So if some idiot says that global warming is a hoax because they had a cold winter... why is it not equally as stupid to offer a dry year with large fires as evidence for global warming?
@ihatealigators Climate change is not a simple upwards transposition of year round temperatures. Some weather patterns may become more changeable and erratic, others may be less pronounced. For example the instance of hurricanes may decrease but the ones that do come may be more intense. You are right that many forest fires alone are not evidence for global warming, but the links have been found and demonstrated, droughts are getting worse, rivers are running dry and fires are on the rise.
Bless your little heart TMBrd89. Maybe I are too stupid. But at least I don't listen to someone who tells me I'm stupid. I'll just bet you like Kathy Griffin too. Am I right?
"This is the fires here in southern California" This is the man with a BA degree in english from Cornell U. He tells us that Americans are stupid. Just another narcissistic hack!
you wanna pay carbon taxes to the world bank for ur so called carbon pollution, which btw is essential for life on earth, then be my guest. im not gonna fall for this bs ponzi scheme that is championed by al gore, who btw owns stock in one of these carbon credit selling companies. u do the research on that for ur evidence.
Scientists have come up with several kinds of alternative fuels but that would mean the big oil companies will start to decline, and don't think for a minute that they aren't going to have something to say about that and try their damndest to stop it happening so they can keep their record profits. There ARE ways to get off oil, but the oil companies OWN THE GOVERNMENT and therefore we will never be able to make the necessary changes to save the planet and future generations.
these guys are living in some kind of global warming doomsday fantasy. and the fact that they support Gore's bullshit takes away any credit they may have had.
One of the reasons temps have risen over the last 30 yrs is due to a substantial increase in urban development. Vast tracts of land around the globe that were once soil are now covered in concrete and asphalt. Concrete and asphalt radiate heat. Also these global warming supporters rely on inaccurate models rather than historical data. If we are the cause of this than why was earth even hotter in the past? Global warming is a LIE!!
@sammy2trees Really? What is your Phd? Where have you studied? I assume you are better educated than climate scientists and have access to the information about the impact of global warming!
australian carbon tax wont be there after next election the greens are like all you alarmist types totally impractical fucken arseholes who have no i dear how the world works oh all we need are solar panels and wind turbines that will fix everything just utter bullshit crap stupid mother fuckers
pols are melting were is the sea riseing there fires in los angles big deal just natural cycle the earth gets warmer then it cools down just cycles people nothing to worry about
@johnedwards1968 im not the one with the task to prove that there is any such thing as "man made" global warming. Lets see their evidence, and not cooked books evidence.
@kanakalono So, basically you're saying you'll accept any evidence that agrees with what you want to believe? Why bother discussing evidence at all, if you're just going to throw it away?
Don't forget that just a few years ago you were railing against ANY global warming.
How the hell could a person not know that the world is made up of continents?????? Didn't we learn that kind of sh&t like way back in the 5th grade? Come on now, you people can't possibly be this stupid!
@FantasticBob7000 smog is a local problem not a global problem? You cant possibly be that stupid. On every single continent in the world, except maybe antarctica, there is smog.
@FantasticBob7000 so are you saying they are lying about all the smog that is confused as clouds in California? Or All the animals world wide that have gone extinct? Or the amazon rain forests that have been destroyed from clear cutting, fires, etc. ? Or the big hole that's in the ozone layer that visible from space?
It's funny that Maher pokes so much fun at the Republicans for not believing in Global Warming and denies the qualifications of any scientist who questions Global Warming, but when given the opportunity to prove the science, he parades his own "knowledge" (he's not a scientist), a tennis player (not a scientist), a retired left-wing-general (not a scientist) and a journalist (not a scientist). Newsflash Bill, a meteorologist with a PHD, knows a lot about climate. It's his/her job.
Oil shale mining would suck the west dry, report warns
.
A potentially significant new source of greenhouse gas pollution, oil shale development is more bad news for basin water users. If oil shale development moves forward, it will compete with farms and cities in the West for limited water supplies that will become scarcer because of climate change.
@Nightversionn i'm from Northern Alberta the Oil Sands in Northern Alberta Canada and South North West Territories are a scourge on the environment if they build the Keystone XL pipeline to refineries from Fort MacMurray ,Alberta to the Texas Coast it will lead to much environmental destruction, the pipeline will leak and contaminate the watersheds in areas where a millions of people live
@robroy122 I'm from Ontario and the natural gas that heats our homes is being used to extract low grade, dirty oil. Between 1000 and 2000 cu ft. of gas for one barrel, so that fat-assed Americans can drive their supersized SUV's to Micky D's.
People can talk about the environmental, social and economic disaster of "Fueling Fortress America" but when someone actually tries to do something about it, they're labelled an eco-terrorist. I wonder if this is what it was like in 1940 Austria?
@Nightversionn still many people from my province buy fossil fuel guzzling trucks,SUV's, etc. , all terrain vehicles that destroy our earth, TRADESMEN IN ALBERTA ARE OVERPAID PAID ABOUT 2.5 TIMES WHAT A TRADESMAN IN CALIFORNIA,THE MID WEST OR EASTERN USA ARE PAID
@Nightversionn everything in the States is controlled by billionaires,multinational corporations and big Lobby groups, money means more to American politicians than doing the right thing
It is a problem when people always wait till the facts are overwhelming. It is like driving, if you hit your brakes when the facts suggest you will hit the car in front of you is overwhelming it is usually too late.
It is good enough to deserve our attention when the facts already proved it being a very very likely possibility.
People still doubt the evidence on climate change. Apparently people will never learn till it is way too late, and some failures allow no second chances.
@outofslumber well i'm not saying that corporations should not be taxed for their environmental effects because they definitely should. but we need to realize that our living habits and our consumer patterns also contribute to the problem.
FFS its not whether warming is happening Maher. Stop framing the debate for your political leanings. Its teh causes. You know, that little nugget called cause and effect. Ive seen this shill do this so many times and the zombie audience squeals with delight. Pollution should be countered. Theres no need to frame it in a carbon dioxide agenda. Its disingenuous. And he claims all scientists believe the carbon dioxide theory. Wrong. Patently wrong. The ones who do, are elevated by powers that be.
idk why they try to convince all these people. Why dont they just get scientists look at it, and say, okay, boom, this is what we gotta do, any questions?
Global warming in not democratic, you cant vote on it, the earth is changing, and not for the best. Science and nature does't care, the world population will be alot less one day.
There was a letter from 255 climate expert members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences that classified AGW in the same "fact" category as the earth being 4.5Bn years old, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution.
Unfortunately, GW deniers don't believe in those three scientific conclusions either. After all, the bible says God created the earth and universe 6,000 yrs ago and man came from Adam and Eve.
Google: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science May 7 2010 Science
I've always loved how a conservative argument against environmentalism is that China and India are major polluters too. Which makes sense, God forbid the US be seen as global leaders of any kind....
@Solareffects what a shame with the tax money... tax cuts for the rich... sigh. I truly admire some of the European efforts in installing renewable energy. Especially Denmark, congrats to them.
The only problem is those programs don't work, ignoramus; the simple fact of the matter is government-installed "green programs" are a crock of special interest bullshit that only force citizens to pay a lot of money for some very INefficient "renewable energy". This is currently being tried in the U.S. -- which you would know if you had any goddamn clue about what you're talking about -- and has failed miserably as well, e.g. ethanol fuel, which is far more toxic than fossil fuel.
@kommisar I sell power back to the grid. My government subsidised me approximately 30% of the cost of having my roof fitted out with solar panels. I now produce more power than I use. I sell the excess back to the grid. Not only have my panels paid for themeselves, they are now making me money.
Ethanol fuel is a bad idea, but you can't lump all green programs into one basket. Some of them are extremely effective.
Great, so my tax dollars went to your solar panels so YOU could make money off it? Oh, so happy for you. So much for not allowing greed to determine global climate change strategy, right,,,?
Typical green hypocrite. ANY time the government subsidizes something you are playing exactly into the green propaganda. This was how ethanol fuel was created, and, yes, most of the green programs are a crock of shit.
@kommisar Actually, we are a single income family and live quite frugally. I drive an old car. I do donate a fair bit of my money and time into propagating trees for revegetation work in my area. I also spend a fair bit of time and money with the Spina bifida association trying to build wheelchairs for children whose families can't afford them. I don't think I'm a hypocrite at all. You see, the problem with people like you is your arguments are simplistic and fail to take in the big picture.
