be shunned by conservative groups since the party line has been that green is bad.

    May 9, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Reply
  15. jerry

    the left will not rest until they control every part of our lives…even the air we breath. Our health care, food, and etc.. when they have it all they will ration it…NOW THAT IS POWER. This is what racism (division) and environmental control is all about. Not to say we need NO regulation, but this is now all over the top. Germany is a great example where they are floating in water, but if you use more than they believe you should it cost big time...

    May 9, 2014 at 10:24 am | Reply
    • KB

      Your so right! Bring back the good old days when there were no rules for pollution control! It was great in the late 60's and early 70's. I loved those drives to the beech on the Garden State Parkway! The way the smog used to blanket the bridge over the Raritan river by Dutch Boy Paints! The multi colored pools flowing into the water, getting sick from swimming in the water with the sewage discharge pipes near by. Those were the days! Those dam Democrats and their clean air act!
      Just give me the polluted water, dirty air, supper heated summers. I don't need no stinkin health care to deal with either. What's wrong with insurance companies dropping people that have paid all along because they got sick. Lets just let industry do what ever it wants. Silly regulations! Who needs them?

      May 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm | Reply
  16. ProtectAmericanJobs

    Burning fossil fuels does has an effect on it. – But, for instance, we're only now digging up dirt from our closest planet and asteroids coming close to the earth keep taking us by surprise and getting only back page news status. Yet the climate change folks keep claiming that things like solar flares, possible variations in our obit and our exact proximity to the sun, variations of the core temperature of the earth, methane released by natural sources, volcanic activity, etc............. "have already been factored out" and that we evil human's and our byproducts are the only or main reason for global warming and that if we dare question that, we are somehow "science deniers". – Now who's really denying science when they try shutting down anybody that questions their theory or asks questions about other legitimate factors and variables?

    For example, more than two million people living on the banks of Lake Kivu in central Africa are at risk of being asphyxiated by gases building up beneath its surface, scientists have warned. But how much did we know about that before it actually happened.

    It is estimated that the lake, which straddles the borders of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, now contains 300 cubic kilometres of carbon dioxide and 60 cubic kilometres of methane that have bubbled into the Kivu from volcanic vents. The gases are trapped in layers 80 metres below the lake's surface by the intense water pressures there. However, researchers have warned that geological or volcanic events could disturb these waters and release the gases.

    The impact would be devastating, as was demonstrated on 21 August 1986 at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, in West Africa. Its waters were saturated with carbon dioxide and a major disturbance – most probably a landslide – caused a huge cloud of carbon dioxide to bubble up from its depths and to pour down the valleys that lead from the crater lake.

    Carbon dioxide is denser than air, so that the 50mph cloud hugged the ground and smothered everything in its path. Some 1,700 people were suffocated. How much did we know about that before this actually happened.

    I want a safer planet, clean air and water as much as the next person, but we may have to consider that we humans may not be the single biggest factor in all of this. Yes we do have some effect on global warming and we do still need to minimize pollution, but it's not all up to us. We're really not that aware of everything going on in our vast solar system or even our own planet and exactly how it is affecting us and those who claim that we do have it all figured out would be the real science deniers.

    And we're not the bad guys right now. Countries like our USA, Germany, Canada, Japan and other countries like them are trying to do the right thing to help limit and clean up pollution. But countries like Communist China, India, Mexico and many others are not doing the same. Just check out the current Chinese extreme pollution issues – We all live in the same world, but not every country plays by the same rules. You Don't see China, India or Mexico with anything even close to our EPA, DEP, OSHA, etc........ – Do you?

    Foreign Lobbyists here in the US promote sending US jobs to countries like Communist China, India and Mexico where they work for slave wages, no benefits, no OSHA safety standards or No Real Environment Regulations. It also doesn't help us compete when many of these Chinese company's factories are subsidized by China's communist government.

    Just check out the current Chinese extreme pollution issues – We all live in the same world, but not every country plays by the same rules.

    If we want to make it better – We should bring manufacturing back to the USA where we're less likely to pollute than they are in China, India and Mexico and at the same time provide a much needed boost to the Real American Economy and the American People.

    May 8, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Reply
    • Me

      Thank you for your posts, well thought out and written and no bashing. How refreshing

      May 9, 2014 at 8:19 am | Reply
    • wlb

      In your long post with many important environmental problems cited, you also say: "Now who's really denying science when they try shutting down anybody that questions their theory or asks questions about other legitimate factors and variables?" That's a downright silly assertion. The body of evidence and the underlying Physics that explains the evidence is for all to see in multiple reports by the Royal Society, the IPCC, the NAS and the AAS. And where do you see Scientists trying to shut down anyone? They are putting forth their accumulated evidence and their Physics based explanations for the evidence. You honestly think they shouldn't?

      Do you have evidence that invalidates AGW –that the Earth is warming and Man is the cause? You don't think that's a problem worth bringing forward to the public?

      May 9, 2014 at 10:32 am | Reply
      • Keitho

        The underlying science, as you call it, has been thrown into doubt by this paper

        It seems that the black body radiative physics that are used are impossible, improbable and wrong. Physicist Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille is recognised as the worlds foremost scientist in radiative physics and he seems to be saying the use of Arrhenius and Tyndall based physics for greenhouse gases is completely wrong.

        May 10, 2014 at 4:44 am |
      • wlb

        @keitho: The Greenhouse Effect has been confirmed many times by observation and is standard physics. For a good explanation, go here:

        May 10, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
      • Keitho

        I don't think SkS has incorporated this new thinking and as it goes against the general thrust of SkS' endeavors I doubt it ever will.

        You must surely be aware that SkS is the home of John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and Stephan Lewandowsky who are collectively responsible for the most egregious attempt to smear those who disagree with their alarmism using cod psychology and manipulated surveys with highly dubious statistical analysis. Unlike WUWT which carries many articles and papers that are alarmist and supportive of alternative positions to the sceptical thrust as well as encouraging comments by anyone with a point to make ( except Sky Dragons ). That is just the opposite of SkS which will only carry alarmist dogma and actively deletes and denies comments from sceptical readers.

        I would encourage you to at least watch the talk and do some follow up reading but judging by your comments here it seems unlikely as you seem to have made your mind up on the matter.

        May 12, 2014 at 7:23 am |
  17. ProtectAmericanJobs

    Climate Change Alarms – Let's get real America – The American People need leaders who will stop selling us out to countries like Communist China, India and Mexico.

    It's called polarizing and distracting – I guess gay marriage and abortion aren't cutting it anymore – So now it's climate change.

    What about Communist China's Extreme Pollution Issues, Climate Change and Unfair Trade

    We should bring manufacturing back to the USA where we're less likely to pollute than they are in China, India and Mexico and at the same time provide a much needed boost to the Real American Economy and the American People.

    Foreign Lobbyists here in the US promote sending US jobs to countries like Communist China, India and Mexico where they work for slave wages, no benefits, no OSHA safety standards or No Real Environment Regulations. It also doesn't help us compete when many of these Chinese company's factories are subsidized by China's communist government.

    Just check out the current Chinese extreme pollution issues – We all live in the same world, but not every country plays by the same rules.

    We're not the bad guys right now. Countries like our USA, Germany, Canada, Japan and other countries like them are trying to do the right thing to help limit and clean up pollution. But countries like China, India, Mexico and many others are not doing the same. You Don't see China, India or Mexico with anything even close to our EPA, DEP, OSHA, etc........ – Do you?

