Visit Your Local Station PBS Home Search TV Schedules shopPBS Station Finder
what's up with the weather?...presented by NOVA and FRONTLINE
homethe debatecarbon dietfaqsstories in icediscussion

Join the Discussion: What are your views on global warming?  Are you concerned?...If you are, what do you think individuals/the private sector/governments should do to combat man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

share your thoughts


I watched the program last night and was intrigued by all the research done on the topic of global warming.

However it saddens me that so many people are unaware of the problem, and at the head of the monster of ignorance is Greenpeace. They turn down all of the answers without coming up with any that are plausable. It saddens me that my generation will have to clean up the older messes.

Kent Schlager
hugo, mn


I enjoyed your program. However, I do believe that we are missing some of the big picture. In your program, it was barely touched upon that all things are cyclical. As Mr. Keeling discovered - the Earth breaths - plants live and die - ice ages come and go - all over and over again. The ice age will come again - it will leave again - we do not control that. Those scientists who believe that we do are just arrogant to think so.

The other point I would like to see discussed is the population explosion. No one in your program discussed the fact that CO2 also comes from all living - breathing things. What amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of having more people on the planet than any other time in history?

I want there to be a safe place for my grandchildren to grow up, but to overreact when the only "evidence" is conjuncture is dangerous.

I applaud you for doing this show - it would have been nice to see a little less biased - 'greenpeacy' view of the situation.

Doug Reese
kissimmee, fl


I am 61 yeas old. In my lifetime the world's population of humans has tripled. If we do not reverse this trend the traditional methods of war, starvation and pestilence will eventually do it for us. If we do reverse it, there will be more resources for all of us and a higher quality of life. How about presenting a 2 hour program on the real problem?

Robert Kasameyer
rogers city, mi


PBS's special on the weather has modified my views on global warming. I now agree that there is sufficient evidence that man-made emmissions are affecting the weather and am less skeptical about "Global Warming." Some speakers were unconvincing about the apocalyptical nature of eventual warming because I have the "Limits to Growth" experience burned in my mind. That false and fraudelent scare causes me to view all new alarmist reports with caution.

I was particularly unimpressed with the Greenpeace statements that closed out the nuclear power option without bothering to provide any data. We do have practical means to dispose of nuclear wastes and only political arguments and scare stories prevent us from implementing them.

We need more research into weather modeling and better projections. I am not happy with 100-year projections when we still cannot accurately predict next week.

Ian MacFarlane
st. petersburg, fl


This was the best documentary I've ever seen! I found it to be fairly well balanced. After watching this show, it seems certain to me that the issue of addressing the energy needs of future generations *in a sustainable way* must be the most important issue of the 21st century. I applaud all those involved in creating this show - it should be released into the public domain for the benefit of humanity.

Michael MacIsaac
saugerties, ny


The idea that man doesn't have the potential to dramatically effect the Earth is pretty naive.

We just keep spreading and consuming. Money spent on undeveloped countries and feeding the starving is going to eventually escalate the problem.

When at war the US and other countries have historically developed amazing new technologies and solutions to problems in a very short period of time. A warlike effort torward scientific discovery of alternative power and ways to support/slow the increasing population could be the answer.

C Cox
indianapolis, in


Don't give up on human ingenuity just yet.

Blue Energy has built six working prototypes of the simple and elegant Davis Turbine.

The Davis Turbine is a low cost sustainable ocean energy source with the lightest of ecological footprints.

Our global database already has some 500,000 MW of new capacity identified and that may double in the next few years.

To learn more about this exciting new energy breakthrough visit

Martin Burger
vancouver, bc


This show was probably the best thing I've seen on television period.

Not only was it comprehensive in scope, but I thought it excellently represented both sides of the fossil fuel debate, as well as examined the immense complexity of both determining whether or not higher co2 emissions are, in fact, a real problem, and if so, whether the current alternatives to fossil fuel can solve the problem.

An issue of vast complexity, yet this program remarkably pared it into a fascinating and completely comprehensible 2 hours. Kudos to all those involved in the making of this excellent documentary.

Kevin Shaughnessy
seattle, wa


I watched the show and wanted to hear more on the reality of renewable sources of energy. The bottom line is that all renewable energy comes from the energy of the sun (whether it be biomass, solar, whatever).

There is a limit on solar energy in a square meter of turf, and this limit determines the amount of energy that we can get from these sources. What are we talking about? Something on the order of 10 watts per square meter or there abouts (the number is off the top of my head)? Everything else, from solar to biomass, is about the efficiency of comverting from solar energy to whatever, then back to electricity. Other options must be examined.

