READ THE TRANSCRIPT

BILL MOYERS: The battle never ends. And the choices we make in democracy often pit religious or partisan beliefs against scientific evidence that contradicts them. And beliefs can be stubborn, hard to give up. They even determine which facts we choose to accept. Partisans, especially – and who among us is not sometimes a partisan – will twist the facts to fit their preconceived notions. So, when people do stupid things, journalists and politicians included, cherished beliefs are often driving them, sometimes right over the cliff. As people in recovery say, denial is not just the name of a river in Egypt. And that’s what makes it dangerous.

Right now, two powerful belief systems have converged to counter facts staring us right in the face. Just as the number of Americans who question the science of evolution has gone up, so too has the number who deny that global warming is happening, and that human activity is causing it. This, at a time when the global scientific community is more certain than ever that you and I, and everyone else, are helping to turn up the heat and seal our fate. And here’s the scary political reality: on both fronts, evolution and climate change, radical right Republicans have made denial a litmus test. You can see it embodied in this man, Paul Broun, Republican congressman from Georgia, and a physician with strong religious beliefs:

PAUL BROUN: I've come to understand that all that stuff I was taught about evolution, and embryology, and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see there are a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.

BILL MOYERS: And when he took on the science of global warming, his fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives enthusiastically applauded:

PAUL BROUN on CSPAN: Now we hear all the time about global warming. Well, actually we’ve had a flat line temperatures globally for the last eight years. Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax.

BILL MOYERS: Not true, simply not true. Up to a point, we might agree that Representative Broun’s personal beliefs are his own business, even when he is telling the extremist John Birch Society that this entire concept of man-made global warming is a conspiracy to, and I’m quoting, “destroy America.” But remember, this man is chairman of oversight and investigations for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of the United States House of Representatives, passing judgment on public policy and science. God help us.

Bill Moyers Essay: When Congressmen Deny Climate Change and Evolution

Bill Moyers takes on radical-right Republicans for denying the science behind evolution and climate change, showing a video clip of Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), chairman of oversight and investigations for the Science, Space and Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives, who says evolution is a lie “straight from the pit of hell” and climate change, a hoax.

This essay was originally broadcast with part three of Bill’s interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson on January 24, 2014.

  • submit to reddit
  • Brandon Daughtry Slocum

    Paul Brown does not say these things because he believes them. Most of the politicians spouting this nonsense don’t believe it. The corporate interests who are polluting our planet (and paying for these politicians’ campaigns) are exploiting the ignorance and blind faith of the religious right to deny climate change and avoid stiffer regulations that would cut into their profits. I would have more respect for honest ignorance based on religious beliefs than this obvious profiteering.

  • Anonymous

    1-30-14: First Amendment – Free Speech does not allow you or anyone to deny scientific evidence and defame the reputation of scientists that climate change is at the hands of man? This is the question being raised by scientists – because denial leads to inaction – and inaction leads to harm to the American people. . Ninety-seven percent of scientific studies that take a stance on climate change agree that human activity is causing climate change. In October,a study found that temperatures in the Canadian Arctic today are warmer than at any point in the last 44,000 years and possibly even as far back as 120,000 years. A judge for the D.C. Superior Court on Thursday refused to let libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and conservative news site National Review off the hook from a defamation lawsuit brought by climatologist Michael Mann, saying the sites’ musings about the accuracy of Mann’s research may not be protected by the First Amendment.

  • Anonymous

    If I didn’t know better, I would say you are an apologist for Paul Brown. Whether or not he believes what he states, he is a leader in a position of power whose constituents believe his outright falsehoods.

  • Brandon Daughtry Slocum

    I am most certainly not defending Paul Brown. I am saying that he is doing this for profit rather than from a deeply held religious belief.

  • Shawna Wilde

    Propaganda is destroying us. With nothing in place to ensure truth, the propaganda machine keeps churning. Whether lies come from our representatives in congress or from the Koch bothers — they are still lies.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, Paul Brown probably believes what he says. A high percentage of the U.S. population deny climate change and/or evolution

  • Brandon Daughtry Slocum

    I find it interesting that people are more comfortable believing this man is stupid than believing he is a profit-motivated corporate mouthpiece. I find the latter much more dangerous and troublesome than the former. I realize many people do not believe in evolution or climate change. I think the people selling them this misinformation (the Church and the Tea Party) are doing it out of greed rather than faith.

  • Anthony Endres

    Denial is the lucrative precious of mindlessly greedy rich ideologues and not a river in Egypt!.

    And such organized stupidity has also befallen some of the leaders of the USA.

  • Anonymous

    On what evidence are you saying this? There are puh-lenty of Republican politicians who believe as Paul Broun professes to. I think he DOES believe that evolution is not real, and that AGW is a hoax. Of course, he is as wrong as can be, but I think the burden of proof is on you to show that he is being deliberately deceptive rather than grossly obtuse. Where’s your evidence?

    I think that the fact that 1/3 of Americans do not believe in evolution is very troubling in itself. To whatever degree their 1/3 of elected representatives exercise power in the government, that’s pretty troubling, as Moyers avers. Venality isn’t really the problem here; purposeful ignorance is the problem that Moyers addresses.

  • Anonymous

    Where’s your evidence?

  • Maurice E. Gilbert Sr.

    If you folks wish to malign Mr. Broun, please at least spell his name correctly! Having said that, he’s a hypocrite or a very poor physician!

  • Candid Contrarian

    The Republican Party’s refusal to acknowledge the scientific consensus shows how corrupted that party has become. Only one other other mainstream conservative party on earth takes issue with the scientific consensus, and that’s in Australia. These two lone parties are the only ones craven enough to deny the scientific facts.

  • NotARedneck

    Don’t forget Canada’s own right wing criminal trash – Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. In some ways, this imbecile Harper is the worst.

  • NotARedneck

    “I think the people selling them this misinformation (the Church and the Tea Party) are doing it out of greed rather than faith.”