What the hell are you talking about? You just admitted your solar panels were subsidized, and now you're making money off them. You're clearly a hypocrite in the sense that you agreed that fixing the global warming problems should not involve "greed". That clearly is the case for you since you had the taxpayers help pay for your solar panels and in turn you now are turning a profit that benefits only yourself. It's hypocrisy and there's nothing simplistic about it.
@kommisar Disabled children in my counry rely on government subsidies to help them purchase wheelchairs. It's called the Medical Aids Subsidy Scheme. I use my money that I save from my solar panels along with a great deal of my regular money, purchasing wheelchairs so they don't rely on the governement scheme. In all, the money i save the government far outweighs the money they subsidised my solar panels. Its simple mathematics. I am not profiting. The taxpayers as a whole are. idiot.
Yup, more greentard raionlization: "I took money from the taxpayers, but I'm paying it back by giving to charity." The fact of the matter is you took money other people worked for to benefit yourself. It doesn't matter if you give more to charity than Bill Gates; you still used other people's money for your own personal gain, all without their permission. Your song and dance about buying kids wheelchairs is just a justification and an appeal to emotion.
"I am not profiting. The taxpayers as a whole are. idiot."
Fuckstick, you just said you SELL back the excess power your solar panels generate. How the fuck does that make you NOT profiting from it? Even more so, how the fuck did anyone but you profit from it? How did the taxpayers profit from it after helping you buy your solar panels? If it was such a noble investment, why didn't you just pay for it yourself? Your dishonesty is pitiful.
By the way, kids don't buy wheelchairs, you fool; their parents do. Furthermore, perhaps if you didn't live in such a socialist country, there wouldn't be the need for the government to get involved in helping people buy wheelchairs. Unfortunately, America is following the same route as your country. The point is you are obviously a social liberal who believes in getting the government heavily involved in the marketplace, and in making taxpayers pay for personal belongings.
"You see, the problem with people like you is your arguments are simplistic and fail to take in the big picture."
The problem with people like you is you feel global warming "solutions" should be FORCED onto the public, even when these so-called "solutions" only benefit a select few. In this case, you. The "big picture" you greentards fail to see is how the global warming scare is mostly a way to get the government to force people into supporting private interest groups.
@kommisar and to use language like 'greentards' suggests that perhaps we are somehow unintelligent. Yet you refer to AGW as a scare campaign in the face of the vast majority of the scientific community, all of whom are likely more intelligent than you. You are a 'google gallileo'. That means you are too stupid to know your intellectual limitations so you rely on propaganda to make your argument. It is sad and we are done.
"and to use language like 'greentards' suggests that perhaps we are somehow unintelligent."
Yes, you are as demonstrated by your argument you're not a hypocrite for taking tax dollars to help pay for something which you profit off.
Yes, AGW is a giant propaganda machine. I'm not arguing against the validity of global warming as much as I am against using it to make money, which is really what it boils down to -- not saving the planet. You're the perfect case in point for this, hypocrite.
@kommisar Totally on the ball with what's important, global warming may be valid, but the economical impact to me is what's important.
You're not a hypocrite - I won't say that. You've just got some embarassingly messed up priorities in the face of an incredibly important issue which transcends your priorities by a margin so great it is truly staggering, and your blindness to your importance in it is a significant failure in your critical thinking, and your comprehension of the natural world
Thanks for making a completely meaningless, vapid, insipid, pointless comment. You're a typical libtard: full of hot air and rhetoric. Go fuck yourself, blowhard.
The ONLY way to fix this energy crisis is to have the government COMPLETELY remove itself from "encouraging" anything "green" of any kind, and allow the market to take its natural course, since:
a. The private market is far better at creating superior products for lower costs.
b. There is a demand for renewable energy as can be seen here.
And, yes, tax cuts for the rich. God forbid they should be allowed to keep some of their money.... After all, they owe YOUR dumb ass their paychecks.
What I don't understand is GW deniers that say the data is not conclusive despite 98% of climatologists and NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences etc. saying it is.
What additional data is needed? We have tons of data and the earth has just experienced the hottest decade on record.
NASA etc. know how to adjust for natural factors with their supercomputer models, yet deniers often say NASA did not account for natural factors. Hint: NASA PhDs know more than deniers about these factors.
@TheSnoopy1750 Feb 4, 2011 ... Temperatures fell below 9 degrees Fahrenheit, the lowest recorded since 1951...CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico...... OYEA AND SNOW
You can hear a video of Steven Schneider, who was on Bill's show, say that they don't know everything about man-made climate changes, and that it's NOT 100% certain. He goes on to argue that the relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature change is so strong that it's extremely likely they are causative, and analogizes it to how we don't know how smoking causes cancer exactly.
@kommisar saying that they don't know everything about how the mechanism works is not the same as saying it isn't happening. We know smoking causes cancer and we know CO2 works as a forcing agent on temperature, but we are 99% sure of the actual mechanism. Science works with confidence limits when dealing with statistics and to get 100% understanding of something as complex as climate change will never happen.
However, the "records" they use in this scheme only goes back several hundred years when the earth is billions and billions of years old, which is one of the major problems I have with global warming insisters. What's more, global warming insisters are usually in favor of heavy government involvement and forced "green" programs, which do nothing but help special interest groups while actually doing very little for the environment. Cap and Trade is an excellent example of this bullshit.
@kommisar they are able to use proxies from ice cores, tree rings, corals and a raft of other things to reconstruct older temperatures. They have tested all of the proxies against the temperature record and found them to correlate well enough for them to be very confident in them.
I am a research scientist and I can tell you that all of my colleagues believe 100% in global warming but not one of them believes an ETS or cap and trade or carbon tax is the way to go.
@yexela First, sea ice is vital to the ecosystems of the arctic. More importantly, sea ice keeps the entire arctic region much cooler than it would otherwise be, including Greenland and the permafrost in Siberia and Canada. When the sea ice melts, the arctic absorbs more energy from the sun, and air and ocean temperatures rise, which increases melting on Greenland, causing sea level rise to accelerate. And the melting of permafrost releases enormous amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Who the fuck is this Andrew Sullivan? Some dumbshit nobody.
His bigoted crack against "liberals". Why doesn't he pick on the BIGGEST deniers of science: conservatives? They rant about non-existent issues, like the "harm" caused by teaching kids about masturbation instead of REAL harm like unwanted pregnancies. Conservatives support and advocate financial terrorism.
When will conservatives help blow up prisons in US to free prisoners who don't harm anybody? Never. Conservatives = cowards.
@deskset24 Sullivan isn't that type of conservative; he's a socially liberal gay man. I disagree with him on this particular issue, but he doesn't deserve your comments.
I hate Bill Maher's bullshit show and his craven disgusting plea to Ralph Nader not to run for President in 2004, but Maher is AWESOME for supporting PETA,
for bashing AGW-deniers, and for supporting atheism. Same goes for Max Keiser.
@hop208 Just because somebody tells you they're HIV-, doesn't mean it's true. You're taking a risk in fucking anybody, no matter what they say their HIV status is. The only way to fully avoid risk is to be celibate.
Just get a climate physicist on the show and explain the damn thing so everybody can understand how global warming really works??!!? I don't understand Bill's choice of guests. What does Navratilova know about global warming?
@julischwungi yeah that's a part of it. CO2, CH4, N20, CFC, HFC... they all have a similar warming effect in trapping infrared radiation. But... look how hard it is for people to grasp the simple CO2 part of it, can you imagine if we discussed CFCs and HFCs as much as CO2? I feel like all that's come from teaching people about CO2 is "we all exhale it, so no big deal" :(
Our govt can tax anything possible causing warm climates. The question is: Are they going to deal with anything about the suffering in various situations instead of relying on some macro economic religious, rituals and languages that can't completely depict reality?
A man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker.
lol I agree that the Global atmosphere is getting warmer, but it is not nearly as sever as people think... nobody can deny Global warming or some sort of Global fuck up because just living where I do the climate has changed dramatically in the past decade, winter is about 60% as long as it used to be, and summer has shifted a month ahead. Anyways I have no choice to face the facts where I live , other youtubers believe what you wish but I honestly have no prob with climate change.
what the fuck is the point of this if they all agree with each other. there's no dissenting opinion allowed on the show. it's not a fucking debate. completely pointless propaganda and advertising is all it is when only one point of view is offered.
