Fox like always been bias about Global warming/// O'Reilly is an idiot!

Similar to how Bush et al denied how the invasion of Iraq didn't include the
blood for oil" element: of COURSE it did. Hell, I"d take it one step further, and tell the American public that oil fuels our economy, so anything that threatens our access to this limited resource is a THREAT to our American way of live.

Don't stand between a crack addict and their fix, or you might lose a finger....

Nice analogy.

EdJoy, it was foolish beyond reason of Nye to ask "in whose interest" it would be, and would the IPCC do this.

PLEASE. There are BILLIONS of dollars being redirected toward new industries such as wind farm technology and solar energy, and you may recognize the company named GE as being one of the companies that stands to earn BILLIONS off this. Then there are new derivatives markets being set up to buy and trade carbon offsets.

There are third world nations who stand to receive BILLIONS of dollars paid to them by western nations to "invest in their green economy", and how much of that do you think will go into the pockets of politicians?

Not to mention the countries who are trying to force us to PAY them for the unrealized damage that has been forcast to happen in 100 years! quite literally they have said "you have forecast that we will suffer horrible droughts due to your use of fossile fuels so I think you shoudl give us 100 billion dollars now for the damage you will cause 150 years from now."

There are scientists who win multi-million dollar grants that pay them excellent salaries if they will promote this agenda, and scientists who can't get a grant if they honestly say they believe a AGW theory is flawed and want to disprove it.

There is wealth, power, fame at stake here and of COURSE there are people scrambling for their share. Just look at all the errors in the Gore film and yet look at all the prestige Gore got, an Oscar, a Nobel Prize.

And you think there aren't people on the take in the UN as well?

I disagree about the question being "foolish beyond reason". No question is foolish. Attempts to answer even complicated questions should at least be made.

PLEASE. If there are billions of dollars being directed toward new industries in wind and solar technology then the money is going to either the grossly corrupt or grossly incompetent because those technologies exist already and have not been fully exploited due to, i dunno, corruption or incompetence. Take your pick. Why? Because we must stay addicted to oil. Which makes it a very valid question. Not everyone, especially in Bill O'Reilly's audience is educated or informed enough to see what is really going on.

Third world nations... well, you made my point. I agree 100 percent. Corruption is usually the biggest road block in any possible advancement of the human race. In fact everything on down from there I agree with. It is a matter of bad people in charge in almost all cases. I do not believe in arbitrary fees for implied damage that can not be properly measured. I believe in creating clean, cheap energy sources that all of humanity can benefit from without damaging our home. This planet is all we have and if there is something that we can do to keep from further destruction, then just do it without regard to which billionaire is loosing money. That is my perfect world scenario. I wish it did not merely exist in my head.

no, the reason those technologies are not being used is that they are still not competitive. it's still more expensive to generate electricity from wind farms and solar than from oil products -- UNLESS Big Brother steps in and taxes it to hell.

dirtman, this is an English site. out of respect for the others, we should post in English. I presume you speak english so I don't see the point for the post.

BTW, I speak spanish and understand what you wrote, but what was the point?

Volcanoes and solar activity would not explain why carbon emissions would not increase atmospheric temperatures. The effects of greenhouse gases have already been shown in the laboratory where the environment is controlled. The only questions pertain to what would happen in a complex system such as Earth's atmosphere. Under these conditions I believe the onus to prove that carbon dioxide is innocent should be placed on skeptics.

Already the damage can be seen and a cause is already known. That's like saying we have body and can still smell the smoking gun. Deniers want to argue that many things smell like gunpowder. That should be for them to prove.

oh man, that response didn't make much sense.

First, no one is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And no one is denying the Greenhouse Effect.

There ARE scientists who are saying that 1) the amount of CO2 released by humans is miniscule in comparison to the amount naturally occuring, 2) CO2 is NOT one of the most important Greenhouse gasses 3) the current CO2 levels are the lowest they have been in about 300 million years, and 4) the predictions based upon current data are feeble at best and possibly 100% inaccurate.

the reason this issue is so hotly debated now is that the proponents have tried to stifle the science that might continue to refute the theories. Politicians have gotten involved, and there is a lot of money and prestige involved now so it's no longer a clear case of pure science, it's become a lot more political and dubious in nature.

speaking of idiots..the idiots who is sold you guys "global warming" is now calling it "climate change"...shows you they dont know what the EFF they are talking about..