    The RepubliCON playbook for the past 50 years has been to gather together the racists, bigots, fundamentalist imbeciles, gun nuts, rural welfare queens and other similar types in a big tent. Then they use the power these voters give them to line their pockets and those of the corporations they own.

    Its called “voting against one’s interests” and it works very well with between 35% and 40% of American voters – the most poorly educated whites, by and large.

  • Brandon Daughtry Slocum

    “Then they use the power these voters give them to line their pockets and those of the corporations they own.” Well said.
    The “big tent” you speak of is, thankfully, not as large or populated as it once was. They are losing the culture war they started. If we can educate every child well, we can eradicate the ignorance that fuels their profits.

  • John Dunlap

    Faith vs. Reason: Similar arguments today – just like 500 years ago – except this time we will collectively burn on the pyres of ignorance, an entrenched status quo, and greed! Ironically: God help us!

  • Claudius Denk

    The reason climate scientists equate climate change to evolution is because evolution is base on real evidence.

  • Claudius Denk

    When the people calling the other side deniers and the people that refuse to debate are the same people there is something very, very wrong. Moyers has a church-lady like understanding of science.

  • lavida818

    By what means do you propose to ensure truth? That prospect sounds dubious to me.

  • lavida818

    Pardon me, but I believe your arrogance is showing. Interesting that you believe to know what is in my best interest.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not surprised that he’s bought into this “fraud,” he is a solid member of the establishment. A few hundred years ago he would have been cheering on the inquisition, “Anyone who thinks the Earth is revolving around the sun must be living in a cave. Personal observation shows clearly that the sun revolves around the Earth, we see it happen every day.”

  • Anonymous

    It’s the consensus that’s defaming scientists and ruining reputations. Like many progressives you’ve fallen into the trap of blaming others for the actions your side commits.

  • Anonymous

    Does free speech have limits? Calling fire in a crowed theater is a crime. Isn’t it time for limits on speech where it puts Americans in danger?

  • Anonymous

    Yea I know and recent – even though scientists have found Neanderthal DNA is in about 4% of the population.. They didn’t go extinct 40,000 years ago, they were loved to death. Even Jesus said 2,000 to love your neighbor. So be it.

  • Anonymous

    Still no evidence for “I am saying that he is doing this for profit rather than from a deeply held religious belief.”? Sad, and very unscientific, I might add. Your “argument” is exactly analogous to the denialist canard that AGW is a “hoax” perpetrated by greedy climate scientists to obtain grant money. And equally misinformed, I might add. Review the Moyers essasy – not a word about venality; it is an essay about a clash of belief systems. That clash is real, and the profit motive is not the chief rationale for the science deniers; religious belief is.

  • Anonymous

    I agree completely. We must limit the speech of the global warming fanatics that are putting the socioeconomic health of our society in danger, possibly the world’s socioeconomic health, all so some immoral leaders can get rich and governments can tax the middle class out of existence. Not to mention the potential of millions of lives lost to starvation, extreme cold, and an out-of-control society.

  • Anonymous

    And that is not playing well in Australia, where daily temps are running between 115 and 123 degrees F, and the country is literally burning to a crisp right now.

  • JonThomas

    There is now empirical data suggesting that: for the vast number of Americans, a lifetime of using eating utensils causes human teeth to rot.

    All this time it turns out that bleeding heart, ‘caring’ liberal groups have been teaching young people to use forks and spoons so that when these young people get older, they become dependent on dentists and orthodontists.

    At first it was also thought that knifes had also been implicated in this conspiracy. But it was later realized that knifes don’t cut steaks, only uneducated people who eat steaks, cut steaks.

    It was soon discovered that it was not the dentist and orthodontist consortium, but rather the cardiovascular cabal who is behind this unconscionable plot to indoctrinate children in the use of cutlery.

    Knifes don’t kill people, steaks kill people.

  • Anonymous

    Stop using computers and the internet. You’re burning carbon (do you know how electricity is made?) Climate is not the biggest issue. A mountain of debt is about to eat you alive. You will soon know how silly your man-made climate change concern is by comparison.

  • Anonymous

    Besides sending money to Washington and the United Nations, do any of you man-made climate change believers do anything to stop using fossil fuels? You’re all using electricity right now just to blab. Not really a necessary use of fossil fuels is it?

  • Dennis Sweitzer

    LOL….To paraphrase Galileo:

    “And yet CO2 traps heat…..”

  • Dennis Sweitzer

    ROTFL….
    To the feeling man, the world is a tragedy.
    To the thinking man, the world is a comedy.
    I bet bradflogger is a liberal plant to make conservatives look bad.

  • Jazzsamba

    There idiots and then there’s bigger idiots. You fit the latter scum bag.

  • http://www.lorettaparaguassu.blogspot.com/ Loretta Paraguassu

    Thank you, Bill Moyers. I have lived in Georgia for 24 years and still can’t understand how ignorance can prevail even among the educated.

  • Tim Taylor

    The ignorance of Republicans is not proof that humans are the source of climate change. That in itself is a false argument that can be proven through simple Boolean Logic. I appreciate Bill’s concern about our planet but the left vs right meme on climate is simply more of the false memes that exists between the two parties. Neither are generally ever right. It’s the Prisoner’s Dilemma that will guarantee the collapse of both parties because they are both built upon an ideology of deceit and lies.

  • Anonymous

    I guess the US Navy has been bamboozled by liberals too. Here is their climate change roadmap: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf

  • Anonymous

    And there really is a Santa Claus and tooth fairy. We’re in real trouble when a science-denier is chairman for the Science, Space and Technology Committee. Wonder if his doctor only uses bible prescriptions.

  • Mister Science

    Maniac’s logic error is that old fallacy, ad hominem tu quoque. “You are not pure enough to speak.”