@chefreforming the reason there's no dissenting opinion is because they're all smart people who don't go round trying to deny reality like yourself ..its only the retarded who argue
@tdavies456 really? so you're saying that here's a scientific argument and no one, NO ONE can dissent because we're right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot? all scientific theories have to be open for debate, otherwise it's not science, it's dogma. hell, even the nature and cause of Gravity is still debated and i think it's fair to say it has a much greater provenance that Global Warming.
@Hengest07 I'm all for debating things but these aren't just 'ideas' or 'theories', we're talking about facts, and you don't argue with facts. Forget global warming, we know we're damaging the environment with some potentially very nasty consequences for future generations, it just seems we've become such a greedy, ignorant, self-important species we've developed a complete disregard for the planet and the natural resources that sustain the way we live.
@tdavies456 Typical leftist crazy talk. It's like you hate the human species so much you almost wish for the GW apocalypse to kill us all if we don't repent.
@FantasticBob7000 It might sound a bit "leftist", but there's nothing crazy about being rational and objective. Nobody wants to believe human activity is having any kind of negative effect, but the evidence (and scientific consensus) suggests that it is.
Personally I find deniers are usually the ones spouting their own zealotry and ideological nonsense, much in the same way creationists do....go figure.
@tdavies456 Hey Genius, your "negative effect" is supposedly the end of human life on the planet. Because of a fraction of a degree of heating. The funny thing is you pretend science is on your side & all you have to point to is a curve with a ridiculously small y-scale.
Ha ha good luck convincing the world's population to accept Orwellian taxes on their heating bill to prevent another 2 centimeter sea level rise for the next century.
@FantasticBob7000 What makes you think the "ridiculously small y-scale" is all there is? There's mountains of stuff to support the science, if you bothered to search properly you'd know that.
This isn't just about nitpicking over temperatures going this way or that, what happens when the natural resources run out? When the world becomes overpopulated? Sticking your head up your arse and wallowing in your own ignorance isn't going to solve anything, but go ahead if it makes you feel better.
@tdavies456 This is awesome. It took you about a second to abandon the Global Warming science (now it's suddenly "nitpicking") and change the subject. I was told when I was a kid in the 70's that all the world's oil would be gone within 30 years & there was gonna be global drought & food shortages. For being a dying species we sure overpopulate the world with people & food & cars.
I'm afraid you've got the leftie crazy disease my silly friend.
@FantasticBob7000 Where did I say I was "abandoning the science"? The science behind man-made climate change is strong, all I'm saying is there's more to this issue than projected temperature data.
Are you seriously suggesting the oil will never run out? The global population has approximately doubled since the 70's (and growing fast), consumption isn't going to stay the same, we know resources we rely on are finite...even an idiot like you can see the potential problems here ..then again.
@tdavies456 You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? You didn't say you're abandoning the science, I pointed it out. I'm still looking for the undeniable science that proves human life is endangered by GW so try not to go on another tangent about resources running out. (Seems like that scenario would solve the GW problem anyway).
I gotta say, for a bunch of people who claim reason & logic on their side you don't impress much.
@FantasticBob7000 I said the science was strong, I didn't say the science "undeniably" proves anything, but it is overwhelmingly likely that it our actions now will have a negative impact at some point for future generations.
Listen to yourself man, do you have kids? grand kids? None of this stuff is good for them is it? I don't see the advantages of your position, you're only really concerned with what's going on in your own little world.
@tdavies456 I guarantee you today's kids won't notice a 0.2 deg increase in temperature when they grow up. I don't want today's kids living under a global government that has the power to tax them anywhere they live on the planet. I don't want them spending their childhood in fear of their future because of ridiculous claims supported by gullible leftists.
@FantasticBob7000 Again you're making assertions, the consensus of opinion says global temperatures will rise by several degrees over the next century. No one knows for certain, but why take such a 'high-risk, low-reward' gamble? There's no value in playing games with our kids futures in favour of justifying your own greed.
Are you calling the world's scientists 'gullible leftists'? ..and where's the evidence of an impending 'global government'?? That's what I'd call that a 'ridiculous claim'.
@tdavies456 Naw, I think Richard Lindzen & Harrison Schmitt & Garth Paltridge & Ian Clark & Sallie Baliunas aren't gullible leftists at all, they're responsible scientists slapping down the insanity. Oh and Chris de Freitas and William Gray & Petr Chylek & Lord Chrisopher Monckton & Tad Murty & Willie Soon & ..... well, you get the point.
As to how you expect enforcement of a global emissions tax without global political/economic organization, you tell me. I guess being insane helps.
@FantasticBob7000 You might wanna research who some of those people actually are. Did you really say 'Lord Christopher Monckton'? He's a scientist is he? This is the problem, you do no thorough investigation, you just look for fellow nutjobs who agree with you and then call them 'scientists'.
Even a loose grasp of politics should tell you a global government isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. The words 'insane' and 'crazy' could easily apply to a bonkers conspiracy theorist like yourself.
@tdavies456 I like how you pick out one guy out of eleven to make your point. Good call, Monckton isn't a scientists but the other ten sure are. So your deflecting the actual point is pretty typical of the GW crowd. They're a drop in the bucket of all the scientists calling GW crazy so go ahead & repeat the chant "all scientists agree."
As for world government check the history of wacko movements. Failing to create their world government doesn't stop them from ruining millions of lives.
@FantasticBob7000 Actually its the skeptical scientists that are 'drop in the bucket of all the scientists' who agree that man-made global warming is very real and something to be taken seriously...in fact 97% according to the National Academy of Sciences, don't know about you but I'd call that a consensus.
Do some research boy, instead of just evangelizing your own ignorant, ill-informed opinions.
@tdavies456 Another statistic you don't understand. NAS got their 97% from scientists actively publishing papers which pretty much limits them to the IPCC and orgs working for the IPCC. Signature lists include scientists who wanted their name taken off the list because they disagreed w the conclusions & weren't asked.
The 97% is quoted by idiots like Maher suggesting it's 97% of all the world's scientists. I just read off a few of the many dissenting scientists & it's cute how you ignore it.
@FantasticBob7000 Its well known in the scientific community that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is real and that action needs to be taken on it. You ignore the mountains of evidence, and obsess over a couple of grains of sand. Ultimately it doesn't matter what evidence is put in front of people like you, you're always going to be fanatical about what you'd rather believe. What you have is a faith-based ideology that, in your mind, cannot possibly be wrong.
@tdavies456 ha ha ha another broken record, you don't even know what you're talking about. They agree on.6 deg warming over the past 120 years & they want "something" done about it. When you can explain how much less carbon is required to start cooling the planet in how much time costing how much, then come back & talk to me. What? Scientists don't know? There's no plan except increasing taxes for no reason & with no effect on cooling?
So tell me again how the scientists agree & I'm fanatical.
@FantasticBob7000 You've got no understanding of what you're talking about, not that I'm surprised, its actually 0.75 degrees C over the past 100 years, with a possible further increase of between 2-7 degrees over the next 100 years, depending on how climate sensitivity amplifies the warming. That might not sound like much until you realize it is more than enough to damage important ecosystems, change rainfall patterns, and raise sea levels.
@FantasticBob7000 ...No one knows for certain what's going to happen, but personally I don't think its the kind of thing we want to fuck around with (esp. on top of things like resource depletion, overpopulation etc). You just want to block all action just in case it might affect you on a personal level, your comforts and luxuries are far too important to jeopardize for the sake of future generations.
@tdavies456 Wrong again genius it's 0.6-0.75 degrees over the past 120-150 years. No surprise you're clueless. The 2-7 degrees of heating over the next 100 years is based on models that you're also clueless about. As for my luxuries, tell that to the struggling families when they can't afford to hear their house in the winter FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.
Cute touch adding the part about caring about "kids" & "future generations" that you're trying to screw. U can shove your cap & trade up ur ass.
@FantasticBob7000 Quite a contrarian aren't you lol. You're turning the argument on its head, people raise issues like sustainability because they're thinking about how people are going to live in the near future. Your 'struggling families' will be a lot worse off then if we just carry on gobbling up resources as fast as we can, in fact even well-off families will struggle to cope with the rise in fuel bills because of the way we consume now....denial is simply a self-fulfilling argument.
@tdavies456 Hey it's Einstein again nice to know u care about kids & future generations so glad u realize millions will die globally due of rising food prices cause of your idiotic energy tax. Bio fuels effect times 1000. I bet a bleeding heart corp hating freak like you never thought you'd be on the side of Enron & Goldman Sachs. That's right that's your homework assignment before you spam my inbox again, look it up otherwise stfu & kill your carbon spewing self.
