John Stossel Denying Climate Change

[StunnedByStupidity]

That's a face even his mother could punch... What a despicable awful philistine... I want scum like this to sign a form stating if they are wrong to REJECT SCIENCE then the displaced in places like Africa (the latest conference on fighting global warming basically said all of Africa - 924 MILLION people can go fuck - either move or die) can come and live with him and if there are food shortages then he and his family elect to die first - lets test their commitment to free thinking then eh?

[SoundzRite]

The best way to forge headlong into tragedy is to give the decisions to people who are woefully misinformed by the people who are most inconvenienced and ignore the people who have spent their lives working on the problem.

The space shuttle Challenger disaster comes to mind.

[xyzoneon]

The greenhouse effect is liberal, just like gravity.

[clairemil19]

Oh btw bird man above, I could debunk everything you just said...sadly..yea. But I'll strangely just add something about the birds. 672 million birds are directly exposed to pesticides on farms alone + over 10% die. This modest estimate, only takes into account birds inhabiting farms, and only ones killed outright by ingestion of them....(continued below sorry this comment made me pretty confounded and pissed, so I'm responding, I suppose...oh towntom)

[cupera1]

@clairemil19 You should see the piles of birds that are heaped at the base of windmills. Over half of the maintenance that the windmills require are from bird strikes. it is really bad in the spring and fall during bird migrations.

[clairemil19]

The full extent of bird deaths is extremely hard to know, bcuz most go undetected. Also there's a difference btwn the ultimate eradication of most, some or all living things; and healthy flourishing of humans, trees, or animals. Which is clearly not the case for the world's birds right now, due to my reasons. + the measuring stick you're using seems, to be all the worlds birds must go extinct before I notice...that's really sad, and by gosh look up any the topics for you arguments, please.

[clairemil19]

I'm sorry, I'm being so annoying about the comments, but I'm scared and disturbed at how uninformed many people are about this stuff. I really don't have any issue w/ true GW skeptics, which aren't the same as these scientists hes citing, or people who think its just some scam. True skeptics raise specific doubts about specific claims + do not try to debunk a whole area of science by an occasional error, or by the general lack of absolute certainty. Which is unattainable in any area of science.

[clairemil19]

According to a January 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists " Michaels is connected to no less than 11 conservative think tanks and associations that have received money from oil-companies like ExxonMobil to sow doubt about the realities of human caused GW.

[clairemil19]

Michaels is widely known as 1 of the most active G.W. deniers. Michaels is a professor at the U. of Virginia and according to a search of 22,000 academic journals; Michaels has published 50+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly about climate.

[clairemil19]

...In 2006 ABC News/ uncovered a leaked memo written by the Intermountain Rural Electrical Association. In the memo it states, New Hope Environmental Services received $100,000 from the IREA and "other electrical cooperatives"... Recently, Gov. Tim Kaine of VA, asked him to be clear, that hes not speaking for the state when discussing issues such as G.W.

[clairemil19]

While it's Undoubtedly true there are natural cycles in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural- or even mostly natural- have 2 challenges. 1st, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance......(continued below)

[clairemil19]

The balance is changing, so natural/ otherwise, we need to find the mysterious cause. 2nd, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the 2nd most important g. gas does not affect the global temp. Theory predicts temp will rise given, enhanced greenhouse effect, so How or Why is this not happening?

[clairemil19]

John Stossel is so naive and impressionable I used to think he was smart, operative word think...I guess, he seems like a nice guy but seriously he talked to (abunk seriously research him) scientist a couple times, who said the climates changing, the climate has always changed, so that's his entire evidence of debunking a 100 year old science and study of climate and the convergent conclusion after millions of pieces of observation, testing, measurements etc. that all of sudden it's crap. wow...

[rugbyguy59]

Stossel is an anti-government boob. He can't see the silliness of his own statements. Of course climate has always changed the big question is what is changing it. That is us, as Michaels says.

Environmentalists dominate government? What a laugh. The fossil fuel and corporate lobbyists have a far far greater effect. The IPCC is not made up of environmentalists; it's made up of scientists. Unfortunately the politicians involved have made it too conservative and watered down it's recommendations

[Gsnickets]

@rugbyguy59 whatever makes the most money dominates govt.... the green movement is the most well thought out scam in history. Global warming is caused by pollution eh? well then, what in the fuck brought us out of the ice age?

