HBO's Shill, Bill Maher, Turns Climate Change Debate Into Evolution Showdown

[Hoganply]

I'm sorry ... but, if rumors were flying around that a child's common cold remedy (cough syrup, for the sake of argument) had a 0.2% chance of being the cause of some other ills that were mere speculation and is statistically null, a mother doesn't think twice before changing the prescription or brand. This is how we should treat the one planet that gives us a home in which to live, for god sake - it's better to be overly cautious than fucking naive as shit about existential matters like this.

[TheRogueMod]

The funny thing is that Kim Campbell is the Canadian version of a Republican. Namely, a Conservative.

[ollywatkins]

maher is awesome

[vmgqie]

the weather pattern is el nina the girl child that means the ocean is in cooling mode its been like that for three years so much for hottest years

[dsgregg]

Kim Campbell is the voice of sanity in this clip and Jack Kingston shows what an idiot he is.

[huttet1]

@dsgregg I don't agree with that. Jack has a point. When one group of scientists say the earth is warming and another says it is cooling, both groups should put all their evidence on the table and let the the other group test that evidence. "Peer" reviewed studies are hokey (just look at the Climategate scandal) because that "peer" is never someone who has a dissenting opinion. Until that happens and there is a consensus from both sides, there will always be deniers.

[dsgregg]

@huttet1 What? Jack just plays politics with the issue and other issues in the discussion. Too bad Jack isn't a leader on the issue but rather just another politician pandering to his audience. Peer reviewed science is what got us what is right with science and I assume I don't have to list those things. There are no groups of scientists that say that the climate is cooling. Its warming. The only contention is the cause. And you're wrong about "peer reviews" not having dissenters.

[clydrobe]

bullshit.

microbes dont "Evolve" to resist antibiotics.

They "Adapt"

[darkwarriorkane]

@clydrobe the difference being?

[clydrobe]

@darkwarriorkane Im having a hard time discerning whether this is a real question or not.

I'll address it as if it is.

Adaptation is relatively short term, mutations that can be found to benefit survival in new or existing environments though not entering the organism into an new species class.

Huskies and bulldogs are adaptations of the canine species. They can mate to make Bullskies. Though they have common ancestry with feline, there can be no cat/dog through reproduction.

no more characters.

[natmanprime]

maher's drowning in assholes

fucking HELL

[Dangler21]

lol i love that the republic christian guy is talking about "oh your saying if i don't believe it then im crazy" yes you should be very well versed in that claim, its the same claim you make everyday when you speak to anyone you know for a fact doesn't belong to the same religion as you

science is science it has no political agenda, or single voice you can silence, the difference between what you believe and what i believe, is evidence and fact..yours has none..and hasnt for 2100 years

[emby85]

Shill: a person who helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization.

Idiot.

[monsterrain1000]

Shut your mouths and listen to the SCIENTISTS. When your car malfunctions you trust a mechanic, When your body fails, you trust a doctor, why are so many all of a sudden EXPERTS about issues scientists have studied and have proof that dates back 800,000 years in Antartica. SHUT YOUR MOUTHS< YOUR NOT A SCIENTIST.

[pawndominance1]

conservatives only believe what they want to--and nothing more. Umm wouldnt it be nice if global warming was just a hoax? :D If god was real and cared about me and watched over me to make sure nothing bad happened? :D Lets not tax the richest people on the planet because then that would hurt their ability to make jobs for the other people-so im actually doing the right thing and am a good person :D Im not greedy, im just a hard worker--i deserve this money and its all mine! :D

[SuperFifthwheel]

Scientist once said the earth was proven to be flat. Scientist once said the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. Science once said Jews should be experimented on like animals and then destroyed, and the scientist agreed. Science once said that the earth was going to be destroyed by global warming in 2001. Science isn't always right, even if a bunch of people agree that it is, it doesnt make it a reality. Just like the existence of god. It's a metaphysical arguement.