    Trade with countries like Communist China, India and Mexico is pretty much a One-Way-Street. – And how's that been working out for the American People, the Real American Economy and the Health of Our Planet?

    Our economic problems didn't happen overnight. It's been happening over the past 25 years, but the American economy was kept going by middle class American consumers tapping into the equity on their homes to enable them to continue to buy the cheap outsourced products until they were completely tapped out, out of good jobs and or out of work.

    On the US Department of Commerce's US Census Bureau website there's a graphic showing how our trade imbalance has gotten progressively worse over the entire period from 1989 to the present and how it's really accelerated at an increasingly greater rate each year since 1999.

    Just go to the site and check it yourself:


    We can thank "our leaders" from both sides and the WTO for that.

    If these "free trade" agreements were so good us, why did our trade deficit keep getting increasingly larger and larger during this span of time.

    Increasingly way more money going out of our country every year versus coming in every year.

    It's Not Rocket Science.

    Regardless of what the Free-Traitors keep trying to sell us, we can see what's real. The American People need to just trust their own instincts, common sense and what they've seen actually going on all around them versus all of the nonsense that the Free-Traitors are still trying to sell us.

    Also most counterfeit goods are produced and manufactured in Communist China, making it the counterfeit capital of the world. In fact, the counterfeiting industry accounts for 8% of China's GDP.

    The bottom line is that "Our Government" has to protect domestic industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

    Bringing manufacturing back to the US not only gives jobs to the US citizens who would be working in those manufacturing facilities, but to the people that would be working in the businesses that would spring up all around them. This should also include the safe harvesting, production and distribution of our own natural energy here in the USA, rather than paying for fuel from countries where they hate us. Let's keep that money and those jobs here in the US.

    Nowadays it's obviously not about being either lazy or uneducated as many try to profess, but about wages, expenses and regulations that are not even remotely close to the wages, expenses and regulations in our country.

    If more people would have listened to Ross Perot back in 1992, America wouldn't be in this mess.

    The “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field! The whole idea of the tariffs is so we can pay our factory workers a decent wage and not be blown out by these other countries where they don’t play by the same rules.

    The bottom line is that “Our Government” has to protect domestic industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

    We may have to pay a bit more for products made here in the USA by US citizens, but at least we'll still have jobs and a future for our children.

    Unfortunately both sides are still able to get most people to buy and drink their flavor of Kool-Aid, only it's just different flavors of the same brand and both flavors are making the American People and the Real American Economy sick.

    Wake the heck up America!

    May 8, 2014 at 5:17 pm | Reply
    • Me

      I agree domestic jobs should be our number one priority. Here is my thinking. Everyone needs a job straight,gays men women etc. jobs will lessen abortion parents can afford them with a job, with jobs people will purchase and invest some stimulating the economy, I think it will also cut down on crime as a result of depression from not working, yes we need to produce our own natural resources. We pull it out of our ground send it to china they refine it and then sell it back to us. That makes no sense to me.

      May 9, 2014 at 8:27 am | Reply
      • ProtectAmericanJobs

        I Agree – The ONLY REAL FIX for our great country is to RAISE REVENUE, by Bringing Back Businesses and Jobs to TAX-PAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

        Unfortunately almost all of our politicians are a joke – Only it's not so funny, because over the past several decades, all they've been doing is screwing the American people, by stalling, spending, removing protections and allowing illegal aliens to continue to pour in and American jobs and industry to pour out, and all while collecting their American tax-payer funded pay checks, benefits and whatever else they get on the side from their various lobbyist friends.

        The American People need Our Leaders to start remembering that they are elected by the Citizens of the United States of America to represent the interests of those citizens and the country itself and that They're NOT Elected By or To Represent the Global Market Place, Lobbyist, Foreign citizens or Illegal Aliens.

        But let's face it both parties are just doing the bidding of their masters, while lamely trying to look like they're trying to represent us. Wouldn't it be nice, if some of these puppet masters were conscientious loyal Americans who loved their country and cared about their fellow Americans enough that they would finally start pointing their lap-dog-politicians in the direction of doing right by the American People? Maybe that's delusional on my part – But if this doesn't start happening soon, the American people and the future of the country that we love is doomed.

        If more Americans would have listened to Perot back in 1992, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

        May 9, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • KB

        Back in the day Ronald Reagan was considered a great conservative leader. If President Obama today said that he wanted to adjust tax policy to mirror the rates form the Reagan days he would be run out of town. Clowns on Fox and this Crossfire show would have a field day! Throw the Communist out!

        May 9, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
    • Troy

      Fine you get your job in a coal plant.
      The future looses 4 Billion people for it.
      Good call!

      May 14, 2014 at 3:08 pm | Reply
      • ProtectAmericanJobs


        May 14, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
      • Rob

        what??? 4 billion? Make up things much?

        May 14, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
  18. RR

    He is speaking for the Scientific Community (when he can actually speak). Unless a particular Scientist is associated with the oil industry or The Fox News Channel they unanimously understand Global Warming is REAL and it is happening NOW. It is not GOING to happen in 50 to 100 years. It is happening NOW. And unfortunately opinions that state it isn’t happening NOW or “all the data is not in, is not going to change that...

    May 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • Rob


      May 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Reply
      • rr


        May 9, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
    • Keitho

      I don't see any evidence that anything is happening now at all. The temperatures aren't going up, the weather is not behaving in an unnatural way either in intensity or frequency. What is it exactly that our burning stuff is doing to our climate now?

      May 9, 2014 at 6:25 am | Reply
      • KB

        No evidence? Higher water levels have already caused lots of problems around the world. Just go to coastal parts of Virginia and ask them. The last few years we have seen extreme heat waves, persistent droughts in some places, frequent flooding in others. At this point even Republicans have changed their line, going from pure denial to the current line that maybe it's happening but man couldn't possibly be the cause.

        May 9, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
      • rvwrb

        To KB: There is a lot of evidence from various locations around the world that indicate the ocean levels have been both much higher than they are now and much lower than they are now. Those levels fluctuate as our climate changes and most certainly is no proof that man is affecting those changes

        May 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
      • wlb

        The evidence that Man is causing the planet to warm is the measured global average temperature rise since 1880,which is unprecedented in the last 1400 years; and the corresponding 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 directly attributable to man's burning of fossil fuels. For all the detail you could possibly want on the evidence and the underlying physics of the Greenhouse Effect which explains the relationship between CO2 and atmospheric temperature, visit the IPCC Assessment reports, online, or NASA online, or the EPA website. Or a science textbook. Or the 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed Science papers.; or 'Nature' (the Science journal), or even Scientific American magazine.

        May 9, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
    • rvwrb

      Climate change is happening now, just as it has happened by cycling up and down on a regular basis in the past. Unfortunately many point the finger at those who do not support the IPCC by calling them deniers, denying global warming and denying climate change. Where the dispute arises is not whether those patterns exist or not but what is causing them to change. IMO in order to point the finger at man, we need to first understand what processes were in effect during the years the climate cycled up and down and secondly to clearly show that those processes are not in play today. That has yet to be done and had the IPCC been given the mandate to identify all possible causes for global warming.climate change instead of proving a link between man's activities and climate change, the current debate would likely be over. They obviously did not and here we sit debating the subject.