@FantasticBob7000 "Idiots"?? You might wanna read your own posts back before making comments like that. How old are you? You generate arguments like a child ...you don't seem to realise that the economy is dependent on the environment and the availability of resources. "millions will die globally due of rising food prices"...(lets forget about the remedial grammar for now) do yourself a favour and ask yourself WHY food prices will rise so sharply, I'll give you a clue...supply and demand.
@tdavies456 Hey nice job plagiarizing the old "supply & demand" line Albert now put down the Economics for Dummies & sit & learn. Food prices will go up because it takes energy to grow & transport & store it. Energy they're gonna tax by swindling super geniuses like yourself. Amazingly enough you're not just a scholar in the field of climatology you obviously have a Nobel prize in economics too.
Now I'm getting tired of embarrassing you so why don't you & Gore go cure cancer & quit bothering me.
@FantasticBob7000 "quit bothering me"?? lol. You've got absolutely no grasp of how the global economy works, "Food prices will go up because it takes energy to grow & transport & store it"...where does this energy come from? it has to be produced at great expense so people like you can use it, and the world population's not going to start getting smaller anytime soon so expect prices to rise sharply...unfortunately in the real world problems exist, but don't worry your little head about that.
@kalijasin Why did you remove your comment? I didn't say they were lying about those things, they didn't mention most of them. People in 3rd world countries cutting down their forests have nothing to do with burning CO2 or global warming. California smog is a local problem not global. Species going extinct is a constant process that's been going on since life started.
I think we should care about our local environment but the crazy global scare mongering has to stop.
@kalijasin Smog is caused by local burning of fossil fuels. California smog is caused by pollution in California, Moscow smog is caused by pollution in Moscow. Just because Moscow and California both pollute doesn't mean pollution has global effects, it has local effects. If Moscow didn't pollute there would be no smog there coming from California.
@FantasticBob7000 What do you think the wind does, Numb Nuts? Duh! The wind blows the pollution to other regions around the world. Do you understand, or do I have to draw a picture for you?
@FantasticBob7000 biodiversity is an indicator of the health of the environment. So extinction is crucial to our understanding of the of the environment and its destruction. Apparently though you don't think having a healthy environment is important.
@tdavies456 you should see the size of fossil fuel guzzling vehicles people drive in Alberta,Canada, also Alberta Canada and North West Territories Canada will soon pass Arabia as the biggest oil source on earth
@robroy122 Wow, I can't believe they drive those gas guzzlers in Canada too! Where I live everyone drives those (I'm in the US). Canada is a lot like the U.S. in some not very productive ways, to say the least.
@robroy122 but Canada has them oil sands now. So the pollution from fossil fuels is going to continue to go up in Canada for the next 50 years NOT down.
@tdavies456 When anyone, esp Govts start saying "these are the fact, don't argue with us... oh, and by the way, we're going to tax you on that basis" i get very suspicious. i have no doubt global warming is happening in some fashion, but to simply close the discussion on it is appalling. if this were a discussion of race, religion, sex or anything like that and the state adopted this kind of dogmatic attitude, closing off recourse to debate, there'd be riots
@Hengest07 I think the problem here is that certain people like to be deniers because they don't like being told what to do. These kinds of people are not scientists or educated people, but they contradict what the experts say for their own personal ends and nothing else...would you overrule a medical professional because he/she was telling you something you didn't want to hear??
Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth.
When you are a skeptic, you agree to give up debunked sources and admit that your mistakes harm your case, that your credibility must be salvaged.
"Skeptics", however, still push constantly debunked nitwits like Watts (whose pictures of weather stations still can't change the fact that the data is not flawed), Monckton, Pielke, Lomborg or Delingpole, and still believe the CRU hack ever showed any foul play.
They argue in bad faith. It's not about informing society so it makes good choices.
What a wonderful general
Xwowplaya 3 weeks ago
So if some idiot says that global warming is a hoax because they had a cold winter... why is it not equally as stupid to offer a dry year with large fires as evidence for global warming?
ihatealigators 3 weeks ago 5
@ihatealigators Snow is not equal to fire. Snow is inconvenient, fire kills and displaces people.
Yakiller69 2 weeks ago
@ihatealigators because it agrees with the scientific evidence
MrIsaacE 2 weeks ago
@MrIsaacE can't tell if serious -_-
ihatealigators 2 weeks ago
@ihatealigators Climate change is not a simple upwards transposition of year round temperatures. Some weather patterns may become more changeable and erratic, others may be less pronounced. For example the instance of hurricanes may decrease but the ones that do come may be more intense. You are right that many forest fires alone are not evidence for global warming, but the links have been found and demonstrated, droughts are getting worse, rivers are running dry and fires are on the rise.
MrIsaacE 2 weeks ago
@ihatealigators You expect a cold winter. You don't expect an entire year to be dry with large fires.
AlexR4444 2 weeks ago
Bless your little heart TMBrd89. Maybe I are too stupid. But at least I don't listen to someone who tells me I'm stupid. I'll just bet you like Kathy Griffin too. Am I right?
desmythe 3 weeks ago
"This is the fires here in southern California" This is the man with a BA degree in english from Cornell U. He tells us that Americans are stupid. Just another narcissistic hack!
desmythe 1 month ago
@desmythe Please stop posting stupid comments on youtube. Okay? You're just proving his point.
TMBrd89 3 weeks ago
@desmythe Do you have a degree from an Ivy League university ?
CrazyItalianTC 2 weeks ago
you wanna pay carbon taxes to the world bank for ur so called carbon pollution, which btw is essential for life on earth, then be my guest. im not gonna fall for this bs ponzi scheme that is championed by al gore, who btw owns stock in one of these carbon credit selling companies. u do the research on that for ur evidence.
kanakalono 1 month ago
Stop subsidising (direct and indirect) carbon will be a good start.
sgpquek 1 month ago
Scientists have come up with several kinds of alternative fuels but that would mean the big oil companies will start to decline, and don't think for a minute that they aren't going to have something to say about that and try their damndest to stop it happening so they can keep their record profits. There ARE ways to get off oil, but the oil companies OWN THE GOVERNMENT and therefore we will never be able to make the necessary changes to save the planet and future generations.
shellyedson 1 month ago
Create Carbon tax. Cut income tax.
kellygiz 1 month ago
these guys are living in some kind of global warming doomsday fantasy. and the fact that they support Gore's bullshit takes away any credit they may have had.
490310001 1 month ago
@490310001 Are you on the pipe? wtf?!?
Kimmis1990 1 month ago
@490310001 Agreed!
One of the reasons temps have risen over the last 30 yrs is due to a substantial increase in urban development. Vast tracts of land around the globe that were once soil are now covered in concrete and asphalt. Concrete and asphalt radiate heat. Also these global warming supporters rely on inaccurate models rather than historical data. If we are the cause of this than why was earth even hotter in the past? Global warming is a LIE!!
sammy2trees 1 month ago
@sammy2trees Really? What is your Phd? Where have you studied? I assume you are better educated than climate scientists and have access to the information about the impact of global warming!
Yakiller69 2 weeks ago
@Yakiller69 My Phd??
I never asserted I hold a Phd, dummy!
I'm reiterating the claims of others who hold Phds. Just like everyone else that comments on these vids.
sammy2trees 2 weeks ago
@sammy2trees Oh i just assumed since you knew more about climate change and its causes than hundreds of scientists.
Yakiller69 2 weeks ago
CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEMATRIXoCOM STOP THE NEW TAXES
mrg00ddude 2 months ago
australian carbon tax wont be there after next election the greens are like all you alarmist types totally impractical fucken arseholes who have no i dear how the world works oh all we need are solar panels and wind turbines that will fix everything just utter bullshit crap stupid mother fuckers
vmgqie 2 months ago
Australia passes Carbon Tax/Emissions Trading Scheme thanks to the Australian Greens Party.
Australia 1
USA 0
He he! Cop that! Pretty good for a super power.
marsglorious 2 months ago
pols are melting were is the sea riseing there fires in los angles big deal just natural cycle the earth gets warmer then it cools down just cycles people nothing to worry about
vmgqie 2 months ago
the icebergs are returning, so what now?
kanakalono 3 months ago
@kanakalono I fear your amazingly wrong.