[rugbyguy59]

@Gsnickets What brought us out of the ice age was warming caused by changes in the earths rotation and orbit leading to increased CO2 which magnified the warming trend. Today warming is caused by CO2 and since it will very likely cause changes dangerous to human health it qualifies as a pollutant.

The green movement is far from perfect but it is still generally on the right track. However here, as in all cases, what matters is the science. And that solidly says AGW.

[YesWeCantaloupe]

I remember my teacher telling us that Greenland was called "Greenland" because they wanted to trick people into immigrating there. God, every day I remember something that my teachers just pulled outta their asses.

[rugbyguy59]

@YesWeCantaloupe Hate to inform you cantaloupe but your teacher was right. It was a little greener than usual at the time because of a regional warming effect but it was still primarily a mass of ice with a few green fringes. Lief Erikson wanted to attract settlers to his town in Greenland. He'd been exiled from Iceland. When the regional effect ended the Vikings left.

If you believe that Greenland was green then I have some nice swamp land, I mean "water front property," I'll sell you.

[BUDDY6414724297]

yeah right.

[ttowntom]

I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.

Guess how all those turned out.

My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.

[Eaglesfaninca]

Oh dear... "Climate Changes". No shit. The question is why. Climatologists work with Geologists and Astronomists to discover why climate changed in the past. The shape of our orbit around the sun changes, as well as the tilt. Scientists know this Stossel, why do you think NASA hasn't been banging down your door to get you to work for them?

The more I study this topic, the more it reminds me of the evolution-creation "controversy". They never go away...

[goog2k]

NEWS:

Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated

NSF - March 4, 2010.

Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.

[judomagyar]

Dr. Zagoni explains: Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.

[judomagyar]

The Miskolczi-principle: Earth-type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and unlimited reservoirs of water vapor, maintain an energetically maximized (constant, saturated) greenhouse effect that cannot be increased by emissions.

Three quantities:

The global averages of the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium greenhouse effect;

the greenhouse effect of the observed TIGR-2 atmosphere; & the 1948-2008 61 yr mean

greenhouse effect are the same, within 0.1C temperature difference.

[judomagyar]

@judomagyar

The Miskolczi-principle in other words:

according to HARTCODE calculations,

the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium global average IR absorption of the Earths atmosphere: A=84.55%;

-the global mean absorption from the independent TIGR-2 radiosonde database: A=84.69% ; and the 1948-2008 61 yr global annual mean NOAA/NCEP/NCAR absorption: A=84.57%

proves the validity of the saturated greenhouse effect concept.

[AletheiaZetetic]

Here's a list of the major scientific organizations who disagree with the basic consensus about AGW:

This web site has a list of the major scientific organizations that basically agree with it (about 80 of them)

tinyurl com/y67qrl

"With the release of the revised statement[80] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change"

[judomagyar]

@AletheiaZetetic

the web adresses are filterd out on youtube.

[AletheiaZetetic]

@judomagyar

I know. That's why I left out the period. Just add a period to the URL and it will work.

[judomagyar]

@AletheiaZetetic

instead of the URL all i see is empty spaces.

[AletheiaZetetic]

@judomagyar

Oh, and if you thought there was a URL for the scientific organizations who DISAGREE with the consensus? It's missing because there AREN'T ANY!

[judomagyar]

@AletheiaZetetic

The NIPCC has a site that disagrees with the "consensus".

[judomagyar]

Stossel said 3 times "climate changes", he does not deny it.

The title of this video is a lie!

[AletheiaZetetic]

Wow! I knew John Stossel was right wing but I didn't realize he was this radically far out in right field!

[judomagyar]

@cpiweb

Stossel say 3 times "climate changes", does not deny it.

Watch the video where Prof. Fred Singer presents the Report "Nature, not Human Activity, Rules the Climate" by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change'(NIPCC) .

In the appendix of the book form of that report there are 31 thousand scientists listed, that disagree with IPCC and Al Gore. They are all willingly signed their name, and you can contact them and they will all tell you that Al Gore is full of it.

