BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

• The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
• Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
• Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to feedback@billmoyers.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

• 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

  Great
  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.

• MARK DOUGLAS REINERS

  BICYCLING HOME FROM “LINCOLN”

  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!

  MARK DOUGLAS REINERS
  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?

• http://www.facebook.com/carlos.estevez.73700 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”

• http://www.facebook.com/dawn.lowe.391 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
  earth.

  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
  will.

  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
  here
  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!

• http://www.facebook.com/john.gault.545 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.

• http://www.facebook.com/john.gault.545 John Gault

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

• http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Auner/100002042338402 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: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/lectures/index.html

  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.

• http://www.facebook.com/chris.waddell.54 Chris Waddell

  Google this: HAARP

• http://www.facebook.com/nadine.fahrlander 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.

• http://www.facebook.com/david.mallen.7 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. http://tbrnews.com/news/redondo_beach/guest-editorial-no-on-measure-a/article_0324aadc-7c32-11e2-93c6-001a4bcf887a.html

• http://www.facebook.com/troy.schmidt.31 Troy Schmidt

  I haven’t finished the show yet, but I’m having some questions,. . my page with my opinions is http://www.slideshare.net/troyschmidt31

• John Bewick

  Bill,
  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
  energy.”

  “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
  President
  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 http://www.350.org, 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 http://www.populationbalance.com, and to http://www.fcnl.com 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.

• http://www.facebook.com/russell.donnelly.50 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.