John Oliver Brilliantly Hammers Climate Change Skeptics: “You Don’t Need People’s Opinions on a Fact” (Video)

jon-oliver-climate-changeI’ll be honest, I’ve yet to catch John Oliver’s new show on HBO called Last Week Tonight.  In fact, this video was the first clip I’ve actually seen of the show, but I will say it’s one of the best segments on this type of show I’ve ever seen.  It was short, to the point and wonderfully mocked the idiocy of those who don’t believe in climate change.

Oliver tore into a Gallup poll that said one in four Americans isn’t buying into climate change saying, “Who gives a shit?  That doesn’t matter.  You don’t need people’s opinions on a fact.  You might as well have a poll asking which number is bigger, 5 or 15? Or do owls exist? Or are there hats?”

He continued on, saying, “The only accurate way to report that one out of four Americans are skeptical of global warming is to say, ‘A poll finds that one in four Americans are wrong about something.’ Because a survey of thousands of scientific papers that took a position on climate change found that 97 percent endorsed the positions that humans are causing global warming.”

Then he went on to say that the biggest reason why this issue still seems like it’s a debate, is because on TV it is.  He pointed out that during these debates it’s usually “Bill Nye the Science Guy vs. some dude.”   Poking fun at the fact that in these debates each side is given equal representation, when the reality is 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change.

Oliver then suggested a real debate should be had where both sides of the argument are accurately represented by the prcentages of scientists who support climate change vs. those who oppose it. This part of the segment starts out in the typical one on one format, with Oliver actually getting Bill Nye to appear, but then it escalates into 2 other climate deniers coming on stage followed by 96 other scientists to “debate” climate change.

Which is actually a great point. During these debates both sides are often given equal representation, when in reality the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes that humans are causing climate change.  It gives the perception that both sides should be taken seriously.  But when you think about it, the fact that we’re “debating” facts that are supported by an overwhelming number of the world’s scientists is ridiculous.

I absolutely loved this segment and the brilliance behind the way Oliver mocked these imbeciles who continue to doubt the existence of man-made climate change.  I’m definitely going to have to add Last Week Tonight to my DVR scheduler.

Watch the segment below:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    It’s so obvious. It shouldn’t be a debatable agenda anymore. But then again these are the same nut jobs that try to do the same thing over and over and over, hoping for different results. Isn’t there a simple scientific explanation we all learned in middle school? For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Pump crap into the earth to get oil, earth underneath changes and reacts. Duh!

  • Pipercat

    Absolutely fucking brilliant!

  • Seth Williams

    They need to change the wording. It wasn’t proven that we are the DIRECT cause of climate change. Climate change is happening with or without us. What we ARE doing is speeding it along. We could stop using ALL fossil fuels throughout the planet and climate change will still happen. It might take a little longer but it WILL happen regardless of what we do.

    • Pipercat

      Right, they need to stick to the real name of causation: Anthropogenic global warming.

      • Seth Williams

        Read your own comment, you just said that climate change is a naturally occuring thing and that WE are helping it along. Unless what you said is all bullshit.

      • Pipercat

        No Frisbee, I didn’t.

      • Seth Williams

        Yes Radio, you did

      • Pipercat

        Spell it out.

      • Seth Williams

        ” You cannot take sequestered carbon stored within the Earth for
        tens of millions of years, burn it and expect there would be no
        consequence. Moreover, once you release the stored carbon within the
        biosphere, the mechanism that returns the carbon back into the ground is
        being destroyed by the very same cause.” = Naturally occuring event. Why? because Released stored carbon beneath the earth’s surface happens ALL THE TIME. Even without us.

        “Us, humans. Add acidification of the Oceans to the equation and soon
        the oceans will no longer be able to support life as we have come to
        know it. Just for good measure add urban heat islands, coal fire
        aerosols and the potential of methane escaping from the sea beds adds up
        to one thing, we’re already toast.” = Us speeding up the effect from above.

      • Seth Williams

        Carbon is and has been released naturally all the time

      • Pipercat

        Care to elaborate on how stored carbon is released all the time and equates to burning hydrocarbons ,tons upon tons of it, on a daily basis?

        You never proved the second part. You just stated it. Perhaps if I stated, toasting ourselves you might become enlightened?

        Love how you purposely omitted, anthropogenic global warming. Oh, and contextomy is also a fallacious form of argument.

      • Seth Williams

        I guess Volcano’s don’t burn hydroocarbons, I guess naturally occuring fires caused by lightning or anything else in nature don’t burn hydrocarbons. Again, climate change would happen if we weren’t here based on EXACTLY what you just said. The second part is we are just helping the first part along by burning MORE hydrocarbons than would naturally occur. Do you get it now?

      • Pipercat

        Volcanoes primarily spew forth dust, ash, water and various sulphides that cool the atmosphere down. You have no idea what a hydrocarbon is. You are confusing the climate cycle with climate change. Chop down a tree, burn it and all you have done is release carbon that was already in the biosphere. The biosphere will attend to itself. Drill six miles into the earth extract, then burn oil, gas and other distilliates, you are adding carbon to the biosphere. See the difference?

        Sorry Seth, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

      • Seth Williams

        So none that can actually burn on a regular basis. No you have no fucking clue what you are talking about…..

      • Pipercat

        I never said that either. Try arguing you position and stop making a fool of yourself. You assert that humans cannot possibly change the climate, yet you have not proved that in any way. All you’re doing is conflating unrelated references that do not prove your point.

      • Seth Williams

        The argument being made is that what WE are doing is something that happens on regular basis (at a much much slower pace) anyway. Yes, we can speed up what is already happening. But again, we are not the the MAIN cause of it. As I’ve stated, we could stop burning EVERYTHING and climate change will still happen. Granted it might be thousands or even millions of years later but its going to happen.

      • Pipercat

        There is no proof this is already happening. That’s the flaw in your argument. In fact, the last 10,000 years have been quite stable until we came along. There is such a thing as climate cycle. This is climate change that affects or disrupts that cycle.

      • Seth Williams

        There’s proof that it’s already happend! lol

      • Pipercat

        Caused by anthropogenic global warming.

      • Seth Williams

        So humans caused it 10,000 years ago? LMAO

      • Pipercat

        Can you follow a thread?

      • Seth Williams

        Yes I can, you just said that anthropogenic global warming caused the climate shift 10,000 years ago lol

      • Pipercat

        No, I answered you incorrect assertion that the last global climate event was millions of years ago. I informed you that the last event was 10,000 years ago. You have now conflated that with the actual issue at hand, the present. Pay attention…

      • Seth Williams

        No, you said “There is no proof this is already happening. That’s the flaw in your
        argument. In fact, the last 10,000 years have been quite stable until
        we came along. There is such a thing as climate cycle. This is climate
        change that affects or disrupts that cycle.”

        Then I said “There’s proof that it’s already happend! lol” and you said “Caused by anthropogentic global warming.”

      • Pipercat

        Wow, you get a cookie.

      • Seth Williams

        So now WHO should pay attention? Apparently you 🙂

      • Pipercat

        You’re kinda new to Diqus…

      • Seth Williams

        the last climate shift (aka ICE AGE) was millions of years ago

      • Pipercat

        Nope, 10,000 years ago when the glaciers receded and left things like the great lakes.

      • Sandy Greer

        We are the main cause of it NOW. Since we’ve been burning fossil fuels. The last century, in particular.
        You yourself argued we have sped up the process.
        YES, climate change has occurred on a regular basis in the past millennia. But the rate we burn our fossil fuels TODAY is simply unsustainable.