  • Mister Science

    In the most adamant, climate science denial appears to be an ego defense of the type Chomsky described in “Necessary Illusions.” They’ve internalized an ideology with no mechanism for handling a problem that could destroy human civilization. If science is correct, the deniers are chumps, when the ideology told them they were the smartest guys around. The mind erects unconscious, automatic defenses against ego trauma. The threatening information can seem incomprehensible, or funny, or it can provoke rage so intense that no thought is possible. Read comments from science deniers with that syndrome in mind.

  • Anonymous

    What’s wrong with this picture? To become a teacher, a doctor, or even to drive a car one has to pass test(s) for competency. Yet to chair a Congressional committee such as Science, Space and Technology one only has to win a popularity contest in one’s home state enough times to achieve “seniority”?

  • Anonymous

    Very important statement and article. Really scary these people are voted in office. I kind of understand people not believing this is not man made. But why can’t they believe man(woman) can’t do something to reverse it so we can live here?

  • Anonymous

    Ridiculous post.

  • Anonymous

    Deniers may by correct in that humans did not create this mess. But to deny there is nothing we can do about it is asinine..

  • Anonymous

    If you have children move.

  • Mister Science

    Deniers may be correct and monkeys may fly out of my backside. We have about ten independent lines of evidence for AGW, and only one explanation that fits all the observations.

  • Mister Science

    Some are just dupes of the anti-science PR campaign. But the ones who deny unconsciously to protect their egos are NOT ABLE to consider solutions for the same reason they can’t comprehend information about the problem.

  • Medical Researcher64

    I come from a parallel scientific field and have been following aspects of climate change for some time.

    You seem to have a good handle on the field. I have had trouble locating published articles that report data from experiments that prove that high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause the increasing temperatures that have been observed.

    Those papers are really important. Without them, something is missing in the story. It’s pretty well-documented in the climate literature that there is a long term trend toward warmer temperatures. It’s pretty well-documented that man has loaded the atmosphere with greenhouse gases over the past generation or two. The two
    phenomenon are clearly associated in time.

    Scientists understand that temporal association is necessary, but not sufficient to establish a causal relationship. It seems to me that climate scientists must have done and
    published some original papers the describe experiments that establish that man and his greenhouse gas emissions have caused the increase in temperatures. Climate
    scientists wouldn’t back MMGW so strongly without such a series of experiments. Reviews and summaries like IPCC reports are not good enough, because they don’t disclose enough details of the experiments.

    Could you please post some links to original papers that describe experiments that prove
    that man, by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, has caused the
    increasing temperatures around the world? Thanks.

  • NotARedneck

    Right wing politicians are on the take and therefore will “believe” what they are told to believe.

  • NotARedneck

    As is climate research.

    RepubliCON beliefs are not based on anything more than the fact that cash was passed to their politicians to “believe” something that is profitable to the wealthy person giving them the bribe.

  • lavida818

    Michael, I’m all in for personal health and a clean environment. However, I shun those who would force upon me their political crusades in these matters. Former mayor Bloomberg is an example of this arrogant pomposity to which I refer. His decrees on what the citizens of New York City can eat or drink strikes at the very heart of individual liberty. Fortunately many of his preposterous declarations have been contested and overturned.
    By declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, the government is now unlimited in ways it can lord over every aspect of our lives. Those who administer the regulatory state in which we live now tell us what kind of light bulbs to buy, what kind of cars to drive, punish us for consuming the “wrong” type of energy, and so on.
    In the history of human civilization, governments that force people to behave in ways that are against their will, to prevent them from deciding what choices are in their own best interest, will always lead to tyranny. This is why the progressive utopianism of the left in America will never succeed in the long run, but serve only to destroy our country. It is for these reasons that I believe firmly in the limitations of power placed upon the government by our constitution.

  • Anonymous

    It’s all about the Money$!

  • Mister Science

    If Medical had actually followed and understood the science, he’d know his question is nonsense. If you want absolute proof, see a lawyer or a clergyman. The physical sciences deal in preponderance of evidence and probability distributions and degrees of confidence. It’s clever bait, though.

  • http://tiny.cc/ewcollins Eliot W. Collins

    I have even heard some conservatives say that denying that climate change has been caused by human activity is the same as denying that illegal immigration has negatively impacted the U.S. economy.

  • Anonymous

    I did not know he is a scientist I thought he interviewed all kinds of people including scientists.

  • Anonymous

    My post is deleted and I don’t recall what I wrote.

  • Anonymous

    Every publishing climate scientist in the world agrees that global warming is man-made, as does every scientific body in the world that deals with climate change. There has been no debate about global warming in the scientific world for years. And the solution, renewable energy, is just as clear.

  • Anonymous

    The republicons are either right our of the Dark Ages or they lie for their vested interest sponsor’s. Either way they need to go! We need our members of Congress to have a good grasp of reality. Denial and/or ignorance is regressive, unproductive, and too often destructive. If your Congressmen/women is out of touch, they need to be confronted or replaced.

  • Anonymous

    My intuition tells me that they’re sincere. Perhaps it’s because there’s no nuance in their positions, but there is force of conviction.

  • R Lif

    what?

  • Anonymous

    It’s called representative democracy. It may be a horrible form of government, but its the best anybody has come up with so far.

  • Anonymous

    “Your” institution tells you?
    Huh?

  • Anonymous

    Yes, he believes what the overwhelming science has been telling us for decades. Too many of the radical republicans in Congress deny reality. Moyer states the case quite well.

  • Christopher S. Johnson

    Curry is in a extreme minority of outliers that make up about 3% of climate scientist. That’s like the amount of lung specialists who don’t think smoking can lead to lung cancer or virus specialists who don’t think HIV leads to AIDS.