[dannyschan]

Why they keep saying believe ? There are no believe in science, it is what it is, look at the data and find a new theory and put it out there for the science community to judge

[penlovmov]

Are Republicans stupid on purpose? Look at his eyes, he's pandering to those religious nuts.

[upsilon054]

Kingston talks like an ass.

[kleptokiddo]

the antibody anecdote was very good

[jaxgal618]

Jack Kingston is a fucking asshat with an IQ that rivals that of only Sarah Palin.

[GMESTOPER23]

No nesaigo republicans are just white racist people who dont wanna be taxed and who don't wanna tax the rich

[freakyfatdog]

I cant believe people are still using the missing link argument. There is enough in the fossil record to create a chart of creatures from a single celled creature to man with few variations.

[Neosaigo]

Climate change isn't any less valid just because a politician choose to stand by it.

Science is science, politics is politics. You don't dismiss science findings just because a politician choose to do something about it.

Republicans are such fools and tools for the corporate interest these days.

[StonewallJackson26]

@Neosaigo You can't prove anything you said. You are an Obama shill

[gabrieleprotopapa]

That's just depressing…

[ExodusPessoa]

Why can't a conservative position be to conserve earth well put Bill.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Polynik2010 My main point being, I support the theory of evolution, but I would never say it is a fact, doing so wouldn't allow for change and means I know everything to is to know about it, ever. I would continue to use the evolution model until another model that works better takes its place if one ever comes. That is something I learned after devoting 5 years to studying science and preparing to spend another 2 more years doing it.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Polynik2010 But in reality we don't know. We have models to give explain things and progress us and but they aren't facts or truths. If we accept them as such without doubt then we stop progress. Image where we will be at if a guy like Aristotle didn't doubt the earth being flat. Or Bohr didn't doubt Thompson's plum pudding model for the atom. That is the thing about theories, they can be changed and disregarded as soon as they no longer work, but we continue to use them as long as the do work.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Polynik2010 To a biologist there are facts that is mostly because people who study biology don't know the limits or theories of science. Richard Feynman, a well respected theorist even stated that he can have possible beliefs and certain degrees of certainty, but he wasn't completely sure on anything, and there was many things he knew nothing about, but he didn't have a fear of not knowing. That is a problem, people want science or religion to be fact because if it wasn't they wouldn't know.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Polynik2010 There isn't such thing as facts or truth in science. There are evidences and theories. There are theories that have such strong evidence for them and there isn't any other theory to challenge it that us, in the science community, pretty much accept it as "fact" even though it isn't becuase like I said, for it to fact we would have to have done infinite amount of studies in the entire universe. So idealy it is fact, but in reality we can't say that.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Polynik2010 Evolution isn't fact, it isn't myth, it is theory. To say it is fact means us, as scientist, have done infinite amount of calculations all across the universe which we haven't. Evolution is a theory with evidence to support it and there isn't any other theory with enough evidence to over take it. So evoluiton is an model to give an explanation, not answers. The real problem is the complete ignorance people have about science. People like Maher for example.

[braddyboy82]

@whyamimrpink78

At least people who study evolution actually study it scientifically. If you exclude the Bible, what else is there to give credibility to creation??? The argument for evolution, which is based on science and logic and the scientific method and research, is immensely stronger than the argument "God made us because that's what the Bible says!!"...

[whyamimrpink78]

@braddyboy82 I agree, I am just saying that evolution isn't fact. There is no such thing in science as fact, proof, or truth, there is theories and evidence. Theories give a model and prediction and are used until a better model comes along. I support evoulution, I am just saying that it isn't truth or fact and there isn't any proof. Who to say that creation isn't correct? Both evolution and creation could be wrong. Theories we can doubt, change, and disregard allowing for progress.

