Climate Change

Latest Stories

  • submit to reddit
  • Wm Harvey

    Your making a leap not justified. Just bec Co2 and temp are in syn doesnt mean it’s a threat to our world. It’s happened in the past and will again. Your overreacting as usual. Climate change happens over thousands of years. wm harvey. PE

  • PeterN

    We are all “frogs in a pot” called Earth. Before we realize what we have done to our only “home” planet, it will be too late. At least there will be “some” who will have made substantial profits now in exchange for planetary scale suicide on behalf of our descendants.

  • Betoman

    So sad that folks like Wm Harvey deny the overwhelming data that shows warming is accelerating at a pace that will have disastrous consequences in this century, not over thousands of years.

  • Peter G.W.Plagemann

    program yesterday about global climate change the greatest peril the human race
    has ever faced. Unfortunately there was no mention of overpopulation, the root
    cause of global climate change. There is no way the earth can support the life
    of the expected 10 billion people, especially not at the lifestyle everybody
    desires. Humanity is on the road of self-destruction. CO2 emissions continue to
    increase with continuous building of coal-fired power plants, with another
    estimated 500,000 gasoline fired cars coming onto the road, the melting of the
    permafrost and the acidification of the oceans. The only solution is a drastic
    reduction in the human population, which will be accomplished by the next mass
    extinction (#6). The only difference between the coming one and earlier ones is
    that it is man-made and will occur over a period of perhaps a hundred years
    rather than hundred thousands of years. It is fast approaching, the first signs
    are apparent.

  • Mark A. McClintick

    I just watched your show Ending the Silence on Climate Change. Thank you! People need to hear this message. I am doing what I can to raise the level of awareness of my friends. Keep up the good work. I also liked your closing remarks regarding gun control and Archie Bunker.

  • melvinchisel

    Great show with Anthony Lieserowitz but avoided mention of the 800 pound guerrilla in the room. One of the greatest obstacles to education and support for a meaningful climate change platform is right wing radio personalities, Limbaugh, Coulter etc. and their audience.

  • Reality

    Climate change a
    Giant hoax, enjoy the show but
    This topic is frankly….hot air.
    Please discuss something else.

  • Bruce Lendrum

    The problem with a lot of the analysis of CO2 is that over one billion years the ice age his show that CO2 raises about one thousand years after Temperature rises. We had an ice age about 1,000 years ago.. We also had a summer without sun during 1780’s due to volcanic actions.

    The earth has been in a cool state( 4 Degree less then average) for the last 10,000 years so the models should show what is know as a revision to the means.. IE we should see about a 4Degree C rise due to a reversion to the means.

    I know this should be studied more by saying most expert “agree ” that increased use of CO2 producing has changed the total weather patterns has not been part of the events. Weather changed before man with temperature leading CO2 levels.

    The events of the weather system have been lead with things like Iceland’s supper large volcanic. They are past due per experts in Iceland volcanism . Does the added CO2 amplify the natural events of the earth and sun. That could use a lot of study and if so what can we do.

    Just a thought,
    Bruce Lendrum

  • Ellen Buckey

    Bill, Thank you for continuing to educate me on important issues. I just finished watching the Climate Change piece with Mr. Leiserowitz and was mesmerized throughout. I have never heard such concise and deeply informed data on this problem. I am now a 100% believer, whereas I was one of the “alarmed” prior to watching the show. I am interested in taking a bigger stand and contributing to the awareness of climate change. How can I do it, other than writing to our politicians/leaders?

  • Bernadotte1

    Mr. Harvey, climate change is happening today. You have missed every point that Anthony Leiserowitz made on the show. Luckily, your view of things is in the distinct minority. You don’t happen to work for a Republican congressman, do you?

  • Bernadotte1

    You are not paying attention to the science, Mr. Reality. Luckily, your viewpoint is in the minority.

  • sidney123

    The major sources of CO2 are outside the United States.
    It might be useful to explore the use growing trees to sequester carbon.
    Why not improve the available lumber stock by allowing swaths of the forested areas to be harvested so that
    new groth would sequester carbon
    the open swaths would serve as fire breaks
    Th lumber would be useful

  • Hank Wesselman

    Very good show on climate change. I kept waiting for a discussion of sea level rise, for with the increase in temperature, the hammerstone for civilization as we know it will be Antarctica whose ice caps will collapse. If the smaller west Antarctic ice caps breaks down (which it is already in the process of doing) the sea levels will rise between 20-60 feet. If the much greater east Antarctic ice shelf breaks down, which is 15,000 feet thick in places with no underlying basins holding it in place… and satellite photography reveals that it is melting from below, it has the potential to raise sea levels 100 meters–that’s 390 feet. And we know that a similar event happened at the end of the last ice age during the “younger Dryas’ in which the world climate went from deep ice age cold to temperate warm in 5-20 years… and the sea level rose a hundred meters in response. Such a rise in sea level would inundate all our coastal cities all over the world displacing 2 billion people… and all our on-loading and offloading facilities for the oil industry are on the coasts… which would spell the end of our industrialized world… These concerns are worth our consideration, don’t you think–Hank Wesselman PhD. (UC Berkeley)

  • Fran Tabor

    Your climate change expert from Yale (broadcast in Hawaii on January 6th), did not give sufficient examples of how climate change is affecting the earth right now, other than mentioning drought and Hurricane Sandy. I believe strongly in climate change, but felt his discussion was not convincing to those who are doubters. He missed an opportunity to reach a huge TV audience and convince people using many actual examples. He should have showed many photos of glaciers receding, South Pacific islands that have already been evacuated and their peoples relocated; Norfolk Virginia that has already had to lift roads and sidewalks 18 inches due to regular flooding due to ocean rise; and other world-wide concrete examples. There is also a map projection computer model, showing Southern Florida under water by 2050. This should have been shown. I felt very disappointed that he missed this opportunity to better inform and convince others that climate change is real. This is exactly why there are so many doubters. the believers don’t convince.



    On Christmas day, I attended the noon matinee showing of the Steven Spielberg movie, LINCOLN. Contrary to the perennial stereotype of sunny
    Southern California, the Los Angeles weather was a soggy overcast, and there lingered in the atmosphere, on the rain-beaded trees, lawns and even the still patchy
    moist streets and sidewalk pavement the damp chill from a rain that had passed
    through over the Christmas Eve. But since the theater was only about a mile away and the weather forecast, while not offering hope of clearing, was not predicting more precipitation until much later, I chose to bicycle.