  • Leslie Graham

    Yep – follow the money.
    The carbon corporations stand to lose, at an absolute minimum, SIX TRILLION dollars in stranded assets unless they can convince enough gullible fools that climate change isn’t happening.
    Thats why they spend over a BILLION dollars per year funding the disinformation campaign and attempting to delay the introduction of legislation to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases.
    That’s why they employ veterans of the Tobacco campaign.
    The very same people.

  • Leslie Graham

    Oh please.
    There is absolutely no question that an increase of 42% in the volume of heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere has trapped more heat.
    To deny that is to deny the laws of physics that our whole civilisation uses to function and understand the universe.

  • Leslie Graham

    Oh give it a rest with your pathetic faux outrage.

    The word denier dates from the 15th century and simply means ‘one who denies’.

    “…Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions….”

    That definition fits climate change deniers to an absolute ‘T’.
    There is simply no other word in the English language that is more apt.

    And the place for ‘debate’ about science is in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. If the Denial Industry had a scintilla of evidence to back their absurd claims they would publish it.
    But they can’t – because they don’t have any.
    There is NO ‘debate’ about AGW in the scientific community and there hasn’t been for decades.
    The Denial Industry’s idea of ‘debate’ is simply to make up ridiculous memes and then repeat them endlessly.
    By all means – lets have a debate. Publish your research. Now!

  • Anonymous

    Christopher, I see your comment as an unfounded insult to Dr. Curry.

    If she is such an extremist, why has the Georgia Institute of Technology selected her to be Chairperson and Professor of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences?

  • Anonymous

    Oh stop it. I don’t deny it. I just don’t understand people that do just throw up their hands and walk away.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you need to be so insulting?

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t preclude having some common sense, like appointing people who have some expertise, or at least are open to others expertise, to chair all-important committees. Broun’s “science” is dictated by his personal/religious ideology. This is particularly dangerous at this critical time of greenhouse-gas warming. If we were in the midst of an epidemic, would we retain a committee chairman who believed that medicine was the devil’s work and that disease was cured by praying?

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, I don’t think we would have any choice. The rules of the Senate and the House are the rules.

  • Anonymous

    Whether you deny or not the Republican party just throws up their hands and say I didn’t do it so it is other peoples problem rather than look into things we can do to help our home live.

  • Anonymous

    Intuition usually means fast thinking logic.

  • Mister Science

    Gerald’s concern is belied in interviews of IPCC participants. Most of the scientists who are willing to talk about it complain that the summary for policy makers is always watered down to make it more “palatable” to politicians.

  • Anonymous

    If you have a point to make please do so. I have no games or trying to figure out what someone is talking about.

  • Claudius Denk

    So, in order to get a fair trial the defendant must sign the confession?

  • Claudius Denk

    During the Salem witch trials denying one was a witch was evidence that they were a witch.

  • Claudius Denk

    Currry is running cover for the climate frauds.

  • Claudius Denk

    Climate scientists don’t do experiments, they mostly just write press releases.

  • Claudius Denk

    Gasses don’t trap heat. Slogans don’t determine scientific truth.

  • drae

    Maybe because it’s in Georgia? Just sayin…

  • Anonymous

    You site curry as source to dismiss the urgency of warning coming from our respected scientific institutions. How about doing some research on her? Here’s some.

    “Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.”

    And these are HER words…

    “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007.”

  • Anonymous

    I have no time for people that can’t see they misspelled another persons word and made a big deal out of it.

  • Christopher S. Johnson

    If it’s insulting then maybe that’s something to reflect upon and learn from. I’m just stating fact.

  • Anonymous

    ouch! my feelings are hurt! lol!

  • Anonymous

    :)

  • NotARedneck

    These RepubliCONs are well paid to publicly “believe” that there is nothing to climate change. Privately, many probably don’t really support this, but you can be certain that they believe that they can afford a house on high ground and will not be around for the most serious consequences of their fraud.

  • NotARedneck

    There is a quote out there “Once you can fake sincerity, you have it made.” or something like that.

    It should be the right wing politician’s credo.

  • NotARedneck

    “Climate scientists don’t do experiments, they mostly just write press releases.”

    No, it is the climate change deniers who only do press releases. It is the same thing that they did for big tobacco. All bull, all of the time.

    These people are criminals. Straight and simple.

  • Anonymous

    Yea, the Congressional cons and their wealthy sponsors are far less likely to suffer consequences for their dishonesty and/or denials. Those with less will suffer the most. It’s why more of us need to get involved. We don’t have them outspent but we have them outnumbered!

    ExhaustingHabitability(dot)com

  • Katherine

    What I do not understand is why wouldn’t we error on the side of caution? If climate change is a hoax, wouldn’t it still be prudent to be good stewards of the earth. Come on, we all know what is good and bad for us, we know that excess of anything is damaging to us and the earth? No?

  • Anonymous

    Dr. Curry was one of five distinguished climate scientists selected by California Senator Barbara Boxer to testify before her committee. Why don’t you tell Senator Boxer how stupid she was to invite an incompetent like Dr. Curry to testify before her committee?

  • JJ042804

    If you read carefully through all this information, you will find that ALEC has their dirty hands in it, and the largest funding for ALEC comes from the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers fortune comes from Oil and partly Coal. And because they are actively promoting denial of the Climate change, even though they have been presented evidence, they could be facing legal consequences. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/12/18/video_kochtopus_map_of_the_billionaire_koch_brothers_influence

  • JJ042804

    I think their sincerity comes in form of dollar bills. You can sound sincere when you get paid generously for it.

  • JJ042804
  • JJ042804

    Intuition= gut feeling

  • JJ042804

    that’s right!

  • JJ042804

    because if you try to make others believe that climate change doesn’t exist, you can’t support a reversal of it. Second, it cost a lot of Money in research and development to fight the Climate change and the Fossil Fuel industry will fight with teeth and nails to hang onto their money.

  • JJ042804

    What concerns me is, that this “Chairman” run for this position. If he doesn’t believe in Science (Evolution is Science too) then he has a conflict of interest and has to step down as Chairman! If I had the chance I would call him on that!

