Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
December 7th, 2009
08:42 AM ET

Climate Change: Your Questions

Climate change is front and center in Copenhagen. World leaders arrive today for the U.N. Climate Change Conference, which runs through December 18.

The goal: outline programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The world's biggest polluters, China and the U.S., have already announced plans to lower their carbon emissions.

For the next two weeks we’re going to answer your questions about climate change.

Leave a comment with your questions and then we’ll present the answers and break it all down in the CNN Newsroom, 11am – 1pm ET.


Filed under: Tony Harris
soundoff (95 Responses)
  1. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Here it is time to hand out grant money for research projects and Al Gore is standing at the front of the line with both hands out . Go look out your widows folks the only hard boild egg your going to get today is a frozen egg researchers and utility companys stand to make trillions of dollars from this claim what are the pros and cons on this issue with money hungry organizations leading the charge and you and I footing the pledge every time we go pay our bills.

    December 7, 2009 at 10:07 am |
  2. Scott Stodden

    Tony Im sorry but Im a firm believer in global warming, global warming is very real and needs to be addressed by the Obama administration before our earth gets worse.

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    December 7, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  3. John Miller

    Seems to me that even though there is a controversy over the existence of global warming, we must act on the side of caution. We must assume that the majority of scientists are correct. If we do nothing, and then 20 years from now we find out they were correct, what do we do? Find another planet to live on?

    December 7, 2009 at 11:17 am |
  4. Ted Washburn

    We are coming up on the end of the year. I would like to know:

    What was the global temperature, averaged over thousands of measuring locations and hundreds of days?

    How does that compare with last year and the year befrore that?

    I know there will be a flood of commentary about why we should or shouldn't put much weight on this number, but I would like to know what it is.

    December 7, 2009 at 11:18 am |
  5. CB

    Tony,
    After all the climate change studies I have read, I find it difficult to accept this theory as less than "trick".
    One factor that concerns me is the study that claims we stopped global warming in the mid 40's and are now in a cooling phase.
    My other gripe is:
    I do not believe Taking from countries who are industrious and giving to those who are not is the answer.

    Would we not consider this action to be "Global Welfare"?
    CB

    December 7, 2009 at 11:20 am |
  6. CB

    Follow Up:
    I would agree with Ted on knowing those temperatures.

    cb

    December 7, 2009 at 11:22 am |
  7. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Heres my ? with people on fixed incomes paying 35% to 45% of there monthly income on just there electric bills during cold and hot seasons what are the consequinces to us for a claim that may just be a scam.

    December 7, 2009 at 11:22 am |
  8. Josh

    Global warming is real and is happening now.

    Over the past 650,000 years, the concentration of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere has never been above 275 ppm (parts per million). The current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 390 ppm and is increasing by about 2 ppm every year.

    To prevent catastophic climate change, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has to be reduced to 350 ppm.

    CNN should interview the President of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, who has pledged that his country will be carbon neutral by 2020.

    December 7, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  9. John

    Tony,
    If people would open their eyes and just look at what is happening all aroung the world, ice melting from polar caps, glaciers melting from mountains ect.
    Only a fool would say it is not happening.

    But to debate as to what can be and should be done would be a great discussion to have.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
  10. Bob Vince north olmsted ohio

    Tony, Thease Rep. that are against any global warming treaty make me wonder how many of them have the oil companies in their back pocket? They don't car about the middle class jobs as long as their walletes get fatter. Global Warming is real ask any meterologist about the weather pattern shifts. Texas recently is a great example if the tide of the global warming dosen't change the north coast where i live will become the the sunhine state and the south will be frozen.

    I have grave hoplessness when it comes to our elected officials if you dont have hundreds of thousands of dollars they rather not know you exisit until they want to keep their jobs.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
  11. John

    Oh you are right. "Catastrophic" impact on the Earth. Even though studies show that higher climates would be beneficial for many countries. "Rising CO2 levels," even though a lot of people seem to be confused as to the difference between correlation and causation. Anthropogenic global warming has become yet another hip trend - one that will probably cost us much more than anyone wants to admit. Not from implimenting counter-actions, but when the SHTF and we see that it was all for nothing.
    .

    December 7, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
  12. Harold gopaul

    Climate change has to be looked at in the long-term unlike weather.. Carbon dioxide and temperature are always linked from the historic past to the present. In the past 100 years carbon levels have increase and world temeratures have increased by over 0.75 degrees C. Yes, the climate system inlcudes natural phemomena but greenhouse gases and the feeedback mechanism of soot and pollution on ice and snow reducing the albedo effect plus the thawing of the permafrost in releasing methane add to global warming and reduce Arctic sea ice levels.

    The quicker we invest in alternative energy the better for the economy....the benefit of fighting global warming...more jobs and more importantly a healthier planet for our children

    December 7, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
  13. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    When it comes to saving the humans and saving the polar bears i wouldnt mind having a bear rug.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm |
  14. Darrell Nordeen

    Tony,
    Transparency in government, research and science is difficult to see and rare at best. I am a chemist, outdoorsman, conservationist, and conservative. Global warning is suspect at best. Cap & Trade is bad for almost all business and will crush the US economy at the expense of our citizens and benefit of the Third World nations which we will become. Want to address the threat of "carbon emissions"? Increase nuclear power in all nations and especially the US; reduce vehicle emissions around the world and address uncontrolled emissions in China-Russia-South America and emerging economies...

    December 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm |
  15. Ed

    Please explain this: "Temperatures inferred from tree-ring records since about 1850 (the "proxies") are a pretty good match for actual temperature records derived from thermometers right up until the 1980s. After that, the tree-ring data begin to show lower temperatures than were actually recorded.
    Just why tree rings no longer provide useful proxy data for temperatures is not known. There are several theories, many of which suggest that climate change itself is the problem. Trees no longer grow as they once did before the climate started changing so rapidly. But the point is, there is no question that tree-ring growth rates of the past - before we had thermometers - can serve as useful proxies for historical temperature data. They are much less useful now, but that doesn't matter so much because we have actual temperature records. All of this was sorted out back in 1998. It's not new, nor even particularly interesting, to anyone familiar with the science.
    This is why those working with tree-ring data want to "hide" the decline in recent decades; they know the data aren't useful. Perpetual thorn-in-the-side-of-actual-climatologists Steve McIntyre fails to grasp this simple issue when he questions the usefulness of dendrochronology data to support global warming models. And so, it would appear, do a large number of climate change pseudoskeptics who remain convinced the stolen emails paint a picture of scientists trying to obfuscate or distort climate records."