[AletheiaZetetic]

@judomagyar So, who exactly on the Oregon Petition would tell me that Al Gore is full of it if I contacted them? Would it be Charles W. Aami who nobody can find? Would it be M. Robert Aaron, deceased? How about Paul Abbett? Nope, can't find him either Wyatt E. Abbitt III. Nope, nowhere to be found And Who is Hugao C. da Silva? Robert John Eagan? Can't find him. Thomas John Fabish. You mean the band conductor? Harner Selvidge? Deceased etc. etc.

[judomagyar]

Edward Teller: "While the magnitude of the climatic impact of greenhouse gases is currently uncertain, the prospect of severe failure of the climate, for instance at the onset of the next Ice Age, is undeniable."

An, yes he did sign the LIST. Well, before he died....

[judomagyar]

@AletheiaZetetic

In any list there are some mistakes or someone being funny.

I myself signed my dog's name on a list proposing the ban of DHMO.

You know what? Just throw out one thousand names you don't like. Now we got only 30 thousand names. COOL?

Edward Teller is on the list too and he is dead now. I suspect, he signed it while he was alive? NO?

[AletheiaZetetic]

@judomagyar

Well, no, I'd rather start by throwing out all signers who don't have a PHD. I couldn't care less what somebody with a Bachelor's degree thinks. Besides, there are MILLIONS of people with BS degrees! If they could only come up with a few thousand that's pretty pathetic. So, let's concentrate on the 9,000 or so who supposedly have PHDs. Keep in mind that the petition was deceptively worded and formatted.

[AletheiaZetetic]

@judomagyar That and the fact that virtually none of the signatures were verified makes me skeptical as to whether even 2,000 of them are valid. But let's say all 9,000 are valid. That's still less than ONE HALF of ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT of the PHDs given out in the U.S. ALONE since 1957!

I'm NOT impressed!

I'm only aware of about a dozen actual climate scientists who significantly disagree with the IPCC.

[aerobique]

support the outstanding videos explanations from user "greenman3610"

[bilracer]

CO2 has never caused warming in the past it has always followed warming. To jump to the conclusion that increased CO2 which now makes up .038% of our atmosphere must be the reason the temp has risen ONE degree in the last 100 years is mystifying.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm compared to 384 ppm now. So obviously C02 can rise greatly without the help of mankind.

[BaronVonLichtenstein]

The Christmas season got going with widespread snowfall that buried the nation's capital under almost 2 feet of snow. Dallas, which hasn't experienced a storm of blizzard proportions in 80 years, got socked with record snowfall. On Christmas Eve, half of the United States was covered with snow, according to an image that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released.

[edensabre]

People like him make me sick. Greedy fucks, and the people who attended it too, I hope they all suffer

[pasha582]

Stossel speaks for idiots when he claims curbing GHG will harm 3rd world people. How so? They aren't using much fossil fuel now. America uses twice (per capita) what the next largest consumer uses. If WE weren't idiots, we could stimulate economic growth and create new jobs by heavily investing in renewable sources, instead of forking our cash over to Bush & Cheney's Carlyle pals in Saudi Arabia & the United Arab Emirates, who love us so much they sent their sons into the WTC in our planes.

[arthurkitchen]

Does it hurt to be so ignorant?

[Gsnickets]

@arthurkitchen does it hurt to have your head THAT far up your ass?

[arthurkitchen]

@Gsnickets There is NOTHING that man has or can do to the earth that changes ANYTHING worth worrying about! It is fools like you that worry your pathetic lives away while us productive citizens actually live and enjoy life! Now go dust your AL Gore autographed picture!!!

[comedytracker]

So why is restricting it the primary focus of our governments?

[Skyler827]

is it perhaps because we aren't producing billions of tons of, say, sunlight with our industrial activity? No, all the other factors have been the same. Our industrial activity is causing all of the extra CO2.

[comedytracker]

More C02 greatly quickens the development of the earth.

What was the most productive (in terms of evolution) period in scientifically observed history?

The Cambrian Period saw the evolution of the Eye, and had more C02 in the atmosphere than today (today: 390ppm, Cambrian: 7000 ppm), AND during that period, the temperature was just as it is today.