    Afterward, the myriad themes of the film being as challenging as they were and contemporary as many remain, and Mr. Lewis’ remarkable performance being as deeply affecting in its’ nearly channeling effectiveness in conveying the reflectiveness, the kindness and the decency of this rare leader as it was, I pedaled a thoughtful and languid zigzag path among intervening side streets on my ride home; chosen both from long habit and a desire not to be distracted by the traffic of major thoroughfares. But as I pedaled, my reflections on the film became gradually deflected, or at least blended, into something in the very quiet of these streets that I had chosen to avoid distraction. There was something in their quiet, rather than abetting the maintenance of attention elsewhere, that drew attention to itself; something almost too quiet.

    First were neighborhoods of individual family homes characterized
    by proudly well kept, but unostentatious middle class houses with small
    adjoining front yards; some open, some literally with white picket fences, some
    with petite lemon, or imposing avocado, or lone soaring palm trees, others with
    well tended flower beds or miniature rock gardens spouting elegant bursts of
    Papyrus. Eventually, these gave way to neighborhoods of average, multi-story, multi-tenant apartment buildings exuding a sense of doorway entrance-mat and interior living room carpet mustiness and holiday cooking. But through them all, there was a surprising, but increasingly notable air of real quiet. Rather than the common gift-opening, anti-climax hangover, manifest in loud afternoon indulgences amid gatherings of family and friends, it was an air touched of something somber which seemed as palpable as the dampness and chill. And ludicrous as it might seem to suggest, it was as if the sadness of the movie’s denouement had slipped out of the theater doors along with the gradual, uneven and clustering exit of our audience like an invisible vapor, and quickly but silently cast an expansive pall; cast a kind of whisper demanding attention, but attention to something of uncertain portent.

    And as I pedaled, and listened, and tried to infer what this pall might be intending should be heard, the ambiguity of those inferential efforts led my thoughts back to the movie; or perhaps I should say to the theater experience. Here my attention
    seemed always to return to an unsettling dissonance; that between the loud,
    mostly violent, often sci-fi, invariably head-ache inducing and ridiculously
    transient quick-cut edits, with generally thematically opaque scene selections
    comprising the preview after preview after preview of coming attractions, and a
    passing scene from the movie, LINCOLN, itself so brief and seemingly incidental
    that it might have easily been completely forgotten. But it was not forgotten.

    It was very late at night. In the muted amber glow of a single gas lamp just to his right, before a high window with curtains partially pulled aside to reveal a night of heavily raining, stormy weather, the President stands alone in his stocking feet, his left elbow supported on a high desktop or counter and his left hand propping his weary, disheveled head at the jaw and cheek, obviously exhausted, while with the pencil in his right hand he unblinkingly taps an opened pocket watch suspended on its chain, back and forth, back and forth, in a repetitive pendulum motion. Thinking, reflecting, processing; but doing so with what seemed the reluctant patience of an impatient humility and recognition of being not the commander, but only another subject of the
    inscrutable obscurities and impartial exigencies of time.

    And the other scene which recurred through my pedaling, my listening
    to, and attentive awareness of this peculiar but pervasive surrounding sense of
    somber pall so uncharacteristic of a usually festive, if not boisterous, holiday
    was when the President finally loses his patience with the endless resistance,
    political stratagems and equivocations of his advisors. After patiently suffering the voices of contention ascending around him, finally, in a long, slow, deliberate overhead, arcing motion, he thunderously slams his open hand down hard onto the desk top. And
    after a few angry prefatory comments of explanation, he finally jabs his index
    finger at each key advisor in turn and demands, “Now, Now, Now”; insisting and
    demanding recognition of a historical urgency. NOW!

    One might assume that the intention here is to make the all-too-easy connection to the endless contention of various ‘debates’ presently occurring in Washington, but, whatever the relative relevance and appropriateness might be of drawing such a linkage, in this case, such an assumption would be misplaced and mistaken. To paraphrase the title of a recent book on that subject, the reality is much worse than such an assumption would suggest. And ironically, it relates to what we are not debating; or certainly not with the appropriate historical urgency of . . . NOW, NOW, NOW that it deserves! But the intention very much is to suggest that something like this ferociously concentrated expression of righteous anger – indeed, something not wholly unlike the sole biblical instance of Christ loosing his temper while whipping the money lenders forcibly from an ancient temple of worship – to bring a similar urgency of focus to the historical imperative that we are not NOW sufficiently addressing with
    concerted action, is far too conspicuously absent in spite of being more than merely
    urgently warranted.

    And if one were to ask, as it is all-too-easy to imagine the climate-change skeptics and science-deniers doing, why the urgency, there are two responses which immediately come to mind. The first, easiest and least forgiving in its’ impatience with suffering
    fools was beautifully synopsized by Green Peace International’s Executive
    Director, Kumi Naidoo, at the conclusion of the recently completed, but failed,
    Doha climate negotiations when he elegantly but bluntly noted that nature does
    not negotiate. The second calls to mind the well worn but highly germane adage that turning a battleship is not done on a dime. Or to invoke another military
    example, one recalls the famous, if apocryphal, observation by America’s
    devastatingly effective WWII general, George Patton, to the effect that –
    compared to war – all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. Aside from somewhat shuddering at the megamaniacal pathos of this general’s misplaced fetishistic affection for war, in this context, one might be inclined to respond by simply saying, ‘Oh, really, General?’ And then asking, ‘what about the more ancient wisdom that it is far easier to destroy than to build’? Even the current challenge and turmoil of the European nations in striving to come to resolution on how best to adapt a
    partial economic union into something more politically as well as economically
    cohesive and operationally viable pales in comparison to the levels of political
    consensus and logistical and technological operational coordination confronting
    us with such unforgiving urgency precisely because nature does not negotiate.

    If one wished to indulge the ancient literary technique of personification just a little here, one can well imagine ‘nature’ shrugging its eyebrows and shoulders as if to say, ‘see if I care whether you take my recent fevers, hints and warnings seriously or not’.
    Failure to seriously appreciate nature’s monumental indifference to our
    irrational and misguided denials, and our recalcitrance and inaction betrays a
    glib, privileged, gentrified and cozy untouchable Sunday brownstone brunch
    jokes-and-gossip hubris which presumes that the character of the historical
    imperative with which we are confronted accords not merely with the social,
    political, economic and organizational antecedents of merely human history, but
    of human recorded history. It doesn’t. On the geologic and climatological time scale of this challenge, our human presence, absence, and certainly our recorded history is, to nature, something like a forgotten, thrice removed afterthought of an unconsummated sneeze ten years ago would be to us. And in this sense, what is more than just
    laudable about General Patton’s ethos of unflagging discipline and relentless
    advance, what is desperately needed, is precisely the kind of highly disciplined and ferociously unrelenting focus on the mission-at-hand which seemed to characterize his stoic warrior’s approach to pursuing military objectives. But in this case, the adversary we need to confront, aside from our own hubris, laughably misplaced presumptions of inalienable manicured-landscape, or tenured and career-advancement security, complacency or irrational podium and microphone science-denial grandstanding, would make the combined powers of the WWII Axis nations seem amoebic by comparison.