      May 9, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Reply
      • KB

        The debate would have been over long ago if interests with deep pockets didn't have a stake in trying to continue the debate. This could be one of the biggest issues of our time and as luck would have it congress is clogged with oil protectors.

        May 9, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
      • rvwrb

        I strongly disagree with you. A good many people with scientific backgrounds, including some who were a part of the IPCC in the early days dispute the findings of the IPCC for a number of reasons:

        1) They did not go far enough back in time; 2) Their forecasts are based on climate models which have been shown by many to be inaccurate; 3) They have not proven that natural forces are not to blame behind the climate variation we see these days; their investigations were not all inclusive but rather selected based on their mandate....the list goes on.

        May 9, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • rvwrb

        I strongly disagree and so do many many people with backgrounds in science, including those who were a part of the IPCC in its earlier years. The premise of this disagreement is based on:
        1) a failure to go back far enough in time; 2) a failure to critically assess all possible causes for the climate variation that we observe today; 3) a focus on only one component, one of many parameters that are involved with influences to our climate; 4) the failure to recognize that climate change has been around much longer than man has and that the variations observed over the past 200 years are not out of the ordinary from what has happened within the past 8,000 years; 5) the resorting to rhetoric over scientific debate and the use of name calling and other questionable strategies in an attempt to sway public opinion...and the list goes on.

        May 9, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
  19. Peter

    Typical republican tactics, speak over the person, interrupt, spout statements that are false. There is no debate on his anymore, the global scientific community says this is real. I don't understand why the right refuses to believe scientists. Science says the world is round and rotates around the sun, do they want to debate that?

    May 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm | Reply
    • Phill

      Sadly some people debate that aswell.

      May 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Reply
    • Roob


      May 8, 2014 at 11:28 pm | Reply
    • rvwrb

      Why do people pick a simple topic and ask if we want to debate it? The climate and they way it changes over time is by no means a simply process, unlike the relationship between our planet and the sun. And oh, by the way the earth REVOLVES around the sun and rotates on its axis – proving one point – even the simple concepts need to be debated now and then to get it right in some peoples' minds

      May 9, 2014 at 4:55 pm | Reply
    • wlb

      A serious case of 'Confirmation Bias' is also at work. The same bias that causes liberals to demonize GMOs when the science is clear that GMOs are harmless. Both AGW and GMOs are examples of how humans are programmed by evolution to fight anything that threatens their worldview of how things OUGHT TO BE. Conservatives view Man as the virtuous conqueror of his environment; liberals view the Environment as a victim of Man.

      Man is not as perfect a creature of the Enlightenment and Rationality as we think,; the degree to which we can overcome this bias and deal with such issues rationally will determine history's judgment of the specie's success, IMO.

      May 9, 2014 at 8:42 pm | Reply
  20. Josh

    The Earth will end up like Venus. Venus is the way it is because of CO2. The surface of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury because the CO2 traps the heat that is radiated from the planet when it is heated by the sun. It doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from, but there is a STRONG correlation (not causation) between the amount of cars we drive each year and the ppm of CO2 added to our atmosphere every year. That is what Mr. Nye was getting at. This planet, Earth, will be just like Venus if people are so ignorant, and most CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels. You only need Astronomy 101, Geology 101, and Chemistry 101 to tell you that.

    May 8, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Reply
    • Philip Foster

      Josh claims Earth will get like Venus.
      Sorry, kid, you are so wrong. The Earth BEGAN like Venus 4.3billion years ago. 100 atmospheres pressure, >96% CO2 and no life. Life sucked the CO2 out of the atmosphere. yet even 600m.yrs ago CO2 was around 30%. Now it's just 0.04%. with plants struggling for 'breath'. One more big Ice Age like 20,000 years ago and life will not recover, just not enough CO2 left.

      May 8, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Reply
    • Andrew

      What a dolt. First year courses taught by pseudo-science activists and this clown thinks he knows better than Lindzen.

      – Venus is cooler than Earth at 101kPa, it's only hot at 100 atm.
      – Venus has no oceans to dissolve CO2; CO2's half life in the atmosphere is trivially short and can so it can never cause sustained warming of any significance.
      – fossil fuel, is by definition, renewable biomass. Plants and animals sequestered carbon, and then about 1 PERCENT of it is being returned from commercial reserves of that carbon.

      Please explain to us how burning already sequestered carbon can increase CO2 by 80,000%?

      May 8, 2014 at 5:44 pm | Reply
      • Daniel

        Holy nuts, what ignorance. Venus doesn't have oceans to dissolve CO2.. so there must be none in the atmosphere? Never mind that Wikipedia tells me that CO2 is the main ingredient in Venus' atmosphere.

        "the half life of carbon dioxide"... "half life" is term only applied to radioactive materials. Without plants or oceans, CARBON DIOXIDE DOESN'T BREAK DOWN into anything else.

        The saddest part? Nobody else here even bothered to dispute you. Our American educational system sure is cranking out some winners who make ignorance and willful stupidity into an art form.

        May 9, 2014 at 7:21 am |
      • KB

        I don't think people responded to him because his ignorant post required no response. How about the part about not having enough co2 if we have another ice age! Classic!

        May 9, 2014 at 11:56 am |
    • rvwrb

      Sorry Josh but you are so wrong. Venus is hot because of the density of its atmosphere which is 100 times more dense than the earth's. Yes it is primarily made up of CO2 but to somehow forecast that the earth will eventually meet the same fate is simply silly.

      May 9, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Reply
      • wlb

        No and No.
        Venus is hot because is atmosphere is 96% CO2, and it likely experienced a runaway greenhouse effect early in its history. Density of atmosphere has NOTHING to do with atmospheric temperature, either on Venus or on Earth. Rather, planetary temperatures are established by a balance of radiative thermal energy energy flows into and out of the planetary system. When atmospheric Greenhouse gases increase, outward infrared thermal energy flows diminish and the planet's temperature rises.

        Few scientists believe Earth will experience a runaway Greenhouse effect like Venus, but ALL credentialed Climate Scientists recognize the Greenhouse effect is at work on both planets.

        May 9, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
      • rvwrb

        wow density has EVERYTHING to do with it!!! Of course the green house effect is in work on this planet. Just what planet are you from? The exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans is a key component of climate control so not only climate scientists would agree with your statement EVERY scientist would!! So what's your point?

        I gather from your feeble attempt that you really have no idea what our climate is about but don't feel bad because the disciples of Al Gore are in the same boat.

        May 10, 2014 at 12:16 am |
      • wlb

        Kindly provide us with your Physics explanation of how atmospheric density drives Earth's temperature. LOL

        May 10, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
      • rvwrb

        I was referring to Venus with a density to its atmosphere of 100 times the earth...anyone with a simple mind can check out the reasons behind the role the higher density plays in the temperature on Venus...

        May 11, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
  21. Brianna

    I think she raises a valid point at the end, which is that the public considers scientists to be bullies and that the current relationship between scientists and laymen is not working. (Whether or not the public's feelings are accurate here is beside the point.) I personally used to view scientists as very pretentious, before I understood the real humility and open mindedness they have. Rather than getting caught up on false claims of bullying, I think it's important to recognize society's feelings as valid, and stemming from somewhere. Only then can we work together to reestablish the scientist-laymen relationship and give some credit to our scientists and the research they do. On a related note, that fellow who was "not a denier" clearly does not understand the difference between opinions and facts. To disagree on facts is really quite silly. He, bless his heart, thought it was a matter of his opinion vs. Bill's, in which both could be considered equal, because who's to say one's opinion is any more valid than another's. The reality is, it was his opinion vs. science: a pairing which really is not on a level playing field. Now if we can lower the wall that society has regarding science, and breakdown some of the resentment people feel towards seemingly pretentious, hard-headed, white-coat-wearing people, then collectively we can start to recognize the higher-level credibility inherent in scientific fact, and how low mere opinions lie by comparison.