[ecordy75]

Anyone who claims to deny the significance of AGW should by law be forced to cough up their own computer program that incorporates every single physical law and data that NASA, US Geological Survey, etc incorporate into their models and come to a different conclusion than the IPCC does -- or else be sent to prison for life for interfering with this fight against AGW and the national security of all nations.

[Skyler827]

^This is exactly why some people are able to rightfully question the conflict of interest between government and a war on CO2. (if not the only reason)

I think AGW is real, but no one should have the authority to outlaw carbon or enforce reductions with a cap&trade or a tax system and ceartinley not an authoritarian regime.

[studentofsmith]

There's a third world nation looking for a brutal, repressive dictator with no respect for freedom of speech. You should apply, you sound qualified.

[ecordy75]

Seriously - what brainless shitheads actually pay money to attend a delusional religion like AGW-denial conference?

(Hint: the kind that never had to work hard a day in their lives. The kind that can shit away money like its worthless to them. The kind that never had to work for anything.)

[Sigurdur2]

ainefairygoddess:

Yes, that is what is accepted now.  But a quick question. What is the change in TSI over the globe during those cycles?

[BucsMAN3K]

"Yes this might be happening"

and

"Climate changes"

These are the only statements made about climate change and they were a quote from someone that is not John Stossel.

The video title is wrong.

[Sigurdur2]

ainefairygoddess:

almost totally unaffected by IR, but not "not affected".

[dwolfcoach]

Stossel is an idiot!

[jerrywanna96]

Stossel is tha MAN.

[uturniaphobic]

As if the human could rise to the occasion of saving its only home. Why should he/she make this effort? There's no monetary profit in saving your only home.

ain't capitalism grand!?? Nothing has value but money...sort of a recursive curse

thanks for the show!

[IllinoisCAN]

Wow. Is he really this stupid?

Looks like the future of our news media.

Murdoch is working hard (no pun) to find the hottest & most vacuous babes he can find to read the news.

Let's suppose that this new warming period is primarily caused by sun activity. Wouldn't we want to be working to help mitigate its effects? Why not work to lessen the damage to our ecosystem - and those who depend on it - us.

Here is another great book to add to the list: The Great Warming, by Brian Fagan.

[blackmetalqueer]

This doesn't prove that GHG don't warm the planet, only that other effects due have a role as well.

We know that GHGs like CO2 DO warm the planet, because unlike O2 and N2, they are able to absorb infrared radiation and then re radiate some of it back to the Earth. This is uncontroversial physics, and it is not disproven by your mistaken account of orbital forcing that won't happen for tens of thousands of years from now.

[Sigurdur2]

Ahem........o2 and n2 also absorb infrared ratiation. Where in the world did you get the idea they don't?

[ainefairygoddess]

I'll let wikipedia explain,"the major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases. This is because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as Ar have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared light."

[blackmetalqueer]

"Warming causes CO2 increases."

You don't know what you are talking about. You are referring to the lag between temp rises and rises of CO2 levels after Ice Ages. Ice ages are due to cycles of the Earth's eccentricity, obliquity, and precession that over every 100,000 years causes the Earth's temp to drop leading to an Ice Age. After these effects subside, the Earth starts warming, melting the glaciers, which release the GHG that were trapped.

[Sigurdur2]

blackmetalqueer:

Actually, the Malakovich cycle doesn't change the W-m2 TSI much. It does change it, but not enough to cause an ice age.

[ainefairygoddess]

The Malankovich cycles are the triggers that start and end the Ice Ages, they are the first event to set in motion a number of postive-reinforcement loops.

[bluetwinky]

In setting efficiency standards the government has in fact done something usefull to all of us at very low cost. An example of this is the US governments Energy Star program. This involves mandated labels listing estimated costs for appliances. As well as allowing special labels for appliances that exceed good efficiency standards. I can see why that would cause you a great deal of pain.

Clearly you prefer to buy inefficient products. And want to do all you can to see to it that I do to.

[bluetwinky]

Did I touch a nerve?