    December 7, 2009 at 12:26 pm |
  16. John

    I'm all for finding alternative energy – eventually fossil fuels will be exhausted. But the talk about "we must take immediate action (and by the way, U.S.? We need you to write that check) or we are all doomed in 10 years...DOOOOOOMED." Give me a break, people. This is focusing way too much effort on one thing when there are other things out there that actually need attention – world hunger, people dying in third world countries from diseases that people in America will never have to worry about...you know – things that matter.
    Side note: I wonder when Al Gore is going to talk with Lord Christopher Monckton. I guess he left his courage in his other private jet...

    December 7, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
  17. Rod B

    Tony – please have CNN calibrate us. Which sectors of science are 100% certain and which are far less certain? Where does today's science on climate change fall within the spectrum? Has any given science's uncertainty changed over time? Aristotle once thought that objects fall to their 'natural place'. Now know that objects fall with a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. It seems any good science would advance upon the steps of uncertainty towards its final truth.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:32 pm |
  18. daren

    When I lived in Maryland years ago, I remember snow on the ground for Thanksgiving. I now live in North Carolina. We have spent a great deal of money to move our lighthouses back away from the rising ocean. We also spend a great deal of money, as well as other east coast states, to replenish our beaches with sand. Where there was a ice flow in Alaska, there is now green grass and flowers. How can a US politician ignore with his own eyes the facts that are before him? If this is all a fraud, then lets lock up all the politicians who have spent US taxpayer dollars on these projects. They can't have it both ways.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:33 pm |
  19. Hans Gruber

    Tony,
    The emails from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK which were stolen by cyber criminals; why has no one made the point that if these people are capable of theft they are also capable of altering the e-mails themselves, also who paid these cyber-thieves to steal the emails as the perpetrators are not idealist of any cause but soviet-cyber gang which is motivated by financial gain exclusively.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
  20. James a

    The globalist will not win out on this fruad. The few people that can think for themselves will not allow it. All this is is a way to fund a global dictatorship. They need to tax your "carbon footprint" in order to fund thier believed takover. Now this is on the ropes. The best news I have read in a long time!!!!

    December 7, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
  21. Brad

    What actual science of Global Warming has changed due to the release of the stolen emails? Any? Is the globe NOT warming? Has any earth science been found to be inaccurate?

    Or is this an opportunistic tempest in a tea pot as it seems? If so, and no science has actually changed, shouldn't it be reported that way?

    December 7, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
  22. Gregg Anderson

    The real issue is not whether global warming and climate change is factual or bunk science, but rather whether we as humans should be responsibly feeding our thirst for energy with logical renewable and clean energy sources. Consider if you will each unit of affluence in countries like China and India consuming resources with the same ferocity we do as Americans, and all the energy required to meet that demand. Realistically ask yourself whether it's sustainable without renewable and clean energy sources? Additionally, every problem we face as humans whether it be social, environmental, economical...........stem from the indisputable fact there are too many people in the world. Until we humans can adequately address overpopulation, and view bringing productive life into this world as a personal moral responsibility requiring dedication, nurture, and love, we are only spinning our wheels placing temporary band aids on all the ills we face in this world.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
  23. Patriotson

    Tony:

    The EPA, today, called carbon dioxide a health concern. This will allow EPA to usurp congress in regulation. With global climategate and not being able to trust science my question is: How much is the science industry and Al Gore subject to make if they get the carbon taxes and goals adopted?

    I don't trust government or politicians!

    December 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm |
  24. pleasureman

    Does anybody see a second collapse of the U.S. economy? You can't solve the current crisis by throwing money at it (fueling the fire) or doing nothing (bush tactics). The economy was built to fail its nothing but a casino. We need new economic policies but not a one-government world. These issues aren't being taken seriously. Taxes are going to increase and there are going to be more of them.China is now the number 1 in the world and the U.S. Constitution means absolutely nothing for the protection of the rights of Americans. Can you say Patriot Act?

    December 7, 2009 at 12:45 pm |
  25. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Women and weather both are unpredictable the scientist needs to take a deep breath and step back until the theory is fact and not fiction we can not afford the cost of science fiction .

    December 7, 2009 at 12:45 pm |
  26. Patriotson

    Tony:

    What prevents Climate Warming from being one of the greatest ponzi schemes purpetrated against humanity by Al Gore and Climate Scientist for monetary gain? How do we know the warming is not just a clyclical event that the earth is undergoing. After all, the earth started warming when the ice age ended, otherwise, glaciers would still be in the United States. So what if you can grow banana's in Atlanta?

    December 7, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
  27. Ed

    Phil Jones, whose e-mails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the Internet late last month is relinquishing his position as director of Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia UNTIL the completion of an independent review.

    I think it is deliberately misleading to say he has "stepped down" without also saying that he plans to resume his role after the independent review process is completed and the claims of the politically powerful recipients of illegally hacked materials are disproved.

    I also think it is misleading to imply that the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and elsewhere have anything to apologize for other than a lack of appreciation that their private communications might be illegally hacked and cherry picked and misrepresented by people with little integrity.

    Their scientific work is just fine – and your suggestions that the case for climate change has been pardoned is presumptuous. It doesn't need to be pardoned. There was nothing wrong done.

    December 7, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
  28. James a

    Ed has not read the E-mails...not only do they cover the how to in "hiding the decline" of global temps it also breaks down how to bully other scientists who disagree with thier data. How to get them fired, discredited, and pushed out of the coveted peer review journals. This is criminal. They went as far as trying to discredit peer review journals that do publish thier work. Criminal, and the should be arrested for treason against the people of the United States of America.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
  29. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Even if clmate change is correct how many people are going to freez to death and how many are going to die from heat stroke to save a species that just as soom eat as to look at you if it wasnt for natural exstinction or man made we would all be kibbles and bits for Barny and Dino.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  30. Dodie - CA

    I find the timing and synchronicity of the hacked e-mail scandal casting doubt on global warming at a time just prior to the Climate summit in Sweden implausible! This is obviously directed to those who favor conspiracy theories. I would like to see a full investigation into the e-mail scandal.