Orbi90 2 months ago
@kanakalono - it's winter genius!
uChakide 2 months ago
@uChakide my point exactly Einstien!
kanakalono 2 months ago
@kanakalono - touché
uChakide 2 months ago
@kanakalono Evidence please?
johnedwards1968 1 month ago
@johnedwards1968 im not the one with the task to prove that there is any such thing as "man made" global warming. Lets see their evidence, and not cooked books evidence.
kanakalono 1 month ago
@kanakalono So, basically you're saying you'll accept any evidence that agrees with what you want to believe? Why bother discussing evidence at all, if you're just going to throw it away?
Don't forget that just a few years ago you were railing against ANY global warming.
johnedwards1968 1 month ago
damn, martina looks good.
saintben2008 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How the hell could a person not know that the world is made up of continents?????? Didn't we learn that kind of sh&t like way back in the 5th grade? Come on now, you people can't possibly be this stupid!
kalijasin 3 months ago
Comment removed
kalijasin 3 months ago
Comment removed
kalijasin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FantasticBob7000 smog is a local problem not a global problem? You cant possibly be that stupid. On every single continent in the world, except maybe antarctica, there is smog.
kalijasin 3 months ago
Comment removed
kalijasin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FantasticBob7000 so are you saying they are lying about all the smog that is confused as clouds in California? Or All the animals world wide that have gone extinct? Or the amazon rain forests that have been destroyed from clear cutting, fires, etc. ? Or the big hole that's in the ozone layer that visible from space?
kalijasin 3 months ago
If you are still disagreeing with over 90% of the climate scientists of the world, you are by definition, from Texas.
DarkGlitchX 4 months ago 15
@DarkGlitchX Agreed.
superduperjew 4 months ago
Aww fuck off you band of idiots. IPCC is bullshit, I'm still a skeptic because I don't fall for bullshit.
rxc128 4 months ago
HAIKU
I hatch! Crawl! And swim!
Oh how I love my sweet life,
But—why's the sea so WARM?
StephanieLisaTara 4 months ago in playlist bill maher
HAIKU
I hatch! Crawl! And swim!
Oh how I love my sweet life,
But—why's the sea so WARM?
StephanieLisaTara 4 months ago
AAAAAAAAAAA FUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKINNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TAX ? A TAX TAX TAX WHY A FUCKING TAX? HOLY FUCK FUCK OFF
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
It's funny that Maher pokes so much fun at the Republicans for not believing in Global Warming and denies the qualifications of any scientist who questions Global Warming, but when given the opportunity to prove the science, he parades his own "knowledge" (he's not a scientist), a tennis player (not a scientist), a retired left-wing-general (not a scientist) and a journalist (not a scientist). Newsflash Bill, a meteorologist with a PHD, knows a lot about climate. It's his/her job.
joer31 4 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Oil shale mining would suck the west dry, report warns
.
A potentially significant new source of greenhouse gas pollution, oil shale development is more bad news for basin water users. If oil shale development moves forward, it will compete with farms and cities in the West for limited water supplies that will become scarcer because of climate change.
.
New West, Montana
Opinion, 20 August 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
@Nightversionn i'm from Northern Alberta the Oil Sands in Northern Alberta Canada and South North West Territories are a scourge on the environment if they build the Keystone XL pipeline to refineries from Fort MacMurray ,Alberta to the Texas Coast it will lead to much environmental destruction, the pipeline will leak and contaminate the watersheds in areas where a millions of people live
robroy122 5 months ago
@robroy122 I'm from Ontario and the natural gas that heats our homes is being used to extract low grade, dirty oil. Between 1000 and 2000 cu ft. of gas for one barrel, so that fat-assed Americans can drive their supersized SUV's to Micky D's.
People can talk about the environmental, social and economic disaster of "Fueling Fortress America" but when someone actually tries to do something about it, they're labelled an eco-terrorist. I wonder if this is what it was like in 1940 Austria?
kokopelli314 5 months ago
@kokopelli314 too many people drive large vehicles that guzzle gas
robroy122 4 months ago
@robroy122 Yes, if we identify and eliminate all subsidies from oil production, SUV's will follow the dinosaurs.
kokopelli314 4 months ago
@Nightversionn still many people from my province buy fossil fuel guzzling trucks,SUV's, etc. , all terrain vehicles that destroy our earth, TRADESMEN IN ALBERTA ARE OVERPAID PAID ABOUT 2.5 TIMES WHAT A TRADESMAN IN CALIFORNIA,THE MID WEST OR EASTERN USA ARE PAID
robroy122 5 months ago
@Nightversionn everything in the States is controlled by billionaires,multinational corporations and big Lobby groups, money means more to American politicians than doing the right thing
robroy122 5 months ago
Wildfires, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornados, Flash Floods + Nuclear Waste = It's been a good run, humanity.
InKa4484 5 months ago
climate change can be tackled with solar power.DIY solar power manual.watch my video........
srisaiads 5 months ago
It is a problem when people always wait till the facts are overwhelming. It is like driving, if you hit your brakes when the facts suggest you will hit the car in front of you is overwhelming it is usually too late.
It is good enough to deserve our attention when the facts already proved it being a very very likely possibility.
People still doubt the evidence on climate change. Apparently people will never learn till it is way too late, and some failures allow no second chances.
Neosaigo 7 months ago
Ah there ya go. A few segments in and boom. THE TAX!!!!
I think not.
Corporate entities are responsible for the massive pollution, not humans breathing. Make them pay for it.
outofslumber 7 months ago
@outofslumber yes but it's also the humans that CONSUME the products of these corporate entities that contribute to climate change.
cadsiesk 7 months ago
@cadsiesk
Yes. But we dont profit from it!!!!!
Why be taxed for it!!!!
outofslumber 7 months ago
@outofslumber well i'm not saying that corporations should not be taxed for their environmental effects because they definitely should. but we need to realize that our living habits and our consumer patterns also contribute to the problem.
cadsiesk 7 months ago
FFS its not whether warming is happening Maher. Stop framing the debate for your political leanings. Its teh causes. You know, that little nugget called cause and effect. Ive seen this shill do this so many times and the zombie audience squeals with delight. Pollution should be countered. Theres no need to frame it in a carbon dioxide agenda. Its disingenuous. And he claims all scientists believe the carbon dioxide theory. Wrong. Patently wrong. The ones who do, are elevated by powers that be.
outofslumber 7 months ago
Republicans will believe in Global Warming when they get to hell.
onebaud 7 months ago
idk why they try to convince all these people. Why dont they just get scientists look at it, and say, okay, boom, this is what we gotta do, any questions?
MrMegaWolfeman 7 months ago
"if we're all dead, traffic's a breeze" LOL
tyu3456 8 months ago
Andrew Sullivan is such a schmuck
JMMG2010duke 9 months ago
Enjoy the next 2.5 decades of colder than normal temperatures Bill Maher.
rusty1491 9 months ago
@ru Where is it getting colder?????????
lordrazr 7 months ago
I'm gonna pillage this earth until there is nothing left because the bible says it was made for me!!
xxYetterxx 9 months ago
I never thought I would agree with an american general...
IanGeorgiadis 10 months ago
Global warming in not democratic, you cant vote on it, the earth is changing, and not for the best. Science and nature does't care, the world population will be alot less one day.
235RB 10 months ago
There was a letter from 255 climate expert members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences that classified AGW in the same "fact" category as the earth being 4.5Bn years old, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution.
Unfortunately, GW deniers don't believe in those three scientific conclusions either. After all, the bible says God created the earth and universe 6,000 yrs ago and man came from Adam and Eve.
Google: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science May 7 2010 Science
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
I've always loved how a conservative argument against environmentalism is that China and India are major polluters too. Which makes sense, God forbid the US be seen as global leaders of any kind....
Gunman610 11 months ago
@Solareffects what a shame with the tax money... tax cuts for the rich... sigh. I truly admire some of the European efforts in installing renewable energy. Especially Denmark, congrats to them.
jakeawaythe16th 11 months ago
The only problem is those programs don't work, ignoramus; the simple fact of the matter is government-installed "green programs" are a crock of special interest bullshit that only force citizens to pay a lot of money for some very INefficient "renewable energy". This is currently being tried in the U.S. -- which you would know if you had any goddamn clue about what you're talking about -- and has failed miserably as well, e.g. ethanol fuel, which is far more toxic than fossil fuel.
kommisar 11 months ago
@kommisar I sell power back to the grid. My government subsidised me approximately 30% of the cost of having my roof fitted out with solar panels. I now produce more power than I use. I sell the excess back to the grid. Not only have my panels paid for themeselves, they are now making me money.