      • Seth Williams

        No we are not the main cause of a climate change. We are the main cause of it speeding up though. yes I agree with that but I do not agree that we are the main cause of it period.

      • Sandy Greer

        You’re arguing semantics. Your choice – if you wish.

        But a pointless argument, and one I don’t waste my time on.

      • Seth Williams

        I’m just arguing that what is being put out is not entirely correct. It may be semantics to you but I’d like to know the ENTIRE story. Not just bits and pieces.

      • Sandy Greer

        Could be you’re right, that what is put out is not ENTIRELY correct. We know things now we didn’t before; probably will know more in future we don’t today.

        But my point is this:

        I NEVER argue for the sake of arguing. Especially when I see people ‘misrepresent’ what others have said. I begin to suspect they just enjoy arguing, and aggravating others.

        They can do as they please.

        Doesn’t mean I have to ‘play along’.

      • Seth Williams

        I only argue when people don’t present all the information. As in this. “climate change is directly caused by humans”. That is not correct. That is implying that if we stopped all fossil fuel burning that the climate would stabilize and there would never be any kind of climate change or shift. The past has proved that wrong as there has been climate shifts and changes well before we were even a speck on the earth.

      • Sandy Greer

        One last time. I will be blunt.
        You misunderstand what Pipercat said. Misinterpret what he said. Misrepresent him as having ‘asserted’ this and/or ‘implied’ that.
        Done it so often – I suspect it’s deliberate.
        You are free to do so. But it makes others not want to speak with you.
        We can only beat our heads against brick walls for so often – before we lose patience, and find somebody else to talk with.
        Never fear. There’s always somebody new to come along.

      • Seth Williams

        That is fine but if you’d like to believe something that is proven over something that isn’t proven, by all means, go ahead.

      • Pipercat

        Ah, that was a fine lunch. Do you have any idea how fallacious this statement is? I suspect you don’t because it’s fallacious on multiple levels. The first fallacy is a total red herring because you discount that humans could cause anthropogenic global warming because if it were stopped, it would the climate would stabilize if the burning of fossil fuels were to stop. Nobody is making that assertion except you.

        What is happening is deforestation, urbanization, burning of fossil fuels, acidification of the oceans and humans taking more resources than the planet can support is causing an increase in the average temperature globally. This phenomenon started around 150 years ago coinciding with industrial revolution.

        Now if you disagree, you must present a counter besides volcanoes, forest fires, lava and well, it happened in the past. What was the trigger, if it was not human activities?

      • Sandy Greer

        You’ve the patience of a saint.

        I don’t. More’s the pity.

      • Pipercat

        Good cop, bad cop thing. 🙂

      • Sandy Greer

        Hah! I assume – you’re flattering me? ;D

        In any case, I’m out: Patience is not my strong suit.

        I’ll check back later, to see if you’re still standing, or if you gave up the ghost.

      • Seth Williams

        Exactly! What was the trigger if it wasn’t humans! There wasn’t a trigger as it’s a NATURALLY OCCURING EVENT. That typically would happen over a VERY long time but instead, because of what you just mentioned, is happening at a quicker rate lol

      • Pipercat

        Sorry, the “deus ex machina” reason is just plain bullshit.

      • Seth Williams

        How is it bullshit if its true lol

      • Pipercat

        Now that’s argumentative bullshit…

      • Seth Williams

        No it’s not. I’ve presented my FACTS and you are just calling it bullshit. You agree that climate change and shifts have naturally happend in the past but apparently they can’t happen naturally now?

      • Pipercat

        Those aren’t facts, those are fallacies…

      • Seth Williams

        Ah so those same 97% of scientist are now just saying fallacies huh? So there hasn’t been other climate changes or shifts? Is that your position? That there has NEVER been any kind of climate change or shift in the history of the planet?

      • Pipercat

        Now that’s an appeal to authority and a false dilemma. Both are fallacies. You resort to this because you have no empirical data to support your assertions.

      • Seth Williams

        Wow, so I guess we’ve never had a climate shift or change or an ice age because of said climate shift or change. Or I guess you believe that the ice age just happend magically one day.

      • Pipercat

        Another false dilemma with an appeal to ignorance. You’ve stated no fact to support your original assertion only fallacy based conclusions.

      • Seth Williams

        And I can same the same for you then. I see no empirical data to support anything you’ve said. So now we are both at an impasse.

      • Pipercat

        Wrong, you lose. My arguments are totally logical because my conclusion follows the proposition. The empirical points to human activity. The term anthropogenic global warming is not some scrabble challenge, but a term coined by… climate scientists. The empiracal data is in the form of rising levels of CO2, methane, coal fire aerosols and the acidification of the oceans to name a few. If you can produce one piece of data that proves this is natural then produce it; besides saying it happened before.

        What you are doing is saying is this is natural, but humans are accelerating it and making it worse. That argument is illogical because you have just named the culprit as, humans and their activities.

      • Seth Williams

        No actually everything I’m reading says those SAME scientist say that humans are a CONTRIBUTING factor to global warming. Not the main cause but a CONTRIBUTING factor. Which just reinforces my point.

      • Pipercat

        Another appeal to authority fallacy.

      • Seth Williams

        How is it an appeal to authority when it’s the same scientists as you keep (well, you say they said that but who knows) saying.

      • Pipercat

        You have to cite you source. You can’t just say scientists. That makes it an appeal to authority.

      • Seth Williams

        And yet you have yet to cite a source. Again, Impasse.

      • Pipercat

        The source is the prevailing science. I did not make up the term anthropogenic global warming, science did. The rest is easily obtainable with simple searches.

      • Seth Williams

        Now you are using appeal to Authority. As you have not cited anything. And the rest of what I’VE said is easily obtainable with simple searches. Again, impasse

      • Pipercat

        Not so fast, this all goes to your very first post on the top this page. You have to prove that statement. The rest is just argumentative bullshit.

      • Seth Williams

        I have proven my statement, time and time again. You just refuse to see it. My ORIGINAL statement was that we were not the DIRECT cause of climate change. I’ve proven that.

      • Pipercat

        Argumentum ad lapidem.

      • Seth Williams

        No, actually THAT statement is Argumentative.

      • Pipercat

        You learn well young padawan… fallacious you still are..

      • Seth Williams

        Fallacious I am not 🙂 I’ve proven my point time and time again 🙂

      • Pipercat

        Dark side you have fallen…

      • Seth Williams

        I guess if being correct is part of the qualifications of being on the dark side, then i agree 🙂

      • Seth Williams

        Your answer is “Oh it’s there, just search it” Guess what, so is mine.

      • Pipercat

        Argumentative.

      • Seth Williams

        you keep saying I’m just appealing to authority, yet you are doing the same thing. So you are being just as argumentative.

      • Pipercat

        I’m not arguing for argument’s sake, I have a proposition and a conclusion. My logic is sound.

      • Seth Williams

        And so Is mine. You are correct that we are a contributing factor when it comes to climate change but you are incorrect when saying we are the direct cause.

      • Pipercat

        Yet, you cannot prove my conclusion wrong, inaccurate or in contradiction.

      • Seth Williams

        Your own citation proved you wrong.

      • Pipercat

        How so?

      • Seth Williams

        You are asserting that climate change is the direct result of us. That citation says we are a contributor..not the direct result. There is a difference. That means something else causes it AS WELL as us.

      • Pipercat

        The source never uses the word contribute in any form. The word that is used is, due.

      • Seth Williams

        Actually, a couple of them do. Others you other words such as “largely attributable” or “primary driver”. Which again, means there are other forces in play other than JUST us.

      • Pipercat

        Which couple?