    But to even imagine us collectively marshalling the levels of innovation, cooperation and coordination demanded by the objectives which nature is imposing on us in response and reaction to our impositions on it presumes that we appreciate just how extensive those levels might be. One indication that we are failing this challenge is the extent to which we tend to reflexively assume that the innovations sufficient to the challenge at hand need only be merely technological in nature. Formidable as these needs may be and exciting as the extant and anticipated progress already is, the perhaps even more important and, almost certainly, more difficult challenges are the
    social, political and economic innovations which may be required. In short, the presumption that there is some combination of purely techno-fix solutions which will free us of the burdens of these other forms of choice and innovation is, with very high probability, a pipe dream.

    If it is the planetary case, as it may well be, that our metastatic industrial metabolism of relentlessly increasing consumption and wastage accumulations collectively leaves us in the midst of a condition something akin to the proverbial frog insensible of any need to consider changing location because the boiling of the water in which he sits is occurring sufficiently gradually, is there political leadership anywhere today with the
    integrity and courage to damn the polls, advisers, and insidiously suffocating
    constraints of political correctness and thunderously slam his or her hand down
    hard in a Press conference or address to the nation, and jab a finger at us with unflinching and righteous, biblical outrage and tell us that the kind of change needed for our present historical imperative so far transcends the tepid squabbles over this or that tax, or this or that inbred, locked-in governmental program – proposals which we sometimes dare to actually designate as ‘fundamental’, while apparently insensible of the semantic farce of conflating tepid tweaking of a status quo with the seismic, institution and society-rattling character of change truly deserving of the moniker, ‘fundamental’ – that incredulity is strained beyond the point of all human endurance?

    In addition to the inspired and inspiring scientific and technological innovations needed, what if fully confronting our present day urgent, historical imperative of “NOW, NOW, NOW”, entailed the need to institutionally innovate a transition in the very foundations of our present form of capitalism; a transition away from a form of capitalism characterized by chronic, compulsory growth driven – and let me repeat that: DRIVEN – by a monetary and banking system predicated on debt that bears the obligation of interest, which endlessly makes compulsory more growth to fulfill that obligatory interest-repayment burden? Similarly, what if fully confronting our present day urgent, historical imperative of “NOW, NOW, NOW”, entailed the need to theoretically and institutionally innovate a form of capitalism capable of remaining creatively vital, dynamic and adaptive but operating more closely to the dynamic steady-state homeostasis of a healthy biological system, rather than the runaway growth of malignancy characterizing a diseased system? And what if such a transition entailed the need to institutionally innovate the universalization across the entire global citizenry, rather than enabling and allowing its concentration in only the top few percent of a chosen few wealthy countries, the ownership of productive capital assets to facilitate the balancing of production and consumption necessary for something like economic steady-state homeostasis to occur? NOW we would be talking about change truly deserving to be called ‘fundamental’. And such a discussion would finally bring to
    the fore cases of real thought leaders, as opposed to status quo political
    mouthpieces endlessly dodging the rare question of real relevance by regurgitating
    anemically exhausted talking points which are often, at best, anachronisms, or,
    at worst, transparently of cynical irrelevance except as service to some narrowly moneyed interest; but leaders of whom the vast majority of the public has never heard because they aren’t invited to appear in the inflated news and public affairs venues of major media companies. A very partial list would include people like the eminent theoretical ecologist, University of Maryland Professor, Robert Ulanowicz and his colleagues Bernard Lietaer and Sally Goerner, or the expert in Binary economics, Syracuse University Professor Robert Ashford, or activist, author and former Harvard University Professor, David C. Korten, or University of Maryland Professor, Gar Alperovitz.

    As my bicycle ride home from the movie, LINCOLN, approached its end, my thoughts wandered back to the theater and audience ambiance where I saw the film. Recently
    renovated, the physical appointments of the now dine-in theater seating; the
    waiter or waitress promptly available at the press of a lighted button built into the frames separating one lush, cozy easy-chair seat and swing-around counter-tray from the next, all spoke of a kind of pampering. A perfectly fine example of a competitive
    market innovation and not a bad thing in itself, and though I hailed no waiter
    or waitress service, and though I enjoyed the marginal increase in comfort over
    conventional theater seating, upon reflection, something disturbed. It was something in the manner of the patrons to each side of me who did hail service calls to the waitress; something in the way that they barely moved upon receipt of service of their over-sized (and probably over-priced) bowl of popcorn or soft drink; something about the token
    tone of any ‘thank you’ which may have been uttered to the young, diligent
    waitress that whispered to me a sense of spoiled entitlement that I found
    grating and ungracious.

    Thinking about a culture insidiously but pervasively debased by factors like a misguided politically correct assimilation of aspects of gang banger ethos, or rapacious white collar, winner-take-all rationalizing in business, or the rampant ego-mania of hotdog, showboating jocks with little, if any, sense of what it means to compete with the humility and class that the extraordinary level of competitiveness which their often amazing purely physical prowess enables should demand, or coaches so ethically challenged that they would proffer bonus awards for players who inflicted on opponents such severe physical harm that it would warrant felony charges and serious prison time if exacted in the real world, I wondered if we retained enough of the
    character and grit of earlier generations, enough of the ferocious and highly disciplined
    focus of a George Patton, enough of the decent, fair-minded and healthy
    wood-chopping sweat, and can-do vitality of a frontier farmer or rancher to be
    worthy of a leader who would have the integrity and courage to jab his finger at us with righteous, biblical rage and demand . . . NOW, NOW, NOW?

    In a political culture where our ‘leaders’ feel the need to pander to the lowest Leno, Letterman or Kimmel audience hooting, hollering and cackling behavioral common-denominator, is there any place for the sober, adult exercise of concentrated, righteous anger to galvanize the social, political and institutional coherence demanded of such transitions as we likely confront? Or, since this is clearly a global challenge, should we no longer even expect to find those necessary qualities to obtain here in America; should we simply resign ourselves to the decline-and-fall fate of a people who have succumbed to their own fatuous self-indulgence, and expect real leadership to come only from those countries and cultures elsewhere who may not, whatever their levels of physical suffering and material privation, have suffered such degradations of character and sense that they remain insensible of the seriousness of challenges which do demand of us, whether we recognize it or not . . . NOW, NOW, NOW!