    Global warming is a natural occurrence in the earth’s past due to Universal radiation; however, man is contributing to what would normally occur in a 1,000 years happen in 100 years. For those that doubt global warming, maybe you should move to an area like Bangkok so you can see first hand.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
  31. Paul

    Hi Tony,
    I have a few questions and comments:
    Why are we asked to "believe" in global warming? Shouldn't it be obvious? "Trust us, it's warmer somewhere, I mean colder.. heck the weather keeps changing so pay us to fix it"... Belief is left to religion and things unseen. Why has the label changed from Global Warming to Climate Change? Of course the climate changes and it's got alot to do with the sun and solar cycles. If it's supposed to be warmer, I cannot attest to that fact. I live in Atlanta and it's very cold right now. The so-called scientist's might as well say the sky is falling and the world needs to pay to keep it up. Consensus in not science. The definition of science involves testing, observing, repeating and documenting honestly, not fraud-like. The "science-community" that stands to make all the cash is protesting the loudest and saying "pay no attention to all those facts the experts are covering up.. We agree on it, now let's have some cash to fix it".... And by the way, CO2 is what plants use to make O2.

    ph

    December 7, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
  32. Mike

    Excuse me James? They should be arrested for freedom of speech? They spoke those words in private emails that were ILLEGALLY hacked, and were perfectly within their rights to say whatever they wanted.

    The speech used in those emails was foolish and unfortunately not withstanding with science, but nonetheless they cannot be prosecuted for words.

    Until an independent review is completed concerning the validity of the science coming from the CRU, there is no proof that anything illegal was committed.

    It's funny how quickly some Americans forget constitutional rights when they apply to an ideal that they disagree with.

    Now for my question, I would like to know what action is being taken to investigate the scientists who sent these emails, and the hacker/s who stole them.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
  33. Gene Lucas

    The climate change discussion should be subdivided into several areas:

    1. Is there really global warming? Maybe the decade-long decline in global temperatures is only an anomoly. The concensus (agreed-to-opinion) is that there is, but that's unproven.

    2. Is carbon dioxide a major factor in global warming (if it's occurring)? The "science" is based on modelling where the results are based on rules set up by the modeller. Initial results from the Japanese satellite "Ibuki" indicate that the models may need to be reworked.

    3. Is global warming really a social welfare program?

    4. Is U.S. support for green technology based on science or on job creation?

    Going green will raise our energy and transportation costs dramatically, and reduce our competitiveness against countries using cheaper carbon-based energy.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
  34. Jane F.

    Millions of years ago, the earth began as a burning mass. Continents were once adjoined. Its temperature was approximately 2,000 degrees give or take a few hundred degrees. Fast forward to today. We are now discussing global warming of a degree and, recently, a fraction of a degree because of obvious global cooling.

    The threat in the '70's was global cooling.

    Al Gore, which is it?

    It is an obvious hoax. The UN's data is seriously flawed. They have an obvious agenda. Take the money out of it and global warming would not be on the anyone's radar.

    December 7, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
  35. A. Smith, Oregon

    A question for the CNN Climate Change Staff?

    Sure, and I challenge CNN to investigate and answer it.

    America has one perhaps two Super Volcano's which will vent if the earth's core reaches heat saturation. NASA and other agency's have used taxpayer dollars to very carefully discern how much energy is currently stored in the earths core and how much more energy it can safely store without releasing heat thru active magma venting around the world. NASA and other governmental agency's are not publicly displaying any of that critical information.

    How much heat energy is currently stored in the earths core and what is the calculated saturation point?

    December 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
  36. Tim

    Shale gas! 50-60 year supply minimum (probably double that). So start by taking the oldest, dirtiest coal burning power stations off line and bring on new natural gas ones.

    Sounds so simple but it would cut 100% of the mercury, 99% of the nitrous, 33% of the sulfur currently emitted by the coal plant. It would also reduce the evil CO2 emissions by 40% if you still think that is important (god knows how you could after the last 3 weeks).

    The technology for shale gas is already being deployed and has worked reliably for the past 4-5 years. We don't need international agreements and bogus carbon trading nonsense. Just tell all the coal users that natural gas is the new baseline. You have to be as clean or cleaner to bring a new plant on line. You have 20 years to decommission all the old coal plants unless you can make them as clean as natural gas.

    December 7, 2009 at 10:53 pm |
  37. durox

    I'm in Sacramento, and today we had a record low. Tonight we'll get 25°. Grrr!
    This morning, in Walnut Creek they had snow, my wife was there, and people said they didn't see snow in 40 years. Also in the Bay Area, they got snow... this is unusual not only for early in the season but for anytime. And remember, winter hasn't officially begun.
    So I think we might have to check the data and models again!

    I have a few questions:
    1.IPCC makes it's reports regarding future climate changes based on computer models. How can we trust computer models, since the weather news can't predict the weather for a month ahead?

    2.Al Gore was supposed to be at COP15. They sold tickets (1209$) for Al Gore's conference, but he canceled his appearances and gave no explanation. Is he hiding from climategate scandal?

    3.Why aren't we told about the new taxes, if mr Obama signs the papers at COP15? Please find out how much money we're supposed to give to the developing countries, and report to us the whole story.

    Thanks for your time,
    Happy winter
    Dani, Sacramento

    December 7, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
  38. James Padgett

    Let's be clear here, this entire scare is based on the belief that we can accurate measure temperature, using tree rings, to within a few tenths of a degree.

    Not buying it? Of course not, those same tree rings have been showing cooler temps for the last 50 years and they call it the "divergence problem" – and yet they still think this crap is accurate enough to tell us how hot it was back during the Medieval Warm Period.

    Obama wants us to destroy our economy over tree rings?

    Sorry, but no thanks, these climate "models" have never been accurate – the climate has been changing due to the increased output of the Sun – not the gas we exhale over 800 lbs a year of.