To answer your question, no I do not work for your government. Although in to make a full disclosure, many people in my family have worked for the government. My sister is a school teacher. My father is a retired officer of the US Air Force, and also worked for a public University as a professor. Several of my cousins have served with the army, one them served in Iraq. One of my aunts is a mathematics instructer at a public (government) school.

A dangerous cabal.

[Tylonous]

OK. So we release CO2 that causes warming that releases more CO2 that causes more warming. That's what I've always heard.

[Claybird121]

John Stossel; lord of corporate whores and douche bags

[bluetwinky]

Ok Tim,

Some final points.

I said that I suspected you would not change your mind, not that I knew. A larger point is that I don't know what would do that.

Living as I do in a country where the trend for the last 50 years is towards less control of individual behavior and morals (some examples: abortion, tatoos, decriminalizaton of homosexual sex acts)I am puzzled by your fears that AGW is part of an action to support oppression.

Best Wishes to you and your family.

[bluetwinky]

Pat Michaels said that Climate Changes with a scorn-full tone. Wow.

Well I guess I'll stop listening to the boys at NASA, NAS, American Institute of Physics, the Royal Society, NSF, the American Physical Society, because they're a bunch of drooling idiots.

John Stossel said so.

[timothyxmcveigh]

You are so ill informed it's disgusting. I hope you know that scientists lose government funding if they disagree with the consensus. And I hope you know that there are plenty of scientists just as qualified as the government paid ones who have spoken out against climate change. But what the hell? Al Gore said it, so it MUST be true! Sheep.

[bluetwinky]

Tim I am well aware of the existance of dissenting scientists but I do not find their arguements convincing. As to your funding arguement that is ludichrist. There is funding for dissenting scientists through the cato insititute and numerous other right wing think tanks. Moreover Richard Lindzen is a skeptic and a MIT proffesor and a very clever man. He is 69 years old and he still is listed on MIT's web page. Science welcomes dissent. The problem is the dissenting arguements are weak.

[bluetwinky]

When do you think your scam statrted? Was John Tyndale in on it. Tydale did the original lab work that defined the nature of a green house gas. He did this work during the ninteenth century.

Was Antoine-Laurent de Lavosier the father of chemistry in on your so called scam?

How about Savante Arrhenius?

Or Guy Callendar?

I am not a lamb. And if you want to have a prayer of changing anyones opinion you will need to bring something substantial to the discussion.

[timothyxmcveigh]

I spent years listening to and believing the whole carbon gases thing. But whether or not they affect global warming, there is just as much proof that they DONT cause it as there is that it DOES. The only difference is the U.S. government isn't funding and promoting the opinions of these scientists. And stop trying to make this a right wing left wing argument. I am a Market Anarchist, and John stossel is a libertarian. That's individualism, NOT conservatism. Life isn't that black and white.

[bluetwinky]

Tim

I am not certain how you gained the impression that there is as much evedence on the DOES NOT side. If you would like to cite advocats or scientists you find believable I'd be interested.

Mr. Lindzen is probably the most credible skeptic, and what he argues is not that there is no AGW but that the effect will be less pronounced than the IPCC claims.

Richard Muller one of Michael Mann's critics advocates action to halt the increase of atmosphere GHGs. Which I feel is to the point.

[bluetwinky]

Tim

One thing is absolutely black and white.

Either we will halt the increase of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) or we will NOT.

If we do not the consequences (which will be what nature of nature's god declares) will follow.

I am not willing to trust the skeptics claims that there will be no problem. There is very good reason to doubt the prominent skeptics motives, and the dissenting science is not solid. In fact there is nothing credible in that line.

Exactly how lucky are you feeling?

[bluetwinky]

Tim

On the question of what the scientists are saying Naomi Oreskes article "Beyond the Ivory Tower" is very much to the point. She look at 900 peer reviewed scientific articles and DID NOT find ONE that DISPUTED the notion of AGW with an alternate explanation. John Christy a notable contrarian does not presently dispute that temps are rising. He is not convinced by standard AGW theory, but has no alternate explanation. This is typical.

[bluetwinky]

Tim

In so far as you oppose government regulation as a matter of principle would you ever accept the need for government regulation? The Market Anarchist school of thought had its birth during the 18th and 19th centuries when germ theory and the notion of polution and indeed the very ability to produce polution were in their infancy.

I suspect that you will never change your mind on this issue regardless of any evidence you are presented with.

Which if true, is VERY BLACK AND WHITE.

[timothyxmcveigh]

This shit is flooding my mailbox. I can't keep reading 15 different responses. You tube won't send it all as one comment. But don't assume you know how I work. I am open minded and change my ideas constantly. I was a supporter of global warming until about a year ago. The one thing I will say is that NO I don't support government regulation. Its a pandora's box. Once you regulate things like this why not regulate what we put on our bodies or who we have sex with? Oh Wait..we already do.

[blackmetalqueer]

You need to check out greenman3610's channel, he destroys every single chestnut ever produced by the global warming deniers, the stuff you hear on Faux news is just bull shit.

[bluetwinky]

Tim, I am aware of dissenting scientific opinion. I don't know that scientists lose funding. I do know that numerous dissenting scientists receive money from organizations like the cato institute and the heritage foundation. And I do know that 69 year old Richard Lindzen a clever working scientist and a skeptic is still listed at MIT where he is a proffesor of meteorology. Science welcomes dissent.

The problem with Stossel is that his arguements are so very wrong.

[timothyxmcveigh]

I don't think it's some Illuminati style conspiracy. I believe that in the early 00's politicians began seeing that they could use the fearmongering tactic to control us even further. Now we're telling people what cars to drive, how many miles they have to get to the gallon, and how much a business can pollute. You think cap and trade will cut down on pollution? No! They'll just pollute all they want and pay the "fine" so to speak. The only thing it will do is make undeserving people richer.

[bluetwinky]

A cap and trade system was used to effectively (and more cheeply than predicted) control and reduce "acid rain" type pollution.

Tim, what is pollution? An engineer's answer is that pollution or more to the point INEFFICIENCY is waste. It is pissing money down the drain for no good benefit. Government can help by setting standards of efficiency which don't reduce benifits of technology but decrease costs, both at the point of payment and costs which accrue over time, one of which is AGW.

[timothyxmcveigh]

And by the way. Science may welcome dissent, but the government does not.

[timothyxmcveigh]

Global warming is a complete scam. I am not a liberal or a conservative. Like Stossel I fall in line with Libertarianism. The ones who push Global Climate Change are government paid scientists who lose their funding if they disagree. As Tim Conway Jr said "The sun takes up 99.9% of this solar systems mass...It's not us who are causing global warming...It's the sun!"

[Tylonous]

The sun is not the culprit in the current climate change that's been going on. greenman3610 says everything you need to know about why this is false in his video Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar. Watch it and you'll see why you are mistaken.

[timothyxmcveigh]

I was semi joking about the sun comment..I mean Tim Conway Jr said it hahaha But global warming is a scam. They keep trying to say that we're doing it, but it's not humans. The earth is known for climate change, years before we were here. Ever hear of the ice age? A one degree temperature change in a century is not anything to worry about. I am an enviromentalist. I believe in clean water and clean air. But I don't believe in the government using lame excuses to tell us what type of car to drive

[Tylonous]

Have you seen any of the evidence towards man caused global warming, or have you not seen anything that the actual scientists have been saying? I know some people exaggerate, like Al Gore, but there is some truth to this. I'm just curious. I've seen the evidence and it points towards man's involvement. I have not seen evidence to the contrary.

[timothyxmcveigh]

I believed the Global climate change crap for a long time. I thought it was great we were finally being enviromentally responsible. But not for the right reasons. I'm not going to say we have nothing to do with global warming. But what I will say is that there is no solid proof that it's us, and we are using it to control people. Its not the governments place to tell us to be responsible. Look at all the credible scientists who say there's no proof carbon gases are to blame.

[Tylonous]

Every credible scientist I've heard from that is in this field has said that carbon dioxide is directly related to temperature.

[timothyxmcveigh]

By credible you mean that they support this Government agenda? My points are that there is no direct evidence carbon gases cause climate change, it's only changed 1 degree in 100 years, we have record low temperatures (especially in the U.S.). It's ridiculous to try and prevent climate change? Do you think cavemen started using Green friendly cave paint to stop the ice age? :)

[Tylonous]

So you're saying NOAA, NASA, Michio Kaku, the US Geologocal survey, Carl Wunsch, Stephen Schneider, Andrew Pitman, etc. are all lying when these scientists/organizations say that there is man made global warming?

[bluetwinky]

That seems like a fair synopsis of the denialist point of view.

[timothyxmcveigh]

I will not be so arrogant to say that global climate change has NOTHING to do with humans. But I have seen the scientific evidence supporting it and I don't buy it. It has so many holes in it that I can't believe we're actually making legal changes to accomodate it. It's like something being "linked" to cancer instead of being a known carcinogen. You can't outlaw something based on a suspicion. Anyways. If you wanna finish this please go to my myspace or my email to send it. U have the info.

[Tylonous]

I don't think I have anything else to say that would convince you. I'm glad you admit you're not 100% correct. I also admit that I am not 100% sure that it's just man made global warming. I do believe we are a big part of it though. Either way I enjoyed our discussion.

[coolcreep]

they have a correlation, yes. But correlation does not equal causation.

[timothyxmcveigh]

Global warming is a complete scam. I am not a liberal or a conservative. Like Stossel I fall in line with Libertarianism. The ones who push Global Climate Change are government paid scientists who lose their funding if they disagree. As Tim Conway Jr said "The sun takes up 99.9% of this solar systems mass...It's not us who are causing global warming...It's the sun!"

[timothyxmcveigh]

...

[jhr459]

Where does this insane notion posited by so many conservative Americans that we(Americans) are due anything we want. We seem to think that we are entitled to have anything we want - the world over- and the world had better ''step to'. The English thought this in the 18th and 19th centuries and their empire is frought with all sorts of atrocities. England sings a very different tune these days - one we had maybe better learn the words to

[Mephmt]

So John Stossel denies actual science because of the way that one person said "climate changes" to him. If all it takes is talking to him like he's 5, then what's that say about Mr. Stossel's opinion? I, for one, have lost all respect for this man's journalistic integrity.

[FreeAgain2]

CO2 does not drive temps.

[jhr459]

I think it is important to look at the reasons that people deny climate change and of those that don't. It is by and large, conservatives that are fighting this climate change paradigm and the reason that they are so adamant is business. Big business doesn't want to acknowledge its part in this because they would have to change and that would be expensive.Those that support the theory are doing so in order to make changes before it is too late. Look at the motives and the truth will come out.

[wkwickham05]

ahhh - you missed the other side of your explaination - those who believe in man made GW are typically liberal

notice that the solution of "AGW" is carbon taxation and a UN taxation agenda designed to spread the "wealth" from the U.S. to just about any other country, supervised by the UN of course

you missed that little tidbit in your explaination didn't you?

[jhr459]

Another ridiculous conspiracy theory - I'm not sure what you mean by 'spread the wealth' and you aren't too clear in your post. If you mean the US is going to spnd some money to help with this situation, then yes it most likely is the case-but the US isn't going to lose its wealth by this program. MAny think that since we are 6% of the worlds population and use 25% of its resources that maybe we can give some back. It's a liberal conspiracy to be sure (prolly sanctioned by Christ even)

[WildlifeArtist64]

climate does not change in a century, climate takes many centuries to change. God he is an idiot, he can't even understand the simple basics how can he get the big picutre. He was right when he said he was stupid in the start.

[gmmay70]

Did you even watch the video? How ironic that you call him an idiot.

[codehead1]

>climate takes many centuries to change

OK, then how can alarmists claim the signs of "climate change" can be seen everywhere now?

Climate is the average of weather--my understanding (from meteorologists) is that climate is considered the 30-year average of weather. Indeed, if you check around (NOAA, Met Office, etc.), you'll find 30-year averages are used as the reference for "normal".

[packrat76]

Watch the full clip. watch?v=W9XyEjV-1cQ&feature=re­lated

It's quite good.

This is a poor attempt at smearing, by only playing the last 2 minutes.

[auamoti]

/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

[girzwald3]

Uhhh, how did he deny climate change? He just said "climate changes"

[audioX1]

a more appropriate title would be denying the theory that humans affect climate change.