      • Seth Williams

        This is sad, It’s your own citation and I have to cite it for you?

        “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is
        occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
        greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the PRIMARY DRIVER.”
        (2009)2

        American Geophysical Union

        “Human‐induced climate change requires
        urgent action. Humanity is the MAJOR INFLUENCE on the global climate
        change observed over the past 50 years.
        Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”
        (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

        The Geological Society of America

        “The Geological Society of America (GSA)
        concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005),
        the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on
        Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that
        human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for MOST of
        the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9

      • Pipercat

        And what prey tell does, Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action tell you?

      • Seth Williams

        The entire paragraph (not just the first part as you decided to leave out information) tells me that we are speeding along something that would happen anyway as we are a MAJOR INFLUENCE and not the SOLE INFLUENCE.

      • Pipercat

        Then all of this is nothing but your conclusion. This begs the question: Are you a climate scientist. Do you hold any science degrees. If not, your conclusion is, as I have been saying all along, is fallacious and a misinterpretation of the existing facts. I, on the other hand, know that I am not a scientist and defer to their professional judgement.

      • Seth Williams

        I’m reading the same things you are citing. There is no different interpretation. No where in any of those citations does it say we are the sole reason for climate change. However, EVERYTHING you are citing says we are major influence, major contributor, or something else that says there are other forces in play other than us. You don’t have to be a climatologist to see that. You say you defer to their professional judgement yet you are disputing what they are actually saying.

      • Pipercat

        This whole schtick of yours is a burden of proof fallacy. You parse words, you engage in lazy semantics, your logic is totally fallacious and you are topping this off by forcing me to prove you wrong when you haven’t proved you right.

      • Seth Williams

        I’m not parsing words at all. I’m just stating my original point that we are not the sole cause of climate change. And your citations have proven me right. If you choose to ignore your own citations, then that is on you. All I can say is look up the actual definition of those words. My original point of we are not the sole cause of climate change is correct, even by your own citation.

      • Pipercat

        Your logic is fallacious. To prove you right, you’d have to remove the human element and show where global warming is happening in spite of humans instead of the activities of humans. You’d have to stick to recent history and prove that the planet would warm regardless of human activity. You’d have to list the sources of non-human warming and compile them into a paper proving you thesis.

        Now, just how do you plan on proving your hypothesis?

      • Seth Williams

        “The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last
        650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and
        retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago
        marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human
        civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small
        variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our
        planet receives.”

        Your own NASA website proves me right.

      • Pipercat

        Only in your mind it does.

      • Seth Williams

        “The historical record shows that the climate system varies naturally
        over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to
        the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural
        causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural
        changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations”

      • Seth Williams

        The response of someone who has been defeated 🙂

      • Pipercat

        Argumentum ad lapidum.

      • Seth Williams

        “Throughout much of its 4.5 billion year history, Earth’s climate has
        alternated between periods of warmth and relative cold, each lasting for
        tens to hundreds of millions of years. During the warmest periods, the
        polar regions of the world were completely free of ice. Earth also has
        experienced repeated ice ages—periods lasting for millions of years,
        during which ice sheets advanced and retreated many times over portions
        of the globe. During the most extreme cold phases, snow and ice covered
        the entire globe (for more details, see Unit 1, “Many Planets, One
        Earth”).”

        Would you like me to keep citing more? The proof to my hypothesis is out there, you just refuse to see it.

      • Pipercat

        Argumentum ad lapidem, you haven’t proven a correlation.

      • Seth Williams

        Actually, you wanted me to prove that climate change has happend in the past. I’ve done that. Your own citation then correlates the fact that we are not the sole cause of climate change. So yes, I have proven correlation.

      • Pipercat

        This was my challenge:

        Your logic is fallacious. To prove you right, you’d have to remove
        the human element and show where global warming is happening in spite of
        humans instead of the activities of humans. You’d have to stick to
        recent history and prove that the planet would warm regardless of human
        activity. You’d have to list the sources of non-human warming and
        compile them into a paper proving you thesis.

        Now, just how do you plan on proving your hypothesis?

        I specifically stated that you’d have to stick to recent history. You’ve proved, nothing.

      • Seth Williams

        That’s the great thing about science, you don’t have to stick to current things. History is already there. So because the holocaust happend in history, does that make it not true? So because dinasours are not around right now, does that mean they didnt exist ever? Are you saying that scientific data that estimates what has happend in the past is wrong? I guess then I can say since all of those sources you listed about climate change are wrong then, because it happend in the past.

      • Pipercat

        Big, gigantic, obvious, pathetic and weak straw man.

      • Seth Williams

        Not at all a weak straw. Read the above citation that even says the use of the past is what scientist use to estimate the present and future. The use of past history is essential to science. Without it, you’d be doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over.

      • Pipercat

        You’re right, it’s a great straw man. Ray Bolger would be proud.

      • Seth Williams

        Apparently it’s the straw the broke the camels back…pretty big straw 🙂

      • Pipercat

        You don’t even know what a straw man argument is. Oh, that wasn’t a compliment.

      • Seth Williams

        Oh I know what it is, I just know my argument is nothing close to that. I made my original statement. I was asked to prove it (I did that with citations). And now I have yet to see anyone disprove me.

      • Pipercat

        Replying to yourself? Is everything ok?

      • Seth Williams

        No, all my replies have that little arrow pointing at your name. I guess you might be seeing things.

      • Pipercat

        The arrow points to me, the reply is to your own question. Kinda creepy.

      • Seth Williams

        You could of disproved me long ago by citing something scientific that said we were the sole or direct cause of climate change but you have not. Why is that?

      • Seth Williams

        Scientists have analyzed paleoclimate
        records from many regions of the world to document Earth’s climate
        history. Important sources of information about past climate shifts
        include:

        Mineral deposits in deep sea beds. Over time,
        dissolved shells of microscopic marine organisms create layers of chalk
        and limestone on sea beds. Analyzing the ratio of oxygen-18 (a rare
        isotope) to oxygen-16 (the common form) indicates whether the shells
        were formed during glacial periods, when more of the light isotope
        evaporated and rained down, or during warm periods.

        Pollen grains trapped in terrestrial soils. Scientists use radiocarbon dating
        to determine what types of plants lived in the sampled region at the
        time each layer was formed. Changes in vegetation reflect surface
        temperature changes.

        Chemical variations in coral reefs. Coral reefs grow
        very slowly over hundreds or thousands of years. Analyzing their
        chemical composition and determining the time at which variations in
        corals’ makeup occurred allows scientists to create records of past
        ocean temperatures and climate cycles.

        Core samples from polar ice fields and high-altitude glaciers.
        The layers created in ice cores by individual years of snowfall, which
        alternate with dry-season deposits of pollen and dust, provide physical
        timelines of glacial cycles. Air bubbles in the ice can be analyzed to
        measure atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the ice was laid down.

        “Understanding the geological past is key to today’s climate
        change research for several reasons. First, as the next sections will
        show, Earth’s climate history illustrates how changing GHG levels and
        temperatures in the past shaped climate systems and affected conditions
        for life. Second, researchers use past records to tune climate models
        and see whether they are accurately estimating dynamics like temperature
        increase and climate feedbacks. The more closely a model can replicate
        past climate conditions, the more accurate its future predictions are
        likely to be.”

        More citations but i’m sure you’ll just ignore them as usual.

      • Pipercat

        Oh no, I don’t ignore them, I love them. I just apply them to the proper context which you seem a big problem with doing..