  • JJ042804

    I think, by not keeping his “personal” view to himself, he created a conflict of interest and legally has to resign from that position. I wish someone would call him up on that!

  • JJ042804

    It is already proven that the Climate Change is human cause! Money and greed is a powerful influence.

  • JJ042804

    Tell me, what’s keeping our breathable Air from escaping into space? It’s called a Ozone Layer. It allows Earth’s heat to cool. Now, if you put layers and layers of CO2 in between our planet and the Ozone Layer, the planets heat can’t be cooled, it traps the planets heat within our Atmosphere and creates a Greenhouse effect. I’m not sure if you have been in a Greenhouse before, but that is already happening and if it continues, our breathable Air will become very “unbreathable” and we will slowly suffocate. Sounds “fun” doesn’t it? Also some of those Gases we release is damaging the the Ozone Layer by thinning it and as a result, the Ozone Layer will no longer able to protect us from the Sun’s ultra violet radiation, which in higher dose will be deadly.

  • JJ042804

    Does these 10 Monkey’s belong to you? :D

  • JJ042804

    Climate Scientist “do” experiments. They release Balloons which have scientific instruments attached and which can measure the atmospheric density and content and consistency. The results are then logged..
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/24/3205111/mann-defamation-lawsuit/

  • JJ042804

    You’re not a Scientist, are you? Science is used to either prove (true) or disprove (false)Theory’s so that it can be used for application or discarded as unusable. It is also Science to test of effectiveness of the result. I.e. Science is used to create Fact or Fiction!

  • JJ042804

    If you need prove, go to China and you can sample all the prove you want. Take a deep breath!

  • JJ042804

    you’re joking, right?

  • JJ042804

    Tell me, what’s keeping our breathable Air from escaping into space? It’s called a Ozone Layer. It allows Earth’s heat to cool. Now, if you put layers and layers of CO2 in between our planet and the Ozone Layer, the planets heat can’t be cooled, it traps the planets heat within our Atmosphere and creates a Greenhouse effect. I’m not sure if you have been in a Greenhouse before, but that is already happening and if it continues, our breathable Air will become very “unbreathable” and we will slowly suffocate. Sounds “fun” doesn’t it? Also some of those Gases we release is damaging the the Ozone Layer by thinning it and as a result, the Ozone Layer will no longer able to protect us from the Sun’s ultra violet radiation, which in higher dose will be deadly.

  • JJ042804

    Bill Moyers “reports” the scientific results of the research that has been made, he doesn’t do the research himself.He reports Facts, not Fiction.

  • JJ042804

    Democrats didn’t make that assessment of Climate change, Scientists did. So this is not about Republicans vs. Democrats, it is about the greedy Oil and Coal industries vs. the Global Population.

  • JJ042804

    Scientists do not equate Climate change to Evolution. Evolution is a whole new issue. Republicans want to have creationism be taught in our Schools instead of Evolution.

  • JJ042804

    The Koch Brothers might get some of those Law suits, since they actively finance those Defamation Campaigns.

    http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/12/18/video_kochtopus_map_of_the_billionaire_koch_brothers_influence

  • Anonymous

    I am glad they watch out for storms.

  • JJ042804
  • JJ042804

    Evidence is in every Person on the Planet. Have you ever watched the process of a life evolving within the Mother? From egg to Fetus, to Child. That’s “micro evolution”. Also there are facts of Evolution all around us. Adaptation to the environment is part of evolution and evolution is still going on, it has not stopped. Evolution is a slow process and takes a long time, but it can be observed through our Planets History.

  • JJ042804

    Carbon Dioxide wasn’t declared a pollutant by the Government, scientific facts have “proven” it and if you don’t believe me, I invite you to sit in a room and I fill it with Carbon Dioxide. I doubt that you will live to prove me wrong! Now we come to Climate change! We all know that our Planet has a protective Ozone Layer which prevents Gases from escaping, otherwise our Oxygen would escape into Space,since Oxygen is proven to be a Gas. Now, Carbon Dioxide is a Gas a highly toxic Gas at that. Since we have proven all these “Facts” and we know that Oil and Coal producing Carbon Dioxide, what’s your conclusion?

  • Christopher S. Johnson

    No, I’m almost positive that the minority (like Sen. Inhofe) are allowed to invite contrarian guests, even if they are far outweighed in that field.

    And even if Boxer was the person selecting Curry, it would have been throwing a bone to the appearance of decorum.

  • Michael Gerety

    No, that is not the process of science. At least it is not the process used by me or any of my colleages in our professional careers as research scientists. It is the null hypothesis that one examines. ones can only prove that a theory is wrong. It is theoretically impossible to prove that a theory is correct. That was the whole point of the scientific revolution.

  • JJ042804

    What kind of research do you do? You mean if that Medication doesn’t kill you it must be good for you?

  • JJ042804

    Money is the driving factor of their denial and we pay the price.

  • JJ042804

    They deny it, because they would lose major funding for their campaigns, which comes from fossil fuels, like the Oil and Coal industry,if they would confirm it.

  • David Corby

    An undereducated population which lacks critical thinking skills is being led around by a group of people who are funded by another group of people with a bottom line. I am thinking that it is time to start a revolution. We can start by rounding up everybody that lacks critical thinking skills and force them into colleges.

  • Greg Zeglen

    bad idea….colleges are already full of stupid people…..

  • Greg Zeglen

    …if it’s as easy as contributing to congressional campaigns to get support of ideas are there not enough climate change believers who might spend 5 or 10 dollars or more each to elect these people…then they would, by what I read here, be beholden to those believers…

  • JJ042804

    It is our $5- $10 against $80,000,000,000 of the Koch Brothers

  • Greg Zeglen

    does anyone know if there are climate change lobbyists in Washington…are they effective…

  • JJ042804

    only the ones who deny it, because they have the most to lose.