    May 8, 2014 at 3:00 pm | Reply
    • wlb

      I don't see your point about bullying by scientists at all. For example on this very debate, the lady interviewer repeatedly talks over Bill Nye, and then accuses him, a soft spoken guy, of bullying! Scientists may have a PR problem, but its not due to their bullying.

      May 9, 2014 at 9:59 am | Reply
      • KB

        I think one of the things Republicans do well is to work out the talking points they want to make, Then all of their media outlets use this language to try to make their points. Right now their line on climate change is
        1. It's alarmist talk.
        2. If it exists it's not our fault. Natural cycles.
        3. Spout out irrelevant statistics cherry picked to prove the republican point.
        4. Blame the messenger. Accuse them of doing exactly what the Republicans do.
        5. Talk over the expert with opposing views with things that have nothing to do with the topic using questionable statistics. " 90 percent of people don't believe." Like somehow weather or not people believe or not has an effect on global warming.

        May 9, 2014 at 11:09 am |
      • Brianna

        Maybe I'm presuming but I think a lot of people view scientists as coming in and blaspheming their religion, and being a little over bearing saying "this is how it is". I think scientists and their lack of blind faith have been resented for generations now. Just an idea but they could be perceived as bullying when they don't accept people's ignorance. What with freedom of religion and all that, many people are very sensitive about their beliefs (regardless of their basis or sense) and to have a group of people who come in and basically tell them that they are dumb for believing those things sets people off. The key is that there really IS no excuse for ignorance anymore. We have the knowledge. Yet because of this resentment, people fear science and the people who promote it. And because of that, they view scientists as pushy and as bullies. Again, it doesn't matter whether or not they actually ARE bullying. Nor whether scientists are the ones BEING bullied (#irony). It's just the public's perception.

        May 9, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
      • wlb

        @Briana: Religion is faith, Science is reason. Both have their place, but not in each other's domain. If Religious folk feel bullied by Science, I'd say that's probably because they're still holding to their faith-based beliefs about the behavior of the natural world. I'd also say they need to get at thicker skin, because Man will never stop in his quest to understand the natural world using his God-given powers of Reason.

        May 10, 2014 at 9:36 am |
    • GenX Concerned Citizen

      I do believe you are correct that there is a problem in the layperson-science community relationship. Some scientists have taken it upon themselves to challenge people's faith, although that is a very loud minority. I haven't observed decades of mistrust if science though.
      Global warming has been at the center IMO of the breakdown. Scientists are organizing as a community to try to get the word out after a decade or so strong opposition by Republicans to discredit the findings of what is now referred to as Climate change. This program was labeled as a debate, but was an opportunity to discredit Bill Nye and not actually hear from him.
      I know people are going to disagree, but thus program was not meant to be a courteous debate.

      May 10, 2014 at 10:37 am | Reply
  22. Danielle

    "learn to listen, and give the man some space to express himself. You are supposed to be professionals, not debate-interrupters." YOU GOT THAT RIGHT. Let him speak, idiots.

    May 8, 2014 at 2:52 pm | Reply
  23. hayleycallaway

    This pisses me off because it wasn't Bill Nye vs. whoever, because they never even let him speak!! They kept talking over him and not allowing him to make any of his points.
    Also, there is a difference between "bullying" which is a serious issue in today's society and saying the facts and how, if the facts are ignored, they will endanger the public.
    Let Bill speak, please.

    May 8, 2014 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  24. Gregor Mendel

    I find it offensive that mister Nye presumes to speak for the world of science on this issue as if it is settled. It is not. Most every scientist that parrots the Greenpeacers and other socialists on this issue has their government supplied funding to consider. Those that refuse to toe the line, put funding and therefore careers in jeopardy.
    Guys that don't need to worry about tenure often show their skepticism; but, the MSM seldom gives them any ink.

    May 8, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Reply
    • wlb

      It's not settled? ALL 200 of the top Scientific Academies of the World have endorsed the IPCC conclusions ,and NONE dispute any aspect of AGW. NO credentialed scientists working in the field dispute AGW.Some believe the near-consensus projections of warming are too high, some believe they are too low, but NONE dispute that the Earth is warming, and that man's burning of fossil fuels is the cause.

      May 10, 2014 at 9:40 am | Reply
      • Rob

        You are incorrect.

        May 12, 2014 at 8:38 am |
  25. Jane

    Lol, why are they even trying to argue? They all just made themselves look like ignorant assholes who can't calmly talk about things. Why do economists even think they have a say about something they know essentially nothing about?

    May 8, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Reply
    • uncdig

      I agree with you completely. It's kind of like a guy who has a television persona call the science guy proclaiming to be an expert on global warming, when his credentials are a Bachelor of Science from Cornell University in Mechanical Engineering. He has everybody fooled into his being a great scientist who knows everything about everything and just because his persona says global warming is our biggest threat, flocks of the uneducated follow his every word. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

      May 8, 2014 at 2:17 pm | Reply
      • johnnywk

        Yeah, what's next, him having a valid career in science? We should stick to getting our facts from television personalities.

        P.S. What're your credentials?

        May 8, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
      • Brandon L.D

        You do understand that to obtain a Bachelor of Science requires classes that focus on all the parts global warming is revolved around, right?

        May 8, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
      • wlb

        Lets hear your position on AGW: Is it 1) There's no warming, 2) there is , but Man is not the cause, 3) there is, and Man is the cause. #3 is my position and the position of all the credentialed scientists working in the field, and all 200 of the top Scientific Academies in the world. If you want to debate, tell us your position - 1,2 , or 3 - and the evidence for it.

        May 10, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
  26. Kelly

    In 1992, I think, I listened to Dr. Sallie Baliunas, who was at that time was at the Harvard Smithsonian Center. She talked about this and predicted a lot of this. Now Bill Nye has got proof. ??? What more do people want, calamity? Well it looks like it is coming. When she talked, I did the math and estimated that we had from 2012 to 2018 when calamity will hit. The Presidential Administrations before this and Congress have done, from what I see, nothing. At least now people are talking. It is going to be do you remember when, someday. If 64% don't believe this, well just let them find out. There is no more time to plan. It is here.

    May 8, 2014 at 12:48 pm | Reply
    • Frovy

      "When she talked, I did the math and estimated that we had from 2012 to 2018 when calamity will hit."

      So when/if calamity DOESN'T hit, then what will your new prediction be? I'm sure you probably just forgot to carry the 1, or misread that 2 as a 7 or something...

      May 8, 2014 at 1:32 pm | Reply
      • snowdog50

        So far, the AGW crowd has failed miserably to prove their case that climate change isn't cyclical, but man-made. Their computer models and predictions score a giant "F". What was once a definite "ice-free poles by 2013" has become "maybe by 2030 or 2050". As they keep moving the goal posts all over the playing field in an attempt to keep the other side from scoring, they just make themselves look more and more desperate.