[kleptokiddo]

@whyamimrpink78 nope. evolution is a fact. and if it's not then this other future concept is only a slight variation/improvement on the one darwin proposed. go read about it. then go read the bible and then youll find that the latter is just plain ridiculous

[whyamimrpink78]

@kleptokiddo Evolution isn't a fact, it is a theory. A theory is a model that gives predection of the natural world. As long as the theory has strong supporting evidence we will continue it. Evolution does have strong evidence but allowing it to remain a theory allows us to change it with future results. There are no facts in science, only theories. To have a fact we would have to have done infinite amount of measurements all across the universe which we never will.

[kleptokiddo]

@whyamimrpink78 so there are no facts? Im not sure that taking many measurements "across the universe" is necessary to be sure of anything. Thank Mother Nature that there are rules. Rules do not have to remain consistent "across the universe" but F = m*a and pi is the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a crop circle or a circle in the Andromeda galaxy. And what of the antibody example in the video? Is that not a clear representation of evolution? Human evolution just takes longer.

[Mick0722MX]

@whyamimrpink78 You obviously don't know ANYTHING about science......AT ALL

[whyamimrpink78]

@Mick0722MX Yep, I don't. I have only been studying it for the past five years of my life. I have only recieved two different science degrees. I have published articles in science magazines and I am just now working on my masters in physics. Yep, I say I don't know anything about science.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 sorry mate -along with AGW - evolution is a fact. Slam dunk. You accept the theory of General Relativity dont you?

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 Yes, I accept general relativity, but I also realize, like all things in science, it is a theory. If we jump to conclusion and claim something is fact in science then in a few hundred years a theory with stonger evidence takes its place it makes us looks foolish. Leaving ideas of theories allows for change. I strongly support evolution due to its strong evidence but to call it fact would be complete ignorance on our part. Evolution is theory, never fact.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 no - the evidence is compelling. The theory is true - just like GR is factual.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 The evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution which gives great predictions, and as long as the theory works in giving out "accurate" predictions then we use that theory until another theory that gives out more "accurate" predictions takes its place. What makes you think that in 1000 years when technology gets better that another theory could take evolution's place? Theories change all the time in science, keeping them theories allows for change and allows us to progress.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 like you said - we can use it o make predictions and test it. Is the theory true??

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 No, the theory is strongly supported and there is no other theory with strong enough evidence to take its place at this point in time. With that being known we then use that theory that is strongly supported and disregard the other. We don't say it is truth though, saying so would be that without a doubt that is the way it is. We leave it as theory to allow for change as techonogy advances and more research is done.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 co 2 is a greenhouse gas. true?

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 In theory CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But to stand up and to say that without a doubt, that we are 100% sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is something we can't do becuase there is always that possibility it isn't. So no, it is not true that co2 is a greenhouse gas but co2 is a greenhouse gas in theory with strong supporting evidence.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 here's another one for you. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? fact?

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 In theory CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just looking at Venus supports it along with other theoritical and experimental research. Now asking if it is contributing to man made climate change(if there is man made climate change to begin with, it could be all natural) on earth, there isn't strong enough evidence to support that theory which is why it isn't supported that much in the science community.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 you're jumping. Greenhouse gas. Yes?

[whyamimrpink78]

@kleptokiddo And just because stories in the bible seem rediculous doesn't mean they aren't true. I don't support the stories or say they are fact but I also don't disregard them because there is a possibility that there is some truth to it.

[kleptokiddo]

@whyamimrpink78 on this front, it's not that they seem ridiculous. Again, the evolution of the human mind and its capacity to discover and understand has brought about chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. The "eyewitness accounts" in the Bible are not to be taken seriously. Noah's ark? 2 of every creature? Man did not come from a lesser primate but women spawned from a man's rib? Perhaps there is some truth to the Bible but I am of the belief that it is entirely allegorical, not fact.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 oh yes it is. It has been proven.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 No, because there are no proofs in science, just evidence. Saying proof means without a doubt and there will always be doubt in science. Nothing in science has ever been proven, it has only been supported through experimental research which provides supporting evidence. Leaving doubt is what makes it science because when we allow the ability to change we allow for progress to be made or new discovery to happen.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 sure there is proof. i predict that that if I drop my pen it will fall to the floor. I can prove it by demonstrating the effects of gravity. It is thus - true.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 No, what you did is by using the theory of gravity you made a prediction and that prediction happen. You didn't prove anything, you just supported a theory. Gravity is a very strongly supported theory without any other to challenge it, but it still isn't fact. Years from now with better technology the gravity theory could be replaced with one that makes better prediction.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 sorry mate - you lose. If the theory of GR was not true we would have GPS. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, temp are increasing and there are our fingerprints to show that we are the cause.