    December 7, 2009 at 11:01 pm |
  39. Skeptic

    We must stop this insanity. A group of scientists at the CRU, along with their friends around the world, have falsified and manipulated data, destroyed the peer review process, blacklisted scientists with opposing views and threatened publishers who dared to print dissenting views. They have flaunted the UK FOI act and illegally destroyed data in the UK as well as associated emails around the world. Their fictitious results are the underpinning of all the UN IPCC's reports and recommendations. In light of the CRU leaks exposing the corruption how can the Copenhagen delegates possibly make any decision other than to start over from square one with panels of scientists representing all views?

    December 7, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
  40. jamesafalk

    My question for CNN to answer is this: why, in the face of the proven bad science of the proponents of AGW (even before Climategate emerged), has CNN been so unwilling to investigate, analyse and report the scientific debate?

    Why, in the face of Climategate, has CNN been so slow to respond and so unwilling to engage with real issues of data and analysis? Things like:
    – Michael Mann hockey stick (misleading use of principal component analysis and regression)
    – Keith Briffa hockey stick (fraudulently inadequate sampling)
    – dubious temperature station data (effects of urban and agricultural heat, secret "adjustments")
    – false NASA claims about US temperatures (the last 10 years do NOT have 8 of the hottest years, and the hottest was 1934),
    and so on.
    Where is your much-vaunted journalistic courage to go against the conventional wisdom? Where is your commitment to news, and to news values?
    Will you answer these questions?

    December 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm |
  41. Sparky

    Will someone have audacity to ask for open source data and methods used before we are all forced to change our lives on scientific consensus. That is an oxymoron, and the fact that journalists throw it around just because Gore said so, shows us what the answer is. Science is not a show of hands. There is nothing to fear but the raw data itself.

    December 8, 2009 at 12:07 am |
  42. Frank Tortuga

    How can proxy data be used when it suits them, and dismissed when it doesn't?

    More importantly, how could this ever be considered to be "Science"?

    Has anyone recovered the 4AR emails ("delete any emails regarding 4AR") that Jones urged his colleagues to delete?

    Will Jones and his cohorts be prosecuted? For fraud? Or for deleting information requested in the FOIA requests?

    I could answer all of these questions for you, but why should I? You'll only try to find problems with it. LOL.

    See what I did there, I pulled a Jonesie on ya. LMAO.

    Who are the real deniers?

    December 8, 2009 at 4:07 am |
  43. Dan

    This just PROVES that the almighty is in control. He and only he can change the weather patterns any time he wants. After all, he created the earth in 6 days!!

    December 8, 2009 at 11:45 am |
  44. RJ Voss

    If all these scientist seem to think the it's all a lot of hooey on global warming, then explain why the ice is melting faster at the poles than normal.

    December 8, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  45. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Heres a question Tony if every one gets onboard with climate change should we be exspecting record breaking fuel prices for autos and homes.

    December 8, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
  46. damionvblack

    Alright, check this out... Am I alone in seeing the formation of a "hurricane" style storm that encompasses much of the U.S.? This is quite obviously another clue to the as of yet unrealized threats global warming will pose, and I am surprised to see very little coverage and speculation involving this storm. I have always been a fan of CNN, mostly because I have believed you will never allow government censure here. So again I ask, why are we not coverring this more closely, and why are there no experts commenting on the connection to global climate shift?

    December 8, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
  47. David Dyer

    The need to focus as a global community on the nature of climate change has been with us for decades. Only now, though, has it received the attention from governments and media that will be required to avert disaster. Hopefully.

    It looks like global warming and ecological destruction aren't subjects for elite scientists or odd groups of extreme nature-lovers anymore. It's increasingly become apparent that it's a concern and a task for every single individual on the planet. But for too long the question was how do we get them involved? How do you make them care...understand?

    Little by little people are getting involved. Asking the questions: " How can I help?" "Is this recyclable?" Others are engaging their communities and volunteering their outreach to bring more folks up to speed and into the picture. Young children are nagging their parents and giddily stomping cardboard into small squares to fit into recycling bins. Word is getting out, and thanks to the media in many countries, notably in the USA over the past several years, the picture is finally changing.

    That picture is a global image in which everyone, from every corner of the globe is involved and concerned about what happens ten – fifty – a hundred years from now on this tiny green and blue planet.

    Corporations are still lagging behind, perhaps. They have a way of only focusing one-quarter year at a time at best. But that's not true across the board. More and more, corporations are giving support to environmental advocacy, even if a lot of it is just lip service aimed at raising their image in the eyes of clients and customers. But they're coming on board. None of them want to miss the boat.

    Notably, the U.S. government is leaning forward at the table at long last, and we're looking forward to President Obama attending the Climate Summit next week in Copenhagen. He's expected to bring change to the way that the U.S. has approached and dealt with the rest of the global community on the pressing issues of climate change.

    It's an all-hands-on-deck call to deal with environmental issues. And the call is: "SAVE OUR PLANET."

    December 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
  48. Andy Pearce

    I just watched your piece on climate change, featuring Lord Christopher Monckton. Is CNN claiming that Monckton is a credible and expert voice in the climate change discussion or presenting an extreme point of view?

    Monckton is known for his extreme views. In 1987, he wrote "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

    This guy strikes me as extremist and which makes it hard for me to take him seriously.

    Andy Pearce

    December 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
  49. Desmond , Toronto

    Does it ever occur to us that nature too has a way of renew itself, we spend billions on reseach that still do not give us clear evidence of what this so called Global warming is. I think the real global warming we are facing is population, because we try to keep the old alive and as well increase birth rate....do we realise that the more population we have, the more we have to expand on industrialization, the more trees we have to cut down, the more forests we have to aquire for housing, industries et al.

    December 8, 2009 at 12:25 pm |
  50. bum

    It's a trick!!! The scientists are conspiring all in an attempt to give us clean air and water along with renewable energy and a sustainable future!

    They should be arrested so we can go back to killing the planet with a clean conscious.

    I smoke 2 packs of cigarettes inside my trailer everyday and I still have to run the heater in the wintertime. If global warming was real then shouldn't my trailer be hotter than a rain forest!