Ethanol fuel is a bad idea, but you can't lump all green programs into one basket. Some of them are extremely effective.
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
Great, so my tax dollars went to your solar panels so YOU could make money off it? Oh, so happy for you. So much for not allowing greed to determine global climate change strategy, right,,,?
Typical green hypocrite. ANY time the government subsidizes something you are playing exactly into the green propaganda. This was how ethanol fuel was created, and, yes, most of the green programs are a crock of shit.
kommisar 10 months ago
@kommisar Actually, we are a single income family and live quite frugally. I drive an old car. I do donate a fair bit of my money and time into propagating trees for revegetation work in my area. I also spend a fair bit of time and money with the Spina bifida association trying to build wheelchairs for children whose families can't afford them. I don't think I'm a hypocrite at all. You see, the problem with people like you is your arguments are simplistic and fail to take in the big picture.
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
What the hell are you talking about? You just admitted your solar panels were subsidized, and now you're making money off them. You're clearly a hypocrite in the sense that you agreed that fixing the global warming problems should not involve "greed". That clearly is the case for you since you had the taxpayers help pay for your solar panels and in turn you now are turning a profit that benefits only yourself. It's hypocrisy and there's nothing simplistic about it.
kommisar 10 months ago
@kommisar Disabled children in my counry rely on government subsidies to help them purchase wheelchairs. It's called the Medical Aids Subsidy Scheme. I use my money that I save from my solar panels along with a great deal of my regular money, purchasing wheelchairs so they don't rely on the governement scheme. In all, the money i save the government far outweighs the money they subsidised my solar panels. Its simple mathematics. I am not profiting. The taxpayers as a whole are. idiot.
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
Yup, more greentard raionlization: "I took money from the taxpayers, but I'm paying it back by giving to charity." The fact of the matter is you took money other people worked for to benefit yourself. It doesn't matter if you give more to charity than Bill Gates; you still used other people's money for your own personal gain, all without their permission. Your song and dance about buying kids wheelchairs is just a justification and an appeal to emotion.
kommisar 10 months ago
"I am not profiting. The taxpayers as a whole are. idiot."
Fuckstick, you just said you SELL back the excess power your solar panels generate. How the fuck does that make you NOT profiting from it? Even more so, how the fuck did anyone but you profit from it? How did the taxpayers profit from it after helping you buy your solar panels? If it was such a noble investment, why didn't you just pay for it yourself? Your dishonesty is pitiful.
kommisar 10 months ago
By the way, kids don't buy wheelchairs, you fool; their parents do. Furthermore, perhaps if you didn't live in such a socialist country, there wouldn't be the need for the government to get involved in helping people buy wheelchairs. Unfortunately, America is following the same route as your country. The point is you are obviously a social liberal who believes in getting the government heavily involved in the marketplace, and in making taxpayers pay for personal belongings.
kommisar 10 months ago
@kommisar compassionate conservatism, with add a side of smug rhetoric, here at 11.
Coming up at 12, the adults will talk and actually attempt to be constructive.
GraeHall 9 months ago
"You see, the problem with people like you is your arguments are simplistic and fail to take in the big picture."
The problem with people like you is you feel global warming "solutions" should be FORCED onto the public, even when these so-called "solutions" only benefit a select few. In this case, you. The "big picture" you greentards fail to see is how the global warming scare is mostly a way to get the government to force people into supporting private interest groups.
kommisar 10 months ago
@kommisar and to use language like 'greentards' suggests that perhaps we are somehow unintelligent. Yet you refer to AGW as a scare campaign in the face of the vast majority of the scientific community, all of whom are likely more intelligent than you. You are a 'google gallileo'. That means you are too stupid to know your intellectual limitations so you rely on propaganda to make your argument. It is sad and we are done.
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
"and to use language like 'greentards' suggests that perhaps we are somehow unintelligent."
Yes, you are as demonstrated by your argument you're not a hypocrite for taking tax dollars to help pay for something which you profit off.
Yes, AGW is a giant propaganda machine. I'm not arguing against the validity of global warming as much as I am against using it to make money, which is really what it boils down to -- not saving the planet. You're the perfect case in point for this, hypocrite.
kommisar 10 months ago
@kommisar Totally on the ball with what's important, global warming may be valid, but the economical impact to me is what's important.
You're not a hypocrite - I won't say that. You've just got some embarassingly messed up priorities in the face of an incredibly important issue which transcends your priorities by a margin so great it is truly staggering, and your blindness to your importance in it is a significant failure in your critical thinking, and your comprehension of the natural world
GraeHall 9 months ago
Thanks for making a completely meaningless, vapid, insipid, pointless comment. You're a typical libtard: full of hot air and rhetoric. Go fuck yourself, blowhard.
kommisar 9 months ago
The ONLY way to fix this energy crisis is to have the government COMPLETELY remove itself from "encouraging" anything "green" of any kind, and allow the market to take its natural course, since:
a. The private market is far better at creating superior products for lower costs.
b. There is a demand for renewable energy as can be seen here.
And, yes, tax cuts for the rich. God forbid they should be allowed to keep some of their money.... After all, they owe YOUR dumb ass their paychecks.
kommisar 11 months ago
@kommisar and allow greed to determine global climate strategy? Its been greed (oil and coal) thats put us where we are.
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
What I don't understand is GW deniers that say the data is not conclusive despite 98% of climatologists and NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences etc. saying it is.
What additional data is needed? We have tons of data and the earth has just experienced the hottest decade on record.
NASA etc. know how to adjust for natural factors with their supercomputer models, yet deniers often say NASA did not account for natural factors. Hint: NASA PhDs know more than deniers about these factors.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Don't forget the AAAS, one of the biggest scientific organizations in the world.
GoSiv1 1 year ago
@GoSiv1 Thanks.
AAAS - "The board's statement attributes Earth's recent warming to human activity"
Of course, GW deniers never listen to scientific organizations regarding scientific matters- lol.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSnoopy1750 Feb 4, 2011 ... Temperatures fell below 9 degrees Fahrenheit, the lowest recorded since 1951...CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico...... OYEA AND SNOW
mike1111qq 44 seconds ago
mike1111qq 11 months ago
You can hear a video of Steven Schneider, who was on Bill's show, say that they don't know everything about man-made climate changes, and that it's NOT 100% certain. He goes on to argue that the relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature change is so strong that it's extremely likely they are causative, and analogizes it to how we don't know how smoking causes cancer exactly.
kommisar 11 months ago
@kommisar saying that they don't know everything about how the mechanism works is not the same as saying it isn't happening. We know smoking causes cancer and we know CO2 works as a forcing agent on temperature, but we are 99% sure of the actual mechanism. Science works with confidence limits when dealing with statistics and to get 100% understanding of something as complex as climate change will never happen.
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
However, the "records" they use in this scheme only goes back several hundred years when the earth is billions and billions of years old, which is one of the major problems I have with global warming insisters. What's more, global warming insisters are usually in favor of heavy government involvement and forced "green" programs, which do nothing but help special interest groups while actually doing very little for the environment. Cap and Trade is an excellent example of this bullshit.
kommisar 11 months ago
@kommisar they are able to use proxies from ice cores, tree rings, corals and a raft of other things to reconstruct older temperatures. They have tested all of the proxies against the temperature record and found them to correlate well enough for them to be very confident in them.
I am a research scientist and I can tell you that all of my colleagues believe 100% in global warming but not one of them believes an ETS or cap and trade or carbon tax is the way to go.
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
What's bad about less ice in arctic?
yexela 1 year ago
@yexela First, sea ice is vital to the ecosystems of the arctic. More importantly, sea ice keeps the entire arctic region much cooler than it would otherwise be, including Greenland and the permafrost in Siberia and Canada. When the sea ice melts, the arctic absorbs more energy from the sun, and air and ocean temperatures rise, which increases melting on Greenland, causing sea level rise to accelerate. And the melting of permafrost releases enormous amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
SiberianExpress2007 1 year ago
Who the fuck is this Andrew Sullivan? Some dumbshit nobody.
His bigoted crack against "liberals". Why doesn't he pick on the BIGGEST deniers of science: conservatives? They rant about non-existent issues, like the "harm" caused by teaching kids about masturbation instead of REAL harm like unwanted pregnancies. Conservatives support and advocate financial terrorism.