      • Seth Williams

        You said prove that there has been climate change in the past. Every source that I have listed has proven that. Unless of course you are saying all those sources are false. Is that what you are saying? And then you said prove correlation between those sources and current climate change. YOUR source did that by not saying we were a sole or direct cause of climate change. I’ve proven my point time and time again. You have yet to prove me wrong.

      • Pipercat

        Now you’re just making shit up.

      • Seth Williams

        Elaborate. That is your problem. You keep saying I’m wrong but you’ve yet to cite anything that says I’m wrong. I’m beginning to think you are just being argumentative 🙂

      • Pipercat

        I don’t have a problem. I also never asked you to prove there was climate change in the past. I specifically asked you to stick to recent history. Recent history that would create a correlation to your bullshit original assertion. To create a correlation, you have to remove human activity over the last 150 years tops. You blew off on a bullshit tangent because, you can’t prove that this climate event would happen without human activity.. Keep telling yourself you did, but you didn’t. Time for your next straw man.

      • Seth Williams

        Actually, if you read any of the citations I’ve listed, that would prove your recent history. The past stated the various things (solar heating variants, volcanic eruption, etc etc) that caused climate change back then. Are you saying that now those same variants do not exist?

      • Pipercat

        I’m not saying anything. I’m not saying anything now and I didn’t say anything then.

      • Seth Williams

        Ok then, I’ve proven my point. I’ve proven, through my citations, that a climate event would happen without human activity for the simple fact that the same variants that caused it in the past are still present now and have been present for the last 150 years. Now prove to me that climate change would NOT happen if humans were not around.

      • Pipercat

        Which particular climate event have we augmented?

      • Seth Williams

        The current interglacial period.

      • Pipercat

        That’s the Holocene period. It’s an epoch. I asked what particular climate event are we augmenting. More specifically, what natural warming event are we augmenting?

      • Seth Williams

        The current interglacial period IS the natural warming event we are augmenting. Yes it is also called the Holocene period. I see where you are going with this, you want me to mention the Anthropocene period which is an augmentation of the current interglacial period. The anthropocene period is an informal name for the current time period which is actually called the subatlantic period.

      • Pipercat

        I don’t give two shits about the Anthropocene. What warming event, is mankind augmenting? What’s the underlying cause?

      • Seth Williams

        I just said above, the subatlantic period of the current interglacial epoch.

      • Pipercat

        That’s a time reference, not causation.

      • Seth Williams

        “The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from
        paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference
        between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million
        years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice
        ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is
        correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the
        difference between natural cycle and human-caused global warming, one
        needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects
        systems on earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean
        cycles and related effects. The current radiative forcing levels are
        clearly outside of the natural cycle range.”

        Browse the site that this came from. I know you just want to argue for the sake of argument since I’ve already proven my point, so I’m sure you won’t even look at the site. That citation above says we are augmenting a current warming period. And it shows on a nice pretty graph exactly what we are doing. One graph shows that the particular part we are in, is in a natural warming cycle.

      • Pipercat

        Go over to the ossfoundation who, along with a multitude of other sites, passed that around. This is the following paragraph under the one that’s bouncing around. You’re such a dolt.

        Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human
        interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at approximately 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of
        ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period, give or take some thousands of years.

        The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle.

      • Seth Williams

        Exactly because we are warming at a faster rate than what we should be. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. We are speeding it along.

      • Pipercat

        Yeah right, followed by this little gem:

        Where are we currently in the natural cycle (Milankovitch cycle)?
        The warmest point of the last cycle was around 10,000 years ago, at
        the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling
        trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this
        cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all
        else remained the same. But since 1750 however, the CO2
        content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural cycle. Instead
        of decreasing, it has increased because of the fossil-fuel burning.
        Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased unnaturally because of
        agricultural practices and other factors. The world has also warmed
        unnaturally. We are now deviating from the natural cycle.

      • Seth Williams

        And then followed by this nice little Gem:

        The natural cycle is understood by examining the paleo records.
        The fact that the earth goes in and out of ice ages distinctly outlines
        the natural cycles of Earth’s climate. This occurs about every 100,000
        years. We are currently in a warm period. Generally, Earth spends about
        80-90,000 years in an ice age and around 10-20,000 years (or so) in a
        warm period.

      • Pipercat

        Fuck you, you’re so full of shit it’s pathetic. That last paragraph does not discount the previous two…

      • Seth Williams

        So we just ignore the last paragraph? You said what part are we augmenting. It clearly states in the last paragraph that we are in a warm period that we are now augmenting with the rise of CO2 gases. We are in a natural warm period that is being augmented by us. That’s what ALL of that says. I love how you just chose to ignore the last paragraph because it says exactly what I’ve been saying.

      • Pipercat

        It cleary shows just how full of shit you are. That was you reference and it shit all over you. Wow, don’t argue for a raise, you’ll get fired on the spot.

      • Seth Williams

        How, I said we are augmenting a warming period and that is exactly what that reference showed. We are in warming period of the last 100k years and we augmenting that warming period.

      • Pipercat

        Dance the dance you fool. You hung yourself on your own shit. How fucking apropos…

      • Seth Williams

        No I didn’t. You asked what warming period are we augmenting. I just showed it to you. We are in warming trend and we are augmenting that warming trend. You choose to read the certain paragraphs and conveniently leave out others.

      • Pipercat

        Do you know what a liar you are too. A fucking pathetic little whelp liar… keep it up!

      • Seth Williams

        How am I lying? The proof is right there. You just choose to ignore it.

      • Pipercat

        You really think you’re smarter than everybody else. Now you’re lying to yourself.

      • Seth Williams

        No, not smarter than everyone else but certainly smarter than you apparently.

      • Pipercat

        Yeah right.. I know, write that into your thesis and make sure that website gets put in there for good measure…

      • Seth Williams

        Maybe, if I had majored in climatology but I didn’t so I just rely on…how was it you said? The scientists 🙂

      • Pipercat

        Now if you could only understand what they are saying!

      • Seth Williams

        I understand perfectly, you evidently do not.

      • Pipercat

        More projection.

      • Seth Williams

        Just like you projecting that I don’t understand anything they are saying.

      • Pipercat

        No, you dismiss the shit that doesn’t fit into your bullshit.

      • Seth Williams

        Me? No, I read the whole thing. You dismissed certain paragraphs because it didnt fit into what YOU are saying.

      • Pipercat

        Another lie…

      • Seth Williams

        How is that a lie? You read certain paragraphs and then when I added the other paragraph, you go off the deep end. Why is that? I add the paragraph that proves my point and all the sudden it’s a lie?

      • Pipercat

        You added nothing. You cherry picked a paragraph. I found the whole page, which didn’t fit your bullshit, and you were busted.

      • Seth Williams

        No, you read two paragraphs that fit your argument and then I added the paragraph DIRECTLY AFTER THOSE that proved my overall point (which included your two paragraphs) I used all three, you only used two. YOU were the one that cherry picked.

      • Pipercat

        Actually four.. but who’s counting, right?

      • Seth Williams

        True, I counted the one small paragraph as part of the first.

      • Pipercat

        That’s contexomy, a false attribution fallacy.

      • Seth Williams

        Not really, I just happend to see Three large paragraphs and kind of lumped that 2nd extremely small paragraph into the first. Which still makes my point as the first three you decided to cherry pick and leave the fourth one out. Nice deflection by the way but I will stay on topic 🙂

      • Pipercat

        Sure you die.. lying to cover your fallacies.

      • Seth Williams

        Not at all, I corrected my mistake that there are indeed four actual paragraphs, three of which you cherry picked and then went off the deep end when I added the fourth that followed the three 🙂 Not to mention you don’t even talk about the 450 thousand year graph that show two warmer periods on earth than right now.