    December 8, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
  51. Stephen Wolfe

    In elementary school, I've learned that the Earth has gone through a series of ice-ages; these ice-ages were followed by a series of warming and cooling trends, and have happened long before man existed here. If the Earth were not warming back up to it's previous state, wouldn't we still be stuck in an ice-age? This natural process is not a result of humans or the industrial revolution, but a process of our solar system moving through colder parts of the galaxy.

    People and companies who sell 'Earth friendly products', at an inflated price, are the ones who would very much like the world to believe in an idea of global warming, using guilt to obtain more money from them, and use the excuse that it is all for the benefit of the Earth and the future of mankind.

    Everything is always about money, and this mentality will ultimately be the demise of mankind...

    December 8, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
  52. Vince (Tacoma, WA)

    Hi Tony,
    What I want to know is: Where the heck is global warning when you need it?! We are experiencing record cold temperatures...brrrrrrr!

    Vince
    Tacoma, WA

    December 8, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
  53. Yogi

    The issue of science in climate change has been discussed and dissected for decades and probably will go on for decades more. The FACT is the climate is changing (man-made or not), and it is threatening people and their livelihoods – island/land disappearing, droughts, floods, etc. So, shouldn't people who are debating and worried about the science, pull their heads out of the sand, and figure out a way to help the people who are dealing with the results of climate change?

    December 8, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
  54. Michele Benesh

    Here's my question (and I have asked many people this, with no response except, "I don't know."): What would be the motivation for anyone to claim that global warming is real and man-made if it weren't true? To "trick" us into conserving energy? To force polluting industries to clean up their act (how awful!)? To win a Nobel Peace Prize? There are all kinds of motivations for those who deny the problem – it allows continuation of the status quo and benefits the oil industry and other dirty businesses. I would sincerely like an answer to this question!

    December 8, 2009 at 12:41 pm |
  55. larryj

    HEY TONY:
    I wasen't going to coment but after reading some of the first ones John,Josh,Bob wow. This global warming is a trick. Desined to slow our economy and give the other ind. nations a leg up on us. They won't change there carbon footprint till we in there dust. The prez. will go along because he dosen't need a boost in the economy yet. It is only 2009 late 2010 maybe mid 2011 for his re/election.
    Cleaning up the air is a good idea but all things in moderation.
    Larryj

    December 8, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
  56. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Heres the will bummer to all this climate change even if is a trick the government is going to shuv it down our thoughts any ways the government gets what it wants and the public can go suck a egg.

    December 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
  57. Curtis Cluff

    I have been watching your coverage of the Copenhagen Conference very closely. During an interview you had with Lord Christopher Monckton he spoke of the conspiracy to falsify facts conserning global warming. Many other experts on your program have also expressed their beliefs about this conspiracy. One thing your interview with Lord Monckton did not address, or that you omitted, was the reason he believes this data has been falsified. On the internet, there is a lecture he gave in October that talks about the treaty that President Obama is to sign in Copenhagen and how this treaty will compromise U.S. sovereignty and essentially be the start of the "One World Government". Why has this issue never come up on mainstream media? Why is Obama consdering such a treaty? Is he going to sign it? Has he signed it already? Is this treaty really a threat to U.S. sovereignty?

    December 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
  58. Alex

    Tony, I'm appalled by your emphasis on this "trick or truth" business on climate change. I understand there are some scientists who question our involvement in it but the vast majority of serious scientists overwhelmingly support the idea that humans are at the very least seriously accelerating the process by spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere if not outright causing it. This is a serious issue and the fact that CNN is playing a yellow-journalism ratings game puts you in the same category as the tabloids one finds in supermarket checkout stands. If you want to be "fair" and give these dissenting scientists (and lawmakers) some say then please do some research and tell us who is writing their checks. And why don't you take your "fairness" doctrine a little farther and give some free air time to those dissenting scientists who affirm that the earth was created 4,000 years ago or that alien abductions are happening everyday? Please, show some responsibility for the trust we place in you, the press, and use your judgement a bit more ethically in the editing of your newscast. I can see from the other comments on this page that people don't understand the issues at all. You should be educating people in the basic science instead of stoking this inane email controversy.

    December 8, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
  59. anna klimaszewski

    How could we live here on this planet and NOT contribute to global
    warming? Our very presence, the co2 we emit and the chemicals
    we create. Ever been stuck in traffic? Roll up the window on your
    car. We are a mess! Population control is the only answer and
    no one seems willing to address this topic. It doesn't take a Phd
    to figure out that the more people we have the more pollutants
    we also have. Also, we can never create enough growth the world
    needs for our ever increasing numbers. Ever see the movie, Soylent
    Green?" Now is also the time to go to sustainable growth and
    environment. One issue overlaps on an other. We need a
    holistic view which includes women becoming equal partners with
    men to create a more perfect union.

    December 8, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
  60. Fred Rounds

    I just read about David C. Headley, an American born in Washington. He is accused of helping plan the Mumbai massacre. I would ask how attacking Helmund Province would help stop the David Headleys of the world? Seems to me that David Headley could have easily planned another attack on American soil. Obviously, attacking Helmund Province is not a solution. Good police and intelligence actions are the only solutions that work.

    December 8, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
  61. Fred Rounds

    Whatever is causing the climate to change so dramatically, changing course at this point will make very little difference. Over the next 50 years we need to prepare for the worse. Governments and private enterprise will be of little help. We must do what we can as individuals and small groups.

    December 8, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  62. A. Smith, Oregon

    CO2 levels are at the highest levels in the past 800,000 years and rising.

    The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

    Their analysis also shows that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record. The warming period precisely matches CO2 levels which have risen since 1910.

    Nasa states that a new global all time temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

    Some land masses are experiencing a brief cooling trend, while a majority of others are certainly in a warming trend. The Big Oil company's are pointing to the few land masses undergoing a brief cooling trend as their evidence that climate warming is a falsehood.

    To debunk Big Oil's claim that Global Warming is a myth, the Met Office is releasing data from more than 1,000 weather stations that make up the global land surface temperature records.
    The WMO uses three temperature sets – one from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and two from the US, maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and the space agency Nasa.