        May 8, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
  27. adwheeler

    Isn't it great when guys with the actual knowledge of what is going on have to argue with passive-aggressive idiots? The length that some people will go to, to avoid change and ultimately a little work on their part, amazes me.

    May 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm | Reply
  28. jdub

    I think big problem with the whole argument is everyone is using the big disastrous weather episodes as gauges for Climate Change. Like the argument "Well, we're in a hurricane drought so it must not be true." There are little things happening as well as big things happening that all have to be taken into account. I think everyone has to take it in as whole and educate themselves on the issue, and the problem with that is no one wants to take the time to do it.

    May 8, 2014 at 12:23 pm | Reply
  29. Ryan Karl

    Co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore's statement before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight on February 25, 2014:

    "In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace. After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likelythat human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

    Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
    Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

    Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
    The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

    It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

    I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

    If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

    Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject."

    May 8, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Reply
    • Ryan Karl

      I know my quote from greenpeace's co-founder was long but it shouldnt take this long to moderate. I thought this was supposed to be crossfire's blog with both sides of the argument and not just left leaning viewpoints.

      S.E. I am calling on you to get this done haha!

      May 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Reply
      • Cedar Rapids

        You know his statement is actually just claiming the warming isnt caused by man right?
        He doesnt claim it isnt happening.

        May 8, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
      • Mark W

        Ryan Karl, thanks for that cut and paste spamload of unscientific garbage. Here's some relevant information:

        1. Patrick Moore may have founded Greenpeace, but he's long since moved on to lobbying for the mining and logging industries, two lobbies that have a vested interest in downplaying the scientific reality and consequences of of human-caused climate change.

        2. He's not a climate scientist, though he does a believeable job of sounding enough like one to fool people like you – assuming you actually believe that diatribe. More likely you work for one of the humanity-treasonous interests that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars these days to confuse the public, and you know it's a load of crapolla.

        3. Now for some specifics. First of all he completely glosses over what drives ice ages, which are natural precessional changes in the earth's orbit called Milankovitch Cycles. So his pretense that CO2 doesn't matter because we had ice ages and warm periods with much higher rates of CO2 is just blatantly dishonest.

        4. He mischaracterizes the very nature of science. He "charges" that there is "no proof" that greenhouse gases have caused the warming. Science doesn't work that way, Mr. Moore. NO finding in science ever has "100% proof". None of the medicines you use, none of the treatments you receive, have had some kind of Math Theory type logical proof. What science does do is accumulate evidence, in as many different ways as possible, for and against a hypothesis. If it becomes enormously lopsided in one direction or the other, the hypothesis is either abandoned or develops into a consensus. The latter is exactly what has happened following tens of THOUSANDS of peer reviewed studies over several decades. Read a few thousand of them before you think you know something, Mr. Moore.

        5. His assertions that "the IPCC" (which really means the world's scientists, as the IPCC doesn't actually do any original research, it's just a meeting mechanism for compiling the entirety of the literature) "can't explain" the various different warming and plateau-ing patterns in the past 130 years is just criminally dishonest. There have been mountains of papers published on each of these – most importantly on the so-called "pause" of the past 15 years. Scientists have a pretty good idea of what drove each of those regimes.

        6. His casual dismissal of the prospect of massive changes because "we are a tropical species" and the earth was once much warmer (millions of years ago) flies in the face of sanity and reality. 70% of the world's population lives on the coastlines, for starters. It will be enormously expensive to basically re-start civilization in a different place simply because some industries didn't want their profits to be hindered in the first part of the 21st century. And that's ignoring the fact that we are acidifying the oceans with rising CO2 in the atmosphere. You're going to have massive changes in the food chain, and the oxygenation level on this planet if you kill off the plankton. There are dozens, even hundreds of other things that could be talked about here as consequences of his Dr. Strangelove attitude.

        He's basically a calm, measured sociopath. And you, here, are his caddy.

        May 8, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
      • rvwrb

        To Mark W:

        Why the condescending attitude towards another poster? Prove that the two lobbies you mentioned have a vested interested in "downplaying the scientific reality and consequences of of human-caused climate change." Maybe but just maybe they do not believe humans are or have caused any climate change which is a valid position given the existence of evidence from our geological past going back 500,000 years or more instead of 150 years or so.

        Patrick Moore is very much a climate scientists having a PhD in ecology – vs James Hansen who is a physicist.

        As for "driving" ice ages, you have simplified the process to one parameter – the others include plate tectonics, lower atmospheric CO2, iron concentrations in the ocean, variations in sunspot activity, fluctuations in both the sun and earth's magnetic field. If anyone glossed over the topic it is you.

        Mr. Moore is right in that there has been no proof presented that green house gases have caused the warming. After all as CO2 continued to climb to its current level of 400 ppm over the past 15 years, the rise in temperature has tapered off suggesting that the green house effect is not as strong or does not play as big a part in climate variation that prognosticated by the IPCC.

        The 95% confidence asserted by the IPCC has no basis whatsoever in statistical derivation and in that area Mr Moore was completely on the mark with his comments.

        As for your characterization of how a hypothesis evolves into a consensus, you are truly off the mark. In fact a red flag in this entire debate is the contention that there is scientific consensus on the topic of AGW. The only way to arrive at a conclusive point is for researchers to identify and assess the role all possible parameters that are in play regarding climate variation – this has not been done nor has it been attempted and for that reason alone the process is faulted. If your car stops working, and your mechanics says "it is the carburetor and a new one needs to be put in" without even checking other components that make the car run such as a distributor, spark plugs or injectors etc, are you willing to fork over the money for a new carburetor? I don't think many sane people would.

        As for the tens of THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers (the number is about 13,000) nearly two thirds of those papers did not identify a position one way or the other on AGW and climate change so your statement is factually wrong.

        The IPCC is a partnership between the WMO and the UN. The WMO finances research through GAW Greenhouse Gas Research so while technically the IPCC does not finance the research on which they base their opinions on, one of the partners, namely the WMO does finance a great deal of research on the topic.

        In the end your dismissal of all of Mr Moore's comments are typical of someone who has no science background whatsoever and who simply believes everything he wants to read and believe without undertaking a shroud of investigation personally to see if those hypothesis stand up to scrutiny. Now IF you focused your emotions on the topic and looked at every conceivable options that may be in play within our climate, you will quickly learn that the so called consensus is not a consensus, that the IPCC has been biased in their stance from the day they were formed by the UN, that the peer reviewed process is not meant to validate any paper in terms of accuracy or even are those reviewers allowed to question any assumptions built into these papers that lead to specific conclusions.

        Now if you had the intestinal fortitude to really look into the subject, some thing you would find out include:

        The global temperatures have been warmer than current temperatures at least 50 times over the past 8,000 years'

        Our climate has a discernible cycles of approximately 125,000 year where it experiences a temperature swing of 20 to 25 degrees C over that period with multiple swings of as much as 8 degrees C

        Over the past 10,000 years the temperatures in Greenland were warmed by 3 to 4 degrees C during most of that time period and that only in the last 600 years has it exhibited colder temperatures.

        The University of Alabama at Huntsville lower atmosphere temperatures between 2002 and 2010 indicate a definite downward trend to the temp curve while during the same period CO2 climbed from 372 ppm to 387 ppm

        That NASA published a report in which it states that no significant temperature change occurred between 1996 and 2006 and that a rise of 1 degree over a 100 year time frame is not significant?