For example, we have to change our style from industrual style of community structure (cities with suburbs) to other urban architectures. This would reduce the need for the inefficiencies of commuting to work. What about advanced nuclear technology (hydrogen), and the use of nanotechnology to make hyper efficient manufacturing methods? What about the use of biotechnology to make microbes that eat trash and ooze hydrogen? Who is looking at the alternatives?

madison, wi


What makes the global warming (GW) debate difficult is that so many of the participants have ulterior motives for their positions.

Third World leaders see the Kyoto Protocol as an opportunity (1) to blackmail advanced countries into paying them for nothing (e.g., CO2 emission credits), and (2) to force up costs in the advanced countries so that industry will move to their countries. Of course the benefits will flow to the leaders themselves, not to their people. In other words, they see GW as a way to transfer wealth from workers in advanced countries to the rich people in poor countries.

This scam is abetted by politicians such as Al Gore, who see GW as a way to scare the American people into accepting an even larger government, a more regulated existence, and a more rapid slide toward socialism.

The idea is to invent a dreadful threat and keep on warning people about it until it becomes the accepted wisdom; then they will let you run their lives.

Joseph Goebbels, who pioneered this technique (he called it the Big Lie) used the Jewish Threat. The Left has been trying to use similar deceptions for decades. Thus we have been warned about the Silent Spring, the Population Bomb, the Limits to Growth, the Energy Crisis,the Nuclear Winter, the Coming Ice Age, and now Global Warming. What these have in common is that they were all fake crises (not one of the threatened disasters has actually happened), and the proposed solutions all involved a shift from capitalism towards marxist models of social organization.

Climate change may or may not be a real problem. We cannot even begin to discuss a rational approach until we identify and ignore all those who see GW as merely a way to promote their dishonest schemes or ideological agendas.

Phil Chapman
sunnyvale, ca


I just watched the program on the greenhose gas emmisions and I did not here any mention of alternate power sources like geo-thermal or the power generators that were being desinged for use in ocean areas. Are people still experimenting with these ideas? I would think that using the earths own heat to generate power would be the ultimate in green power sources.

Philip Peters
calgary, alberta, canada


Well, besides convincing me that maybe the earth has warmed one degree you also showed me your bias. Most of your scientists that you interviewed were proponents of global warming and the dangers that lie ahead (I'd say they outnumbered opponents by 2 to 1) Furthermore, your premise is very arrogant - that WE should be able to do something about he weather reminds me of those who stated the Titantic could not sink. Is it possible that there are forces beyond our control and understanding? And since I am on that subject, I find it interesting that no creation scientist were interviewed? Of course they are not true scentists and evolution is a fact not a theory - right? I find your Chicken Little approach disheartening and man-centered. Maybe we should put our faith in God - not in man nor technology.

Pascal Redfern
missoula, mt


I found the series "What's up with the Weather?" to be inextricably disturbing. The problems addressed are not new to the news, but considering daily life these most important issues have taken second string. I applaud NOVA and Frontline for bringing these concerns to the forefront once again for Americans. I am indeed alarmed about the affects the human race has on our beautiful planet as I am sure a percentage of the populace may be just as challenged with the issue. As with so many of the problems of modern life these things mostly go unnoticed by humanity. It is shameful to know that we have done so much damage within a relatively short period of industrialization in which nature has been made to suffer. The statement that mankind is more of a force of nature now than ever before could not be more true. Our numbers on this planet make it most urgent that we find a more symbiotic relationship with our natural world lest we pass on a sallow, bitter world to future generations.

Brian Hackathorne
columbia, sc


Perhaps it was because I only saw the last 3/4 of the program but I was quite dissapointed about the program's failure to address several key solutions to global warming. The most important one(the only one I will mention) being the initiative to curb our own insatiable wants, and to forgo some of the comfort that pampers us. We as a society have lay down our egos and come in terms with the fact that we are ALL roots of the problem and any improvement to the situation depends on all of us and not the technology which we love to view as the source of our never-ending solutions.

Sean Chen
claremont, ca


I thought the program was very good, but I found it remarkable that no mention was made of the connections between continued rapid world population growth, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Given likely population growth and its associated other problems,it is difficult to see how we will ever have the political will to limit emissions. Has the subject of limiting population growth become one that is simply taboo, even on public television?

Shawn Duffy
milwaukee, wi

> homeΚΚ > the debateΚΚ > carbon dietΚΚ > faqsΚΚ > stories in iceΚΚ > discussion
> beyond fossil fuelsΚΚ > water worldΚΚ > program excerptΚΚ > graphsΚΚ > resources/linksΚΚ > synopsis

New Content Copyright ©2000 PBS Online and WGBH/NOVA/FRONTLINE

Support provided by

For new content
visit the redesigned
NOVA site ../