    Comparing historical weather station data on such a large number of global surface temperature collectors shows without any doubt that the Earth is in fact undergoing a warming trend with possible dire circumstances to the residents of many country's.

    December 8, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  63. Dutch Swaim

    It's astounding to me that the general populace, including the media and our President, are too lazy to do their OWN research into the actual scientific data regarding climate change. This is obviated by how easily they are brainwashed by the global warming cult into just parroting the cult's propaganda.
    Everyone that has done their due-diligence knows that CO2 levels rise as a RESULT of natural cyclical temperature increases, that man-made CO2 accounts for .02% of greenhouse gases, that water vapor (clouds) accounts for 98.5% of greenhouse gases, that 17,000 of the world's scientists pulled out of the IPCC report because they were being coerced to change their wording to agree with the fallacy of man-made climate change.
    They also know that, as a way of protesting the falsifying of scientific data, those 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition that states: "There is no convincing scientific evidencethat human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will cause in the foreseeable future) catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that normal increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth".
    This is nature's way of balancing out the ecology. A UPS article quoted Polar Biology scientist Robert Rockwell, saying that the Earth had a much more significant warming period 125,000 years ago. The sea level was 12 feet higher, and trees grew above the Arctic Circle. The polar bears had to shift their diet to snow goose eggs. Again, there are now too many snow geese nesting in the Arctic for the area to support. And polar bears have already been seen feeding on the surplus eggs.

    Everthing I have stated here is public knowledgeand readily available on scientific websites like the NOAA and the American museum of Natural History.
    In this information age, there is no excuse for ignorance. FOLLOW THE MONEY!!

    December 8, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
  64. Richard Burns

    Regardless of whether we believe in Global Warning or not, the materials that create greenhouse gasses and affects our health is undeniable. This debate offers the opportunity to improve our health, break the economic extortion of the oil cartels, reasearch and develop new energy alternatives, create jobs, and make our country a leader in the new age of energy ; as we were in the Industrial, Electronic, Space and Computer Age.

    December 8, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  65. Thomas Ormstrup

    Have CNN looked into the leaked date from the CDU. By that I mean the source-code in the computer models. You should have a programmer look into it. He will tell you they are worthless. They are full of bugs and faults

    December 8, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  66. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    My question is if the climate change is fact then why are developers looking for ocean front property to build there hi rises when global warming is to cause the seas to rise .

    December 9, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  67. R. Murphey

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if the alarmists’ “global warming” proved to be the result of other alarmists’ cleaning the air.

    I agree there is global warming…the real questions are why and is it controllable? Current hype surrounding global warming centers on rapid warming over the past 3-4 decades supposedly caused by man-made emissions, …notably CO2. Coincidently, over the same period, beginning earnestly in the 1960’s, man has taken dramatic steps to clean particulates from the air, by implementation of various “clean air acts” in the United States and abroad.

    Upper atmosphere particulates are known to assist in the reflection of solar radiation thus leading to a cooling effect. Particulates serve as nuclei leading to formation of fog, rain, and snow. There was at least one forecaster who studied volcano particulate clouds circulating the Earth to make very, very accurate forecasts, many months in advance, of much cooler than expected days.

    According to EPA atmospheric particulate figures (whose definitions have changed over time), particulates decreased approximately 75% from 1960-1990 and another 19-31% between 1990 and 2008 for an aggregate of approximately 90% in the U.S. European countries also launched clean air measures about the same time. While some countries have lagged in this area, the measurements in the U.S. indicate a dramatic drop in particulate levels over the period.

    The Earth has undergone cyclical cooling and warming long before man’s generated greenhouse gases. Fossilized remains of ocean dwelling life occur in at least five(5) deposit layers, along the eastern piedmont region of Virginia, at approximately 120 feet above the current seal level. The chronological spacing of the deposit layers has been decreasing over the eons and we just happen to be approaching the “window” for the next substantial rise in sea levels, if the fossil deposit trend is extrapolated.

    This infers the earth has a natural cycle that is beyond man’s influence and, the rapid warming in recent years is either part of that natural cycle, or, ironically, possibly due to man’s efforts to “clean” the atmosphere. There are probably other influences, but ignoring the major cyclical trends and myopically chasing one or a few “villains” for political or financial gain will result in major disasters as the oceans rise and the “sucker punch” is delivered.

    The impacts could be enormous and virtually beyond comprehension. Maybe this is why leaders avoid addressing this possibility and prefer to “hope” they can control planet Earth. There’s certainly huge amounts of money to be made, by frantically ringing the bell, via taxation, donations to environmental groups, research grants, and niche industries. Planning and preparation in areas, such as, curtailing coastal development and planning new cities to replace those that will be inundated would seem to be a better use of resources.

    The irony could be that clean air activists accelerated the process.

    December 9, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  68. Roger

    Global warming is a fact but not for the reasons that the ignorant politicians and journalist believe.
    The portion of human contribution to global warming is probably
    0.1% meanwhile natural causes are the vast majority.
    Green actions are not going to have any impact in the global effect and that is something we just have to believe with since we are parasites to this planet.
    Only engineers and scientist should talk about what they know keeping away to ignorant like Albert Gore to give us his opinion

    December 9, 2009 at 11:32 am |
  69. Scott

    Finally some investigative journalism. Instead of explaining "what is climate change?", I'd like to see the question, "does climate change exist?", investigated.

    December 9, 2009 at 11:42 am |
  70. Michael D

    Hey Tony. A correction first in your report in global warming you said the greenhouse effect has regulated the climate for thousands of years. in fact it has done so for more like hundreds of millions of years. Global warming is nothing new to the p[lanet is has gone through this many times in the planets history. The plant goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. The plant will warm until it reaches a critical point and then it will cool. An ice age will follow and then the cycle will begin again. What makes people think they can stop the planet from doing what it has done for hundreds of millions of years. You could stop all pollution all around the world and the planet will still warm and an ice age will still follow and in 10-15 thousand years it will do it again. with or without mankind.

    December 9, 2009 at 11:44 am |
  71. Mike Lenz

    Hi Tony,
    Sitting at the ATL airport saw your piece on Climate change. Tony why didn't the scandal on emails obtained being covered by the national media? Talking about the issue is good but I'm not convinced Man is responsible for supposed warming of our climate.