Dont know what pathway to truth you use and how you determine reality.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 No, you lose. You are bringing up the limitation of science and the philosophical view of science. Using the GR theory we do have GPS. And CO2 is one theory(of many which has many challengers) to explain the rise in temperature but they aren't facts or truths. We don't completely 100% know that. We aren't completely sure on anything. There are always questions in science and limitations which is great. If you want truth then pick a religion, science brings up questions and change.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 sorry mate try again. If TGR was UNTRUE we would not have GPS. Gravity Probe-B (GP-B) has proven it. This seems to be a massive hurdle for you. CO2 has been proven to be a greenhouse gas - beyond doubt. No scientist claims otherwise.

You reference to religion is spurious. Faith based means no evidence.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 You see, you are really taking science for granted. There isn't truth in science, there are doubts. Feynman even admitted that. He said that you can have a certain degree of certainity but you can never be completely sure on anything. Sagan said that living in a universe where we don't know everything is great, it adds excitement and progress compare to one that we know everything. Ask scientist and most would take my side that everything is theory and not fact.....

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 either it is true or not true. In this natural world we call reality, scientific enquiry has helped shape this reality by revealing truths about the universe we live in. I put it to you again - name me a scientist who says co2 is not a greenhouse gas or TGR is false.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 Ok, I will ask the question what is reality? Is what you seeing really exist? There are questions that science just can't answer because science has its limits. I never once said co2 or TGR was false or claimed that any other scientist will say they are false, I said that they are not true or fact and that there is a possibility we could be wrong. If you just have a normal coversation with any scientist, including me, on the surface it may seem like that speak of those things as.....

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 you have not said how YOU determine reality.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 .....thruths. But if you will get into an indepth conversation with them they you will see they will speak that same way I do. Throughout history science has change, what we thought was truth changed. Aristotle felt that a rock fell to the earth because it was its natural resting place. Years later Newton developed gravity. As technology and research advances science changes, new theories are developed and old ones are replaced. With that in mind scientist don't develop truths.....

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 .....or facts or proof but theories and supporting evidence. And they don't say old theories are false, just more or less unecessary, or not strongly supported. There are no truths or false in science. No scientist will ever say with 100% honesty that a theory is true or false. There are questions that science can't answer scientist has theories to allow for change instead of saying something is either true or false. Look at something as simple as gravity. You drop a pen and see it ....

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 ....fall so you say it is gravity. I then ask what is gravity? What is that invisible force that attracts two spherical(in physics we say everything is a sphere) bodies of mass. An invisible force, that almost sounds like god. Then, studying quantum you start asking is mass really exist or is it just energy condense. I sometimes feel that way. During a nuclear reaction a heavy nucleus decays into two smaller nuclei. The rest mass of the two nuclei combine are less than the original....

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 .....nucleus. What happen to the other mass? It turned into energy. So if mass doesn't exist, or it isn't what we think it is then gravity as we know it isn't what we think it is. I am not saying that is truth, I am not saying that gravity is false, I am just saying as technology gets better we could find another theory to replace gravity there are reasons why. Scientist ask question like that. There are theories being studied right now that could do that.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 And never mind all that. Never mind that throughout history science has change, or that before 1900 we didn't know anything about quantum or TGR or what an electron was or an atom. At a philosophical level that are questions science can't answer. People try to seperate science, philosophy and religion but in all they are so closely related. The greatest physicist in the 1600s and before were philosophers. You say CO2 is a greenhouse gas then I can ask why....