  • Greg Zeglen

    I dont think they spent 80 trillion…if 100 million people gave 10 bucks t would be a pretty big lobbying firm…and if the general populace embraces the facts of climate change that would be doable every year,,,

  • Greg Zeglen

    well, there must be a way to start an opposition lobby as there are so many people and scientists who are on the side of truth…just a few bucks out of every pocket should cover it…or – if so many citizens believe in it then just vote the bastards out….

  • Jim

    Over the course of history, science has always been assailed by the twin fortresses of religion and politics but it has always prevailed, I trust it will do so again against the forces that belie evolution and climate change. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, it may happen too late for us all.

  • Jane Green

    I agree that the 1/3 of our population with its brain/logic stuck in the Dark Ages makes for a very troubling fact. I feel that much of our educational curriculum follows a whim instead of reason. We lose a great a number of young minds to ignorance all the time. It is a troubling, even dangerous trend. People who do not have the education to understand what may threaten their rights, health, existence, or survival can be manipulated by those who can easily influence their actions and thinking.

  • JJ042804

    $80 Billion is the Koch Brothers combined wealth and it keeps growing. They are financing ALEC, which is one of the biggest lobbying firm. ALEC has been proven to have influence in the Legislative Branch of our Government and you can see the results allover the Country and in our Laws.

  • JJ042804

    $80 Billion is the Koch Brothers combined wealth and it keeps growing. They are financing ALEC, which is one of the biggest lobbying firm. ALEC has been proven to have influence in the Legislative Branch of our Government and you can see the results allover the Country and in our Laws. The Fossil Fuel Industry has direct influence of our Government, only eliminating money in politics and exchanging our corrupt Politicians will give us a chance to save our Country and the Environment.

  • Greg Zeglen

    thanks…that saved me some time…but it is going to take more than money to overturn the Citizens case….and since large numbers of the current politicians in DC are possessed by this use of cash how will we ever defeat the majority except by voting them out…can’t vote out the Kochs…they aren’t elected..can’t boycott them…they are too diverse…next time we vote as as a group of citizens to put into power any people that thrive off this type of cash we should think twice…instead we voted tem into power twice…

  • John Bocskay

    Terrifying.

  • ktbeige

    great essay Bill!

  • Seriously

    how many more once in a 100 years storm: hurricane, rain storm, tornado, polar vortex, weather anomaly do these people need to see? Oh wait, they think it’s the storms before the second coming. We’re doomed!

  • Joan Harris

    I expect conservatives and the religious right’s promotion of anti-science. When the Bible is taken literally, science is rejected.

  • JJ042804

    we can vote them out demand a amendment of the Laws to keep money out of Politics, get Citizens United repealed and get the tax loopholes closed. Then put regulations back in place for Wall Street, the Banks and the Corporations, so that this never happens again. We need to work on this together, all of us.

  • JJ042804

    I followed quite a few elections and when I saw the amounts of money that the Party’s collected, I knew something wasn’t right.

  • Greg Zeglen

    voting them out is the ONLY alternative…the other things all require that the politicians getting the money take action to cut themselves out of the cash flow…that =isn’t going to happen…the democrats – and the presiernt himself – were on the receiving end of some of the largest amounts of monetary donations legitimized by Citizens United and the amount flowingin to them grow larger bu the year…just in case anyone thinks it’s all about the republicans and people like the Kocjs….

  • JJ042804

    Not just the Koch’s, the Banks and Wall Street as well. It’s not going to be easy, but the Constitution has a section that deals with a situation like this.

    We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

  • JJ042804

    Citizens United is undermining Democracy, therefore we the People have the constitutional right to abolish it. We just have to find a good Organization to bring it to Court.

  • Greg Zeglen

    Citizens United is not undermining any democracy…there is no democracy…there is a constitutional republic which is being undermined….that aside I think you assume that the courts are not somehow involved…where do you think the CU ruling came from…the court will not change as politicians appoint the court….changing the government is all that is left…

  • JJ042804

    This is why Republicans insist that we are a Republic, specially the last part:

    Most people think of America as a democracy. However, social, educational and economic powers, and the unbridled growth of government have diluted the meaning. The public education establishment, colleges and universities have revised history. They have demeaned the word “democracy” as being majority rule, “mob rule” and the tyranny of the majority. The academic, political and media elite quietly condemn democracy and endorse the republic as a powerful central government, which must rule over us because we are unsophisticated and too ignorant to decide for themselves.

  • Bernadene

    indeed. God help us.

  • JJ042804

    that’s a funny way of putting it.

  • Greg Zeglen

    nope…not even close…but well written in parts….do not confuse the republican party with the term republic and it is indeed the media elite that have forced the mistaken belief that the USA is a democracy upon mainstream America (another misnomer)…the government of the US is currently and was designed to function as a constitutional republic…it does so to this day – although not very well…and even the most noble intentions of elected officials disappear under the Cash Avalanche of Washington’s political climate…

  • JJ042804

    No matter, the Constitution gives us the right and the duty to act, because our current Government is putting our Country at risk in exchange for financial gain. The Government is no longer functioning, whether Republic or Democracy. The Founders never intended for our Country to go to the highest bidder.

  • lavida818

    My conclusion, JJ042804, is that you do not know much about science!
    Please take some basic classes in chemistry, physics, and biology to
    better educate yourself. 1) The ozone layer does not prevent oxygen in
    the atmosphere from escaping into space. That would be gravity. 2) Your
    example of filling a room with carbon dioxide to prove it is toxic human life is
    silly. Displacing all of the oxygen in a room is what would be lethal,
    whether it is filled with CO2, water, or golf balls. 3) Carbon dioxide
    is a trace gas in the atmosphere, about 0.04 percent by volume. It is an essential component for life to exist on this planet.

