Tom you don`t seem particularly intelligent my bru!Global warming is a scam,plain and simple.Just look at carbon credits and trading,.....they`ve made CO2 a f#*king commodity!Climate change is completely natural,humans with our inflated egos just like to think everything revolves around us when in actual fact the climate would change even if we never existed.We do however,ruin our water supply and destroy our invironment by letting these corporate prick faces rape our land for infrastructure and profit......

No one mentioned "chem-trails"

Why are so many educated people taken in by this scam? Climate change has and always will happen. Why is it such a surprise when the climate changes? It has all been recorded, time and time again. Long before man started to stink the place up. Ice ages have happened in months not years, forests have become deserts, volcano's have caused mini ice ages. Man set half the world on fire, with industrial output never higher between the years of 1939/45. The planets temperature actually fell.
Man man climate change is nothing but a means of tax and control. Don't be a blinkered sheep, look at the past evidence. Man produces .05% of the planets total C02 with the rest coming from nature. All for looking after the environment, but not through lies and deception.

I rode my bike today, went up a hill, had to breathe hard, did I contribute to global warming, should I be taxed, am I a bad American or just a sucker?

Ms.Cullen forgot to mention that the air went out of the anthropogenic global warming scam right after the press began uncovering the mis-statements and inadequacies of the IPPC scientists and reports. No need to review those items. The debate is over. Even if the climate change issue is bogus we know that continued use of fossil fuels is not sustainable and must not be allowed to produce another Gulf of Mexico holocaust. Finally, regardless of sustainability, the US economy must be crippled so that it cannot continue to oppress and wrongfully dominate the rest of a most vulnerable Earth.

Doesn't the Heidi Cullen conversation connect to the Jane Mayer/Koch conversation? That seems like a good point to bring out. If this country (and thus the world) does nothing about climate till too late, the Koch-funded groups will have been pivotal in that outcome.

And rich nations can do a lot to adapt in advance, but what about poorer countries?

Scientific American ran an article last year (I think) on what would happen if humans disappeared. It said the NYC subways would be flooded in a matter of days because no one would be operating the pumps. If sea levels rise significantly, would the pumps we have now still be adequate? You can't exactly raise the subway tunnels the way they raised the level of that electrical system.

And I hope the NYC climate panel is working even harder on preventing climate upset than it is on adapting to it!

First of all, great show. One for the Museum of Broadcasting vaults. Very enjoyable. Secondly, when people say "It's cold out today, so much for Global Warming,": is that bogus because they're citing anecdotal data to refute a trend, and as a way of refuting Gore et al, isn't this a silly comment from serious people?

While Y2K is an interesting analogy, it is the differences that must be looked at:

1. Y2K had an obvious, direct, quantifiable impact - to individual business enterprises;

and

2. It had a very clear and definite date.

Therefore, it got the attention of the people who held the purse strings for the individal business enterprises.

How do we convince people who think a cold snap means global climate upset isn't real that "climate" isn't the same as "weather" & "global" isn't the same as "uniform"? (I avoid calling it "warming" partly for that reason, & because that & "climate change" don't sound urgent enough--"upset" or "disturbance" or "disruption" are better.

The Y2K bug example is a good one...except after all the efforts worked, most people's reaction seemed to be, "See? It wasn't a huge problem like they kept telling us!" How do you prove you prevented something?

Is it possible that increased precipitation from warming will bring more snow cover to the arctic which in turn will increase reflectivity and thereby accelerate the coming of the next ice age?

The problem is that most people are dumb when it comes to science. The problem with climate change is that by the time you see the problem with your own eyes it's probably too late.

Also, Y2k was a joint effort by government and business to deal with the problem. It was in business's best interest to deal with it and they could wait until the very end (3-5 years) to deal with the problem.

Y2K did not get worse from inaction. Climate change will get worse from inaction. It is a bad analogy because you basically saying that we can wait "till the last minute" to deal with this.

Not a bad looking chick

http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people-bio/heidi_cullen

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Dg&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=Heidi%20Cullen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=835