Mr. Huff,
Very thoughtful comments. A better measure might have been to say that CO2 in the atmosphere is headed towards doubling from pre-industrial levels. That is the measure most scientists focus on.

I appreciate NBR's and Mr Gersh's efforts to be unbiased in making and presenting this series. However, I will make three critical observations of the first segment.

1) Mr Gersh tried to put CC emissions in perspective by saying "add up all the sources of carbon burned on the planet and figure in the other gases contributing to climate change, and you get the equivalent of close to 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year."

It is really hard for most people to grasp numbers that big and concepts such as the weight or mass of gases. The entire atmosphere has a mass of about 5 quadrillion tons, so that 50 billion tons we are adding is only about 1/100,000 of mass added to the atmosphere annually. That doesn't sound like a lot, especially with all the other dynamic forces affecting the planet.

On the back of an envelope, so to speak, I figure this is sort of like having one person exhaling one breath once a week in Washington's cavernous Union Station. It is not obvious that it would have much of an impact.

2) Energy Information Administration director Richard Newell says we know what all that gas does in the atmosphere. "Just like a greenhouse has glass and then keeps the heat into a greenhouse these gases surround the atmosphere and keep radiation and heat on the planet."

That is a shockingly inadequate and condescending explanation from a highly educated "information" specialist! As if the CO2 from my fizzing can of soda will rise to the outer atmosphere and join up with other gas molecules to form a shell to "surround the atmosphere"! Please talk to us like we are grownups, Sir! This is NBR, after all.

3) Finally, Brian Murray was introduced as someone "who studies the economics of climate change at Duke University," but it was not made clear if he is a student or a professor, or what. In other words, what exactly are his credentials?

He made the trite argument that taking action against the small chance of a climate catastrophe is like people insuring their houses. The problem, though, is that insuring personal property against perceived risk is something that individuals do (or DON'T do) based upon their own personal valuations. A homeowner whose property is on the beach in a hurricane zone should rightly consider buying flood insurance. However, he may very well decide to forgo the cost of insurance and take the risk. Whether or not he buys the insurance or takes the risk is no concern of mine. And neither should I concern myself about the future risks of climate change to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Some of them may lose, and some of them may gain from future climate change. It is no concern of mine and I should certainly not be expected to "take action" (and pay for it!) in an attempt to somehow protect all of them from future risk. Surely they will, and should, make their own decisions about where and how to live in the future whether the climate changes or not.

I enjoy the show.

R Huff

Mr.Gersh,
Last night's segment confirms that you are simply regurgitating the global warming propaganda with the smoke stacks and water cooling towers billowing essentially white steam and/or water vapor intended to scare the public into thinking that it is CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. First CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas which you and every human being exhales into the atmosphere with every breath along with H2O.
When hydrocarbons are burned they produce water,H2O, and CO2 and H2O is by far a more potent green house gas than CO2.However the AGW alarmists chose to ignore H2O because they cannot control H2O in the atmosphere and cannot determine its effects as clouds for their computer simulations.
Perhaps you should spend more time with real experts who can educate you on the technical, scientific and more important the history of the earth's hundreds of millions of years of climate changes, many extreme, from Ice Ages, Little Ice ages to warm periods to extreme hot periods all without human influence.

Notice they don't call it global warming anymore?

Global warming/climate is a fraud designed to funnel huge sums of money to governments and criminals like the soon to be carbon credit traders like Goldman Sachs and Al Gore's firm.

This is just another way for the government and Wall Street to rape the little people on Main Street.

For a complete and detailed study of the IPCC and the global warming scare the series found at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1272#at is the place to start.
First, there isn't an IPCC formula for predicting climate change (the IPCC is a literature review) but there are some cascading uncertainties which can cut two ways. One uncertainty is the meaning of "the IPCC is a literature review"? An explanation is in order. Since computer generated climate simulations play a major if not the major part of the climate forecasts which are then massaged as to their relative importance. The scientific/technical report presents uncertainities with qualifications. Then comes the summary.
If the uncertainties cut both ways why does the IPCC summary, which is prepared by government appointed nonscientific bureaucrats with their own political and economic agendas (members of Vice-president's Al Gore's staff participated and, in fact, led the preparation of one of the summaries) and which is released weeks before the scientific study, showcase the worst case scenarios promoting the man made global warming theory and minimizes or ignores any uncertainties or qualifications? Contrary to to AGW advocates assertion that the media plays down global warming/climate change all media sources trumpet the doom and gloom news in the IPCC summary long before the technical/scientific report is made public.
In the very first IPCC summary report after the scientists presented their report and departed, the appointed bureaucrats actually changed the scientific report's most important conclusion, the effect of human activity could not be determined and required further study is required which led to the following:
The IPCC ignored the devasting criticism of the its own report by Frederick Seitz,
President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and past President of
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Mr Seitz described the IPCC report
as "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process than the events that led to this IPCC report"..."If the IPCC is
incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to
abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned
with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable
sources of advice to governments on this important question."
http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/majordeception.html
A Major Deception on Global Warming
by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal , June 12, 1996" "