  • JJ042804

    I thought I deleted the post after I discovered my error. It’s true, gravity is holding our Atmosphere in place, but you are wrong about that Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04 %. Since we have cut large amounts of Forrest’s, our planets remaining Vegetation can no longer convert the large amounts of Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen. And our Fossil Fuel industry is blowing tons of Carbon Dioxide and other toxic gases into the Atmosphere. If you want to see what’s awaiting us, go to China and Bangladesh and take a deep breath. This is just the start and it’s getting worse.

  • JJ042804

    I find it troubling that a grown man believes in a talking Snake and a talking burning Bush. If I would go to Paul Broun and tell him that a burning bush or a snake talked to me, he would declare me insane. And to be honest, so would I, but with this, he would prove that he doesn’t believe in creationism and those stories in the Bible. I don’t believe in them, because they have more holes than a Swiss Cheese.

  • Terence

    If ever there was a cry for taking on these Koch brothers, it surely is now.

  • Anonymous

    I believe you are correct. I’;ve never testified but I’ve worked with a person who did. I beleive that the custom is that both Senators would insist on credible witnesses, what ever their bias might be. FYI, I am skeptical that human CO2 is a major factor in global warming. My impression is that DR. Curry is very much in the middle of the road.

    I think everyone agrees that we’ve been in a warming period for 10,00 years, and we’d like to stay in it because the alternative is not a nice scenario for humans.

    The major debate that divides climate scientists centers around issues related to the 17 year global warming pause, which is still unexplained. To complicate matters, there is considerable evidence from highly credible solar scientist that we are in for a long cooling period.

    Many scientists believe that there are simply too many unknowns and too much missing data and too much unreliable data to answer the question. We just don’t know and it would foolish and harmful to make major policy commitment based on unfounded alarmist fears derived from our present level of ignorance. There is strong agreement that there is no evidence of any imminent climate threat.

    For example we really don’t have any significant data at all for that half of the Ocean’s waters that are below 2000 meters.

    Even for the half of the Ocean above 2000 meters, our data is pretty thin.

  • Anonymous

    I should add the disclaimer, if I haven’t said it before, that I am not a scientist. I’m just an ordinary retired citizen with a lifelong interest in science. For, several years I’ve had a keen interest in following all viewpoints on global warming, including social and economic impacts.

  • Anonymous

    The debate is not over at all. After being shut out for years by the influence of types like the Goracles it’s really just beginning. There is a very serious debate about the science.

    IMHO, having a “loyal opposition” in our system helps to guarantee that all sides are heard.

  • thinkerman

    “God help us?” That’s not helping.

    Otherwise, great reporting and commentary as always.

  • Hugh Vincelette

    It is additionally disturbing that this man apparently has a license to practice medicine on American soil. Isn’t it likely that there is only one Biblical verse that is absolute truth & cannot be denied ever?
    That is, apart from references to people’s names & some geographic locations? It says “Remember man that thou art dust & unto dust thou shall return.” We come into this world with an expiry date; subject to change without notice.

  • Hugh Vincelette

    Those are inspiring & tremendous words, but correct me if I’m wrong. Don’t they come from the Declaration of Independence , rather than the Constitution?

  • Hugh Vincelette

    Because it’s Georgia.

  • JJ042804

    As a matter of fact, it is! However if you want to view “all” rights and Laws, you have to weigh in all three parts of the Freedom Charter, 1.) the Declaration of Independence, 2.) the Constitution and 3.) the Bill of Rights. Not many People speak of the Freedom Charter, which is “one” paper on three pages

  • Anonymous

    We need to apply the Cheney doctrine to global warming — if there is even a 1% chance that it can hurt us, then we should invest trillions, if necessary, to reverse it. But, of course, the true believers won’t even admit to that 1% chance, even after the melting of the Arctic ice, Katrina and Sandy. If only that man found thawing out in the Alps after remaining frozen for 11,000 years could talk.

  • Anonymous

    Nice job conflating faith and good science.

    Faith may cause one to dispute scientific evidence. Yet, just because somebody disputes scientific conclusions, doesn’t mean it is some anti-science act of faith.

    Bill: why don’t you point us to some IPCC models that predicted the climate generalities over the past 15 years? What? You can’t? Guess what? That means the science is FAR from “settled”.

    You’re assuming that CO2 generates the kind of warming the scaremongers say, out of FAITH. The evidence contradicts that supposition.

  • Joan Harris

    We are aligned in the discussion. A portion of a poem I wrote will clear it up in a few words. “When the Bible is taken literally, science can be rejected.
    When science is seen as a miracle, truth can be protected.
    Go back to Plato and Aristotle before there was division,
    Their thoughts expressed philosophically, combine science with religion.”

  • thinkerman

    If despite all the physical evidence, and all the internal contradiction, all the historical inaccuracy, all the known history of the book itself and how it was assembled, including its many translations — if despite all this, someone still believes the Bible to be literally true, such a person is as mentally incompetent as someone who believes there is, literally, a boogie man in the closet. The condition of such a believer deserves to be identified for what it is, as a form of insanity, a form of having lost touch with reality. Not “my” reality, just reality. Adult reality. Such people need rescuing, as if from a cult. That is what we would do if the cult didn’t happen to have millions of members. This isn’t to attack religion, just one of its extreme, abusive, self-negating, pathological expressions.

  • David

    Another anti-science troll. What are your thoughts on whether the Earth is round or flat? The germ theory? Probably think it’s a hoax.

  • David

    Sorry, the science is settled. It’s the rapidity of the warming and the magnitude of the consequences we should be discussing — as well as how to move away from fossil fuels ASAP.

  • Desertmer

    The science is settled. Period. Just because you cannot accept that fact doesn’t make it unsettled.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, fucile. You’re conflating the accuracy of multi-dimensional models extrapolated out into the future with “science”. The evidence that CO2 is responsible for warming is all around us.

    Why do you hate science?