No, that would be you. Suffice it to say you are definitely one of the stupidest people I have encountered here.

I agree/// I guess I always want to show how ignorant they are/// but you are correct we are helping those idiots by talking about it.. but there is a group of people that still need to see articles that explain that what they said is bias and ignorant:D

Tomato tomatoes/// potato potatoes/// is the same thing/// I will love to see you few years from now when the shi$$$ comes down!!!!

wow, jan. first, you call all the people who are skeptical about it "boneheads". Then when GodsnLiberals responds that maybe the idiots are the ones who started the whole hysteria, you get personal and call HIM an idiot.

and that's the idea of how to "write about reality"?

By the way, Nye was a goofball and Bastardi cleaned his clock

The more you pay attention, the more amusement this moron attains.
Low IQ correlates to ease of amusement.

Nye is not a goofball, but I will admit that he does not present well on television in debate forums, especially when he is in the enemy camp.

let me give you a good example.

In response to whether or not Humans are causing global warming, Nye refered to two beakers of liquid: a clear one on the left, and one on the right that was slightly colored.

He said that the one on the left represents the "earth's atmosphere wtihout all the CO2 that has increased" (not exact words), and the one on the right "represents the amounts in parts per million that the CO2 has gone up".

Great. But what he did was 1) assume that ALL that CO2 was caused by humans and not by naturally occuring phenomena, and 2) assumes from teh start that an increase in CO2 is "bad".

But since we know that we are currently experiencing the lowest CO2 levels in 300 million years, and since we know those levels have fluctuated wildly long before humans existed, we can't just come to the conclusion "CO2 is BAD". It was much higher during the vast majority of our geological history when the earth's climate was extremely verdant.

who knows, but maybe the increased desertification across Africa is in part caused by low CO2 levels?

anyway, Nye was NOT persuasive with his bag of tricks gleaned from an elementary school science curriculum

I can understand. Learning a second language is an academic achievement. And its easy to talk to anyone speaking any language over the internet because of the great tools we have, like Google Translate.

El lenguaje no es una barrera. De verdad! Esta nacion es un gran pais.

Thanks:D Estoy de acuerdo//// I agree with you A great nation:D

no one has an issue with your voice, nor your language, but I think you're capable of spending a little more time on your posts and working on your reasoning skills. I don't hav as much of a problem with your grammar--I know what it's like to learn a second language--so it's making sure you take the time to explain your reasoning and not just slander some guy like O'Reilly.

By the way, think of this. If you struggle with your English, which apparently you do, then has it ever occured to you that maybe--just maybe--you don't understand O'Reilly?

dirtman, que guevada mas distinguida. como que el idioma 'no es una barrera'. que come mierda eres hoy.

claro que los idiomas se convierten en barreras. si uno no sabe hablar el idioma, como se expresa? y peor, si la chica apenitas habla el ingles, y escucha un programa en ingles, que derecho tiene de insultar al anfitrion del programa que habla un idioma que apenitas entiende? no manches. chico, te fumaste una lumpia.

You're arguing that the glass is half empty? It is silver to strive for perfection, but it is gold to recognize the differences we have already made by our efforts.

friend, i respectfully disagree. that only sounds nice, but no one has ever been given a great job for a resume without any successes but a lot of "I sure tried..." Gradute Highschol? No, but I sure tried. College degree? No, but I tried, No president is judged only on "how hard he tried", although I'm sure Obama and Carter wish that were true

No and I am soooo proud of been a Hispanic woman with a voice even if people like you are not happy with it//// can you understand? or you rather pick mistakes then be open minded:D//// Latina and when I speak I have an accent!!!! woooohooo I love the USA!!!!

sweetie, find a proof reader, sounding like an ignorant ass is nothing to be proud of.

hey, let's lay off her. English isn't her first language. I'll continue to criticize ideas I don't agree with, but let's not pick on her grammar. Instead, you can pick on mine. Fair?