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 .....you can then draw up the molecular structure of CO2 and the binding energies of the carbon and oxygen and I can ask why. In the end you can't answer why things in nature happen you just have to say it just does. And that is where science has its limits. We don't know a lot. We can't answer a lot. Why something happens, if there is free will or not, can we predict the future, is what we seeing actually exist or are we nothing but a computer simulation for a higher being....

[IllegalAmigo07]

@whyamimrpink78 You must not understand what science seeks to address. Your example of why two masses attract each other, why CO2 has its electronic properties, etc. You are missing the point of science. Every person familiar with Newtonian theory, as an example, knows that to ask "why" things move is to ask the wrong question. Neither science nor this skepticism theory you seem to be on can address this. The question of why things move is irrelevant. HOW things move is the only appropriate

[IllegalAmigo07]

@whyamimrpink78 question. It's nonsensical to ask "why" free radicals in the upper atmosphere lead to ozone depletion. It's nonsensical to ask "why" a wavelength of 500 nanometers in the electromagnetic spectrum exhibits a perceptible green color. It's nonsensical to ask "why" frogs are given the ability to jump so high. Only how. The question of "why" as it relates to your context and perspective is irrelevant.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 ....You jumping up and saying something in science is true is taking an incredible huge leap of faith on something. You may feel something is true, I do, or I am fairly certain it is, but you can never in science say something is 100% true or false because doing so sets you up to look foolish. Because of its changing history and because of the philosophical level of science there are no thruths or false or proofs in science, just theories and evidence.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 .....You are attacking me thinking that I am denying those theories, I am not, I highly support them. Or maybe you don't like the idea that you could be wrong. That is what everyone has to be ready for. In all, we could be wrong. As of right now we may feel that with the GR theory we have GPS and there is evidence to support that, but we are not completely sure so it isn't truth, it is theory. It could be something completely different for all we know.

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 I use my senses to help me determine what reality is. How do you do it??? I also observe, make conclusions and test these conclusion through experimentation to see if they are correct. Science doesnt proclaim to know everything. We leave that to the religous. But we can explain heaps of stuff and the more time evolves the more we discover, learn and understand. The fossil record and DNA data are the smoking guns for evolution. You just cant accept this reality.

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 Yes, science doesn't know everything and they don't claim to either. Also, science knows that throughout history things change. Fossil records and DNA are evidence for evolution, also, in the past rainfall was connected to worms reproducing, future evidence replaced that theory. That thing is is that I don't believe in anything but I have a certain degree of certainity on theories. With evolution I have a high degree of certainity on it meaning that I don't doubt it that much....

[radoa1]

@whyamimrpink78 the certainty with evolutiion is the same as for AGW

[whyamimrpink78]

@radoa1 .....and I use it all the time. I support it in many cases. With that said I will always have that slither of doubt knowing that I could be wrong. I have that doubt knowing that evolution couldn't be reality. I accept evolution and I support it strongly so much so that it is more or less the reality I live in but in all there will always be that doubt that it could be wrong or different. That what people need to realize, you may have your belief or ideas but you could be wrong.

[kmcl11]

Oh shit it is her...

[Otzmatron]

Who is this woman I really like her, she's like a hardcore intelligent Polish mother who would kick your butt if you didn't eat all your potatoes.

[kmcl11]

@Otzmatron lol In canada we had a kim campbell as our PM...lol I thought it was her.

[777danzig]

No one really doubts climate change, they doubt the source.

[JImmy4336]

the fundamental problem is that Kim Campbell is a conservative in Canada. Why is she a liberal in America? America needs to be more like Canada.