  • Avi Marranazo

    I find it amusing how the left likes to contend that only the right denies science more generally and evolution specifically. In fact, it’s the cultural left who likes to pretend evolution stopped when the races diverged from one another and evolved into separate sub-species of humanity.

    Racial egalitarianism is purely a leftist ideology.

  • John Carter

    In other words, you believe your race (skin color) is more advanced than others. You are good spokesperson for the Aryan Nation.

  • John Carter

    I seriously doubt, from your comments, you have any more understanding of evolution than you do climate change … or quantum mechanics for that matter. Scientists aren’t saying that “science is settled” … that’s a talking point for ignorant people who get their scientific education from the likes of Glen Beck.

  • John Carter

    It is a mistake to follow the talking points of the Right Wing as they inevitably confuse the issues on purpose … it is a kind of argumentation technique. Specifically, I’m talking about the question of whether the science of climate change is “settled”. That is a kind of red herring, an intentional sleight-of-hand. Science is never “settled” but it does develop hypotheses into theories that are the most adequate explanations and predictors of future events based on our facts and methods at this point. It gives us statistical probabilities for causes … for example, linking smoking with cancer. It took a long time to do that, partly because those industries and those enriching themselves lied and obfuscated and delayed. We have scientific consensus that smoking is significantly statistically correlated with cancer. We also have scientific consensus that we are experiencing an overall trend toward global warming which is manifesting as climate extremes as well as a loss of overall ice cover and warmer seas. The earth is proving more resistant than expected and that is good, for goodness’ sake. But let’s not allow the opponents of science to define the terms of the debate. The question of whether the science is “settled” is an attempt to obfuscate, delay and confuse. Sadly, the big energy companies providing the tools for the obfuscating religionists clinging to literalistic interpretations of bits of Scripture have no more love for humanity or God than does big tobacco.

  • Jack Foster III

    I’m a centrist, but . . . it’s not the “right wing” who incorrectly say the “science is settled”. If the issue is just a propaganda battle between right and left, we’re never going to make any progress at all. Actually, that’s what I expect from both the right and the left as they talk past each other, not caring about what’s real and what’s true. Unfortunately, your party lines have little to do with the truth.

  • Anonymous

    I agree except that science is a gun; it has no moral viewpoint. I knew a scientist who said the logical thing to do was let all the poor in Africa die. To me, religion is an axiom, a thing which cannot be proved but which is believed anyway.

  • Willem Harlow

    Judy, Name a conservative, capitalist, Christian that act like a Muslim by chopping off hands and stoning women or are you just doing your liberal hate speech with no facts like most liberals?

  • Matt

    The dumbing down of America continues apace.

  • RJK

    Just because you don’t understand something is ni reason to remain silent.

  • Edward Kirby

    Actually, its the perfect reason to keep your mouth shut.

  • Edward Kirby

    Calling something “the John Birch Society” is considered name-calling? I guess it would now, wouldn’t it…

  • Edward Kirby

    “Most cost benefit studies show that initial warming — first degree or so — is probably of net benefit to mankind.”

    And we’ve pretty much chewed up that cushion already. Most of the Holocene has been remarkably stable, considering the history of Earth’s climate; about one degree C on way or the other. In the Industrial Age, we’ve gone to around 0.8 degrees C above average (IIRC).

    The history of civilization is strewn with the wreckage of civilizations destroyed by climate change events. [Particularly those in the 23rd and 13th centuries BCE; although the French Revolution, the collapse of the Mayan Civilization and the Fall of Rome can't be excluded either.]

    None of those were particularly beneficial to mankind. And I’m not sure the flora and fauna were particularly enamored of it either.

  • Edward Kirby

    Regarding this and Jack Foster’s comment (“…but if someone says “the science is settled” about climate change . . . that’s also proof that the person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”), it is through the lens of collective action that such a declaration should be viewed. We have enough information to make a decision regarding action on this issue. In *that* sense, the science *is* settled. Any other requests for additional studies or data is simply a delaying tactic by the opposition (and straight out of the tobacco industry’s playbook), and has very little to do with the actual science.

    To show this in a political sense rather than a scientific one is to try to clear the waters; not muddy them.

  • Edward Kirby

    There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians here in the US that believe we should have a system of law based on the Mosaic Laws of the Old Testament. If you read the Book of Leviticus, it is hard not to envision most of that meeting with the approval of the Taliban. Its virtually Sharia law.

  • Edward Kirby

    “Since I happen to be a lifelong athiest, with three advanced degrees in the physical sciences, the preceding sentence is concisely QED.”

    *atheist.

    Isn’t there an Internet law that states something along the line of “anytime someone declares themselves to be educated (or another to be uneducated), they make a spelling or grammatical error”?

    A long time ago, we used to call it “Phil’s Law”, but I have no idea now…

  • Edward Kirby

    That’s the part that really gets me about denialists: how can they be so absolutely certain in the face of such overwhelming evidence?

    My only conclusion regarding that is that they must have a deep-seated faith backing them up. Which returns us to the religious aspect of this.

    Religions have been shown to be a benefit to humanity; purportedly bringing peace and civilization to the hordes. But many would argue that a majority of wars are based on religious differences; that they have promoted slavery, genocide and the abuse of women; and that they (arguably) may have served a beneficial purpose at one point in time, but have long since run their course, and its time to retire the whole concept.

    This upcoming battle will hopefully be the final one between science and religion; between the forces of knowledge and truth on one side and darkness and superstition on the other. [Which, ironically, echoes the eschatology of most major religions.] If the ‘sciencer’ side wins, maybe we can actually address climate change before we are exterminated by it. If the religious side (as shown amply by Representative Broun) wins, then we’re just plain doomed.

  • RJK

    My point exactly.

  • Tomahawk903

    **”Someday the earth will weep, she will beg for her life, she will cry with tears of blood. You will make a choice, if you will help her or let her die, and when she dies, you too will die.” John Hollow Horn, Oglala Lakota