        Stop believing everything you read in the media and start to research the topic from credible sources – you then might find the truth because it is out there.

        May 9, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
    • Ronny Corona

      Your facts are acurate but irrelevant. Yes life can flourish with much higher CO2 levels. But civilizations are a magnitude of order more fragile than living organisms, especialy one, such as ours, that is not equiped to deal with the ramifications of accelerated climate change. I can only imagine the hyper-storms that occured in our pre-historic world, and I can imagine the loss of life and habitat should such weather patterns return.

      May 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Reply
    • Mark W

      BTW Ryan, more to the point of your logging lobbyist's assertion that climate science "doesn't know" why global temperature was increasing between 1910 and 1940, it is hogwash because scientists know that solar radiation was on the increase during that period. That was the driver. However, in the past 35-40 years, solar forcing has *decreased*, even as the planet has warmed. Greenhouse gases have simply overwhelmed what should have been a cooling period, if solar insolation were the only driving factor of earth temperature.

      I don't know if CNN will post links, but I hope so because this will help:

      Clearly, climate scientists certainly DO know why those regimes were different. Moore is either completely ignorant of the science he is bombastically critiquing, or he is one criminally dishonest son of a something.

      May 9, 2014 at 12:38 am | Reply
      • rvwrb

        I would not rely on anything from the skeptical science blog as Mr Cook has admitted that the blog is intentionally biased and is not there to provide evidence from both sides of the debate but only his – for the sake of his children.

        As for solar forcing having decreased over the last 35 to 45 years, NASA would beg to differ. Solar activity constantly cycles and between 1975 and 2010 it went through three cycles but more importantly the number of sun posts is believed to have an impact on temperatures and the recent lull in a continuing rise in temperature is attributed to this relationship by some.

        May 9, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
      • Mark W

        rvwrb –

        Utterly ridiculous Hail Mary diversion there. Everything on the skepticalscience site is sourced from peer-reviewed science.

        BTW, since you seem confused about this, there aren't "two sides" to this, there is only one: that of evidence based science. All of the evidence points in the direction that humans are warming the planet, which is why the consensus of the scientific community is what it is.

        If you don't like the site I pointed you to, you can get the solar data from anywhere else that's getting it from reputable scientific sources. And your hand waving line about NASA is just more mumbo jumbo. Of course solar irradiance goes in cycles – 11 year long ones to be precise. But these cycles ride on top of changing background levels, and that (smoothed) trend has insolation on a steady decrease during the time when the earth has been rapidly warming. This is in fact the principal reason why scientists have concluded what they have.

        May 10, 2014 at 2:34 am |
      • Mark W

        I should have added that you got one thing right at the end of your post. The steady decrease in solar forcing of late is one reason for the apparent "pause" of the past decade, but it's actually not the major one. Because of an overwhelmingly tilted period of La Nina (cool upwelling) in the Pacific, enormous amounts of trapped heat in the atmosphere which would have normally gone into warming the planet's surface temperatures has instead been absorbed into the oceans.

        So we've gotten kind of a "stay of execution" or respite – one which will not hold over time. But it's been enough for the forces of denial – mainly industry and its knowing and duped (there are both kinds) shills to pretend that "global warming has stopped". In any case I'm glad you're at least aware of this small aspect of the noise, even if you seem (or are pretending to be) completely unaware of the rest of the science.

        May 10, 2014 at 2:38 am |
      • rvwrb

        You obviously have not followed the blog very closely. I did for to years and then I posed the question to Mr, Cook asking him why he does not allow views contrary to his own to be posted to which he replied that the purpose of his blog was not to debate the topic but to push for acceptance of the IPCC for his children's sake. Those are pretty well his exact words and needless to say I stopped following it. It may be from peer reviewed science but that does not make it correct. Try investigating exactly what peer review means and in no way is it meant to provide credibility to those reports. Its purpose is to ensure that the presentation of the theories/arguments/subject are done in a fashion that is suitable for publishing and nothing more.

        There most definitely are two sides to the argument – and from very valid sources. On one side we have a group that has focused their research onto a very small period in time, from 1850 to the present and from that research, have concluded that the planet is warming at an accelerated rate and we are "doomed" to higher frequency and stronger storms and all of this is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere which has resulted in higher temperatures. The entire basis of their forecast is from the output of climate models.

        On the other side we have pragmatic scientists who believe that the temperature records of 150 years or so are insufficient for us to determine what is happening to our climate. Those scientists believe that our climate is driven by a multitude of factors, many of which we do not fully understand and accordingly it is not possible for us to be at the confidence levels sated by the IPCC. Furthermore some studies have shown that temperature may be preceding the rise in CO2 (Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.Vostock ice cores; which if correct would take the legs out from under the foundation of the IPCC perspective. What recent research has shown is that the exchange of CO2 from the oceans ot the atmosphere is happening at a rate much faster than previously thought (NOAA 03-131, Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought; 25 April 2011 by Wendy Zukerman); The influence of El Niño on the equatorial Pacific contribution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation Nature, 398, 597–601 (1999)

        Please stop using the phrase "consensus of the scientific community" because it simply is not substantiated. Mr Cook in fact created that number through an analysis of the abstracts of nearly 12,000 papers and here is what he found:

        "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."

        Furthermore there is a great deal of research such as that carried out by W.R. Johns who concluded "... that the ice-core carbon-dioxide data prove conclusively that in geological time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are determined by temperature. They neither support nor negate the hypothesis that global temperatures are determined by atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. "

        Note that two thirds of abstracts expressed NO position on AGW – yet their research involved 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. To discard those views is entirely biased in my view and the propagation of the statistic by people such as your self is entirely inappropriate.

        As for the role of the sun, there is a close correlation between rising and falling temperatures with the number of sunspots that occur. The relationship between cycle length and Earth temperatures is not well understood. Lower-than normal temperatures tend to occur in years when the sunspot cycle is longest, as confirmed by records of the annual duration of sea-ice around Iceland. The cycle will be longest again in the early 2020's.

        May 10, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
      • wlb

        Mark W: Thanks for your top notch statements about the Science. They are very helpful in putting to rest the nonsense Deniers try to pass off as revealed wisdom.
        I do take issue with your general criticism of Industry, however. While some energy companies have funded Deniers in the past, most have stopped (check the Chevron and Exxon websites to see how much they're spending now to find solutions). My ex-employer (I'm now retired) and our industry actively worked with Congress to help shape the Waxman -Markey Cap and Trade Bill and has long worked with the US State Dept to try to develop Global agreements among nations to reduce emissions. It doesn't help our cause to criticize the same people who in many cases are lending their support to find solutions for mitigating AGW. I hope you'll look deeper into the point. Thanks for your comments that have otherwise been very constructive.

        May 10, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
  30. The US Dept Of Defense

    The US DOD announces a new weapon available if hostile aliens try to take over the Earth. The DOD will allow Palin voters to "mind meld" with the aliens. The aliens' heads will immediately implode caused by the huge vacuum.

    May 8, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
  31. Wolf

    Geez! It sure would be nice to actually hear Bill Nye speak and NOT be interrupted by the these others! He has knowledge people!

    May 8, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      LOL. No he doesn't. He is a kids science show host. His 15 minutes are looooong over.