When will conservatives help blow up prisons in US to free prisoners who don't harm anybody? Never. Conservatives = cowards.
deskset24 1 year ago 2
@deskset24 Sullivan isn't that type of conservative; he's a socially liberal gay man. I disagree with him on this particular issue, but he doesn't deserve your comments.
Jonmad17 4 months ago
I hate Bill Maher's bullshit show and his craven disgusting plea to Ralph Nader not to run for President in 2004, but Maher is AWESOME for supporting PETA,
for bashing AGW-deniers, and for supporting atheism. Same goes for Max Keiser.
deskset24 1 year ago
Lol 2007. What a great year for warmists.
ecp73 1 year ago
@ecp73 Warmists? Are you serious?
Annulable 1 year ago
Bill Maher is awesome!!
ILLA1G 1 year ago 3
The reason the fires are bigger now is the buildup of metal oxides in our
forests from massive aerosol spraying in our skies. the lakes are full of
these metals as well. & the air We breath.
toxsickdog 1 year ago
There are three subjects where Bill Maher is bs. It is Israel, Socialism, Global Warming. These three themes are connected.
TheMehakarp 1 year ago
I want Andrews dick.
somethingdiesforever 1 year ago
@somethingdiesforever He's HIV positive.
hop208 1 year ago
@hop208 uh.....you do know that it's possible to fuck a HIV+ person and not contract HIV , don't you??
somethingdiesforever 1 year ago
@somethingdiesforever Hey if you want to take that chance go right ahead.
hop208 1 year ago
@hop208 Just because somebody tells you they're HIV-, doesn't mean it's true. You're taking a risk in fucking anybody, no matter what they say their HIV status is. The only way to fully avoid risk is to be celibate.
somethingdiesforever 1 year ago
Just get a climate physicist on the show and explain the damn thing so everybody can understand how global warming really works??!!? I don't understand Bill's choice of guests. What does Navratilova know about global warming?
ahmedeox 1 year ago
Global Warming is real, however I think alot of it is distorted.
bluesplayer92 1 year ago
what is missed here is that global warming is caused by the meat and diary industry.what a pitty..
julischwungi 1 year ago
@julischwungi yeah that's a part of it. CO2, CH4, N20, CFC, HFC... they all have a similar warming effect in trapping infrared radiation. But... look how hard it is for people to grasp the simple CO2 part of it, can you imagine if we discussed CFCs and HFCs as much as CO2? I feel like all that's come from teaching people about CO2 is "we all exhale it, so no big deal" :(
jakeawaythe16th 11 months ago
Wow. I'm amazed the right-wing GW skeptics haven't invaded this thread yet.
emantabrizi 1 year ago
Sunspot and /watch?v=1LM2uTm0I38
Our govt can tax anything possible causing warm climates. The question is: Are they going to deal with anything about the suffering in various situations instead of relying on some macro economic religious, rituals and languages that can't completely depict reality?
beancube2010 1 year ago
A man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
sue al gore for global scamming
pliskin619 1 year ago
lol I agree that the Global atmosphere is getting warmer, but it is not nearly as sever as people think... nobody can deny Global warming or some sort of Global fuck up because just living where I do the climate has changed dramatically in the past decade, winter is about 60% as long as it used to be, and summer has shifted a month ahead. Anyways I have no choice to face the facts where I live , other youtubers believe what you wish but I honestly have no prob with climate change.
EnchancedHuman 1 year ago
what the fuck is the point of this if they all agree with each other. there's no dissenting opinion allowed on the show. it's not a fucking debate. completely pointless propaganda and advertising is all it is when only one point of view is offered.
chefreforming 1 year ago
@chefreforming There is no debate on this subject, everyone with a brain agrees on this one
Chaplinsboy 1 year ago
@chefreforming the reason there's no dissenting opinion is because they're all smart people who don't go round trying to deny reality like yourself ..its only the retarded who argue
tdavies456 1 year ago
@tdavies456 really? so you're saying that here's a scientific argument and no one, NO ONE can dissent because we're right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot? all scientific theories have to be open for debate, otherwise it's not science, it's dogma. hell, even the nature and cause of Gravity is still debated and i think it's fair to say it has a much greater provenance that Global Warming.
Hengest07 1 year ago
@Hengest07 I'm all for debating things but these aren't just 'ideas' or 'theories', we're talking about facts, and you don't argue with facts. Forget global warming, we know we're damaging the environment with some potentially very nasty consequences for future generations, it just seems we've become such a greedy, ignorant, self-important species we've developed a complete disregard for the planet and the natural resources that sustain the way we live.
tdavies456 1 year ago 26
@tdavies456 We haven't "become", we have always been.
TheCrazyFinn 10 months ago
@tdavies456 Typical leftist crazy talk. It's like you hate the human species so much you almost wish for the GW apocalypse to kill us all if we don't repent.
Global Warming. The new Christianity.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 It might sound a bit "leftist", but there's nothing crazy about being rational and objective. Nobody wants to believe human activity is having any kind of negative effect, but the evidence (and scientific consensus) suggests that it is.
Personally I find deniers are usually the ones spouting their own zealotry and ideological nonsense, much in the same way creationists do....go figure.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 Hey Genius, your "negative effect" is supposedly the end of human life on the planet. Because of a fraction of a degree of heating. The funny thing is you pretend science is on your side & all you have to point to is a curve with a ridiculously small y-scale.
Ha ha good luck convincing the world's population to accept Orwellian taxes on their heating bill to prevent another 2 centimeter sea level rise for the next century.
Here, I bet this is you. watch?v=P8tfuBIutLI
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 What makes you think the "ridiculously small y-scale" is all there is? There's mountains of stuff to support the science, if you bothered to search properly you'd know that.
This isn't just about nitpicking over temperatures going this way or that, what happens when the natural resources run out? When the world becomes overpopulated? Sticking your head up your arse and wallowing in your own ignorance isn't going to solve anything, but go ahead if it makes you feel better.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 This is awesome. It took you about a second to abandon the Global Warming science (now it's suddenly "nitpicking") and change the subject. I was told when I was a kid in the 70's that all the world's oil would be gone within 30 years & there was gonna be global drought & food shortages. For being a dying species we sure overpopulate the world with people & food & cars.
I'm afraid you've got the leftie crazy disease my silly friend.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Where did I say I was "abandoning the science"? The science behind man-made climate change is strong, all I'm saying is there's more to this issue than projected temperature data.
Are you seriously suggesting the oil will never run out? The global population has approximately doubled since the 70's (and growing fast), consumption isn't going to stay the same, we know resources we rely on are finite...even an idiot like you can see the potential problems here ..then again.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? You didn't say you're abandoning the science, I pointed it out. I'm still looking for the undeniable science that proves human life is endangered by GW so try not to go on another tangent about resources running out. (Seems like that scenario would solve the GW problem anyway).
I gotta say, for a bunch of people who claim reason & logic on their side you don't impress much.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 I said the science was strong, I didn't say the science "undeniably" proves anything, but it is overwhelmingly likely that it our actions now will have a negative impact at some point for future generations.
Listen to yourself man, do you have kids? grand kids? None of this stuff is good for them is it? I don't see the advantages of your position, you're only really concerned with what's going on in your own little world.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 I guarantee you today's kids won't notice a 0.2 deg increase in temperature when they grow up. I don't want today's kids living under a global government that has the power to tax them anywhere they live on the planet. I don't want them spending their childhood in fear of their future because of ridiculous claims supported by gullible leftists.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Again you're making assertions, the consensus of opinion says global temperatures will rise by several degrees over the next century. No one knows for certain, but why take such a 'high-risk, low-reward' gamble? There's no value in playing games with our kids futures in favour of justifying your own greed.
Are you calling the world's scientists 'gullible leftists'? ..and where's the evidence of an impending 'global government'?? That's what I'd call that a 'ridiculous claim'.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 Naw, I think Richard Lindzen & Harrison Schmitt & Garth Paltridge & Ian Clark & Sallie Baliunas aren't gullible leftists at all, they're responsible scientists slapping down the insanity. Oh and Chris de Freitas and William Gray & Petr Chylek & Lord Chrisopher Monckton & Tad Murty & Willie Soon & ..... well, you get the point.
As to how you expect enforcement of a global emissions tax without global political/economic organization, you tell me. I guess being insane helps.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 You might wanna research who some of those people actually are. Did you really say 'Lord Christopher Monckton'? He's a scientist is he? This is the problem, you do no thorough investigation, you just look for fellow nutjobs who agree with you and then call them 'scientists'.