      • Pipercat

        Here’s a fifth from the same site:

        Myths vs. Facts in Global Warming: This news and analysis section
        addresses substance of arguments such as “global warming is a hoax”,
        “global warming is a fiction”, “global warming is created to make money
        for Al Gore”. The main fallacy noted is that most arguments are facts
        out of context while others are simply false representations. When the
        facts pertaining to the arguments are viewed in context relevance
        becomes obvious. The data clearly indicates global warming is happening
        and is human caused. At this time in the natural cycle Earth should be
        slightly cooling on trend, leading into what would have been the next
        ice age. Instead Earth is warming. There is no valid evidence that can
        prove otherwise. False representations or facts out of context are not a
        proof of any kind, they are merely incorrect.

      • Seth Williams

        And a sixth from the exact same area “Myths vs Facts in Global Warming.

        31,000 scientists reject global warming and
        say “no convincing evidence” that humans can or will cause global
        warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of
        climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate
        scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased”
        during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant
        contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the
        significance of these statistics?

        Notice the part that says CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. There’s those words again that we talked about earlier.

      • Pipercat

        More contextomy, that is the introduction to a myth-busting page. Please…

      • Seth Williams

        No, All I did was copy and paste like you did. The entire paragraph that was shown. I have a feeling you think that I think that climate change is a myth and that everything we do has no bearing on the current climate when in fact I said that we are helping it along at a faster rate.

      • Pipercat

        … but not the cause.

      • Seth Williams

        Ummm actually I did say that we are the cause of it speeding up (which is true). I also said that climate change is natural (which is true) and that we are currently in a warming period (which is true).

      • Pipercat

        Then, you’re in denial.

      • Seth Williams

        How am I in denial? What part of those three things is not true?

      • Pipercat

        All of them.

      • Seth Williams

        Really? So we are not the cause of the earth heating up faster than normal? Natural Climate change has never occured in the history of the planet? And the earth is not currently in a warming period in the grand scheme of things?

      • Seth Williams

        Really? So we are not the cause of the speeding up of climate change? There’s never been climate fluctuation in the history of the planet? and we are not currently in a warming trend in the grand scheme of things?

      • Seth Williams

        Once again picking and choosing the parts you want to see to make it a one sided argument.

      • Pipercat

        Stop projection asshole. It’s fucking pathetic.

      • Seth Williams

        I love all the curse words now. Just shows your lack of knowledge and lack of control when one shows you that you’re wrong 🙂

      • Pipercat

        Because you’re a fraud. You got busted with your own shit and now you can’t take the heat. Classic.

      • Seth Williams

        I’m not the one cursing up a storm lol You are showing the classic signs of a person who doesn’t know what to say anymore because you just got owned 🙂

      • Pipercat

        Nice projection. You fucked up and now you’re dancing like Fred Astaire.

      • Seth Williams

        Nope, just enjoying you going off the deep end due to lack of knowledge 🙂

      • Pipercat

        Keep smiling, because you still fucked up.

      • Seth Williams

        Not at all. I’ve proven my point. That climate change is a naturally occuring event that we are speeding up.

      • Pipercat

        Sure…

      • Pipercat

        Here, after a search of anthropogenic global warming and this is from the NASA website:

        “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming
        trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and
        most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued
        public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial
        list of these organizations, along with links to their published
        statements and a selection of related resources.”

        Read the entire page, you might finally understand.

      • Seth Williams

        I just read all the statements by the scientific associations and no where does it say WE are the direct cause of it. They all say what I’ve been saying, we are contributing to it.

      • Pipercat

        That’s a straw man.

      • Seth Williams

        No it’s not. It’s the point I’ve been making through this whole thing. That we are not the direct cause of it. You keep saying I’m wrong but the source you just gave me proved me right.

      • Pipercat

        That source says you’re wrong. You have no idea how science works.

      • Seth Williams

        No that source proved me right. No where in that entire link does it say we are the direct cause of climate change. It says we are a heavy contributor, which is what I’ve been saying.

      • Pipercat

        You’re parsing words.

      • Seth Williams

        No I’m not. There is a difference between being the direct, sole cause of something and being a contributor.

      • Seth Williams

        And no I’m naming the culprit of climate change as humans. I’m naming the culprit as to why it’s speeding up as humans. Big difference.

      • Pipercat

        Nope, the statement is illogical because it does contradicts itself.

      • Seth Williams

        Actually no it doesn’t. You can speed up a natural occuring event. That is not illogical at all. If a ball is rolling down hill, it’s natural momentum will keep it going until something stops it but a human can push it faster. Guess what, you’ve just sped up a naturally occuring event.

      • Pipercat

        Except, you have not established this is a natural event; moreover, if human activity is making things worse, it is no longer a natural event.

      • Seth Williams

        Actually it still can be a naturally occuring event that is being helped along. If a forest fire is started by a lighting bolt and you as a human start fanning the flames…guess what? You are now helping along a naturally occuring event.

      • Pipercat

        Red herring.

      • Seth Williams

        Care to elaborate? Prove me wrong then.

      • Pipercat

        It makes assumptions.

      • Seth Williams

        You are making assumptions by saying that lol

      • Julie Wickstrom

        No one has said that there aren’t climate shifts naturally. We have made a measurable impact that is not a part of the natural shifts. We are burning more carbons than are released in nature. We are screwing up. Nature wouldn’t set us on the road to becoming the next Venus. We are doing it to ourselves.

      • Seth Williams

        And there’s the embellishment. No scientist has said what will happen on the path we are now. The only thing I’ve said is that climate change is normal and we are speeding it along. Which is exactly what you just said as well. So why are you arguing with me when you are agreeing with me???

      • Julie Wickstrom

        I agree that some climate change is natural. You assume we are on a natural up swing. I’m not sure if we are on an up swing or if it is our influence. We are mucking it up way beyond what nature will do. It is surprising that we have that much control over our environment but it is real. It will be a long recovery. Let’s say nature does 2 damage. We do 6. It adds up. Do you realize this?

      • Seth Williams

        That’s what I’ve been saying. It was a natural upswing helped and increased by us. Not directly caused by us.

      • Julie Wickstrom

        Yes, the global temperature can rise on it’s own. What we are doing is making it worse than nature. It’s not just faster. We are making it worse and faster. We are adding to what would have been. It is not inevitable doom. If we fix our end, nature will eventually go back to its normal cool/warm cycle. Nature has to rebound even more because of us now.

      • notalib

        Pipercat you are a retard.

      • Pipercat

        Aren’t you eloquent.

      • Julie Wickstrom

        Trolling, trolling, trolling through the river.

      • Seth Williams

        Apparently there is nothing on (or in) this planet that can burn anything. Apparently magma doesn’t burn anything as well as lava. So that means nothing is EVER released.

      • Pipercat

        Magma doesn’t burn, it’s mostly molten basalt.

      • Seth Williams

        BTW…Magma is between 700 and 1300 degrees celsius. you are telling me that if that comes into contact with something, it wouldn’t burn?

      • Pipercat

        Burns things already in the biosphere.

      • Seth Williams

        Really? drill your way down to some and let me know how it feels -.-

      • Pipercat

        Does doing some petro-geology count as a feeling?

      • Seth Williams

        BTW, I left your antropogenic global warming out because it is not a proven scientific fact.

      • Pipercat

        You left it out because it’s really inconvenient.