      May 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Reply
    • alex

      no, he doesn't actually have the credentials and has completed no research of his own. he has a mechanical engineering degree only and has spent most of his "career" as a television host teaching basic science. he has earned no doctorate. he was "awarded" them as "gifts" for his tooting of science as a whole not for his actual scientific research or contributions .

      May 8, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Reply
      • TeaTard

        But you can admit that amongst those at the Crossfire table he has the most informed opinion because he's most scientifically inclined. He's the voice of the scientific community because he has a background of communicating scientific principles. That's why he was on this show. He won those awards for being able to communicate complex scientific concepts to the general public. The fact of the matter is, Nye understands the mechanisms behind global warming far better than some conservative economist.

        May 8, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • Pamela

      I agree with Wolf. Whether he is a Science guy or whatever, he was invited onto the program to speak, not to just listen to what these idiots had to say. We heard from them, why not listen once in awhile??

      May 8, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Reply
    • Brian

      I also agree with wolf, these talk show hosts are as ignorant as they come. Instead of interrupting the man over and over and addressing the majority opinion of the public by polls to try to gain popularity and public approval, how about actually listening. Let us hear the facts first from a man who has backed his research on scientific evidence, then feel free to continue your popularity campaigns.

      May 8, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Reply
  32. Tom Edge

    Stupid Mammals , Blow Each Other With Fear, I Will Eat Your Brain.
    Bye Nye is da man

    May 8, 2014 at 11:54 am | Reply
    • Tom Edge

      * Bill Nye

      May 8, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  33. pitbullsarea

    learn to listen, and give the man some space to express himself. You are suppoused to be professionals, not debate-interupters.

    May 8, 2014 at 11:40 am | Reply
  34. Cedar Rapids

    If you want to claim climate change isnt happening on scientific grounds then that is fine, we can debate the merits either way on that but if you deny (or support) it based on just political grounds then you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

    May 8, 2014 at 11:33 am | Reply
    • Rob

      uh, you could say that about the climate change belilevers, also.

      May 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm | Reply
      • Rob


        May 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
      • Cedar Rapids

        I did, which is why i put ...(or support).... in the comment.

        May 8, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
  35. Dave O'Brien

    Nye is a complete moron, and has no business debating "science:' or any other subject.

    May 8, 2014 at 11:22 am | Reply
    • Your an inbred cancer patient

      And you're someone to judge other people? People like you are the reason this worlds dying.

      May 8, 2014 at 11:47 am | Reply
    • Steve

      Well, Dave, let's compare your credentials to his so why can put that assertion in the proper context.

      May 8, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
      • Steve

        Why = we (not all the time, just this once.)

        May 8, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • Rob

        Should be easy. Bill Nye doesn't have any credentials.

        May 8, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
    • TeaTard

      Yea the Science Guy has no business debating science but the conservative economist does??? You got to be kidding me. Bill Nye was the only one out there that understood the actual meaning of those reports because he's actually scientifically competent. Scientist don't use scare tactics they use logical reasoning confirmed by their experiments. If anyone has a political agenda it's the conservative economist. Why? Oh I don't know because he's a CONSERVATIVE economist for a CONSERVATIVE think tank. Just because scientific findings don't align with your political and economic agenda DOES NOT mean the science is wrong.

      May 8, 2014 at 11:53 am | Reply
      • Clarity First

        Spot on. Well said.

        May 8, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • shawnd

        who cares who Bill Nye is or what his credentials are. the fact is, and the point that was trying to be made is that even scientists can't totally agree on climate change, and yet the left is trying to bully it down everyones throat. When the entire scientific community can agree on climate change then come and talk to me about it. but until then stop trying to shove unproven crap down everyones throat. for every report that says climate change is a fact there is one that claims its not. and yet it's being pushed on us as if the entire science community agrees. the whole issue is just a huge political agenda issue on both sides. if you want to talk conservation and taking care of the planet then fine great idea no one is against it. but if your going to claim science is on your side then you need to do it with the backing of the entire scientific community not just the ones that agree with your side.

        May 8, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
      • alex

        bill nye does not have the credentials to be entering this debate either. he has taught basic science and only earned a mechanical engineering degree. he is going off various skewed reports and data. more than half of the scientific community now says "global warming" is a farce. the planet is in a cycle.

        at best, the fossil fuels that we use have a minor effect. the things that we have changed as far as landscaping are probably far more impacting. for example, areas that used to have more severe winters have more mild winters after damming up rivers to create man made lakes. the original global warming scientist has been discredited numerous times by scientists around the world because he not only could not produce his original data set, but couldn't tell other scientists what scope his data set was originally selected from. how do you not know when and where you accumulated the data you analyzed from? at least even have a good ball park so that another scientist can complete a similar analysis??? seriously. this is the boy that cried wolf and managed to get enough of the townspeople on board that we are still discussing his moronic study almost 20 years later. as far as the studies that they are discussing the "greenhouse" gas effect, they do not take into account, the planet's cycle, the data of more than the last 20 years (might want to consider the last time this happened was in the 1930s or even another hundred years since data is actually available) or the landscape changes that we know alter weather patterns in those areas drastically. the studies that have taken more temperature and weather data into account, have accounted for areas that have altered weather patterns because of landscaping AND are not skewed but genuinely conducted with the goal of the truth, not financed with a end already selected, have failed to support this ridiculous hypothesis.

        May 8, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
      • TeaTard

        In response to shawnd, is 97% consensus amongst climate scientists not enough??? And don't give me BS claims that refute the analysis of these scientists made by people who are not scientists. You're just set on not believing it not matter what the data suggests. Talk to anyone who can interpret that data (i.e. climate scientists) and they'll tell you the trend is alarming.

        May 8, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • Cedar Rapids

        'more than half of the scientific community now says "global warming" is a farce. the planet is in a cycle. '

        where the hell do you get that claim from? you can provide a source right?

        May 8, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • shawnd

        Tea tard. where are you getting the 97% at you seriously need to do some research on that number it is veryt very exaggerated. unless your using the numbers that the left is using.

        May 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
      • TeaTard

        How many do you want?

        May 8, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
      • TeaTard

        Now where's your "proof"? And don't give me any nonsense sources from polarized media outlets. [Note where I got my sources from in the link above]

        May 8, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
      • moreofthislessofthat

        He spends his time debating creationism. Are you really suggesting Nye doesn't have a political agenda? I don't think there is anything wrong with him being partisan, but to suggest he is unbiased makes you easy to marginalize. I cannot take you seriously.

        June 8, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
    • Nick

      Dave, I hope at least you will not deny "THE COMPLETE MORON" is the one that doesn't offer any arguments, the one that just labels from the "strength" of its ignorance. Once a wise man said: "Ignorance is not an argument" – it looks like our society is racing in the opposite direction...

      May 8, 2014 at 11:58 am | Reply
  36. Gary Catherman

    The fact is, everyone cares somewhat about global warming, climate change, etc... until caring effects our wallets, bank accounts, and weekend get aways. We, as a race, are selfish. Realistically, by the tim all this climate change become critical, we will all be dead.

    May 8, 2014 at 10:41 am | Reply
    • Rob

      No worries.

      May 8, 2014 at 12:30 pm | Reply
  37. tbear678

    "I'm not a denier but...." "I'm not racist but...." sounds the same to me, it honestly sounded like none of these people even wanted to hear what Bill had to say about the topic and then they said that scientists pointing out that people are wrong based on facts was "bullying" like, wow, why did he even agree to come on this show and deal with these clowns?