Even a loose grasp of politics should tell you a global government isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. The words 'insane' and 'crazy' could easily apply to a bonkers conspiracy theorist like yourself.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 I like how you pick out one guy out of eleven to make your point. Good call, Monckton isn't a scientists but the other ten sure are. So your deflecting the actual point is pretty typical of the GW crowd. They're a drop in the bucket of all the scientists calling GW crazy so go ahead & repeat the chant "all scientists agree."
As for world government check the history of wacko movements. Failing to create their world government doesn't stop them from ruining millions of lives.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Actually its the skeptical scientists that are 'drop in the bucket of all the scientists' who agree that man-made global warming is very real and something to be taken seriously...in fact 97% according to the National Academy of Sciences, don't know about you but I'd call that a consensus.
Do some research boy, instead of just evangelizing your own ignorant, ill-informed opinions.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 Another statistic you don't understand. NAS got their 97% from scientists actively publishing papers which pretty much limits them to the IPCC and orgs working for the IPCC. Signature lists include scientists who wanted their name taken off the list because they disagreed w the conclusions & weren't asked.
The 97% is quoted by idiots like Maher suggesting it's 97% of all the world's scientists. I just read off a few of the many dissenting scientists & it's cute how you ignore it.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Its well known in the scientific community that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is real and that action needs to be taken on it. You ignore the mountains of evidence, and obsess over a couple of grains of sand. Ultimately it doesn't matter what evidence is put in front of people like you, you're always going to be fanatical about what you'd rather believe. What you have is a faith-based ideology that, in your mind, cannot possibly be wrong.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 ha ha ha another broken record, you don't even know what you're talking about. They agree on.6 deg warming over the past 120 years & they want "something" done about it. When you can explain how much less carbon is required to start cooling the planet in how much time costing how much, then come back & talk to me. What? Scientists don't know? There's no plan except increasing taxes for no reason & with no effect on cooling?
So tell me again how the scientists agree & I'm fanatical.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 You've got no understanding of what you're talking about, not that I'm surprised, its actually 0.75 degrees C over the past 100 years, with a possible further increase of between 2-7 degrees over the next 100 years, depending on how climate sensitivity amplifies the warming. That might not sound like much until you realize it is more than enough to damage important ecosystems, change rainfall patterns, and raise sea levels.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 ...No one knows for certain what's going to happen, but personally I don't think its the kind of thing we want to fuck around with (esp. on top of things like resource depletion, overpopulation etc). You just want to block all action just in case it might affect you on a personal level, your comforts and luxuries are far too important to jeopardize for the sake of future generations.
tdavies456 5 months ago
@tdavies456 Wrong again genius it's 0.6-0.75 degrees over the past 120-150 years. No surprise you're clueless. The 2-7 degrees of heating over the next 100 years is based on models that you're also clueless about. As for my luxuries, tell that to the struggling families when they can't afford to hear their house in the winter FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.
Cute touch adding the part about caring about "kids" & "future generations" that you're trying to screw. U can shove your cap & trade up ur ass.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Quite a contrarian aren't you lol. You're turning the argument on its head, people raise issues like sustainability because they're thinking about how people are going to live in the near future. Your 'struggling families' will be a lot worse off then if we just carry on gobbling up resources as fast as we can, in fact even well-off families will struggle to cope with the rise in fuel bills because of the way we consume now....denial is simply a self-fulfilling argument.
tdavies456 4 months ago
@tdavies456 Hey it's Einstein again nice to know u care about kids & future generations so glad u realize millions will die globally due of rising food prices cause of your idiotic energy tax. Bio fuels effect times 1000. I bet a bleeding heart corp hating freak like you never thought you'd be on the side of Enron & Goldman Sachs. That's right that's your homework assignment before you spam my inbox again, look it up otherwise stfu & kill your carbon spewing self.
Who let the idiots out anyway?
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 "Idiots"?? You might wanna read your own posts back before making comments like that. How old are you? You generate arguments like a child ...you don't seem to realise that the economy is dependent on the environment and the availability of resources. "millions will die globally due of rising food prices"...(lets forget about the remedial grammar for now) do yourself a favour and ask yourself WHY food prices will rise so sharply, I'll give you a clue...supply and demand.
tdavies456 4 months ago
@tdavies456 Hey nice job plagiarizing the old "supply & demand" line Albert now put down the Economics for Dummies & sit & learn. Food prices will go up because it takes energy to grow & transport & store it. Energy they're gonna tax by swindling super geniuses like yourself. Amazingly enough you're not just a scholar in the field of climatology you obviously have a Nobel prize in economics too.
Now I'm getting tired of embarrassing you so why don't you & Gore go cure cancer & quit bothering me.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FantasticBob7000 "quit bothering me"?? lol. You've got absolutely no grasp of how the global economy works, "Food prices will go up because it takes energy to grow & transport & store it"...where does this energy come from? it has to be produced at great expense so people like you can use it, and the world population's not going to start getting smaller anytime soon so expect prices to rise sharply...unfortunately in the real world problems exist, but don't worry your little head about that.
tdavies456 3 months ago
Comment removed
kalijasin 3 months ago
@kalijasin Why did you remove your comment? I didn't say they were lying about those things, they didn't mention most of them. People in 3rd world countries cutting down their forests have nothing to do with burning CO2 or global warming. California smog is a local problem not global. Species going extinct is a constant process that's been going on since life started.
I think we should care about our local environment but the crazy global scare mongering has to stop.
FantasticBob7000 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Because it has mistakes, typos. Unlike you, I am self-correcting.
kalijasin 3 months ago
Comment removed
kalijasin 3 months ago
@kalijasin Smog is caused by local burning of fossil fuels. California smog is caused by pollution in California, Moscow smog is caused by pollution in Moscow. Just because Moscow and California both pollute doesn't mean pollution has global effects, it has local effects. If Moscow didn't pollute there would be no smog there coming from California.
I hope I don't have to clarify that more.
FantasticBob7000 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 When its on every continent that is the world. What the hell do you think the world is made up of????????
kalijasin 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 What do you think the wind does, Numb Nuts? Duh! The wind blows the pollution to other regions around the world. Do you understand, or do I have to draw a picture for you?
lougalou04 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 biodiversity is an indicator of the health of the environment. So extinction is crucial to our understanding of the of the environment and its destruction. Apparently though you don't think having a healthy environment is important.
kalijasin 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 You couldn't possibly think that having no ozone is a good thing. No one could possibly be that stupid.
kalijasin 3 months ago
@tdavies456 you should see the size of fossil fuel guzzling vehicles people drive in Alberta,Canada, also Alberta Canada and North West Territories Canada will soon pass Arabia as the biggest oil source on earth
robroy122 5 months ago
@robroy122 Wow, I can't believe they drive those gas guzzlers in Canada too! Where I live everyone drives those (I'm in the US). Canada is a lot like the U.S. in some not very productive ways, to say the least.
Nightversionn 5 months ago
@robroy122 but Canada has them oil sands now. So the pollution from fossil fuels is going to continue to go up in Canada for the next 50 years NOT down.
kalijasin 3 months ago
@tdavies456 When anyone, esp Govts start saying "these are the fact, don't argue with us... oh, and by the way, we're going to tax you on that basis" i get very suspicious. i have no doubt global warming is happening in some fashion, but to simply close the discussion on it is appalling. if this were a discussion of race, religion, sex or anything like that and the state adopted this kind of dogmatic attitude, closing off recourse to debate, there'd be riots
Hengest07 1 year ago
@Hengest07 I think the problem here is that certain people like to be deniers because they don't like being told what to do. These kinds of people are not scientists or educated people, but they contradict what the experts say for their own personal ends and nothing else...would you overrule a medical professional because he/she was telling you something you didn't want to hear??
tdavies456 1 year ago 2
Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth.
Oh Dear alarmists, better eat that humble pie...
MinDBlanK1 1 year ago
@MinDBlanK1 Who actually believes CO2 is the only cause for climate change and what scientist ever said it is the only cause?
HybridD91 1 year ago
When you are a skeptic, you agree to give up debunked sources and admit that your mistakes harm your case, that your credibility must be salvaged.
"Skeptics", however, still push constantly debunked nitwits like Watts (whose pictures of weather stations still can't change the fact that the data is not flawed), Monckton, Pielke, Lomborg or Delingpole, and still believe the CRU hack ever showed any foul play.
They argue in bad faith. It's not about informing society so it makes good choices.