Mr Seitz also cited NAS' own study which states, "inter alia, the earth
has been subjected to impressive and abrupt swings in climate during recent
periods covering thousands of years and that mankind's role cannot be
assessed without adequate .... baseline documentation of natural climate
variability"..

You assert that "IPCC report is worth wading through if you are serious about this issue" as applied to the IPCC scientific/technical conclusions which are in fact carefully stated in a context of uncertainties, as anyone taking the time to read the reports would plainly see." However. the IPCC summary report cited time and again by the UN, the EU, and governmental representatives as the 'doom and gloom' document which requires taking drastic actions, increased taxes and spending of billons of dollars, pound and euros which would not resolve and would not put an end to the never ending, ever changing cyclical climate changes is prepared by goverment appointed non-scientists bureaucrats.

Please do yourself a favor and read the 100 page book by President Vaclav Klaus called Blue Earth-Green Shackles... you will come away with a much more sensible approach to the purported climate change. No one can predict how much it will change (30,000 scientist have signed the Oregon Petition stating such) or even if it does occur, we do not know that it will be a disaster as the earth has been warmer before. Global Warming Crisis is a multi-national government grab on our way of life! Wake up America!

I am concerned that we are too obsessed with laying blame for climate change, and not focused enough on solutions for coping with future climate changes. Any geologist can tell you the Earth has lots of periods of dramatic climate change, and lots of things die as a result of each change. It doesn't matter what the reasons are, or exactly what the changes are (e.g. warming versus cooling); if we do not develop serious plans for adapting to our planet's shifting climate we will eventually face extinction.

Suggest that you interview some of the many prominent and highly reputable scientists (for example Professor Lindzen of MIT) that are skeptical on climate change and have a wide variety of opinions on its causes, its history (long term) and mans' effect on it. There is also much information on the Sun's recent (