    Returning my bicycle to its place at the end of my theater trip, changing back into my more casual home lounging clothes, and being intermittently drawn back in the subsequent hours of both Christmas day and the days since to the palpable sense of uncertain portent that I felt was so demanding of attention in the conspicuous quiet of those completely run-of-the-mill West Los Angeles side streets, I couldn’t entirely deny acknowledging that this impression might simply have been incidental to the hour of my
    passage along those streets, to the dour, subduing impositions of the damp gray
    weather, or even the diminished extravagance of gifts given or received in an
    economy still hobbled. But even acknowledging that all of these factors may have played some role, even this seemed and seems only to reinforce a sense that there was and is some threshold which has been crossed in the amorphous social zeitgeist; some sense that we collectively stand very uneasily at a boundary of multifarious transitions which we may have only the vaguest appreciation of the true complexity and scope of; some sense that it may be less an issue of our traditional governance processes being ‘broken’, implying merely a need for repair which we might desperately hope could be sloughed off on a new crop of post-election representatives, than that they may, in some fundamental sense we have not fully defined, demand not some essentially politically mechanical or paint-by-numbers repair, but the far more demanding innovation of reinvention.

    But lest we’re content to accept for ourselves the fate of a small, unthinking prehistoric amphibian, too insensible of the reality of its environment to recognize the need to change, the consequence of this historical imperative leads with totally complementary urgency to the same incisive Lincolnesque demand . . . NOW, NOW, NOW!

    Los Angeles, California
    December, 31, 2012

  • Deborah Taylor

    This messaging issue is so important, not that the Sierra Club, NRDC, EDF and the Green Party haven’t tried to organize concern for climate change from the bottom up. But this is a middle-class oriented President with a brilliant grassroots online organization and we should all learn from both that organization and Leiserowitz’ discussion of how to carry the message. Thank you Bill Moyers and Anthony Leiserowitz both! And for that matter, also the Obama campaign! Great model for the grassroots path.

  • David Nicholson

    You can google CO2 removal by thorium reactors and tell others

  • corinne

    i watched to show last night on climate change and wish there were more suggestions for ways to help. i visited europe last year and was struck by the ubiquitous solar panels on the roofs of the homes there. why are we not using them here?

  • Carlos Estevez

    Mr. Moyers I wish more people can see your interview with Mr. Liesorowitz. PBS. as a media have to many limitations. You have to put face on the problem in special events like big sports events, awards presentations, fund raising and so on. “catastrophic face to our future”now days we have good data of the amount of CO2 we humans put in the atmosphere with the millions of vehicles and approximate 80.000 fly a day on the air, also we can show the before and after each weather event that had shake us “Terricolas”

  • Dawn Lowe

    Dear Bill Moyers,

    Thank God for you. Don’t quit, please.
    Dawn in Ireland

  • Richard Darvas

    Man made climate change …. ….has been ignored for far too
    long. After watching the latest
    Bill Moyer program, I see that it is really too late to avoid the worst effects
    that are coming. The program seemed to indicate that if the world suddenly
    reversed course immediately, that maybe, possibly, some of the coming disasters
    could be avoided. Well, knowing how we humans operate, that means that we are
    in for the worst possible outcome. It is possible that the human race is in
    real danger of a serious readjustment. So maybe, we all should begin to look at
    the situation in a completely different and new way. Maybe this is an opportunity
    for some course correction. Maybe this is a chance to fix some of the major
    problems that the human race faces, to whit:

    A worldwide population that has
    recently passed the 7 billion mark and continues to grow exponentially
    straining the resources of the planet and endangering all other life on the

    Racial and ethnic hatred that
    divides people throughout the world and gives artificial advantage to certain
    people over others.

    Economic inequities throughout the
    world again favoring certain groups and condemning others to lives of poverty.

    Completely lopsided military powers
    among nations which bully some nations while allowing others to force their

    Religions that practice the
    opposite of what they preach. A
    religion that is not tolerant of all other religions (by definition probably an
    impossibility) should be rejected and not allowed to exist!

    So maybe a major readjustment by way of climate change would
    offer an opportunity for us humans to correct/eliminate some of the above
    stated problems.

    There is, however, another point to remember. Over the past,
    say 200 hundred years, mankind has advanced to an amazing degree. He has
    discovered medicines and learned so much about the universe we occupy. He has
    looked into such great distances in space and back in time so far. He has
    looked into such miniscule realms to discover the very smallest building blocks
    of everything. We have truly built a marvelous knowledge base in the recent
    past that must be preserved.

    I therefore suggest that our top priority at this time
    should be time capsules! I am completely serious here. We need to collect all
    of our knowledge possible and compress it into something that can be stored
    away. We need also to include a list of all of the mistakes we have made as
    mentioned above to store away too. We should create many of these similar time
    capsules. We need to be very creative selecting just how and where these capsules
    should be secreted away to assure preservation for a long time under adverse
    conditions but could be found and understood years or centuries later. The hope
    is that whatever is left of mankind in the future could learn from these time
    capsules in the hopes that they will not repeat the stupidity we have
    experienced and that they would not loose the knowledge we have accumulated. This
    truly should be our number one priority today. It would certainly be a pity if
    some remnant of our species survives in the future only to be condemned to
    follow our dumb footprints and learn our lessons one by one all over again.

  • Bruce Lendrum

    As far as reforesting goes the events are going on in Kenya with the planting of 2 billion trees on what they call “Five water Towers” Not only does this remove CO2 but also increases water year around.
    Also Israel has been reforesting for over 30 years to replace trees removed years ago. The major green house gas returned to the upper air is methane. Methane has 23 times more reflection of heat back to the earth then CO2. There have been great debates over CO2 but increase in CO2 has increased tree growth under lab conditions in Finland.

  • Dennis Sousa

    Great show. The time to act is now. I do as much as I can like conserving electricity and water. If everyone pitched in we might have a chance. This is the biggest threat facing the world. We have overcome pollution problems in the past. Why can’t we tackle this one?

  • Claire Sebastian

    Fantastic program as usual. I wish the entire world could watch this program every week. Thank you Bill Moyers!

  • John Gault

    Climate science has become politicized and thus it can’t be trusted. Anyone claiming to know what the tempature will be 100 years in the future when they don’t know what it will be tomorrow is blowing smoke up your a#@! The same can be said about economics. Most economist are shills of the state and thus say what the state wants them to say so they keep the money rolling their way. That is why Keynesianism keeps on coming back after it has been repeatedly discredited.