      • Seth Williams

        Also, by your assertion, this is the first time this planet has EVER seen a global climate shift. The same science that you say proves were are the only cause of climate change also says that their has been a global climate shift in the past, WELL before us. So who caused that? The dinosaurs? Were they burning fossil fuels on daily basis?

      • Pipercat

        I’ve didn’t make that assertion. The rest of this is nonsense.

      • Seth Williams

        If it’s nonsense you are saying that the planet has never had a climate shift in the past. You are making that assertion.

      • Pipercat

        I never said that…

      • Sandy Greer

        You are misrepresenting what Pipercat has said.

        I’m going to assume it’s because you didn’t understand what he said. But your not understanding is not proof he ‘asserted’ what you believe he said.

      • CPullum

        You are so desperate it hurts. Climate change has occurred in the past. You are correct there. And when CO2 levels got high enough(back then they were being spewed out by a much more active volcanic period)there was a mass extinction, animals could NOT survive. Last time I checked, humans are just like animals in the sense we will not survive either. We are spewing out CO2’s with our HUMAN activities, which are a DIRECT cause of speeding of the inevitable. We ARE warming the atmosphere by trapping those gases. The warmer it gets, ice melts, stored CO2’s are released from glaciers and oceans compounding the problem, and hello, new mass extinction of humans this time. But I’m sure you, like all deniers, could care less as long as you have your life without having to think about others who come after you. The current population of this country is full of greedy, selfish a-holes who only care about themselves and their miserable lives. If we stop making things worse with our pollution, maybe people can adapt to the changes that ARE natural cycles.

      • Seth Williams

        Desperate? No. I’m just pointing out the flaw in assertion that “we are the direct cause of climate change or shift”. We are not. We are helping it along like you just said but we are not the direct cause of it.

      • Dave

        Yeah it happens all the time without us huh? When was the last major oil spill the earth caused? When was the last nuclear meltdown the earth caused? When was the last atomic blast the earth caused? When was the last coal processing release of instant death to life around it the earth caused?

      • Seth Williams

        I never said we weren’t speeding it up. In fact I said we were. What I stated was that we are not the DIRECT cause of it. We are just a major contributor. History has proven that it has happend over time without us. Including the fact that temperatures during the 1000-1100 AD time frame are similar to those of now.

    • richard

      Wow, you make it so graphically simple that a toddler would understand it and still, there are going to be commenters itching to demonstrate how adept they are at not only evading the truth, but doing so with belled caps on and pointy shoes. Seth, take it the next step…a step toward enlightenment, that last little baby step….and that is that the facts are that we are the direct cause of AGW. Science, facts are that if we stop dumping carbon emissions now, we can slow and stop AGW. That’s all you need to do…the last little step.

      If I’m wrong, what happens? Nothing! Birds sing, kids go to the park, baseball, picnics, waterfalls……

      If science-deniers are wrong, what happens? BAD THINGS! Droughts, food shortages, sea levels rise, mass migrations, famine, weather disasters, societal breakdown, human extinction within 200 years.

      Which “wrong” would you rather be, Seth?

      • Cathryn Sykes

        I keep saying the same thing, Richard. Let’s say the deniers are RIGHT, but we believe those pesky scientists and go “green.” What is the DOWNSIDE to switching to clean, renewable energy? I’ve asked this question again and again on the internet and never yet been answered. The technology is getting better and cheaper every year–even Morgan Stanley is getting bullish on solar!–and unlike oil, coal and gas, we will never run out of sunlight or wind, so while the cost of black energy will inevitably climb, the cost of renewables will stay steady or drop. So what is the downside? Air too clean? Lakes and rivers too pristine? Too much life in the ocean? Too much ice at the poles? Now let’s say we go with the deniers and keep fueling our civilizations with fossil fuels. What’s the downside if we do that and the GW people are right? Basically, drought, famine, war, the collapse of civilization as people fight for ever-shrinking resources: the flooding of our major cities as the poles continue to melt and the ocean warms; the air we breathe getting filthier day by day; our water supplies becoming more and more polluted….. Yet we are continually told to make this “sucker bet”….because there IS one downside to going green and we all know what it is. Pure and simple….dropping profits for Black Energy! That’s it. That’s what this is all about. Nothing else!

      • Seth Williams

        So you really think it’s going to be “Water World”. Evidently you haven’t read what is going to happen when the polar ice caps do melt and cause a change in the ocean currents. The planet itself won’t get to the point of no ice anywhere.

      • CPullum

        Wow, so where did you get your science degree? So if you DO have one, we can put you in the group of 3% of scientists paid by dirty fuel to deny the truth about how humans are rushing the planet in to destruction…otherwise you just are looking like someone who thinks they are so much smarter than all the scientists studying this. You know the ones who really DO have degrees, and education.

      • Seth Williams

        You are quoting what those 97% have said WRONG. NONE of them said that climate shifts and changes are the DIRECT result of us. They’ve all said that it is a naturally occuring event that is being sped up by us. Maybe if you’d get your information from the EXACT source instead of the filtered version you get from MSNBC or Fox Noise, you’d know that. Actually look up the sources instead of listening to the idiots in the main stream media.

      • skoony

        green energy?you mean starving people because we are using there food for energy?
        solar energy.with out subsidies,unworkable.
        i dont know where you live but,there are more trees,
        cleaner air water,and soil,than any time in our life time.
        the regulations we have now are working fine,thank you,

      • Julie Wickstrom

        There is hunger but it is not caused by biodiesel. It is caused by distribution of resources. Our poor still eat plenty of corn syrup. Fresh corn is still 4/$1 in the fall. Unrenewable energy (oil companies, coal, gas ect) get subsidies. The difference is clean energy companies have to apply for subsidies each year while the good ‘ole deep pockets get them automatically. I’ve read that some green energy companies are steadily increasing their profits on the market.

      • skoony

        its caused by the inflated price of the basic food stuffs due to the demand for these products for biofuel.
        which by the way uses more energy per gallon to make than gasoline and delivers less energy per gallon.

      • Dylan Kynaston

        More trees? Have you not heard of Brazil or Indonesia? And those regulations are being whittled away by the petrochemical companies that you seem to be defending, which will inevitably lead to the severe reduction in air and water quality a la China and India. As for solar needing subsidies? The oil and gas indistry gets many times as much in subsidies as the solar energy industry, and with advancing technology in production and efficiency, solar will only get cheaper, whereas oil will only increase in price due to continual decrease in supply.

      • skoony

        china and india are causing their own problems.
        blowing smoke from coal plants with zero filtering.they don’t need any help from the oil and gas industries.their number one concern of their citizens
        is environmental regulation.
        we’ed have to cover all our arable land with solar panels to even come close to meeting power requirements.brazil and indonesia are not feeding the world.solar energy and biodiesel conversion as you see it would cause mass starvation in 3rd world countries and massive inflation or worse elsewhere.
        but you would like that.punish all those evil western democracies.

      • Dylan Kynaston

        Solar power implementation alone won’t do it. That’s if the fossil fuels keep being consumed at the current rate. Cut down consumption of that shit by about half and you have a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Eliminate their use completely (not now, of course, but at least by 2030) and you eliminate most of the problem.

        You say China and India are causing their own problems. Well this article applies to them too, as does global warming, but what they add to the atmosphere will impact every single person on this planet, not just the Chinese and Indians, and the international community is trying to sort that out accordingly.

        Mass starvation? Inflation? For the former point, we already produce enough food to feed the whole world, it’s the distribution that’s the problem. Of course, if global warming continues at this rate, that will no onger be the case, and mass starvation will occur not just in 3rd world countries, but possibly in the Western World as well. As for inflation, well with fossil fuels running out and oil presumed to be empty within the next 40-100 years, massive inflation will occur if we keep our current policy of “drill, baby, drill,” while with the technology advances in renewables, their prices will go down within the next ten years. What would you rather? Five years of inflation that will eventually cease and a cleaner world, or permanent and sharp inflation that will culminate in what would probably continue into a world of mass devastation and poverty?