[leafs7869]

if you put all of the political parties from canada and the u.s. on the same political spectrum you would find that the conservatives in canada fall more to the centre than the democrats. canada is simply a more liberal nation. its a shame because canadians are equally ignorant and assume conservative politicians are like extreme right wing republicans when that couldnt be further from the truth.

[sixtiksix]

@JImmy4336 I didn't know there was any difference between them whatsoever....

[topologyrob]

What scary levels of ignorance in the Georgian pollie

[bluegreentom]

In Alaska, no-one denies that the region is warming: you can see it in the snowpack every year.

Why do we have cruise ships in Glacier Bay? Because the glaciers are melting, the ice-fields are rapidly collapsing, the rivers run faster.

Evolution is also well-established. The only reason they are linked here is that rational people can see these processes, while others get their knowledge from old documents and deny reality in order to hold onto their grandparents' ideas.

[bluegreentom]

Every peer-reviewed article since 1980 has shown climate change to be a reality. Any rational person who looks into the issue cannot deny it. Climate models since 1995 are spot-on.

Look at the tree-rings, the ice-cores, etc....

[T2theI2thedoubleMY]

This is stupid, yes it is hypocritical to say you don't believe in climate change for lack of scientific evidence but do believe in God. However, anyone who believes that the scientific evidence we have to support the theory of climate change makes climate change a fact is equally hypocritical. The truth is we don't have the necessary information to make a valid conclusion on climate change. Like the speaker said, this is a highly political issue.

[EliotRosewater1]

Why is belief in evolution seen as strictly renouncing the existence of God? Why can't this be the creator's process for perfecting life on the Earth? Couldn't the Big-Bang have been Gods way of creating the universe? Blind faith is one thing but willful ignorance is just sad. But, then again, these are the people who think the earth is 6,000 years old & the first humans rode dinosaurs just like Fred Flintstone. The writers of the Bible just forgot to mention these big creatures running around.

[jessica5666]

"Get science out of Washington DC"? What a retard!

How about we get stupidity and bible fairytales out of DC?

[777danzig]

@jessica5666 You know, there are a lot of scientist that feel that science should be left out of the government. The reason is is that money is spent on something that sounds "sexy" but may not be practical, and since government money is spent on it we have to find a use for it. The whole climate change issue is a huge example. We have results now we try to make use of these results since we spent federal funds on them, but we don't have enough evidence to make a strong conclusion.

[conan1174]

THANK YOU Bill! This notion that you evolved from a monkey directly, a LIVING species of primate is so IGNORANT, it's not worth discussing with you. Chimpanzees and gorillas split off of our evolutionary path 4-8 MYA. You understand that several species and sub species of homo evolved and are now extinct? It's not a DIRECT line, you morons

So that's illogical, but invisible space wizards and virgin births? Yeah, THAT makes a shit-ton of sense.

[blueboyblue]

Republicans underestimate what "Global Warming" means. They think it mean 80°F and next year it is 100°F next. But the average global temperature only needs to rise 3° to cause substantial problem. If it goes up an average of 6°F, it will be a disaster. They will be swimming on the ocean front beaches of Arkansas.

Everything that Global Warming demands that we do, is something we all need to do independent of Global Warming. Global warming doesn't matter, it is what we need to survive.

[numerrita]

Bill maher is a corporate shill premadona.

[drav1dan]

That there good ol' country bo from Jawjuh is raght. Us Chrischun Repubelickers knowed all along that dang Globell Warnin' was jus' a buncha hooey. Muh freezer is on this dang globe an' it ain't warming up or nothin'. It is still as cool as a buzzard's butt on a Monday mornin'.

[cthulhu11111111]

hmmm lets argue the science without any scientists present. seriously this is bad bad bad tv. there are a few good points made, but a lot of wrong statements declared as fact. crowd sounds like its at a sports game too.

[MaryJesusJoseph]

Hahaha! Bill's so right!

[neurel111]

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

[corexitisbbqsauce]

Bill maher is gay for Kid 'n Play, well at least Kid I dont know for sure about Play, but judging from the way he claps, probably both.

[BurnYourCash]

the show should be called Politically Correct

[fsx23]

lol I have these videos on my page

[MaryJesusJoseph]

Bill's so right. Of course it helps that Kingston's an idiot.

[jcuratolo420]

Climate Change is too real..If you live in the MID WEST look outside..It was "fake hot" 2 days ago and now there is snow on the ground and live in southern Illinois. Evolution- yeah i believe that we come from the earth, therefore we are part of the Earth, therefore we are at one with the Universe.

[BeveledSpilchOnion]

If the polar caps melt this would surely have a calming effect on the weather system since global temperature differentials would be reduced. There may be other devastating effects, but a more violent weather system wouldn't be one of them.

[wfmkk]

@BeveledSpilchOnion

You think that melting the polar ice caps would lead to less violent weather??

OMG ... LOL ... If you don't know squat about a subject, it's best to keep your ignorance to yourself.

The intensity of severe weather is directly proportional to the total energy in the atmosphere. If there is global WARMING (there's your clue), then there is more energy in the atmosphere.

tiny. cc/cah5w

[toverkleet]

@wfmkk And the problem is also that it changes the Gulf stream which is going to effect everything in world.

[DexxterMorgan]

Sometimes I wish I could be there, drop some facts yo. And D.L. aww, you almost has us. :[

[compadrelucas]

The world is getting warmer. I feel it here in Costa Rica. I've felt it over last two decades. I've seen decay all around me. Caused by choices of my grandfather and my father. I must face this reality and act accordingly.

[Hkhan23]

Zionist lover bill maher, couldn't even argue with the 9/11 truthers who raided his show. all he could do is insult them and kick them out...Mr. Bill I'm so funny and smart Maher...

[Boobalopbop]

@Hkhan23 What do you think he should have done? Invite them onto the panel for a discussion? You're not helping your cause by suggesting Maher is a "zionist lover" because he threw out people that were disrupting his show.

[Hkhan23]

@Boobalopbop My assertion of Maher being a zionist goes way deeper then throwing out some truthers on his show , the fact is that Maher is on the other side of the spectrum, the same side bush is on

[Boobalopbop]

@Hkhan23 You'll drive yourself crazy living with such paranoia

[Hkhan23]

@Boobalopbop I don't see it being paranoid i see it as acknowleding and being aware of what is going on in this world, and what's going on is that the zionist are controlling everybody through the U.S, they countrol the U.N, and are pretty much behind majority of the wars in this world.. you can sit there and think i'm paranoid or a anti-semite who just blames jews for everthing, but if you did your research as i have you would see that what i'm saying is true...

[Boobalopbop]

@Hkhan23 So what's the point of "knowing" all this if you can't do anything about it? If everything really is THAT screwed up and NOTHING is really what it seems an we're all living in the Matrix or somebody's dream, then just relax, and make the best of it. Have a laugh and a sundae or something.

[Hkhan23]

@Boobalopbop Wrong, if everybody wakes up and refuses to be controlled and refuses to fall into these media whores, then something can be done about it.. what if 200,000 Americans started protesting in the streets that they refused to be treated like retards. The world police state now called "Globalization" lies behind the facade of the "The Patriot Act" and "The War on Terror"..Scare the american people enough to justify Wars and comprimise their civil liberties...WAKE UP AMERICA!!

[quicksteps41]

how do the words 'believe' and 'evolution' even go together??? i thought the correct word for facts was 'knowing'. but then, english is only my third language and i was brought up in socialist northern europe

[sh00008]

People are so stupid nowadays. Hugly couldn't say he believes in evolution for the same reason the tea bagger couldn't say it. If its proven science, who cares what those two believe? But that is not the issue. The issue is why those 2 are so afraid of evolution? There is overwhelming proof for evolution, yet those 2 awkwardly deny it. The whole science of biology is useless without the fundamental concepts of evolution through natural selection. It's as if those 2 are afraid of the mob?