    May 8, 2014 at 10:34 am | Reply
    • Frovy

      It's an automatic preface that must be used because otherwise, in this day and age, you're assumed those things if you disagree. I'm a skeptic on climate change being man-made. Here's why: 1) Multiple reports of models not accurately predicting what happened (or throwing out valid data to make the model fit the result), and 2) Multiple leaks of documents that show these "scientists" knowingly and willfully making reports to fit what they believe, not what the data says.

      All I need to be convinced is actual proof, empirical data used to create and recreate the same result over and over and over within an acceptable margin of error. That's what science really is. My fear is that man is causing 2% of the climate change and the rest is inevitable, but instead of looking to adapt, we're trying to figure out how to bail water out of a river to stop it from flowing instead of building a boat.

      I've changed my mind on a number of things, and gone from neutral to a solid position on a number of things. I look to be debated with, I actively seek other points of view. Bill Nye is a total jackoff in this respect. If you don't agree with him, you're either some insane idiot religious dipsplit or a denier or whatever.

      May 8, 2014 at 1:41 pm | Reply
  38. Cedar Rapids

    Oh the irony of Cupp moaning how people that deny climate change are vilified etc when the words she used about the message, over and over again, was 'scare tactics'

    May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am | Reply
  39. The Question

    Scientists look for the truth, journalists look for "balanced" opinions. Whether climate change is or is not happening is a scientific question. We need research with various methods that triangulate the results. Journalists look for opposing viewpoints but not necessarily the truth. Thus, journalists equipped with opinion polls as evidence, can not tell us the truth regarding climate change only independent (with np political agenda) scientists can.
    (Also, When you bring a guest in, let him speak. We would like to hear the "experts" opinion rather than to see him/her get talked over and intimidated.)

    May 8, 2014 at 9:46 am | Reply
    • Tom Edge

      the American people can smell bullshit from feminist opinionated journalist...
      Who payed off the anchors to coddle the nut-sack of evil corporate America ?

      May 8, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
  40. Christian Jensen

    Storm aren't getting worse? Huh?

    2012’s Hurricane Sandy, at it’s peak, was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record as measured by diameter. The resulting damage from the storm surge flooding spurred New York’s Billionaire former Mayor Blumberg to declare he had changed his opinion on climate change. The storm’s total damages have been at least $50 Billion USD, and could top $100 Billion; only 2005’s Katrina can claim a larger cost. This truly devastating 2005 season saw three of the six worst Atlantic hurricanes ever (#6 Katrina along with #1 Wilma and #4 Rita).

    And to top it off, 2013’s Typhoon Haiyan was the strongest storm to make landfall in recorded history.

    May 8, 2014 at 9:45 am | Reply
    • Rob

      Hate to tell you but neither Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina had ANYTHING to do with climate change. Sandy was only a cat 3 that had the misfortune to hit a cold jet stream that intensified it. If it had come through a day earlier or a day later, it would never have been any stronger than a normal 3. Katrina was a cat 5, strong but not rare at all. IT had the misfortune of hitting New Orleans. I used to live there. They knew for decades that their levies were only rated for a type 3 storm. It's the lowest elevation city in the country surrounded by walls. When the levies breached, it filled up like a bowl. Most of the damage done by Katrina was not by the storm, but by water and flooding. Especially in New Orleans where the city just flooded. Look it up.

      May 8, 2014 at 12:34 pm | Reply
      • Me

        Why did you have to bring in facts and logic?

        May 9, 2014 at 8:34 am |
      • KB

        One of the problems today is that many news outlets are not really news outlets. Fox new was the brain child of a Republican strategist. It's sole purpose is to slant news to their point of view. I don't know what the story is with CNN. I guess they saw that Fox was doing well with opinionated fake news and wanted some of the action.
        I realize that news has always had some bias but it was never as obvious as it is now. Now the "reporters" try to dominate the story. In the case of this show you get some pore guy "Phil Nye", and you try to turn him into a joke by talking over him with false information while making funny faces at anything he says, presenting other "Experts", hand picked to present the view the show wants to present.
        It's sickening to watch.

        May 9, 2014 at 11:29 am |
      • Rob

        You have obviously never really watch Fox News. It's not fake. Sure they have conservative talk shows. All the networks do. You can agree with them or not. But the news shows are definitely not fake. You know a fake network? MSNBC. What a joke that one is.

        May 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
      • KB

        I shouldn't say fake. Just any story that has anything to do with politics, energy, pollution, and the environment is presented in a way to favor their financial interests. I haven't seen much of MSNBC but have heard it's kind of like the Fox mirror. All seem to be getting worse when it comes to objective reporting. It's a sad fact that most news has become entertainment programing. Sunday morning I was watching some local news and they were talking about the deteriorating situation in the Ukrian. Then the national morning show comes on and leads with their top story about Clipper owner Donald Sterling's girl friend breaking her silence. News is becoming more and more like Entertainment Tonight.

        May 9, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
  41. Every Time

    Every time is listen to Palin voters' (lack of) logic, I believe we should amend the constitution to allow higher, more respectable, and intelligent life forms (such as Cockroaches and Dung Beatles), to vote.

    May 8, 2014 at 9:20 am | Reply
    • Rob

      We already let people vote for a democrat. What more do you want?

      May 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm | Reply
    • shawnd

      haha. I guess you are the more intelligent life form who would get to choose. I guess when you run out of intelligent things to say you just call everyone else unintelligent. sounds like the smart thing to do. smh!!!

      May 8, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Reply
      • TeaTard

        The whole skeptic/denial movement you are surely a part of is completely manufactured by conservative strategists. Sources:

        And I don't know if you got my response to the 97% consensus, but check that out. I did my research and I provided my sources (also check these out).

        May 8, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
  42. Gary Sherer

    No matter what the debate, one thing is clear, our world has become a place of directly opposed philosophies. Climate change, political discourse, medicinal remedies, any subject that can be argued, is in fact just that, it is argued. Opinions rule, and solutions are on permanent hiatus. Nobody anymore, even tries to search for compromise, they just wait for the other side to stop talking(most of the time). Instead of unified, we are now hopelessly polarized. If this situation continues, what will happen? There you go again, asking for a result. I am now in my 76th year. When somebody inquires about my welfare, my usual answer is, "I'm getting older" Replies to this can be varied, but the most used reply is the rebuttal, ":well, it beats the alternative". Now, because of this permanently polarized existence in which we live, my answer to that is a resounding, "NO IT DOESN'T"!.

    May 8, 2014 at 8:20 am | Reply
  43. Kevin

    Those two apparently didn't watch Bill Nye the Science Guy growing up. What a shame.

    May 8, 2014 at 8:08 am | Reply
  44. unc dig

    Bill NYSE the science guy who isn't a science guy – who cares what he thinks

    May 8, 2014 at 8:00 am | Reply
    • gregm

      Clearly you do not have any knowledge on who Bill Nye is and his growing list of educational accomplishments and awards.

      May 8, 2014 at 10:48 am | Reply
      • Rob


        May 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
      • Me

        Bill nye is not a scientist never was no degree, no doctorate. He is not a professor either. He is an actor. O our pres. Is not a professor either and he is also an actor

        May 9, 2014 at 8:31 am |
1 2

Leave a Reply to Joe


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.