      • skoony

        all green energy sources together can only supply 10-20% max of our future energy needs.
        theres food now but as biodiesel and solar power expands it will remove arable land and consume
        biomass thus causing starvation and financial chaos.
        by the way its climate change now.global warming seems to have taken a second seat as it stopped the last ten years.both poles and many glaciers are known to expand and contract at a cyclical rate spanning 10’s of years.the glaciers in europe have been observed since the 1400’s.they are all expanding and contracting at their predicted rates.
        they don’t know the rates of most the others as they haven’t been studied long enough.the percentage of expanding and contracting glaciers how ever is stable as far as any one can tell.more devices that are more accurate do not a record make.you keep making the false assumption that

        this melting will continue for all time.remember the great arctic melt down?

      • Dylan Kynaston

        As of now, renewables support 20%. But as I have said in previous comments, technology will increase that number. Even now, almost all of Norway is powered by hydroelectricity, and all of Iceland is powered by geothermal. As for global warming taking a second seat, Australia had its hottest year on record last year, and is set to break that record again. The glacial ten-year cycle? Not happening. Consistent shrinkage has been observed in many, if not most, since the 1970’s. Europe may be having some sort of a cycle, but there is South America, Russia, Greenland, Canada and New Zealand to account for as well. Removal of arable land? Fossil fuels will lead to the available arable land no longer being arable, thus causing the starvation and financial chaos that you mentioned, and for renewable energy production at least, they can just put the plants in deserts and oceans away from any farms.

      • skoony

        the rest of the world is not as fortunate as norway
        in having the the waterways to supply all this power.
        iceland is sitting on top of a very active geothermic
        area with all those environmentally friendly volcano’s.
        record heat in australia?we wouldn’t have known it without satellites. how about the record -135.8 degrees recorded in antarctica in 2013?
        besides europe or maybe russia you can toss out all those other places.they haven’t been recording results long enough to have valid results.
        fossil fuel causing the loss of arable land?how?
        seems to me most of the emissions would make good
        fertilizer.now consuming food stuffs in ever increasing
        amounts for biofuel and covering land with solar
        panels will be good for the masses.
        by the way world wide renewables contribute 5-10 % not 20%.

      • Seth Williams

        History says you are wrong. Climate change has happend before but who caused it then? Was there some race of beings that we don’t know about that caused it? It’s a naturally reoccuring thing. Again, we are just speeding it up. There is not scientific evidence that says we are the DIRECT cause of climate change. All the scientific evidence out there says we are helping it along but not that we are a direct result. And there is ZERO scientific evidence that if we were to stop ALL fossil fuel burning on the planet, that it would reverse and stop it completely.

      • Pipercat

        This is a fabulous straw man that deliberately creates confusion by conflating fact with fiction. Anthropogenic global warming is the cause of this global change in climate. You cannot take sequestered carbon stored within the Earth for tens of millions of years, burn it and expect there would be no consequence. Moreover, once you release the stored carbon within the biosphere, the mechanism that returns the carbon back into the ground is being destroyed by the very same cause. Us, humans. Add acidification of the Oceans to the equation and soon the oceans will no longer be able to support life as we have come to know it. Just for good measure add urban heat islands, coal fire aerosols and the potential of methane escaping from the sea beds adds up to one thing, we’re already toast. This constant denial is pathetic and ridiculous, just like your claim.

      • Seth Williams

        You just proved my point! we are not the cause but are helping it!! Everything you just said proved EVERYTHING I’VE BEEN SAYING. Jesus H Christ, do you even see that????

      • Pipercat

        No, apparently only you do, actually. Nice dodge by the way. Care to enlighten the rest of the gang as to how I affirmed your bullshit?

      • Sandy Greer

        I agree with everything you say, except: We’re already toast.

        Could be you’re right. But I’m an Optimist, by nature. Just can’t accept we’re already toast. And – if we’re already toast – there’s no sense in trying.

        Better we find some nice butter for that toast. Maybe some choice fruit. A good breakfast sets the tone for the entire day. 😉

      • Pipercat

        Gonna take centuries to clean up the mess we’ve made. We can and must stop, but things will not be as they were for a very long time. Most glaciers on the planet are doomed no matter what we do.

      • Go here:

        http://skepticalscience DOT com/argument.php?f=percentage
        This answers every single objection you raised. You really have no leg to stand on. If 97 oncologists said you had cancer, and 3 said maybe you didn’t, would you or would you not begin treatment?

      • Seth Williams

        You have no leg to stand on because 97% of scientist didn’t say that we were the DIRECT cause of climate change. They only said that Climate Change exists.

      • richard

        Fine Seth, we get it….it’s not like we don’t recognize a classic troll when we see one. You reek of that major tell….the “Negative attention is better than no attention” pathos. OK, we’re noticing you. Do you feel all warm and fuzzy? Enough counter-comments and it doesn’t matter what the subject is, the only thing that matters is how often you get tapped. Hey everbody, let’s affirm Seth….he’s a real person in the world.

      • Seth Williams

        Not really because now you are just being facetious and still believe that we are the only cause of climate change. That the world has never ever had climate change before. The arrogance is overwhelming.

      • Dylan Kynaston

        Would you rather have 50% of the climate change effects happen or 100%? Stop CO2 emmisions now and we end up thigh deep in natural disasters. Keep going and we end up drowning completely. Which to you is preferable?

      • Seth Williams

        There is no 50%. We WILL enter another ice age. It’s not a matter of if, its a matter of when. Stopping CO2 emmisions will slow it down but it will not stop. That’s the point I’m trying to get across.

      • Dylan Kynaston

        Well, say we do enter another ice age. What would 100m of ice cover affect more? Underground oil drilling or solar panels?

      • Seth Williams

        You are missing the point. The amount of CO2 emissions isn’t going to change the amount of ice or water during an ice age. It’s just speeding up the time it will take to get to that point.

      • Dylan Kynaston

        But still, your fervent opposition to renewables is unfounded even in the situation of an actual ice age.

      • Seth Williams

        Who says I’m opposing anything? I’m just stating the fact that climate change will happen regardless. At no point did I say, renewable energy is bad and shouldn’t be used. I’m just tired of the idiots that think we can actually change what will happen anyway.

      • Julie Wickstrom

        The first item on the link states and provides evidence that humans are the main cause of the current warming. Agreed that “direct” is a bad description. Main cause is more accurate. Looking at ice cores and other evidence, we are causing unusually high (40% higher) CO2 levels than warmer periods. (btw nice link Mystic)

      • Seth Williams

        Thank you. That’s all I was saying that there were other forces in play OTHER than ourselves.

      • skoony

        man is not.have you checked to compare how many active volcanoes there are now?

      • Julie Wickstrom

        If we stopped burning fossil fuel now, we might not save the water levels from rising or some species dying but we need to lessen our impact. Our habbits are causing dramatic changes. Volcanoes and other natural forces put CO2 in the air already. Our residual effects will still screw us for a long time. If we have time we can adapt to a natural change over several centuries as it should be.

      • skoony

        your assuming that the ice ridge melting in antarctica is permanent.the great ice meltdown in the arctic wasn’t.
        what makes you think the antarctic is different?

      • Seth Williams

        And honestly? I’d rather have the wrong just ends the planet NOW instead of saving it for a few thousand years. Just get it over with since it’s going to happen anyway REGARDLESS of what we do.