Tonight's NBR climate change report ignores all the latest climate information including the 650 scientists who authored a letter stating a strong dissent to the man made global warming theory to a recent UN sponsored meeting in Copenhagen.Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations and now despite computer projections failing to forecast a cooling phase, some experts provide an additional 10 to 20 year window for continued cooling bring the total to a 20 to 30 year of cooling in a predicted warming world. Now we have a number of global warmiing advocates predicting an extended cooling period while their computer programs continue to predicate global warming as the CO2 increases from its present level of approximately 0.0375 percent of the atmosphere. The 3,000 Argo ocean monitors, operational since 2003, have found no ocean warming,only a slight decrease. Those environmentalist advocating to scrub 'global warming' from their vocabulary and replace it with meaningless, vague descriptions intended to confuse the public are continuing the greatest scam since Madoff made off with $50 billion.
They should expand their knowledge of the science of “our deteriorating atmosphere.” nee 'global warming' which has been a significant part of this planet's creation without input or causation by human beings.They could start by studying the 650 scientists who issued a strong dissent to the man made global warming theory in a letter to the recent UN Climate change conference held in Poland. Unfortunately any one who opposes the computer generated doom and gloom scenarios is labeled a 'denier' or 'heretic'. There is a long list of science 'heretics', Copernicus and Galileo are two, that proved to be right against a false consensus scientific belief. While Einstein and Bohr had headline grabbing civilized discussions, often described as debates, on Bohr's theory of quantum mechanics, any attempt in today's world to conduct a learned discussion of global warming, or cooling, or CO2 is met with vitriol filled attacks on men and women with impeccable scientific credentials. while paying homage to a trio of gurus of climate change, nee global warming, who are a motley crew.
-Al Gore a non-scientists, a C university student, a divinity school dropout, a lawyer with no science studies, an majority owner/investor in a company selling 'Carbon Credits' with a vested interest in limiting CO2 for profiteering and the producer of a movie that the British Courts found to have 9 or 11 inaccuracies and could not be shown in British schools without identifying and explanation of the inaccurate claims.support@renewableenergyworld.com
-James Hansen, manager of the NASA department that produced incorrect temperature data for six years, 2000- 2006, more recently issued completely incorrect temperature data for October 2008 which led to headlines claiming the 'hottest October on record" and testified in an English Court that civil disobedience and destruction of property is proper to reduce CO2 emissions. Mr. Hansen would have been fired for his poor management effort.
-Michael Mann, a 'scientist' who used statistical legerdemain to eradicate the Medieval warm period and the Middle Age 'Little Ice Age'to give a perfectly straight handle on his 'Hockeystick' curve which was debunked by two Canadian statistical experts but is still the centerpiece of Al Gore's movie. Another candidate for firing for his agenda driven misuse of scientific methods. http://www.americanthinker.com... Gore, Hansen and Mann would have been exposed as political hacks and scientific frauds years ago if real scientists were given a chance to be heard. The intent of the CO2 causes AGW 'Chicken Little the sky is falling' scare is to impose government control on the total energy market. To shut down a gasoline or diesel engine without stopping the fuel flow it is simple, plug the exhaust pipe and in the old days a readily available potato or corn cob could be used. CO2 is the exhaust of the world's greatest economic engine ever imagined and stopping,rationing, taxing or controlling CO2 emissions will effectively place the world's economy in the hands of politicians and environmentalist who think that ANWR is a pristine wilderness but they don't vacation there. The future is '1984' in real time with the Big Brothers in power handing out 'carbon ration cards' to control your energy choices."

There is an old saying "Look before you leap" and 'Cap and Trade' advocates should be looking at Europe's cap and trade failure:
"A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/glover-carbon-market-pollution
A few may recall that Enron was a leader in promoting 'cap and trade.' Enron lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to “reduce” global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. The plan was that once the problem was in place the solution would be trotted out. Today the Wall Street commodity and energy traders, hedge fund managers, carbon credit sellers, need I mention Al Gore, and shady operators are salivating at the prospect of the millions if not billions to be made while everyone, including Obama's middle class, pays the bill in the higher costs of practically everything. Madoff is a piker compared to the fleecing of the people that the government is proposing with 'cap and trade'.
By tying another tax chain to the anchor of economic meltdown facing the United States today, raising taxes on individuals and, in particular, the oil and coal industries that are two viable private sector industries that are ready, willing and able to spend their own and private investors' money today on developing new sources of energy, as Brazil has done in the last 20 years and having government bureaucrats direct the US economy is a recipe for a disaster.

By the way I do not know the political leaning, conservative or liberal of any of the scientists listed below however here are are some scientists whose work should be piled high on every politician's desk before the economy of the United States is wrecked with foolish regulations of CO2 by Cap and Trade or taxes.

-Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT

-Khabibullo Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of
Sciences astronomical observatory

-Astrophysicist Nir Shariv,Hebrew University, Israel,

-Dr. Edward Wegman professor at the Center for Computational Statistics
at George Mason University

-Dr Richard Tol Michael Otto, Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, and Adjunct Professor Carnegie Mellon University.

-Dr Christopher Landsea, research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic
and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,

-Duncan Wingham, appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and
Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth
Sciences in October, 2005.

-Henrik Svensmark director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at
the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI).

-Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the
University of Cambridge,

-Henk Tennekes, Chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of
the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

-Dr Paal Brekke,the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (Soho).-

-Dr. Robert Balling, director of the office of climatology, Arizona
State University.

-Dr Tim Ball- environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

-Professor Fred Singer Professor Emeritus of environmental Science University of Virginia

-The climate professors at Harvard and University of Delaware who
authored "Restructuring Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past
1000 Years: A Reappraisal.

-and last but not least the 650 scientists who issued a strong dissent
to the man made global warming theory in a letter to the recent UN
Climate change conference held in Poland.
http://www.globalresearch.ca...
It is not surprising that none of these scientists ever receive a
mention or a hearing in the "science" mainstream media. The sound of
real science is a deafening silence.