    December 9, 2009 at 11:45 am |
  72. Fred Goldstein

    Why did you use the term "so-called" greenhouse gases. So-called is a term calculated to imply that what is being described is either questionable or illegitimate.

    This quite troubling. It only serves the interests of those forces trying to undercut climate science. To put this into a segment which pretty much shows that greenhouse gases are anything but "so-called" indicates a compromise with the reactionary, anti-environmental argument.

    December 9, 2009 at 11:47 am |
  73. mike Mclellan

    since the most recent ice age 20,000 yrs. ago when most of north America was covered with ICE & no cars, factories or people; What do you , CNN or the scientist, think may have caused the subsequent warming????

    December 9, 2009 at 11:50 am |
  74. John Lupson, B.A., B.Ed., M.R.E., M.Ed.(retired)

    Dear Tony:
    Two solutions we can do.
    1) All vehicle engines to be diesel –they are 40% more efficient in fuel.
    2) Fuel for those diesel engines to be bio fuels made from home grown products.
    3) Until those first two priorities can be met (it'll never happen as long as the oil cartel controls the Washington vote)
    Until then, ethanol blended fuels to be compulsory –but ethanol with 85% ethanol.
    Most vehicles made in the past 5 years have 85% ethanol capacity.
    This is insane that ethanol is not being made to that 85% level. Ethanol made from crops that were harvested with farm machines that were electrically powered or powered using biofuels would produce a near non carbon footprint to produce the ethanol crops.

    December 9, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  75. Dodie - CA

    Ah Tony!

    Using wood chips for energy is just not a viable resource. We already have decimated forests all over the planet. The people’s demand would far exceed their ability to replace the forests and they would ultimately end up creating deserts.

    Before man there are forests
    After man there are deserts

    Global warming is a fact! The earth has a long history of fluxuating from warm periods to ice ages. It is not entirely due to humans; however, the continued increase in human population places undue stress on our resources and planet. Every human alive creates a ‘footprint’ on the planet. If we don’t seriously make some major changes, we will ultimately pay the consequences. Animals of most species except for locus have this ability to know when to decrease their population if they populated above and beyond their resources. Unfortunately, humans are very egocentric and do not want to look at this fact!

    The cost? Climate change, famine, pollution, just to name a few. If you do not believe me, just move to a country of 1 – 2 billion people and see for yourself!

    December 9, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  76. Jim Conner

    I like watching you when I am not working. I have my own business in Helena, Montana which is building, grading, and excavating. We are not working now because it has been 26 degrees below zero high of -10. Your weather man never reports on Montana when its really cold. Maybe because global warming doesn,t mean much here. Your report on Swedens wood chips is not news to us, we have been doing that for years. I have a outdoor wood burning furnance which heats my floors and my hot water. My propane bill per year is $160.00.

    December 9, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  77. Martin

    Tony,

    In your report about Global Warming, trick or truth you state there is plenty of scientific debate but only present one side of the debate. Why is only one side presented? By providing one side of this story is appears as if the other side of this story may have a more valid point. If CNN expects to be the most respected new orginazation, stick to the facts. If If you expect to be an unbiased reporter you MUST present both sides of the story and present only the ACTUAL facts. As I respect each individuals right to their own opinion and there right to present that opinion it must not be confused or presented as FACT. There is to much presentation of opinion as fact today and it is dificult for the adverage person to know when a respected new orginazation provided opinion vs. fact.

    December 9, 2009 at 12:07 pm |
  78. George Schultz

    To Tony: While "Global Waming" is a hot topic, very little consideration is being given to the loss of atmospheric oxygen by the process of burning, which causes the creation of the warming gases.
    Atmospheric free oxygen has been getting less and less according to a study by the Universities in California. In 1936 it was somewhere near 35% and today it approximately 16%. Every living thing needs oxygen to live. Why has the news media neglected this issue?

    December 9, 2009 at 12:12 pm |
  79. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    If global warming is real then why are we able to drive a snowmobile all the way from the east coast to the west coast.

    December 9, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  80. Mike Brown

    Hey Tony,
    Just a quick comment about your “greenhouse gases” presentation this morning: It’s gratifying to see that CNN is trying to inform the public, not just weigh opinions. But when you say “Scientists believe …” and “They say”, it makes it sound like scientific opinions are as good or as bad as anybody else’s—yours, the neighbor’s, my 4-year-old grandson’s. All I have to do to feel okay about my stance against climate change is cite an opposing belief, say, Michael Crichton’s, or James Inhofe’s, or … ? Climatologists and other scientists don’t “believe” in global climate change. Rather, they draw conclusions based on a logical analysis of multitudes of data that have been gathered by independent researchers around the world. These data have been generated using well-established scientific (objective) procedures. Conclusions based on scientific data have yielded technology that has revolutionized our world, dramatically improving our health and well-being, and even placing a man on the moon. Scientific conclusions represent the best tools we have for addressing the mysteries of our planet and the universe. By their very nature, scientific “beliefs” about global climate change should carry considerably more weight than the beliefs of prominent novelists, politicians, radio talk-show hosts, or conservative web sites.

    December 9, 2009 at 12:35 pm |
  81. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Lets take a step back in time to this time last year when these same scientist said that the upcoming Hurricane season was going to be one of the most devistating yet and it turned out to be the mildest to date and now our present weather the facts add up to money profiting untruths .

    December 9, 2009 at 12:44 pm |
  82. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    I just watched Al Gores inter view on American Morning and all I see is scare tactics the same scar tactics that was claimed being used by the Bush administration we need to feed Al Gore to the Polar bears.

    December 9, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  83. Bill NY

    Tony: I just cannot believe we humans actually think it is us that is causing climate change. I don't believe people realize how huge the world is and how little effect we have on it climate-wise. Maybe global warming is real, but thinking that man is the cause is utterly ridiculous. And then, to think that we can do something about it is just as ridiculous.

    Your "news" organization should really be careful in it's presentations about this stuff because it's more opinion than news. You do not know any more than any one else whether this ridiculous belief that man is responsible for global warming is true or noit.