      • Sandy Greer

        Honestly? That would work – if you were the only one on this planet: It would be your decision, and yours alone.

        But you’re not. And it’s not.

        I’d like a new house. But, rather than demolish the old one – I make what improvements I can – so that it better serve my needs now, and hopefully – the needs of those who come after me.

        The house I’m in will last beyond my lifetime. I hope the next people love it as much as I do.

      • Nancy L. Rattign

        Seth: please take a nap. You sound like a petulant toddler.

      • Seth Williams

        I’d love to but I’ve got 12 hours to kill.

      • Sandy Greer

        Pascal’s Wager: “God is, or He is not”. Wager on God – for the consequences are dire.

        Works here, too.

      • Nancy L. Rattign

        Richard: Bravo! You summed it up brilliantly. WE need to fix this now. Those too ignorant to grasp these simple truths need to get out of the way. We just don’t have any more time to waste.

      • Seth Williams

        Fix what? Something that has been happening since the formation of the earth? Sure we can slow it down by not using fossil fuels but it wont completely stop it.

      • Sid Goodman

        Yeah, what’s the difference between 200 years and 20,000 years anyway?

      • Seth Williams

        Not much when it comes to the history of the planet. We’ll be off this rock in 200 years anyway.

      • Lee

        Your great great grandchildren hate you for making this dystopian comment about the world they will live in.

      • Seth Williams

        Actually, my great grandchildren will probably be born here in the next few years. So they’ll be living in the same world I am now.

      • Lee

        Inbreeding is strong in your clan, then, if this is a true statement. Eventually, in your dystopian worldview, members of your family will live in a very different planet than we do today, if you advocate the absolute destruction of our environment. The original motivation of Conservatism was to preserve the earth for our future generations, but sadly, this motivation is sorely lacking with today’s Fox News Conservatives.

      • Seth Williams

        Funny, you apparently think I’m a Fox News Conservative (I honestly hate all things that come from Fox noise or MSNBC). My actual views are more liberal. Especially when it comes to the economy.

        I’m not exactly sure how my great great grand children being born in 20+ years would equate to inbreeding, unless of course you have some kind experience in that matter.

      • richard

        Of course the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. The problem is that for the first time in 4.5 billion years….there are 7 billion humans now. Personally, I’m not a big humans fan, I’m more of a dog guy….but we’re taking all the other species down with us and it doesn’t seem fair. Realistically, I think too many of those 7 billion humans are too stupid or obtuse to do anything about it….which is why, when the food shortages begin, I’m going to view science-deniers like Seth as a valuable source of animal protein for my dogs.

      • skoony

        since the recent volcano eruptions lately man represents
        0.5 percent of the words pollution now in the atmosphere.
        at most flawed studies have said as high as 4%.

    • formerroadie

      An another one ignores the science…. “A little longer”? SERIOUSLY?!

      • Seth Williams

        And another one doesn’t read ALL the science.

      • olddog

        Seth..If there’s no “touchie/feelie” thingys the (D)ing-Bats won’t accept facts…PERIOD..Ya Know (D)ude. This site is one bunch of indoctrinated (D)rones..fur sure, fur sure..THAT science is SETTLED..

  • That is great. I wish CNN would stop their bullshit climate change “debates.” They’re one of the biggest contributors to what John is talking about.

  • freethinker666

    One out of four, at least that is a smaller number than believe in the existence of a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father.

  • Rocky

    Nice try at belittling the skeptics. Funny thing is most people I hear talking about all the science behind climate change couldn’t explain the science to me. …but they “hear” that there is science behind it, good enough for them. There’s scientific argument behind both sides. …and the margin of error in the “for” science is greater than the change itself. Don’t understand? For every comment here, I’ll donate $5.00 to climate change research. (However each donation will be +/- $7 from the actual dollar amount I quoted). How much do you think I will donate?

    • solarpup

      +/-$7 uniformly distributed? With the current 16 comments, you will donate $80+/-$16. There’s a 2.5% chance you will donate in excess of $112. There is essentially no chance of you donating <=0 dollars. (You are 5 sigma away from that.)

      If you mean +/-$7 gaussianly distributed, then you will donate $80+/-$28, and you would now have a whopping 0.2% chance of donating =$136).

      The thing about uncertainties is that even if any one statement is uncertain, if they’re all pointing the same direction, and there’s enough of them, that makes things pretty darned certain.

      • Pipercat

        Outstanding.

      • Rocky

        SO strange. When I point our your incorrect usage of the word Gaussian, my comment was deleted… twice…

      • solarpup

        Fine, if you want to get pedantic about it:

        If you mean that each contribution will be random and independent from one another, with each random draw uniformly distributed between -$2 and $12, for 16 comments the probability distribution of your total donation will be approximately normal (i.e., the central limit theorem applies) with a mean of $80 and a standard deviation of $16. Such a distribution has very little weight below $0.

        If instead you mean that each of your contributions will be random and independent from one another, with each random draw being normally distributed with a mean of $5 and a standard deviation of $7, for 16 comments the probability distribution of your total donation will again be approximately normally distributed with a mean of $80 and a standard deviation of $28. In this scenario, you have a somewhat less negligible chance (~0.2%) of making a negative contribution, but the weight of the distribution is still very heavily dominated by a net positive contribution.

        Any moderately competent mathematician or scientist would have been be able to parse that from the above.

        And now for 22 comments, your contribution would be at $110+/-$32.80, under the normal distribution scenario, getting further and further away from <=$0 being statistically plausible.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    Ah, yes….the “tell both sides” meme, which is basically the same as “false equivalence”, something the GOP and Libertarians use constantly…

  • Edward Krebbs

    Don’t need people’s opinion on a fact ? Come on. If my local TV News Station stopped taking polls and public comments on facts, the TV News would shrivel up and blow away in the wind.

    BTW – did you catch that in the intro for Bill Nye, it had the line: Bill Nye **believes** in global warming.

  • Scooter

    Wait..Wait.Wait! For Large quantities of 5, 5 is in fact bigger than 15! Don’t you see??

  • I_RIGHT_I

    I just love it when high school drop outs criticize the other “facts” brought to the study by legitimate climate scientists.

    • olddog

      (D)amn you (D)em-wits are GULLIBLE…and really (D)UMB..Have a “Hoax and Chins” life you (D)erelict. YOU (D)eserve it..(D)rone.

  • Hey, everybody, let’s just ignore this argumentative jackass [Seth]!
    I’m sure Exxon is paying him by the comment.

    • Seth Williams

      Not really, I just like seeing ALL the facts laid out instead of just certain ones here and there to make it a one sided argument. BTW, if I was paid for by Exxon. I’d be saying that Climate change isn’t real. Not once in ANY of my posts have I said that 🙂

  • FD Brian

    I have always wondered when I see a debate on tv about climate change I always see a scientist who is warning us about the problem but I never see a scientist on the other side who is a denier. They say 3% of them are deniers, then why aren’t they ever on TV, it’s always a politician, WTF?

  • brak wil fix awl dis mes nome sayn

  • skoony

    we are not causing climate change.there is no climate change.
    more people and more and better scientific equipment gives us the illusion
    that there is record breaking this and that.not so.
    record breaking to modern equipment,maybe.
    thier theories are just that.theories.
    known fact.climate changes at a cyclical rate of 40 to 70 years.
    cold,warm,drought.torrential rain,flooding,you name it.
    what goes around comes around.
    first it was the ice age cometh.then global warming.
    now climate change.next,OMG the climates staying the same
    we must have done something.