  • John Gault

    Please don’t watch “Night of the Living Dead,” or you will be kept up at night worried about zombies.

  • David Auner

    Buying Chinese made “Green technology” to decrease our carbon footprint is only slightly good for our economy. The Fed. has no problem shoveling trillions into banks for no prospect of economic improvement. Each Fed. Bank should organize industrial production in its region to achieve sustainable energy and agriculture for starters.

  • Michael Walker

    The Howard Hughes Medical Institute sponsors annual holiday lectures in science for high school students. The 2012 lectures on Changing Earth – Climate change are now available for streaming at:

    The lectures feature Dr. Naomi Oreskes on scientific consensus / communicating climate science and Dr. Daniel Schrag on climate science. Good additions to the work at this website.

  • L. Russell, Eagle Co.

    Why won’t anyone bring up the topic of overpopulation, and how this is really the root cause of most issues, from global warming, to extinction of species.We need to be talking about population regulation, control, and reduction, if we want any salvation for the earth’s ecosystems as we know them. We are in denial if we don’t think the earth has already passed it’s carrying capacity for humans and their consumptive life styles. And that these human activities are causing global warming, which may eventually render the planet uninhabitable to today’s species, including ourselves.

  • Gil Vazquez

    if only climate change wiped out those RESPONSIBLE for causing it (well, or speeding it up from it’s natural occurrence, and not the rest of the population, I would be ALL for it.

  • Gil Vazquez

    the reality is, you’re a moron.

  • Lyle Courtsal

    Integrate a 40 inch water level increase with nuclear power plant cooling water pumps that are not submersible and you got a real disaster waiting to happen.

  • Chris Waddell

    Google this: HAARP

  • Nadine Fahrlander

    The NOVA program shown on February 13th should be required viewing for all of the people involved in state and federal government. The information gathered by the satellites is the evidence they need to believe in. in order to try to change what we do.

  • David Mallen

    Dear Mr. Moyers:

    You are a journalistic light. We need a little PR in Redondo Beach, CA. AES Southland wants to build a new power plant in our harbor area, within 1/2 mile of 1000’s of schoolchildren in the densest California coastal. We are asking the California Energy Commission to do a “needs analysis” of the power grid, but AES does not want that. We need more public pressure. AES has terrorized voters with threats of suing and bankrupting the City and its VP has personally attacked me and trashed my legal reputation for posting U.S. Supreme Court cases upholding City Zoning laws. Here is a link. Please help publicize this. Most on our City Council acts like paid corporate lobbyists instead of representatives of the people.

  • Troy Schmidt

    I haven’t finished the show yet, but I’m having some questions,. . my page with my opinions is

  • John Bewick

    Enjpoyed the program about climate change with Tony Leiserowitz. In my view part of the reason that support for climate change legislation in the US has lost energy is that the Koch Brothers have supported a campaign to say that there is uncertainty in the science of climate change and therefore we should wait until the science is clear. This is a great example of negative camapigning that was described so powerfully in an article in The New Yorker by Jill Lepore on September 24, 2012 called “The Lie Factory.” A program that delved into the Koch Brothers campaign might shed light on their efforts to undermine climate change that seems to have worked very successfully.
    John Bewick

  • corrigible

    Here some EXCERPTS from an email sent to me as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists today:

    “The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Heartland Institute
    (perhaps best known for their billboards comparing climate change realists to
    the Unabomber) have joined forces to launch a state-by-state campaign to roll
    back the hard-won renewable energy standards that are a cornerstone of our
    progress on clean energy.”

    “The organizations, who both receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, have
    written legislation that would overturn clean energy standards. Now they’re
    pushing it on state lawmakers, using as backup bogus findings and skewed
    data from studies funded by the Koch brothers.”

    “This moment matters. Renewable energy standards helped triple U.S. wind
    energy capacity over the past four years, and if these groups succeed, it’s
    going to turn back the clock on America’s transition to clean

    “Building momentum to cut our nation’s projected oil use in half within 20 years.
    We’re holding webinars, meeting with concerned citizens and officials, producing
    videos, and mobilizing experts to educate the public and policy makers about our
    realistic, science-based plan.”

    “Campaigning to replace old, inefficient coal-fired power plants. We’re lobbying for
    policies that support growing clean energy industries like wind and solar power.
    And we’re making a science-based case to shut down costly coal generators that
    threaten public health and the planet.

    “Fighting to make nuclear power safer. Industry and regulators must make critical
    improvements to reduce the threat posed by accidents or attacks on reactor
    sites. With your help, we can engage hundreds of local leaders to call for
    federal action to protect their communities.”

    “This science-based approach works. We’ve won whistleblower protections for federal
    scientists, incentives for wind and solar power, and fuel economy standards to
    curb climate change pollution. Partners for the Earth make these
    victories possible.”

    These excerpts are from a message sent by:
    Kevin Knobloch
    Union of Concerned Scientists

  • Robert Peck

    I’ve determined I am among the sixteen percent who need to know specifically what I can do as an individual but did not get that information in your show. What do I do?

  • Judith Felker

    Robert Peck, thanks for asking. You can go to, for starters. You can also go to my FB page where I post info and petitions from many organizations concerned about climate change. There’s a lot we can each do, and the numbers of us concerned enough to do what we can is growing.

  • Judith Felker

    A few people are talking about overpopulation. Go to, and to The U.S. population is critical because we use more of the world’s resources than any other country, and are the most wasteful. But our love of freedom (to have as many children as we want) trumps responsible procreation, and denies free access to condoms in our country, much less worldwide.

  • Russell Donnelly

    The concerned proportion have many ideas of what might be a reasonable action-such as putting a price on carbon.Unfortunately one political party has opted to use people’s natural tendency to cling to the status quo as a stick to beat the other political party with for short term political gain within states inclined towards oil and gas interests.And they have painted any potential proposals to put a price on carbon as the Democrats thinly disguised goal of increasing government.Meanwhile we pay for the costs of global warming through income and payroll taxes.We need to make the case for a revenue neutral replacement of the regressive payroll tax which taxes a good-employment-with a carbon tax on a bad-which would allow people a choice as to whether they use carbon and pay the tax-or invest in conservation to avoid paying the tax.

  • Donald Campbell

    Bill–I do not know if you have dedicated a program to the Citizens Climate Lobby, but it seems to me that now is the time. CCL has provided an approach to mitigating climate change designed to reduce atmospheric pollutants by taxing carbon-based fuels at their sources in the U.S. and at ports of entry. One hundred percent of the money collected is returned to individual households throughout the nation, driving up the cost of carbon-based fuels, and making renewable methods of energy production competitive. All subsidies to carbon-based energies should be terminated. After all, these guys unknowingly(?) have caused this problem. Rather than casting blame, let us instead work to mitigate it. By beginning now to reduce our atmospheric pollution to an acceptable level (about 350 ppm CO2), via international efforts to control carbon-based fuels, we will eventually slow the pace of climate change to the point that it was before the acceleration began. Think about the dire consequences of not doing this.
    For an articulate interviewee I recommend Mark Reynolds of CCL .

  • Anonymous

    One critical need in climate change, orders of magnitude more effective than almost any other tactic, is to relentlessly drive solar/wind/conservation innovation and product development.

    What we have now is a system that attracts the biggest sharks in the ocean once any technology has reached the dead whale in the water stage. For example, China put up $30 billion in interest free loans once they could see that photovoltaic power was soon going to pass fossil fuel power in cost. Just before this stage is the early adapter stage, where small, usually moral entrepreneurs start companies that sometimes employ as many as 100 people. Well before this stage, almost nothing was being done when photovoltaic power cost 100 times as much as coal power.

    I call the first stage the moral imperative stage. A few individuals give of themselves to drive solar costs down, realizing that they themselves may never see a penny.

    I can promise you that the price of stored solar heat and of stored solar thermal electricity shall continue to drop, year after year, until the day that no sane person would pay for fossil fuel when they could get solar. On that day, climate change is permanently inhibited worldwide. That day, the day that we harvest the high hanging fruit, may be quite soon, or it may be far off. This depends primarily on the federal government spending money as if the USA’s national interest, and the world’s collective interest, depended on renewable energy. Unfortunately, our political interests are intimately tied with preserving the status quo for our fossil fuel moguls, many of whom contribute vast sums of money every election cycle so that their personal fossil fuel profits will keep flowing.

    Barring the federal government’s action, state governments may want to harvest the high hanging fruit. Again, we find that most states seem to be working counter to their natural interest in creating local jobs, possibly because of election cycle contributions. A few smart towns have gone out and created more employment by themselves, notes economist Michael Shuman.

    Barring any positive government action at all, students can pressure their universities to do the product development, as required of any universities that have already signed the Greenhouse Compact. Again, universities are extremely sensitive to funding from billionaires.

    Private foundations can take up this work, but this sometimes depends on how the foundation money was acquired.

    This leaves individuals. If I was an MBA and not an engineer, I could perhaps start a solar business or run a research center. If I had studied religion, in the sense of the Latin root “re-lig”, or the binding together of people, perhaps I could get a community of people bound together in morality to innovate the world’s needed products. But, I went to an engineering school. I turned into an inventor. Now I’m sitting on piles of solar inventions! I live an expensive and lonely life with a moral imperative to invent, with little income and lots and lots of financial outgo! Yes, my lack of money seriously gets in my way. I am slowed in my moral work. My old wrists can’t take much hammer pounding, I’m not at all the best carpenter and I usually have to substitute extra personal labor and time for good building materials.

  • Anonymous

    I second the motion on Executive Director Mark Reynolds. Watch his ’ presentation at
    the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Oct. 18, 2013

  • stephanie

    the house member he was referring to on the show was Rep. Phil Gingrey from GA.

  • Jack Wolf

    Climate change will kill off the forests too. In fact, it already is.

  • Jack Wolf

    I almost didn’t get past your first paragraph since you don’t seem to realize the scale of the financial benefit to fossil fuel corporations by denying obvious scientific facts. Those scientists base their findings on observations, and even your average laymen can see the changes. As if grant money compares to fossil fuel profits, lol. Also, these extreme weather events are not created by global warming, but rather are made more powerful because of extra energy from heat. I heartily suggest that you check out the NAS, NASA, NSF, AAAS, the Met, Tyndall Center of other similar for your science. They seem to think pretty much all (90%) is caused by fossil fuel emissions and that the earth has continued to heat up. After all, there is more to the earth than the atmosphere. Look to the land and the sea for the heat – it’s there. Agreed on Obama though – he’s on fossil fuel’s side. U.S. Fossil fuel production is at a record high, he opened up the Arctic to Shell Oil, and he fast-tracked the southern leg of the Keystone pipeline, which is now complete. Just to name a few.

  • Jack Wolf

    We can’t reduce to 350 now that self perpetuating feedbacks have kicked in. Carbon dioxide is such a long lived stock pollutant that this change is irreversible. (see 2007 paper). We need something even more radical that reduction. We need immediate caseation if we are to have a sliver of a chance of surviving. But, no one has the balls to admit it, or they have every reason to deny it, so prepare for those dire consequences. And, in case you missed it, those onsequences are already here, and growing.

  • Donald Campbell

    You’re right, Jack. Global Warming inertia us not in our favor. If some part of humanity survives, centuries from now, perhaps we will rebuild in accord with an ecological economics, a field of study already in progress ( It appears that we have to actually see and experience the Collapse of Industrial Civilization ( before we are moved to do anything internationally, but this too far-fetched to comprehend at present.

  • Jack Wolf

    We are comprehending it in real time. Some just faster than others. But, it’s beyond collapse at this point. Perhaps that’s why all the climate models consistently under call the timing and scale of the impacts. They lack a mathematic expression for the extinction factor.

  • Earthsong

    What I rarely see mentioned is airplane exhaust as a major pollutant,which it is. I recently sat by a southwest pilot on my flight home and I asked him that question,he agreed it was immense and nobody wanted to talk about it. We may turn the heat down a notch but I haven’t heard anyone say give up flying. If I remember well {?} over 40,000 flights on planet earth a day WOW Thats Pollution as high as we can get it ,oops rocket launches. Your thoughts appreciated.

  • Frank Dalla

    The topic headline should read; “No Food Production in Drought Effected States.” That might raise an eyebrow or two. Or; “Argue to the Death. its Happening.”

  • Frank Dalla

    What all references to the Earth’s historical past lack in substance is the fact that the Earth has never, ever had more than seven billion hungry humans on it and no water in California to irrigate with. The cause is irrevelent. How do you feed seven to ten billion people on barren ground. That should be the issue.

  • Larry Larsen

    One thing I would like to see discussed is who the winners are going to be in any shift in climate. Saharan Africa? Canada? Russia? Argentina? Western Ecuador? Australia? Are there going to be beneficial temperate climate shifts as well as the devastating drought and sea level rises? Can warmed tundra support tree growth, eventually? This is NOT a denial, but a question to which the answer cannot be a simple “No.” Somebody, somewhere comes out ahead on this.

  • Bill Clarke

    I think the comparison needs to be made quite clearly between big oil and big tobacco. We have an enormous industry making huge profits while receiving trillions in annual subsidies. The mass of scientific evidence shows that it is contributing to the deaths of thousands, soon to be hundreds of thousands, of people. Yet we’re told the science is flawed, the economic benefits too great. We’ve been through this scenario with big tobacco – and this is far, far worse. When the political process no longer serves the will of the people, the people have to act to reclaim their voice. If not now, later – but then at
    catastrophic cost.

  • Anonymous

    Certainly, Larry, there will be a few areas which experience some temporary improvement in growing conditions due to changes in rainfall patterns and other aspects of that region’s weather. However, I wouldn’t want to bet that those beneficial conditions will continue for very long. The acceleration of the chaotic nature of the climate may create brackets of supportive conditions for a decade or more, but (as the changes continue) those same regions may transition out of these conditions.

  • Anonymous

    Awake – in this situation, there’s no “they” or “you” to cast or accept blame for the trajectory of the climate changes – it’s all “us”. Yes – I watched the referenced video and wouldn’t recommend it to any rational person except perhaps as idle entertainment.

  • cecilia

    the bottom line is that WE will ALL be the losers. We only have the one planet. When we make it impossible to live on we will be dead.

  • cecilia

    ever hear of crowd funding?

  • Christina

    I have been told by my FOX News Channel groupies that climate change has
    happened & will happen again. They are convinced that just because
    FOX news stated that Republican say it is a myth to worry and it is
    ridiculous. It is interesting to see how much common sense is not common
    to many, and this propaganda is so widespread. Unfortunately our
    species is selfish and greedy. Dr. Suzuki is correct to say that the
    earth will be fine in the future, but it is the human race that will pay
    for shoving the climate issue under the rug. It is true there has been
    climate change before, and it will happen again. However I reminded my
    mother that since the Industrial revolution we are accelerating this
    change, and in the past we never had any these toxic chemicals we impose
    on the atmosphere and the land. As I said this all is common sense, but
    people have a denial issue and those who have common sense these days
    is really “Real Sense” because it seems that common sense is not common
    among alot of us. It seems that people have to reach within these to be
    less self centered, and be aware that we are reaching a point of no
    return. Our judgement effects those living on this planet in the future.
    This earth does not belong to us, we are just here temporarily. We are
    ruining this planet. In a positive light I would really hope that people
    would come to do this conclusion. This is my wish.

  • Barbara Smith

    I’m pretty sure you’re right, but I wish that weren’t the case. Isn’t the lag time about 80-100 years? We may be just seeing the effects of the fossil fuel burning from 80 years ago. Even if the whole planet stopped all burning today, it wouldn’t be noticed for maybe another century. The thawing of the north pole and the western Antarctica are likely the harbingers of runaway climate change that we can’t stop, no matter what we do.

  • Jack Wolf

    Sorry, no. It’s about 30 to 40 years so we are seeing the effects from emissions from the 70s and 80s soon. Also note that emissions rapidly accelerated starting about then. And, keep in mind that methane emissions have a more immediate effect since it’s such a powerful greenhouse gas. So, hold on to your hat – things are going to take off. Lastly, amplifying feedbacks have now been observed and are accelerating the rate of change too. The permafrost thaw is a good example of how once it gets warm, methane is released thereby making it hotter, and releasing more methane. And, it can not be stopped let alone reversed. Sorry to be the barer of bad news.

  • Suzian

    I’ve been watching the trees die for many years. In
    the California mountains via bark beetle infestation brought on by extended drought. Now in the Northeast where the new, harsher winters are killing trees and other long established plants that have thrived for centuries.

  • Suzian

    The cows we grow and eat are also contributing.

  • Russ

    Mr. Moyers, please consider inviting David Carlson onto your TV show. He is Director of the World Climate Research Programme’s Joint Planning and, as demonstrated by this interview on New Zealand radio, has an excellent way of expressing the problems and their urgency!

  • Patricia

    Katherine Hayhoe on Climate Change is delightful. How needed her voice is and her perspective on the denials by conservative Christians are right on.
    From a Christian viewpoint, however, I’d like to add another perspective but from a more metaphysical or alternative interpretation. We are created in the image of God, therefore we are eternal living souls. We are also creative. We are also given free will, and as I understand it, we are to exercise that free will as we learn to align with God’s will with our own unique expression of same. God does his work through us, not to us or for us. Earth is a laboratory for us to learn to use that free will. It is not that God cannot or does not intervene. God does but our main purpose here on Earth is to create and have to live with what we create. Then we learn from our mistakes and as we attune our wills with God through prayer and meditation, we eventually evolve to become Christ like expressions of God, unique and individual yet one with and part of the whole.

  • Patricia

    Katherine Hayhoe was a delightful fresh voice on climate change. She offers hope that the Christian climate change deniers may be enlightened and become cooperative.

    From a Christian perspective, however, I would like to share another view–a more metaphysical or alternative interpretation. We are created in the image of the eternal God, therefore we are eternal, universal, living souls. We are also creative beings. God gave us free will and the Earth is a laboratory for us to use that free will, to create, individually and collectively, and to learn from what we create. We are not puppets. God does His/Her work through us, not to us or for us. Not that God can’t or doesn’t intervene but our purpose while on this Earth is to learn from what we create. Ultimately, we evolve and learn, through prayer and meditation, that our true will is one with God our Creator, unique and individual expressions of that, yet one with and part of the whole.

  • Christine Coupe

    I want to commend Katherine Hayhoe and her husband on both their book and their forward looking thinking. I may not agree with their religious views but I think she is spot on about the difficulty of separating religious and political views (ie. her point about the S.C. politician). I sincerely hope that given their location (West Texas) and the preponderance of ‘born again Christians’ in the area that their message spreads.

  • Glenn Krum

    Global warming is occurring and has been since the end of the last ice age, over 13000 years ago. We are not helping ourselves with carbon and methane pollution, but we are not the cause, there were no big industrial polluters back then.

  • Margaret S

    My optimism about the youngest generation just took a big leap upward as I watched & heard Kelsey Juliana speak so animatedly, articulately and wisely about the gloomy prospects for the world, due to climate change, Our do-nothing Congress and the nay-sayers who don’t want to be confused with the facts should feel shamed by an 18 year old woman who is far better prepared and has better perspective to make the important decisions necessary.

    And finally, I’ve said it before — Bill Moyers for President!

  • Skai

    We don’t talk about overpopulation because it’s politically incorrect. We have all silently and unconsciously agreed that we will censor ourselves when it comes to certain subjects. However, I agree with you completely. I think taxing those who procreate irresponsibly may be a good start. That would mean there would have to be easy access to birth control and I know the kind of fury that would cause, but we need to be more concerned with reducing our carbon footprint per household, not per person. Just because we have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the correct thing to do, in fact, it’s an extremely selfish thing to do. Taxing corporations wouldn’t work if they just pass off the taxes to the consumer by raising prices. There has to be some way to insure that they actually do something about their carbon emissions. The Federal Government would have to oversee those corporations to make
    sure the taxes didn’t just become a cost of doing business.

  • Skai

    Cows raised in stockyards are a huge contributing factor.
    Judith Schwartz, in her book, describes how proper animal husbandry can help heal the earth. “Herds
    raised according to modern, conventional practices contribute to
    desertification—turning land into desert—which does not support plant
    life and photosynthesis, thereby worsening atmospheric CO2 levels.”
    Cows that are raised on grass help keep the carbon in the earth where it belongs.

  • James Patnoudes

    Climate change is the only place a person needs to look to see that there is pretty much no hope for American politics. It offers us the most representative microcosm of our completely broken democratic process. It is a problem to which there is a logical solution, supported by an almost unanimous consensus of the most intelligent experts in the world, experts who are relying on predictable, empirical science. Yet somehow, even when faced with the mountain of data that clearly lays out the problem and requisite course of action, people think they are entitled to their “beliefs.” For this reason alone, we will all suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

    Though we love to think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, at a certain point this becomes insanity. At a certain point, in regard to things like climate change, it becomes suicide to be tolerant of opposing beliefs for the simple fact that this is a thing that imperils the entire planet. It’s like we’re in a car heading off of a cliff, but instead of debating how we solve the problem of dying in a fiery crash –asking each other meaningful questions like do we slam on the brakes, will there be time to stop, should we just jump out and tuck and roll– we are arguing whether or not we are even in a moving vehicle…. It’s infuriating.

    The real tragedy in all of this is that the same folks who are arguing against mountains of scientific data also want their opinion heard on issues like gun control, income inequality, voting rights, or sending our troops to war. It begs the question that if they could be so obtuse, so devastatingly wrong, about something so blatantly obvious and scientifically verifiable, why should we listen to them when it comes to other matters of public policy? If these people would put profits before the environment, or an ecosystem so increasingly fragile, one without which the very existence of life on earth is threatened, how can they be trusted to make any other important decisions?

    Many years from now, when the sea levels have risen, and the predictions of climate scientists have all come true, the sick irony will be that these people who ignored the warnings will not admit to their wrongness, nor will they apologize for their complete, abject stupidity. They will instead pat themselves on the back for ensuring everyone had guns with which to fight off the refugees from countries who couldn’t survive the disastrous effects of climate inaction; the thousands of people from third world regions now submerged beneath 10 feet of water, or swept away in the most recent super-typhoon, who have arrived on our doorstep searching for food, shelter or fresh drinking water.

  • Anonymous

    I think debate on climate change/global warming is good. The idea that this is all settled science, IPCC models unchallenged/unchanging, that carbon taxing being done in the first place and where the money goes in the second is not my business is ridiculous. I don’t deny anthropogenic warming, I just don’t think sea levels and temperatures rising is going to cause a snowball effect, I think Gia homeostasis will return temperatures to “normal” in a few hundred years when there is no more carbon left to burn. Like you could get people to quit using a dryer for their clothes instead of the line? Sure let’s all do our part, ride a bicycle, design housing for efficiency, quit using energy in the first place like it is a bottomless pit. The idea that one needs to be beating the climate drum or their an imbecile is rather ridiculous. Beachfront infrastructure may have to move to higher ground, I’m sure people can move inland before they drown. Monckton had a good presentation at the 2014 denier festival in Las Vegas. I guess I’m a denier because I don’t believe the earth is in a death spiral.

  • Anonymous

    Climate Change is not only detrimental to our grandchildren, but to us, now. Our health, economy, aka 1% vs 99%, eco-devastation on agriculture… Please, listen to the physician who witnessed and treated patients effected by pollution at Alberta’s oil sands.

  • Michael Winkler

    There are many websites, with the most prominent being George Monbiot, saying that flying is inherently unsustainable. With the very small exception of family emergencies, I gave up flying 12 years ago. We need make people who think of themselves as environmentalists embarrassed rather than proud about their international travel. We also need to tax emissions from airplanes and include not only CO2, but also nitrous oxides and water vapor which together multiply the impact by approximately three.

  • SamuraiArtGuy

    I’m going to wave the “do the SCIENCE” flag and point out that be that as it may, the signal that led researchers to determine human involvement was the sharp uptick in warming generally consistent with the industrial revolution and large scale burning of fossil fuels. The scientific community looked at all the possible and potential natural causes they could find and there more warming that could be accounted for, leaving only human generated greenhouse gas emissions.

    “That humans are causing global warming is the position of the
    Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific
    organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.” – Skeptical Science

  • SamuraiArtGuy

    I hear you… I had written this for Kos not long after Megastorm Sandy had hammered the NYC region.

    “Why is it so hard to accept the idea of Climate Change?

    “I think it’s an, “if this, then that,” problem. If anthropogenic climate change is real, then the disturbing implications are that we’d have to, as a species, make sweeping and unpleasant changes of our global lifestyles. The most dislocation would be experienced by those in the industrialized nations, Americans most acutely. Developing nations are also swiftly adopting fossil intensive economies. If the peoples and governments of the world took on the tasks of significant carbon emission reductions, it would require our entire species to change literally how we go about just about *everything*.

    “It’s also damn scary. Some of the scenarios of planetary devastation and species extinction being put forth in the scientific community are positively terrifying. We just don’t want to believe, it’s too much to contemplate. This can’t be happening, it’s just too horrible to be true! So, it’s not, dammit!”

  • Glenn Krum

    OK, I’ll was the flag back, please look at a geologic temperature profile for the holocene, the last 12000 years or so. The various profiles are calibrated to the modern era temperature data used by climate scientists. It does not show the uptick as anything more than normal variation. The point is that the warming trend was there before the industrial revolution. Sea level rise was also occuring, if you look at geologic sea level curves (the Celtic people could walk to the UK from Europe). Pick any data source, Wikipedia is fine and tries to be unbiased.
    Climate change is occurring, no argument. We are accelerating it with carbon dioxide and methane emissions but that is additive to an existing trend. A trend that will continue whether we stop all emissions or not, until the fundamental (planetary not human) driving forces change.