    December 9, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
  84. A. Smith, Oregon

    What scientific evidence is there that the Earth will again reach a cooling period?

    The human population is swiftly doubling into a very large and growing population meaning even more CO2 released into the atmosphere. Nay Sayers are predicting what, 3/4 of the human population disappears and 50 years later?

    The sudden rise in CO2 levels shows no plateau and excessive CO2 levels do not disappear overnight, even with great intervention which is entirely impossible for humanity on earth to implement themselves.

    Global Warming, is a fact.

    Global Climate Change is a fact also, all of that extra water vapor is going to cause greater snowfalls, rainfalls and soil erosion. All of the fresh water being released from the massive glacier melts is placing enormous amounts of additional fresh water into the worlds oceans and atmosphere. The current rampant desertification in the Gobi and Sahara regions greatly influence wind and weather conditions locally and globally.

    The Worlds Oceans are close to Carbon saturation, and many of the worlds forests are gone, those that remain are thinned and highly stressed by drought and numerous diseases. These in the past have mediated levels of atmospheric CO2, now they are largely minimal in that function.

    Those ancient forests are gone period. Strip malls and miles of asphalt are not going to be removed and planted with trees that would likely die from drought and the high stress of a large number of diseases which are swiftly killing off many of the trees that are remaining.

    I live in one of the largest remaining forested regions in the entire American States and fully realize they are under intense stress by the lack of adequate snow-packs, rampant diseases and intense summer heat.

    My theory or 'guess' is that many additional areas on the earth are receiving much higher levels of UV solar radiation than before and for some reason, NASA and other Governmental agency's are not forthcoming on that information.

    Increased UV is very hard on plants and trees, as well as causing a great deal of skin cancer on humans that are continually exposed to it. Sure, humans have been continually informed as to the Ozone Hole in Australia and the large amounts of UV radiation pouring into Australia, however Frogs all over the world have largely died out.

    Frog egg clusters are highly sensitive to UV radiation. IF large increases of UV radiation only occurred during a couple peak months in Australia, Frogs far from Australia would not be effected.

    Being flooded by UV radiation might be the missing puzzle piece which is needed by researchers looking at the widening area of destruction using only infra-red radiation (thermal heat) readings.

    December 9, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  85. Maurice Abraham

    Some say global warming warming is melting the ice caps and raising sea levels, a logical conclusion. By extension, it seems logical that during the ice age sea levels must have been SIGNIFICANTLY lower than they are today. Dose any evidence exist that this was really the case? If such evidence DOES exist, it would lend credence to the global warming warnings. However, if it does not, the science is called into question.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  86. Maurice Abraham

    Yesterday I heard a gentleman on Rush Limbaugh's talk radio. He claims to have examined the code contained in the global warming model in use by scientists. He claims the code methodology is flawed and therefor the results are flawed. He says it violates a fundamental rule of computer programming.

    While I am NOT a Limbaugh fan nor a programming specialist, his guest DID sound quite knowledgeable about computer programming. Perhaps your staff could check this out. And, if he is credible, you might want to interview him on CNN?

    December 10, 2009 at 11:40 am |
  87. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Scientist from gloabal warming to the Miya callander the scientist also say that the world will end on December 21 2012 just because Al Gores not leading the charge on that one why not believe it also people are allowing scare tactics to make there decisions.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:56 am |
  88. Flip Wingrove, Port Townsend, WA

    Tony, The exposure of the CLIMATEGATE emails doesn't change the temperatures on the ground, but it does demonstrate that a very influencial group of climate researchers have closed their minds to the exploration of science, and are determined that their own pre-concived conclusions will prevail. That doesn't make them bad people, but especially in scientific matters; "beware the man who knows the truth, and respect he who searches for the truth."

    December 10, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  89. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    This ice melting and glaciar melting thing is caused from natural earth wobble now disproove that theory.

    December 11, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  90. Inventor Christian O Nweke(hydrogen powered automobiles)

    My question is, why is the world not ready to change to a hydrogen economy in powering our automobiles, and our industial machineries? It is the most abundant element on earth, its non toxic, ordoless and non messy and it is cheaper to obtain. You can actually run your car with garage doors closed without corbon monoxide poisoning or dring from your exhaust pipe if you are thirsty.

    December 14, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
  91. Maurice Abraham

    Even if global warming is proven a non-issue, our Country must reduce its dependency on foreign oil. Alternative sources such as solar, wind, nuclear and hydrogen (for autos etc) must be exploited to their maximum In our recent 6-week travels through Spain, we saw perhaps two-dozen large scale solar farms. I was amazed! Makes one think we are WAY behind!

    December 14, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
  92. Flip Wingrove, Port Townsend, WA

    For inventor C. O. Nweke: IT takes energy to obtain hydogen in its pure form. There's no free lunch.

    December 14, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  93. Steven

    Thinking of the American Dream to leave a better world for our kids I'M flustrated on global warming. The scientific facts prove that the earth is warming, yet the toher deniers follow the paid scientists saying it is a haox.

    Even watching CNN/MSNBC/Fox, Fox said on last Saturday thet the media is basically ignoring this topic. That the lines are already drawn and no facts will change the debate.

    After all how is the cost of stopping the problem in jobs and economic recovery worse than the cost of adjusting to worsening global warming?

    It used to be that the deniers said that no matter what we do China, and India will keep on polluting. Except both have come to the table to negotiate to stop global warming.

    What option does the rest of the world have when the earth exceeds the tipping point that will take 1,000 years to remove the carbon dioxide?

    What alternate planet do we have to go to if the earth becomes toxic?

    December 15, 2009 at 12:35 pm |
  94. Inventor Chris, Hou. Tx.

    To Mr F. Wingrove: Thank you for your response, the issue on the table is to save the earth from CO2 polluters, therefore the energy required to produce hydrogen is never a polluter and at a reduced cost as well, these are the basic objectives.

    December 16, 2009 at 12:06 am |
  95. Gene Lucas

    I'm not sure about climate change or not, but I have big doubts on man-made impact on the process – especially carbon dioxide. Man makes a lot of other pollutants. My question is, "Why haven't the initial reports from the Japanese satellite been incorporated into the climate models?"

    December 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm |